So the Khan family. We're all good, right?

[cooterhein]

Khizr and Ghazala Khan, their late son Humayan Khan. Everyone knows the situation. Go after Trump, he reacts how everyone kind of knew he would, the US finally reacts to Trump (mostly anyway) as they should. To me at least, it seems like the start of a healthy conversation. First, because sales of pocket Constitutions have gone through the roof, and second because it starts a conversation about people who are thoroughly Muslim and thoroughly American, it's not binary and these aren't things that are naturally in conflict with one another.

Now, just as far as Humayan Khan being a member of the US military. And fighting for the US in the Middle East. We're all good, right? It was brought to my attention, a few weeks ago, that there's a list of different things that disqualify someone from properly being a Muslim. One of those things involves fighting alongside infidels, especially if you're fighting with then against Muslims.

I also realize this is, perhaps, an issue that's better left for a true scholar, a true expert, if I were to look for something comprehensive and truly official. And that's okay, I don't necessarily need all of that. Maybe there's a later step where I find out about that, but right now let's just do what we can.

As a regular Muslim who may be interacting with this as it's currently in the public eye, and perhaps as it leads to further conversations about Islamic and American identities and about military service in general, what does the thought process look like or you and where do you take this sort of conversation?

The whole thing with the prohibition against fighting alongside infidels- is this a thing, at all, that gets considered? Is it even on the radar? Is there much of anything that needs to be said about it? If this is a thing, please walk me through it a little bit, if not then I'm really fine if this thread winds up not being very much about that.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Hope you're doing well.

While I did miss the DNC convention speech of Khizr Khan, I caught it the next day on Yahoo! News. And I was like, "Yahoo!" (pun intended). Yet in all seriousness, I was really excited and elated at having a person speaking for us Muslims, that is, people who are both Muslim and American. To be honest, it's about Time that many get to see that Muslims are not some alien persons and share an American identity with them (whether they desire that or not, and no one has a right to judge or ostracize Muslim Americans from the conversation in regards to the direction or future of America); being "different" in terms of either religion or ethnicity doesn't disqualify a person from being an American, after all.

I can't give you an answer about fighting alongside non-Muslims in the army as that is a question for scholars. However, this fatwa (legal ruling) might provide some insight on this matter: Can a Muslim be an American Soldier.

I personally believe that Humayun Khan was a matyr Islamically as he died saving the lives of other persons under his care/supervision/command, and in the Quran, Allah compares saving the life of one person as saving all of humanity, and so he is a true hero. I recently found out that Daesh consider Humayun Khan an apostate, which further strengthens my belief that Humayun Khan was a martyr. There is no way to 100% know of course that he died a martyr, but in Islam, intentions matter and are accounted to deeds. If Humayun Khan died saving the lives of other human beings, he's a martyr. Period.

There are only a few Americans on IB as I think most members here are from U.K.; so, this thread might receive very limited responses. I'm not sure if what I've said helps you develop an insight into this matter, but if it does, I'm glad to have been of service.

[Abz2000]

Peace be to those who follow the true guidance and accept Muhammad as the messenger of God,

It has been enjoined upon mankind by the Creator and Master of the heavens and the earth to submit to His laws and work together in harmony towards lawful positive progress, the land in which a person is born or chooses as his or her place of domicile does not have and cannot develop arms, legs, eyes, mind, tongue etc and begin dictating to him or her what is right or wrong, nor can a huge concrete statue which sits upon many waters dictate right and wrong, idolatry is forbidden whereas submission to God is enjoined.

If after that, the people who enjoy power and authority in the land make corruption and promote infidelity therein, a person's duty is to distance themselves from participation in corruption and injustice to the best of their reasonable ability and to try to walk in the path of God as much as they can and guide their people to the truth as much as they can.

Claiming that one is from America and chooses Islam as their way of life does not necessarily make them irrational as long as they continue to work to make the Word of Allah the highest and thereby save themselves and their people from ignominy in this life and hell in eternity - and nor does it put America on an equal footing with God.

Valid examples of this situation have been shown to us in the past and a useful one to note would be the term Quraysh/Makkan.
The Prophet pbuh was born in Makkah within the tribe of Quraysh, he first referred to them as his people, but when it became clear to him that the leadership was being irrational, abusive and criminal in it's assessment of the message with which he had been sent, he took those of the believers who were willing to migrate with him and separated himself from them and worked to establish the laws of God in a land in which people were receptive to his message.
The Quraysh were then at war with God and the terms "Makkan and Quraysh" were used to refer to the main body of kufr (infidelity-rejection of the truth which God has made plain) even though there were many people who professed Islam amongst Quraysh who had not migrated due to social or financial reasons.
Anyone who thereafter came to fight against the Muslims was coming out in transgression and those of the people who claimed to profess Islam and were compelled to come out at the battle of Badr were considered to be of the enemies of God to whose families no blood money was due after their slaughter, it is reported that some came out with the infidel army with the intention of pretending to fight but not shooting at or striking Muslims, some of them were killed by Muslim arrows and their case was for God to judge.

However, there were faithful who had remained in Makkah to whom God referred in chapter 48 al Fath (the opening), and God informed the Prophet of the fact that Allah had prevented him from forcing his way immediately out of wisdom and the fact that there were believing men and women whom he (pbuh) did not know whom he would have trampled and on whose account guilt would have accrued to the Prophet pbuh. God also gave them time to consider the signs and truthfulness and justice of the message and saved them from the destruction they deserved on account of their horrible injustice and criminality, the whole peninsula also repented and submitted to God, therefore the delay proved Allah's wisdom. If a lawful justifiable strike is made against an infidel land in service of God and seeking to please Him, and people who claim to be Muslims lose their lives in the midst of such an action, their case is for God to judge, and the Prophet pbuh is reported to have denied legal responsibility for so-called Muslims who are partakers in a corrupt society which is in opposition to God, he is reported on one occasion to have paid half the blood money seemingly more out of pity than a sense of duty.

Anyway, the trump, hillary and khan theatre facade is obvious to any clear and rationally thinking mind the ploy of propping up a semblance of support or acceptance of the discredited military industrial complex in America, the projected psychology is blatantly transparent, regardless of party and ideological lines, sort of a stupid subconscious unspoken statement like: "you can be republican, democrat, Muslim, christian, jew, atheist, satanist, gay or pervert, our aunt, our uncle, our grandma, our grandpa, or all of them at the same time for that matter, regardless of whether you're male or female, but you can only be a patriotic American if you support a military buildup and war on Islam, then you'll be acceptable to society".

Ultimately wisdom is required along with a keen, truthful and sincere will to obey Allah and His Messenger and to please Allah.
playing semantics with words and trying to absolve oneself from blame by falsely manipulating the interpretations of what one finds in the Book of God or any other book will not work with God who knows the depth and culmination of our intentions better than ourselves.

The jewish leadership (which had become a puppet leadership of rome) had tried manipulating interpretations of the Word in defiance of Spirit before so God sent them a trial via a woman and her son who He made the Word, despite the letter of the text prescribing punishment, they were forced to dizzily sit down.
then a generation followed which totally neglected the letter and went with spirit, it worked upto a certain extent for a while until they too went astray by making anything they liked lawful and unlawful regardless of the letter and spirit and the law.

Now you have the letter and spirit harmonized in the guidance of God which is Islam guiding you unto all truth, follow it and you'll be successful.

[sister herb]

Anyways, at the least this brother was more martyr than those whose attack against civilians and claim they take part to jihad. This I mean those daesh guys.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abz2000]

The people of 'ad and thamud, the people of lut, the people of al aika, and the people of Nuh must've been criminals without doubt, and if anyone accuses God of injustice, they should look to themselves for a statement of kufr, riddah and hypocrisy.

http://www.asia-pacificresearch.com/...gasaki/5539926

The people of hiroshima and nagasaki however were wronged by unjust oppressors who and who's allies deserve the wrath of God which is approaching them.
only repentance to God and it's acceptance will justify their forgiveness.

There is however some confusion in the media reports as to the nature of the nuclear bombs stored and deployed at Incirlik. They are B61 gravity bombs [of the bunker buster type] with nuclear warheads, *with an explosive capacity of up to 170 kilotons (up to 12 times a Hiroshima bomb).The accuracy of the numbers of bombs quoted in the media reports remains to be acertained. Some of the bombs were decommissioned. Some of them may have been*replaced*with a more recent version *including the B61-11.*It should be*emphasized*that in the last few years, the Pentagon has developed a more advanced version of the B61, namely the B61-12, which is slated to replace the older versions currently stored and deployed in Western Europe including Turkey.
Nuclear weapons are on the table: A trillion dollar nuclear weapons is now being contemplated by the Pentagon.*

http://www.globalresearch.ca/europe-...s-states/17550


They've already shown God through the bombing of Baghdad how they believe those people who hold and use weapons of mass destruction guaranteed to target and kill civilians should be handled:



And the fact that they continue to hold such monstrous weapons shows that they haven't learned anything and are awaiting a verdict from God.

[MisterK]

Sadly, I live in a state that will almost certainly go to Trump no matter what. That said, if this speech, and the resulting aftermath, brought about even one person changing their views on Islam, or Muslims in general (in the US or otherwise), then I would think it was a success in PR. And since it seems it has done just that in some regard, the whole thing was well played.

[keiv]

I don't agree with Muslims joining the US military. I can't see why a Muslim would want to do that. If you want to help / protect people, join law enforcement, go into the medical field, become a firefighter, do volunteer work, etc... You don't need to strap a rifle around your neck and stand alongside kafirs to fight against other Muslims.

[Aaqib]

I don't agree with Muslims joining the US military. I can't see why a Muslim would want to do that. If you want to help / protect people, join law enforcement, go into the medical field, become a firefighter, do volunteer work, etc... You don't need to strap a rifle around your neck and stand alongside kafirs to fight against other Muslims.

By other muslims do you mean ISIS? When is a situation that a soldier will be commanded to fight innocent Muslims? My dad is in the military, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Abz2000]

By other muslims do you mean ISIS? When is a situation that a soldier will be commanded to fight innocent Muslims? My dad is in the military, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Like in fallujah, abu ghraib and guantanamo, 90% released without charge so far and others yet held with no charges brought against them.

[jabeady]

I don't agree with Muslims joining the US military. I can't see why a Muslim would want to do that. If you want to help / protect people, join law enforcement, go into the medical field, become a firefighter, do volunteer work, etc... You don't need to strap a rifle around your neck and stand alongside kafirs to fight against other Muslims.

Which begs the question: Is Isis/Daesh a Muslim organization? It's been my impression that most Muslims consider them to practice, at best, a perverted form of Islam. For that matter, Isis/Daesh makes war on other Muslims; why would it be wrong to ally yourself with us pagans to fight against them? Isn't the enemy of my enemy my friend?

[Abz2000]

And here:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/abz...ml?sort=3&o=70

[Abz2000]

Which begs the question: Is Isis/Daesh a Muslim organization? It's been my impression that most Muslims consider them to practice, at best, a perverted form of Islam. For that matter, Isis/Daesh makes war on other Muslims; why would it be wrong to ally yourself with us pagans to fight against them? Isn't the enemy of my enemy my friend?

Apparently "isis" did not exist until the kuffar began a long drawn out campaign of bloodshed around the planet over which God gave them temporary authority as a test for mankind so that they will have a chance to consider where we were all going wrong and return to the Law of Allah in humility, do not be arrogant against God, your arrogance will breed evil consequences for those who are arrogant towards God, you have been shown grace on multiple occasions and are constantly returning to oppression of Muslims and bloodshed around the planet, it is better that we all repent to God and beseech Him in humility rather than continue to go bankrupt whilst acting as mouthpieces for the kafir military industrial complex and blowing all our money on destructive weapons whilst the rothschilds prepare themselves for the kingdom of satan with the world's people on it's knees.
If indeed "isis" is fake and you are heartbroken and eager to go around the planet to fight, accept that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, establish Islam according to the best of your ability in your own families, then we can look further. You have proved to have a penchance for lying and creating false international sensations about any Muslim who picks up a weapon in order to defend themself, and you have also been caught lying on numerous occasions about the groups you call ""isis" and "alqaeda" and have helped to confuse the situation even more by arming them and bombing them simultaneously.

Be very careful as patience and friendliness is running short, you haven't a clue what someone is capable of even incarcerated or killed.
I seek to serve Him who created me and bestowed whatever He saw just to bestow.
Let us stop seeking to create more trouble and filthiness and humble ourselves before it's too late, we are under careful scrutiny........
and have been for a long time:

[jabeady]

...your arrogance will breed evil consequences for those who are arrogant towards God, you have been shown grace on multiple occasions and are constantly returning to oppression of Muslims and bloodshed around the planet, it is better that we all repent to God and beseech Him in humility rather than continue to go bankrupt whilst acting as mouthpieces for the kafir military industrial complex and blowing all our money on destructive weapons whilst the rothschilds prepare themselves for the kingdom of satan with the world's people on it's knees.
If indeed "isis" is fake and you are heartbroken and eager to go around the planet to fight, accept that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, establish Islam according to the best of your ability in your own families, then we can look further. You have proved to have a penchance for lying and creating false international sensations about any Muslim who picks up a weapon in order to defend themself, and you have also been caught lying on numerous occasions about the groups you call ""isis" and "alqaeda" and have helped to confuse the situation even more by arming them and bombing them simultaneously.

Be very careful as patience and friendliness is running short, you haven't a clue what someone is capable of even incarcerated or killed.
I seek to serve Him who created me and bestowed whatever He saw just to bestow.
Let us stop seeking to create more trouble and filthiness and humble ourselves before it's too late, we are under careful scrutiny........
and have been for a long time:

I don't have any hard numbers, but it's my impression that Daesh has killed thousands more Muslims than they have any other group. Quite nastily, too, beheading, burning alive and such. Yet, if I understand you correctly, you consider Daesh to be the good guys. Do you really sympathize with Daesh? Please tell me if you do, so I can leave this conversation immediately.

[islamirama]

The khan family's message and appearance was good PR for the Democrats and for American Muslims. Their "sacrifice" however wasn't all that "islamically" worthy. It's not that Muslims are not allowed to fight along side non-Muslims but rather they are not allowed to join the enemies of Islam. America is a clearly an open enemy of Islam. I could go back to 1924 but I'll just go back to Bush Sr. administration and start from there.

America put sanctions on Iraq for allegedly making "chemical weapons" or whatever excuse they came up with at that time, when in fact the whole purpose was to weaken Iraq since it had one of the largest armies in the world and a Muslim army at that. Those sanctions were for 10 years. In that time frame, no food, medicine or anything was allowed in. Their so called food for oil program was a sham as well. Because of lack of water, hospitals were being clean with petroleum. In that time, about 500,000 children under the age of 5 starved to death and the US Secretary of State, war criminal Albright, said on national TV that it was "worth" it to keep America "safe" from big bad Saddam. The 500k children under 5 is a UN estimate, the numbers may have been much higher, and that is not including the children above the age of 5 or the poor, the elderly, and the sick. In Addition to the sanctions and no fly zones, US continued to fly over and drop bombs over there.

Next up is Bush Jr. who waged an illegal war and occupation of Iraq based on Weapons of Mass Deception. In that 10 year occupation, the Americans and their allies committed a holocaust of 12 million Muslims. That's not including the thousands mass murdered in Afghanistan. In addition, they committed numerous war crimes, such as killing civilians for support, torture, rape, and burning of bodies.

Next up is Obama, who waged his drone war on Pakistan, yemen and other Muslim nations. His drone war killed over 4 million Muslims in the Muslim world, another holocaust. This is not including the toppling of Gaddafi and the mayhem done to his country and people.

All in all, the so called war on terror was a war of terror and a war on Islam. And this western war of America and it's allies resulted in a modern day holocaust of 20 Million Muslims. (I'm rounding up from 12+4 to all the unaccounted or under reported ones).

Do you think any other group would tolerate a holocaust of their people to that magnitude? And we are the "terrorists", who is the biggest terrorist in the world? who kills by the millions?

So his "sacrifice" was just another life wasted in the war mongering nation, given up for the greed of the corporations. His life and the rest of the troops that were sent there to die was all for nothing, they were the victims of illegal wars and greed and nothing else. And many among them enjoyed the killing, torture and rape of innocents. Ask Obama why he won't release the photos of thousands of Muslim women in being raped by US soldiers.

As for the "infidel" world. Historically that very word was used by European Christians to mean anyone not Christian, especially Muslims. Slowly the west started using that word as something the Muslims use against Non-Muslims. It was not our word to start with and has nothing to do with us. We don't say 'infidels', say kuffar (non-believer).

I personally believe that Humayun Khan was a matyr Islamically as he died saving the lives of other persons under his care/supervision/command, and in the Quran, Allah compares saving the life of one person as saving all of humanity, and so he is a true hero. I recently found out that Daesh consider Humayun Khan an apostate, which further strengthens my belief that Humayun Khan was a martyr. There is no way to 100% know of course that he died a martyr, but in Islam, intentions matter and are accounted to deeds. If Humayun Khan died saving the lives of other human beings, he's a martyr. Period.

What you personally believe and what Islam says are two different things. What the Daesh thinks or not is not the criteria either to decide what he was.He was not a matyr. He was in the camp of the enemy, he went to occupy a Muslim land. He engaged in killing Muslims alongside his kuffar comrades. And he saved lives of his kuffar comrades so they can go killing more Muslims.

Abu Hurairah reported that Allah's Messenger (saws) said:"He who is killed fighting for Allah's Cause is a martyr, he who dies in the Cause of Allah is a martyr, he who dies in an epidemic is a martyr, he who dies from a stomach disease is a martyr, and the one who dies of drowning is (also) a martyr."
Narrated by Muslim.

Al-Muwatta Hadith 16.36
Yahya related from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Jabir ibn Atik that Atik ibn al-Harith told him that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: What do you consider dying a martyr to be?" They said, "Death in the way of Allah." The Messenger of Allah (saws) said, "There are seven kinds of martyrs other than those killed in the Way of Allah. Someone who is killed by the plague is a martyr, someone who drowns is a martyr, someone who dies of pleurisy is a martyr, someone who dies of a disease of the belly is a martyr, someone who dies by fire is a martyr, someone who dies under a falling building is a martyr, and a woman who dies in childbirth is a martyr."

Sa'id ibn Zaid reported that the Prophet (saws) said: "He who is killed while guarding his property is a martyr, he who is killed while defending himself is a martyr, he who is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and he who dies protecting his family is (also) a martyr."
Related by Ahmad and Tirmidhi.

Do you see any mention of saving lives of the killers of Muslims in there?

Rather then going by what you "personally" believe, it's best to go by what Islam says.

The scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like them as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):


“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51].

https://islamqa.info/en/33691

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I don't know about currently. However, when I first came onto IB, he did support Daesh. I had many debates with him, and from what he's said, he's put me on his ignore list. I don't know if I am still on his ignore list, however. I have had to report his posts on IB because IB has a strict policy against promotion of any type of terrorism - so, feel free to do the same. :)

I don't have any hard numbers, but it's my impression that Daesh has killed thousands more Muslims than they have any other group. Quite nastily, too, beheading, burning alive and such. Yet, if I understand you correctly, you consider Daesh to be the good guys. Do you really sympathize with Daesh? Please tell me if you do, so I can leave this conversation immediately.

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I don't know about currently. However, when I first came onto IB, he did support Daesh. I had many debates with him, and from what he's said, he's put me on his ignore list. I don't know if I am still on his ignore list, however. I have had to report his posts on IB because IB has a strict policy against promotion of any type of terrorism - so, feel free to do the same. :)

I'm pretty new here, so I don't want to report anyone. OTOH, I don't want to end up on a no-fly list, either. I read IB with the phone app, and I don't think it has access to an Ignore feature, so I guess I'll just have to use some self control.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

Yes, I have read what you've written, but I still disagree with you. Also, I'd like you to read the comprehensive list presented in Classification of Martyrs and see where you cannot see how Humayun Khan would be classified as a martyr. So, yes, he's a martyr even Islamically, even if you do not consider his sacrificing his own life to protect his own comrades' life as an act of "martyrdom" because he'd still fall under the list of other of martyrs from the enumerated list.

I'm also sorry, but I have in the past said I disagree with persons who say that there is a war with Islam. America has interfered in the Middle East too often for what I can only perceive as an aid to Israel. And I have disagreed with this interference alongside non-Muslim Americans many a time. However, that said, equating interference in the Middle East or elsewhere to maintain its hegemony in the world is not the same as "war on Islam." I have refuted this mentality in the past; and I am not going to go into this again as a debate.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[islamirama]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

Yes, I have read what you've written, but I still disagree with you. Also, I'd like you to read the comprehensive list presented in Classification of Martyrs and see where you cannot see how Humayun Khan would be classified as a martyr. So, yes, he's a martyr even Islamically, even if you do not consider his sacrificing his own life to protect his own comrades' life as an act of "martyrdom" because he'd still fall under the list of other of martyrs from the enumerated list.

I'm also sorry, but I have in the past said I disagree with persons who say that there is a war with Islam. America has interfered in the Middle East too often for what I can only perceive as an aid to Israel. And I have disagreed with this interference alongside non-Muslim Americans many a time. However, that said, equating interference in the Middle East or elsewhere to maintain its hegemony in the world is not the same as "war on Islam." I have refuted this mentality in the past; and I am not going to go into this again as a debate.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

wa'alaikum as'salaam

For your matyr statement, I'll repost what I shared before. Doesn't matter what I consider, the scholars are clear on this.


The scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like them as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51].


Regarding your not at war with Muslims statement...

with it's media demonizing Islam, it's politicians attacking Islam, its presidential candidate running on campaign of banning and deporting Muslims, it's current and previous war criminal presidents slaughtering Muslims, and it's invasions, destruction and occupation of ONLY Muslim lands in the past 2-3 decades, yea it's all about keeping it's "hegemony" and power in the world....

try telling that to the 20 Million Muslims dead and counting....

[Aaqib]

removed

[jabeady]

try telling that to the 20 Million Muslims dead and counting....

I'd like to see some documentation for that number.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

The scholars are also very clear that whoever makes takfir (calling a Muslim a kaffir) has that takfir revert back to him. Scholars are also agreed that we must have husn-dhann (good thoughts) about our brothers and sisters in Islam. There's also a fatwa (legal ruling) to which I'd like to link you that might be of some relevance here: I Have Entertained Thoughts About The Disbelief of Another Muslim: Am I Still Muslim?

I don't want to address the death toll of Muslims in different countries, because I agree that it's sad and heartbreaking. That said, promoting this idea of "war with Islam" only breeds hatred and radicalization of susceptible Muslims (as I've previously discussed on IB) and we have terrorists emerge with the idea that they will somehow end this injustice. However, the consequences of such terrorism is the antipathy and disgust of normal Muslims, more Muslim deaths in different countries held responsible for the actions of the few terrorists, and individuals like Donald Trump being able to come onto the national stage and confidently tell the gullible public that there's something hideous within and insidious about Muslims and Islam.

So, again, I agree to disagree with you.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

wa'alaikum as'salaam

For your matyr statement, I'll repost what I shared before. Doesn't matter what I consider, the scholars are clear on this.


The scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like them as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51].


Regarding your not at war with Muslims statement, try telling that to the 20 Million Muslims dead and counting....

[jabeady]

All in all, the so called war on terror was a war of terror and a war on Islam. And this western war of America and it's allies resulted in a modern day holocaust of 20 Million Muslims.

And yet, there are all those Muslims seeking refuge in the US and the rest of the West.

Personally, I blame the idiot French and British diplomats who drew the borders in the Middle East after World War 1.

Otherwise, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but boy, did we ever screw up the peace afterward. The initial invasion of Iraq was a direct result of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (and I understand Bush senior is still considered a Kuwaiti hero). OTOH, the second invasion under Bush junior was based on a lie, and I thought so at the time because of the way the politicians kept giving evasive answers about why it was necessary.

I guess there's *some* justice to the claim that Daesh is America's fault. As in Afghanistan, we screwed up the peace process afterward. I think the reason that happened, both times, is that we were too anxious to come home; we should have stuck around to rebuild, the way we did in Europe, Japan and Korea.

Even so, while the US may bear some responsibility for the birth of Daesh, we bear no fault for Daesh's barbarity and attacks against Muslims. It seems to me that Daesh is the true enemy of Islam.

[Abz2000]

It is clear that the multiple murders in this one casual day at the office were not noted, and most of the sometimes 50+ (in one street corner) bodies cuffed with american issue cable ties turning up all over the place were reported as "horrific al qaeda atrocities".



And Allah knows best.

Here's a full length documentary detailing some of the more obvious incentives but goes into depth with facts, figures and actions.

https://vimeo.com/6215671

As a matter of fact i do support ANY group that supports the cause of Allah, accepts Muhammad as the final Messenger of God to ALL of mankind, and strives for Allah's sake whilst seeking to please Allah, the labels are for you the kuffar asteroid fodder to puzzle over, as it appears that kuffar and munafiqeen, like their predecessors amongst the people of Pharaoh enjoy playing the puzzles of the foolish kafir leaders drunk at the steering wheel who give wicked counsel whilst inviting to hell.

Wa aakhira da'waan Al hamdu li Allahi rabb al 'aalameen for tonight inshaAllah (it's almost fajr here and the sweet adhan is blaring on the speakers everwhere).


Edit: just remembered so i thought i'd post before saying c ya's tomorrow inshaAllah:


Abdul-Aziz al Hassan is from al Gharra, his first name the same as the mountain’s. He left the village while the Islamic State was in charge, but it is because of a bomb from an American plane that he cannot go back. What happened to his family is the story of just one bomb of the 35,000 dropped so far during 10,000 missions flown in the US-led air war against the Islamic State......

.......As a result of al Hassan’s testimony provided by GlobalPost, US Central Command — CENTCOM — said*it would look again*at whether it did bomb the village. For now, the United States has no record of killing any civilian in al Gharra. GlobalPost found other instances of US airstrikes — detailed below — that probably killed civilians but which were not officially investigated, or which were investigated and dismissed.

In almost a-year-and-a-half of bombing Iraq and Syria, the United States admits to killing just 21 innocent people.

An independent monitoring group says the real figure "could be more than a thousand."


http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-0...t-acknowledges

[Karl]

Joining the Zionist war machine is probably not a virtuous profession for a Muslim. Apostate or traitor comes to mind. A lot of Americans have left the USA as they can't stand it's evil ways. So why do Muslims live there and support it's evil regime?

[Zafran]

Joining the Zionist war machine is probably not a virtuous profession for a Muslim. Apostate or traitor comes to mind. A lot of Americans have left the USA as they can't stand it's evil ways. So why do Muslims live there and support it's evil regime?

why do muslims leave the mid east for europe and the US? whilst Muslim majority countries shut the borders on them.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

So, I'd like to answer your question as to why Muslim Americans would stay/continue to stay in the United States:

First and foremost, there is no Utopian Muslim-majority country currently in the world and in many places are worse than the United States because many Muslim-majority countries are rife with internal conflict (e.g. Turkey, Lebanon), unstable (e.g. Palestine), corruption (Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco) or are currently war-torn (e.g. Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Secondly, whenever a Muslim speaks of American Muslims or British Muslims or whatever non-Majority country's national Muslim making hijra (migration), the first thing I feel like asking is how much money is this person willing to fork himself/herself for resettling the person and his/her family in question in a Muslim-majority country. This is assuming that the Muslim-majority country would be willing to accept with wide open arms Muslims' immigration into their country and give them citizenship, which many Muslim-majority countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia refuse to do.

Thirdly, no matter what criticism people may raise of United States, the truth is that all minority religions are allowed to currently practice their religion freely with no restrictions and one to say anything whereas the same is not true in many Muslim-majority countries. People can freely practice their Islam here; however, I'm not sure this would be the case, for example, in Iran, for Sunnis. Also, would Muslims not be incarcerated if they criticized the Saudi Arabian government and Pakistan legitimately for speaking about how these governments are inequitable in their application of the law on certain persons who are considered exempt and above the law despite the fact that many of the criticisms would come from Islam itself?

Fourthly, America is no more "evil" than a lot of Muslim-majority countries in the world. In fact, in terms of evil of Muslim-majority countries, I'd have to say that America has the excuse of being a non-Muslim country and therefore whatever "evil" you perceive is excusable on account of ignorance whereas what is the excuse of Muslim-majority countries which by standards of Islam are supposed to be bastions of light and goodness and instead are not?

Finally, I resent the implication that a Muslim must only be a Muslim and cannot be an American and a Muslim; this echoes much of Donald Trump's supporters' rhetoric which I find frankly idiotic and baseless. Also, if Islamic scholars have offered different opinions in the past on a Muslim joining an army, then why is this matter not considered sufficient to enable in you the self-possession to refrain from using the words "apostate" and "traitor" for someone who's dead and not there to defend himself or his intentions to you? His judgment is now with God, I'd remind you and also everyone else.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Joining the Zionist war machine is probably not a virtuous profession for a Muslim. Apostate or traitor comes to mind. A lot of Americans have left the USA as they can't stand it's evil ways. So why do Muslims live there and support it's evil regime?

[kritikvernunft]

The whole thing with the prohibition against fighting alongside infidels- is this a thing, at all, that gets considered? Is it even on the radar? Is there much of anything that needs to be said about it?

The more you consider someone your enemy, the more it is necessary to keep an eye on him. Therefore, it automatically creates the need to move closer, so that you can better see what exactly your enemy is up to. How are you supposed to do that from a distance? So, given the fact that joining infidel armies will make you privy to juicy information that you would otherwise never have access to, I personally quite endorse the idea of Muslims enlisting in Kafir armies.

One of those things involves fighting alongside infidels, especially if you're fighting with then against Muslims.

If these infidel armies are fighting against Muslims, there is even more of a requirement to closely watch them and know everything that they are up to.

I personally believe that Humayun Khan was a matyr Islamically ... and so he is a true hero ... he's a martyr. Period.

Humayun Khan could certainly have been a martyr. There are certainly Muslims who were martyred while harvesting important information and keeping an eye on everything that the infidel are doing.

Sadly, I live in a state that will almost certainly go to Trump no matter what.

Our beloved Donald Trump has already, and will further enrage, alienate, and infuriate lots of demographics. He will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. He will prevent access to the USA to Muslims. He will duly take China to the cleaners. Our beloved Donald will obviously, and on the fly, add new, unfavoured demographics to his list. The only thing left to do, is to help our beloved Donald Trump to do all of that simultaneously. We must discourage him from taking on his adversaries one by one. Therefore, I consider it in my interest to maximally assist our beloved Donald Trump to rigorously do all of that as soon as possible, and all of it at the same time. Seriously, I personally believe that our beloved Donald Trump is a God-sent. Therefore, I am very much in favour of our beloved Donald Trump winning the American presidential elections.

I don't agree with Muslims joining the US military. I can't see why a Muslim would want to do that... You don't need to strap a rifle around your neck and stand alongside kafirs to fight against other Muslims.

The purpose of joining Kafir armies is to watchfully keep an eye on them. How else are we going to get any useful information, if not from the inside? Therefore, I believe that it is a worthwhile ambition to try to get into the inner sanctum of all the command -and control centers of these military organizations. All you need to do, in order to achieve that, is to tell the kafirs what they want to hear. What would be wrong with that? I do it all the time! ;-)

My dad is in the military, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Exactly. There is obviously nothing wrong with that. What would you prefer? Would you prefer that the kafirs control all the important buttons, or that it is a Muslim nearby who does it?

The khan family's message and appearance was good PR for the Democrats and for American Muslims. Their "sacrifice" however wasn't all that "islamically" worthy. It's not that Muslims are not allowed to fight along side non-Muslims but rather they are not allowed to join the enemies of Islam. America is a clearly an open enemy of Islam.

America is a territorial polygon while Islam is the concrete, real-world instantiation of the abstract concept of a monotheist religion, but still a virtuality. How can a territorial polygon be at war with a virtuality? That is why Obama has never agreed to "go to war with Islam". He obviously knows better. There is such a massive type(-theory) mismatch between the "type of" America and the "type of" Islam.

Still, there is an intersection. The power of national states is based on their secret services. It is therefore based on their capacity to infiltrate. But then again, it should be clear to everyone that a religion's capacity to do exactly that -- to infiltrate -- is much more impressive. Islam is so much more capable of infiltrating any real-world enemy than the other way around. I am such a good example of that principle. As a revert, how could anybody know about my Islamic sympathies, unless I tell them by myself? Nobody can suspect this. Therefore, I am an infiltrated element amongst unsuspecting kafir, just like you have lots of infiltrated kafir elements amongst the Muslims. But then again, Islam is obviously several orders of magnitude superior in that game, while it is this very game that will always end up deciding the outcome of any conflict.

"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)"

The more you dislike them, the closer you need to keep an eye on them. Isn't that obvious?

I'm also sorry, but I have in the past said I disagree with persons who say that there is a war with Islam.

There is no "war" but an "infiltration rat race" ongoing. Whatever happens next in Syria no longer matters, because it is obviously Islam that has already won the rat race by sending a staggering 2+ million Syrians into Western Europe. How many infiltration battles have the Kafir won in the Syrian civil war? Zero. Zero. And again zero. What we need next, is to encourage additional conflict between Turkey and the European Union. Turkey has "promised" to retain Syrian refugees on its territory and to prevent them from moving up north and west. Erdogan agreed to do that, on the condition that the Turks, who are also Muslims, would obtain visa-free travel into the European Union. In my impression this visa-free travel did not materialize. I have not seen large numbers of Turks actually doing any "travelling" into the European Union. Erdogan's deal was supposed to be a one-way bet in terms of "infiltration". It clearly is not. Therefore, since the deal is obviously not productive, we must encourage Erdogan to obliterate this deal. Seriously, Erdogan must now remove all obstacles that prevent Syrian refugees from going where they want to go, north or west, unless the European Union agrees to accept "traveling" Turks instead. By the way, Erdogan will go this route anyway, because he is sitting on a reservoir of millions of Syrians that he can unleash at will and at his earliest convenience. Therefore, Erdogan is holding the European Union by the balls. The Syrian civil war itself has become utterly irrelevant. The war has achieved its goal already, i.e. to produce millions of deployable Syrians. We also have additional reservoirs running in the millions, in Jordan and Lebanon. I strongly suspect that the invisible hand of our Beloved Master Allah will end up sending all of them into the European Union. For now, it is Erdogan's next move that we should be watching. Erdogan is supposed to quarrel, argue, disagree, revoke, oppose, and become utterly uncooperative with the European Union, concerning the Syrian refugees who should soon be infiltrating the EU again, in large numbers.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@kritikvernunft

It was once suggested to me that you're a satirist. I wasn't sure. But I'm going to ask you now directly as I did before once in the PM. Are you?

Because I cannot seriously credit you as understanding what I've written as to have said what you're implying.

[kritikvernunft]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@kritikvernunft

It was once suggested to me that you're a satirist. I wasn't sure. But I'm going to ask you now directly as I did before once in the PM. Are you?
Because I cannot seriously credit you as understanding what I've written as to have said what you're implying.

Well, everything is obviously going according to plan. Of course, not everybody can see this, but all the outcomes go in the same direction. Concerning the Khan family, let them continue to tell the Kafir what they want to hear. They are doing an excellent job, no? They are even better than myself at that; and believe me that I am also very proficient in these matters. I will tell everybody what they want to hear, if that suits my goals! In the One God we trust and in nothing else.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, everything is obviously going according to plan. Of course, not everybody can see this, but all the outcomes go in the same direction. Concerning the Khan family, let them continue to tell the Kafir what they want to hear. They are doing an excellent job, no? They are even better than myself at that; and believe me that I am also very proficient in these matters. I will tell everybody what they want to hear, if that suits my goals! In the One God we trust and in nothing else.

Okay - are you poking fun at the situation of Muslims and generally Islam - that's what I want to know. And no, I'm sorry, I cannot see how whatever you've said is a matter of "everything is obviously going according to plan." What plan and whose plan?

[kritikvernunft]

Okay - are you poking fun at the situation of Muslims and generally Islam...

Do I sound like someone who would join a losing proposition? If Islam had no chance of succeeding, do you really believe that I would be interested?

I cannot see how whatever you've said is a matter of "everything is obviously going according to plan."

Ok. Say that the plan was to inject 5+ million Syrians into the European Union.
Half of the plan has succeeded already, because 2+ million Syrians have made it into the European Union already.
So, now my question: Are things going wrong right now, or are they going pretty much according to plan?

You may be confusing the real goals and real instruments.
The conflict will obviously be won by infiltration.
Bombings and shootings do not matter on the long run. They only make lots of noise, but they rarely achieve lasting results.

The civil war in Syria has not allowed whatsoever to the kafir to infiltrate Syria. It has allowed millions of Syrians to infiltrate the European Union. Erdogan tried to negotiate, and to turn the Syrian infiltration into more of a Turkish infiltration, by exacting "visa-free travel", out of his adversaries, for the Turks. Erdogan almost succeeded, actually. I must admit that his tactics reveal a very skilful player.

...whose plan?

Difficult to say. Everything that happens, is always in one way or the other the will of the Creator of this universe, i.e. our Most Beloved Master, the One God, Allah.

If you mostly look at things that do not matter, you will get the wrong impression of what is going on.

Islam is obviously doing fantastically fine. That is exactly what the enemies of Islam are saying too, all the time, and they are absolutely right, but I can imagine that you do not see it! ;-)

Let me give you a historical example. The Roman empire kept persecuting and executing Christians, until in 313 in the Donatus Constantini, Christianity became official state religion of the Roman Empire, and started persecuting the pagans. The Christians did not win one single military battle against the pagans; not even one. They lost every possible battle, but still went on to spectacularly win the war. In another example, you can see that the North Vietnamese did not win one single military battle against the United States. Not one. They still went on to most decisively win the war.

In other words, military battles and their outcomes are usually unimportant. If you win a battle, but you cannot prevent the enemy from standing up and fighting again, you will lose the war, no matter how many battles that you have won, and will win, because in those circumstances, you will always lose the final battle. You can only defeat the enemy, if you can break his will to fight. It is utterly impossible to do that with weapons. However, if you make him doubt about his own beliefs, while you do not doubt yours, that is when you will have won.

[islamirama]

And yet, there are all those Muslims seeking refuge in the US and the rest of the West.

And where else do you expect them to go after invading and occupying their land and/or bombing the hell out of them?

Otherwise, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but boy, did we ever screw up the peace afterward. The initial invasion of Iraq was a direct result of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (and I understand Bush senior is still considered a Kuwaiti hero). OTOH, the second invasion under Bush junior was based on a lie, and I thought so at the time because of the way the politicians kept giving evasive answers about why it was necessary.

Invasion of Afghanistan was not justified. They invade and destroyed a already war torn nation for supposedly one man who allegedly was behind 9-11, which too more and more evidence points to an inside job. Kuwait was a city of Iraq and Saddam had every right to take it back. The US gave him the green light in private and while preparing to destroy his army when he does. There's lot of evidence and politicians, secretary of state, US President and the such quotes out there,

I guess there's *some* justice to the claim that Daesh is America's fault. As in Afghanistan, we screwed up the peace process afterward. I think the reason that happened, both times, is that we were too anxious to come home; we should have stuck around to rebuild, the way we did in Europe, Japan and Korea.

Even so, while the US may bear some responsibility for the birth of Daesh, we bear no fault for Daesh's barbarity and attacks against Muslims. It seems to me that Daesh is the true enemy of Islam.[/QUOTE]

Daesh are the creation of western intelligence agencies. Their leader is actually a zionist soldier. All of this came out at the time they started to emerge. They are being funded by Israel and the US. Iraqi gov't itself tried to stop US planes from dropping weapons and food to daesh camps. Daesh is here to destroy muslims and clear up the sham area for Israel so they can make their "greater israel" dream come true. All these spies, politics and cloak and dagger are high level games that are above most intelligent men let alone your average person.

I'd like to see some documentation for that number.

see my initial post here and my signature.

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

The scholars are also very clear that whoever makes takfir (calling a Muslim a kaffir) has that takfir revert back to him. Scholars are also agreed that we must have husn-dhann (good thoughts) about our brothers and sisters in Islam. There's also a fatwa (legal ruling) to which I'd like to link you that might be of some relevance here: I Have Entertained Thoughts About The Disbelief of Another Muslim: Am I Still Muslim?

I don't want to address the death toll of Muslims in different countries, because I agree that it's sad and heartbreaking. That said, promoting this idea of "war with Islam" only breeds hatred and radicalization of susceptible Muslims (as I've previously discussed on IB) and we have terrorists emerge with the idea that they will somehow end this injustice. However, the consequences of such terrorism is the antipathy and disgust of normal Muslims, more Muslim deaths in different countries held responsible for the actions of the few terrorists, and individuals like Donald Trump being able to come onto the national stage and confidently tell the gullible public that there's something hideous within and insidious about Muslims and Islam.

So, again, I agree to disagree with you.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Wa'alaikum as'salaam,

it seems that you are reading but not comprehending. I'm not the one making Takfir. I'm putting the two together for you, one, a muslim joining the kuffar army to go kill Muslims, invade and occupy a Muslim land and two, what the scholars say on the matter.

Since quoting the relevant portion did not help, i suggest visiting the site to read the whole passage in its entirety.

https://islamqa.info/en/33691

Sadly, you failed to comprehend this point as well. IF we do not address the holocaust of the Muslims then who will? I said there is a war ON Islam not with Islam. There is a war ON Islam and ON Muslims. The holocaust of 20 million Muslims, the invasion and total destruction of Muslim nations and the continued occupation and war mongering of more Muslim lands is the testament to that.

Stop trying to be a diplomatic Muslimah and open your eyes. Don't act so high and mighty just because your family wasn't wiped out, raped or burnt and pissed on. Those that were were also your brothers/sisters in Islam.

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is far greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason. [3:118]

[kritikvernunft]

And yet, there are all those Muslims seeking refuge in the US and the rest of the West.

Correction: They infiltrate the West.

The Christians, no matter how badly they got martyred and thrown before the lions in the Roman empire, kept infiltrating the pagans, subverting everybody from low to high, including army generals, until they finally managed to pull off their coup. The mother of the most likely contender for the job of emperor, Constantine, was also a successful Christian infiltration. Her husband wasn't, but that did not make any difference.

Prior to Constantine's becoming emperor, the early Church was going through one of the fiercest and bloodiest of the persecutions by the Roman government, the Diocletian persecution. During this wave of persecution thousands of Christians lost their lives, churches were destroyed, and scriptures were burned. Then in 313, the situation reversed itself.

The Romans had the silly habit to recruit their armies amongst the Teutonic tribes north of the river Rhine. You can imagine that these tribes were a prime target for Christian infiltrators. It worked, because the Roman armies were generally Christian, long before the population was. For Constantine, it was not just his mother nagging. In order to control his teutonic armies, he had to more or less adopt their religion.

Some people say that Islam already came quite close to achieving that, because Obama's father was a Muslim. That is quite a close hit-and-miss already.

[islamirama]

Correction: They infiltrate the West.

Stop promoting falsehood and causing fitna. You attempt to validate the Islamophobe bigots rhetoric of us taking over through migration is not amusing. Muslims don't really want to come here for a "better" life, they would rather live peacefully and happily in their own lands, among their own people, enjoying their own culture if the west stops invading and bombing them, funding or creating extremist elements to engage in terrorist acts there, or supporting dictators or placing puppets in power among other forms of oppression and injustice.

[kritikvernunft]

Stop promoting falsehood and causing fitna.

Why would it be false?
And why would it cause more fitna than there is already?

You attempt to validate the Islamophobe bigots rhetoric of us taking over through migration is not amusing.

The Islamophobe bigots and their rhetoric can be very useful. It is quite unfortunate that you cannot turn it to your advantage.
I have never seen my adversaries do anything that eventually did not work in my own favour.
Seriously, I believe in letting my opponents do all the hard work for me.

Muslims don't really want to come here for a "better" life, they would rather live peacefully and happily in their own lands, among their own people, enjoying their own culture ...

Unfortunately, this is not our take. It is our Beloved Master, the only One and True God who decides about this.
Maybe your mission on this earth was not to just "enjoy" your own culture.
Maybe you have been tasked with other things to achieve.

... if the west stops invading and bombing them, funding or creating extremist elements to engage in terrorist acts there, or supporting dictators or placing puppets in power among other forms of oppression and injustice ...

You can reasonably assume that the West will not be doing that.
I am afraid that you are not realistic.
You can endlessly keep complaining, or else just do the job that you have been tasked with.

[islamirama]

Unfortunately, this is not our take. It is our Beloved Master, the only One and True God who decides about this.
Maybe your mission on this earth was not to just "enjoy" your own culture.
Maybe you have been tasked with other things to achieve.

I am afraid that you are not realistic.

are you aware what you are trying to validate won't come to pass?

Do you know that they will kick all Muslims out of their land one day and then seeing their society crumble from lack of professional skills will want the converts back and will go to war for it?

[kritikvernunft]

Do you know that they will kick all Muslims out of their land one day ...

It is not that simple to do this. You see, Muslims are actually very, very divided. That is why a relatively small group of pagans, the elite, can control a larger group of Muslims and an even larger group of individualized pagans. This elite is not particularly dumb. They will never "kick all of the Muslims" all at the same time. The head count would be way too large for them to handle. But then again, you still have a point, because someone like our beloved Donald Trump would indeed be silly enough to try.

Seriously, it is insanely hard to do this kind of things.

You will need to divide and mislead the Muslims, so that you can deal with them in much smaller groups. I must admit that this is exactly what Hitler succeeded in doing. He totally misled the Jews as to what he was up to. Furthermore, he managed to keep it a secret as to what exactly he was doing to the Jews in his extermination camps. You would need to be an expert at deception, like Hitler, in order to make it work.

Any botched attempt at kicking the Muslims out of Western Europe would achieve exactly the opposite of what they would be trying. It would unite a head count of 30+ million Muslims against a much, much smaller head count of law enforcement (=dead within a week) and small national armies that are notoriously weak at urban warfare. Again, a botched attempt at kicking them out would achieve something that the Muslims would impossibly be able to do by themselves, that is, to unite them, so that they can take over political power. But then again, you are dreaming, because the current elites are not that stupid. Therefore, we can only hope that enough people like Donald Trump will get voted into office -- who would indeed be dumb enough to go down that route -- because otherwise, it will just not happen.

[Abz2000]

Assalamu'alaikum oh Muslims, and may Allah guide whomesoever He wills to the straight path,

@ kritikvernunft, God knows your inner intentions but you are one crafty git, sounds like you've done some white collar stuff in the past but have a brain tht is much less narrow to get stuck there,
,your posts make me wonder at the levels and layers and layers of your multi-storey mind.

What you mentioned about the Romans and those of the Muslims of the time who became the uppermost shows a lot of depth lol, hopefully you'll use it for Allah's sake and not stay content with the shallow criminal short span mind of kufr.
the Prophet pbuh did something similar at Al Hudaybiyyah and most of the companions were furious at him, 'Umar (ra) was even trying to "accidentally" give suhail's son his sword so as to undo the treaty but it stuck, then on the way back to Madinah Allah revealed the opening verses of Surah al Fath-h.

The treaty stipulated that any man who became Muslim and escaped to the Islamic State from amongst the kuffar would have to be returned to their families, whereas any Muslim who commited riddah and escaped to the Quraysh in Makkah would not be returned,now this seemed very one sided and it actually was lol.
the Muslims were able to maintain a pure Islamic State with no nifaq amongst it's members whereas the Quraysh out of their tribal zeal were blessed to have returned to them sincere Muslims who could guide them and set a good example, and also keep the burden of the murtaddeen and munafiqeen for themselves, now a long-suppressed murtad is a bit like a wild animal and this also helped to create a contrast in the minds of the undecided so that most of the people could see the benifits and purity of Islam, and the self respect and dignity which it intstilled in it's adherents until Allah supported His messenger after having already removed most of the opposition of ignorance from the hearts of the Makkans who had a growing number of Muslims in their families who were unable to migrate. A bit like the opposite of fox news in your very home :)

A more recent example would be that of a government analyst observing a Muslim who's had their passport confiscated for standing up and decrying oppression, walks with his head held high, is highly sensitive to humiliation, and is prepared to risk his life to travel to live amongst and assist his brothers and sisters living as a majority whilst fighting back against oppression, and wakes up every day to attend meetings and prayer, in contrast to a perv who eagerly leaves a Muslim majority land in order to run to a kafir land where they tell you to "go back to your own country even if you're indigenous" and wakes up every day and rushes with his buddies to the local swimming pool to oggle at semi-naked women who and whose males have lost sight of dignity and self respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxA4lmxjIbk
And also:

and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wwc6qCGzXQ
Speaks volumes.


One thing i'm careful of recently is giving the enemies of Allah the opportunity to attack the people of the groups they arm because some of those groups are set up in order to gather intelligence against their own members (dajjal is a scary concept), and the majority of those people are sincere mujahideen risking their lives for Allah's sake and doing what they can to establish Islamic rule in their communities. Also, the fact that the drunk kuffar leaders arm the mujahideen helps the people of the world learn that things aren't so black and white as they thought and the fact that the kuffar leaders have to justify arming them by touting the benefit shields the weaker Muslims from having to pretend that Jihad is not a part of Islam.
so ultimately Islam in it's entirety is justified.

That's just some observations and hypothesis. But kritikvernunft i am both impressed and wary of you at the same time lol.
to think i went to sleep after watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFy4GJPsvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiPhz71c2o
angry with the Muslims remaining in the lands of kufr whilst acting as a sort of shield preventing those given the ability from initiating a prayer of destruction and woke up to be somewhat consoled by your posts :)

That's deep dude, there's a bigger picture i keep forgetting, maybe Allah's will for khilafah is more universal.

[Aaqib]

Exactly. There is obviously nothing wrong with that. What would you prefer? Would you prefer that the kafirs control all the important buttons, or that it is a Muslim nearby who does it?

The only Muslims the US army is attacking is ISIS, and ISIS is in the wrong. You want them to come to America and kill all of us, including the muslims? Doesn't seem so.

[Abz2000]

The only Muslims the US army is attacking is ISIS, and ISIS is in the wrong. You want them to come to America and kill all of us, including the muslims? Doesn't seem so.

Why is your dad and his kafir army so concerned about travelling across oceans to fight innocent people whilst arming them to fight each other and use you as cannon fodder?
isn't it better and easier that they spend the resources in establishing Islam and checking sinners in their own country?
from what i hear, America has the largest and most disproportionate ratio criminal population on the planet, larger than then next God knows how many countries combined.

[M.I.A.]

I disliked trump before he even found an outlet for political views..

although I think he has a plan for censorship of Internet porn..

which would solve all out problems.

..which would be great.

[Aaqib]

@AbZ - He isn't fighting innocent people... at least, I don't think anyone considers ISIS innocent people.

And what do you mean by "isn't it better and easier that they spend the resources in establishing Islam and checking sinners in their own country?"? He's fighting for his country... what's bad about that??

[Abz2000]

@AbZ - He isn't fighting innocent people... at least, I don't think anyone considers ISIS innocent people.

From what i gather - aside from the lies of the kaafir media which appears to have an irrational difficulty in reporting the truth and breaking it's habit of lying - they were busy trying to establish Islamic rule amongst people in the middle east.

[MENTION=4566] And what do you mean by "isn't it better and easier that they spend the resources in establishing Islam and checking sinners in their own country?"? He's fighting for his country... what's bad about that??

The people who you call "isis" weren't sending troops to America and were highly focused on their own Muslim community which had been under secular rule for almost half a century since the colonisations, actually, it was an observation that set them apart from many other groups that they appeared to have a rule of looking to their own people, so you are at least mistaken, or more probably deceitful in your claim that your father is fighting for his country, btw, i would be intrigued to know when it was that your country which is a piece of clay/mud on the opposite side of the planet developed a mind to think with, and a mouth to speak with for it to tell your father to "fight for it" with authority above that of God. Or is it that your tyrants speak and fabricate on behalf of such an idol as did their pagan predecessors of the past? Is it that ye worship that which ye yourselves carve?


51.*We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him.
52.*Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?"
53.*They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them."
54.*He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers."
55.*They said, "Have you brought us the Truth, or are you one of those who jest?"
56.*He said, "Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth).
57.*"And by Allah, I have a plan for your idols - after ye go away and turn your backs"..
58.*So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and address themselves) to it.
59.*They said, "Who has done this to our gods? He must indeed be some man of impiety!"
60.*They said, "We heard a youth talk of them: He is called Abraham."
61.*They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may bear witness."
62.*They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?"
63.*He said: "Nay, this was done by - this is their biggest one! ask them, if they can speak intelligently!"
64.*So they turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!"
65.*Then were they confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!"
66.*(Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides Allah, things that can neither be of any good to you nor do you harm?
67.*"Fie upon you, and upon the things that ye worship besides Allah. Have ye no sense?"..
68.*They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"
69.*We said, "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!"
70.*Then they sought a stratagem against him: but We made them the ones that lost most!

From Quran Chapter 21, The Prophets, Yusuf Ali Translation

[kritikvernunft]

The only Muslims the US army is attacking is ISIS, and ISIS is in the wrong. You want them to come to America and kill all of us, including the muslims? Doesn't seem so.

The only situation in history, that I know of, in which someone really wanted to kill people just for the sake of killing people, is when Hitler absolutely wanted to kill the Jews. Otherwise, it was always about land, resources, political power, religion, or something in that sense. Whoever the ISIS label is supposed to cover -- even that is not particularly clear -- they are certainly not going to expend that kind of effort just for the sake of killing people. That is very unlikely. It is just too much work! I guess that if Obama stopped sending drones over their heads, they would already calm down quite a bit! ;-)

[Abz2000]

The only situation in history, that I know of, in which someone really wanted to kill people just for the sake of killing people, is when Hitler absolutely wanted to kill the Jews. Otherwise, it was always about land, resources, political power, religion, or something in that sense. Whoever the ISIS label is supposed to cover -- even that is not particularly clear -- they are certainly not going to expend that kind of effort just for the sake of killing people. That is very unlikely. It is just too much work! I guess that if Obama stopped sending drones over their heads, they would already calm down quite a bit! ;-)

Oh kritikvernunft, you are either speaking plainly or are illusorily speaking about something else altogether with one eye closed ( wink) and thereby stating that Allah, the master of the universe is with the Muslims and is indeed tormenting certain people for something, either way, nice read.

Just a bit of advice though, if you're speaking plainly, wonderful, but otherwise be aware that Allah played Pharaoh then siezed him when Pharaoh said: "i am your lord most high".

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@Abz2000

I know you won't be able to read my post as I'm on your IB's ignore list. However, I have already told you that if I ever perceive you promoting terrorism in any form, I will be reporting your posts. And I am. Definitely.

I cannot describe the utter repulsion I feel for your extremist position in STILL supporting Daesh after all this time. However, before I do, I'm going to make a post detailing all the fatwa (legal ruling) and general positions about terrorism from Islamic scholars who have utterly condemned Daesh and also Muslim speakers condemning Daesh and also terrorism in any form alongside explanation of jihad.

Whether or not you may benefit from such a subsequent post is irrelevant because you still represent a person too demented to understand why Islamically your position is contemptible and utterly un-Islamic.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Post detailing all the fatwa (legal ruling) and general positions about terrorism from Islamic scholars who have utterly condemned Daesh and also Muslim speakers condemning Daesh and also terrorism in any form alongside explanation of jihad:

1. Talk to Al Jazeera - Former al-Qaeda Mufti: I condemn ISIL attacks (Video)
2. Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings (512 page PDF Fatwa)
3. The Crisis of ISIS: A Prophetic Prediction | Sermon by Hamza Yusuf (Video)
4. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf speaking about ISIS (Video)
5. UpFront - Why do people join ISIL? (Video)
6. How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To Terrorism (Article)
7. Islamic State And What Muslims Need to Be Doing? By Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
8. Mufti Menk On ISIS & Extremism (Video)
9. Does Islam allow Idols to be destroyed like ISIS did? Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
10. Letter to Baghdadi (Letter)
11. Refuting ISIS - Lecture by Syria's Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoub
12. ISIS burns alive Jordanian Pilot - Sheikh Dr. Haitham al-Haddad responds (Video)
13. The Dangers of Extremism (ISIS - Al Muhajiroun - Zionists) - Sheikh Abu Usamah At-Thahabi (Video)
14. Historic Islamic Edict (Fatwa) on Joining ISIS/ISIL (Fatwa)
15. Khawarij Ideology, ISIS Savagery: Part One (Article)
16. Muslims Against ISIS Part 1: Clerics & Scholars (Article)
17. MUI: No Need Fatwa, ISIS already Haram (Article)
18. Al-Azhar graduates reject ISIS 'caliphate' (Article)
19. Syrian Islamic Fatwa Council about the state of Iraq and the Levant (Daash) (Article)
20. Syrian Islamic Council (Article)
21. Shaykh Salih Al-Suhaymee (Video)
22. ISIS is a terrorist organization! Explained by Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee (Article)
23. Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi Interviewed by Syria Comment (Article)
24. Fatwa : Haram Ikut ISIS Dalam Jihad Suriah (Video)
25. ISIS & The Alleged Khilāfah - Shaykh Sālih as Suhaymī (Video)
26. ‘ISIS is enemy No. 1 of Islam,’ says Saudi grand mufti (Article)
27. Don't Blame Others, Blame Yourself (Video)
28. Iraq Sunni Mufti: ISIS and Al Qaeda Slaughtered 300 Sunni Clerics (English Subtitles) (Video)
29. Daesh/Shaytan State are Khawarij (outside Islam) (Video)
30. The Khawarij: ISIS Crisis and the Youth - Brother Alyas Karmani (Video)
31. ISIS 1 of 2: A Historical Analysis of their ideology, and the Kharijites (Video) & ISIS: Historical Analysis of Its Ideology (Kharijites) 2 of 2 (Video)
32. The Khawarij of Our Times (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc) & The True Khilafah (Video)
33. Yayasan Ta'lim: ISIS Is Not Islam [19-03-15] (Video)
34. Egypt's Grand Mufti refuses to call Jihadists in Iraq as Islamic State (Article)
35. ISIS action is worse than genocide: Muslim intellectuals (Article)
36. A statement on the status of al-Shami Jihad and the risks surrounding the scientists dialogue in Riyadh with Mr. Osama Hamdan, Hamas representative in Lebanon D.oled Tabtabai: Istanbul Conference open vistas large to support the Gaza .. and steadfastness revived the role of scientists hunting Media General Supervisor of rational Media Forum for the third satellite is designed to the advancement of media industry (Fatwa)
37. Prominent Muslim Sheikh Issues Fatwa Against ISIS Violence (Article)
38. Canadian imams issue fatwa against ISIS (Article)
39. Muslim leaders including the Grand Mufti of Australia back fatwa against Islamic State
40. Grand mufti says Daesh un-Islamic (Article)
41. Conclusive scholarly opinions on ISIS (Article)
42. Qaradawi says ‘jihadist caliphate’ violates sharia (Article)
43. Arab League denounces ISIS attacks as “crimes against humanity” (Article)
44. Turkey's top cleric calls new Islamic 'caliphate' illegitimate (Article)
45. Islamic State (IS): Hate, Brutality, Oppression & Mayhem (Article)
46. Leading British Muslims issue fatwa condemning ISIS (Article)
47. ISIS: The Enemy of Islam (Video)
48. On War & Beheading: How ISIS Manipulates Hadiths - Shaykh Faraz Rabbani
49. Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not
50. 24 reasons ISIS are wrong: Muslim scholars blast Islamic State (Article)
51. Shaykh Habib Ali Al-Jifri Refuting ISIS Khawarij Ideology (Video)
52. Concept of Jihad in Islam - Al-Habib Ali Al-Jifri & Hamza Yusuf (Video)

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Post detailing all the fatwa (legal ruling) and general positions about terrorism from Islamic scholars who have utterly condemned Daesh and also Muslim speakers condemning Daesh and also terrorism in any form alongside explanation of jihad:

1. Talk to Al Jazeera - Former al-Qaeda Mufti: I condemn ISIL attacks (Video)
2. Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings (512 page PDF Fatwa)
3. The Crisis of ISIS: A Prophetic Prediction | Sermon by Hamza Yusuf (Video)
4. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf speaking about ISIS (Video)
5. UpFront - Why do people join ISIL? (Video)
6. How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To Terrorism (Article)
7. Islamic State And What Muslims Need to Be Doing? By Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
8. Mufti Menk On ISIS & Extremism (Video)
9. Does Islam allow Idols to be destroyed like ISIS did? Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
10. Letter to Baghdadi (Letter)
11. Refuting ISIS - Lecture by Syria's Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoub
12. ISIS burns alive Jordanian Pilot - Sheikh Dr. Haitham al-Haddad responds (Video)
13. The Dangers of Extremism (ISIS - Al Muhajiroun - Zionists) - Sheikh Abu Usamah At-Thahabi (Video)
14. Historic Islamic Edict (Fatwa) on Joining ISIS/ISIL (Fatwa)
15. Khawarij Ideology, ISIS Savagery: Part One (Article)
16. Muslims Against ISIS Part 1: Clerics & Scholars (Article)
17. MUI: No Need Fatwa, ISIS already Haram (Article)
18. Al-Azhar graduates reject ISIS 'caliphate' (Article)
19. Syrian Islamic Fatwa Council about the state of Iraq and the Levant (Daash) (Article)
20. Syrian Islamic Council (Article)
21. Shaykh Salih Al-Suhaymee (Video)
22. ISIS is a terrorist organization! Explained by Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee (Article)
23. Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi Interviewed by Syria Comment (Article)
24. Fatwa : Haram Ikut ISIS Dalam Jihad Suriah (Video)
25. ISIS & The Alleged Khilāfah - Shaykh Sālih as Suhaymī (Video)
26. ‘ISIS is enemy No. 1 of Islam,’ says Saudi grand mufti (Article)
27. Don't Blame Others, Blame Yourself (Video)
28. Iraq Sunni Mufti: ISIS and Al Qaeda Slaughtered 300 Sunni Clerics (English Subtitles) (Video)
29. Daesh/Shaytan State are Khawarij (outside Islam) (Video)
30. The Khawarij: ISIS Crisis and the Youth - Brother Alyas Karmani (Video)
31. ISIS 1 of 2: A Historical Analysis of their ideology, and the Kharijites (Video) & ISIS: Historical Analysis of Its Ideology (Kharijites) 2 of 2 (Video)
32. The Khawarij of Our Times (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc) & The True Khilafah (Video)
33. Yayasan Ta'lim: ISIS Is Not Islam [19-03-15] (Video)
34. Egypt's Grand Mufti refuses to call Jihadists in Iraq as Islamic State (Article)
35. ISIS action is worse than genocide: Muslim intellectuals (Article)
36. A statement on the status of al-Shami Jihad and the risks surrounding the scientists dialogue in Riyadh with Mr. Osama Hamdan, Hamas representative in Lebanon D.oled Tabtabai: Istanbul Conference open vistas large to support the Gaza .. and steadfastness revived the role of scientists hunting Media General Supervisor of rational Media Forum for the third satellite is designed to the advancement of media industry (Fatwa)
37. Prominent Muslim Sheikh Issues Fatwa Against ISIS Violence (Article)
38. Canadian imams issue fatwa against ISIS (Article)
39. Muslim leaders including the Grand Mufti of Australia back fatwa against Islamic State
40. Grand mufti says Daesh un-Islamic (Article)
41. Conclusive scholarly opinions on ISIS (Article)
42. Qaradawi says ‘jihadist caliphate’ violates sharia (Article)
43. Arab League denounces ISIS attacks as “crimes against humanity” (Article)
44. Turkey's top cleric calls new Islamic 'caliphate' illegitimate (Article)
45. Islamic State (IS): Hate, Brutality, Oppression & Mayhem (Article)
46. Leading British Muslims issue fatwa condemning ISIS (Article)
47. ISIS: The Enemy of Islam (Video)
48. On War & Beheading: How ISIS Manipulates Hadiths - Shaykh Faraz Rabbani
49. Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not
50. 24 reasons ISIS are wrong: Muslim scholars blast Islamic State (Article)
51. Shaykh Habib Ali Al-Jifri Refuting ISIS Khawarij Ideology (Video)
52. Concept of Jihad in Islam - Al-Habib Ali Al-Jifri & Hamza Yusuf (Video)

Search... I have copied your post and saved it offline. I intend to repost it whenever and wherever I read the common assertion by those who don't know better, that Muslims don't or haven't disavowed terrorism. Thanks for posting it.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@kritikvernunft

I apologize for misunderstanding. However, you have to understand that many of your thoughts are extreme. I don't know enough to know one way or another why you would want to revert - however, the reason I hope you would revert is that you see Islam as the Truth and not because you believe it is a religion in which you mistakenly believe you can take extreme positions because Islam rejects extremism.

Also, I looked at your explanation of Syrian refugees infiltrating European Union, and I find your rhetoric similar to right wing groups in Europe and even in the U.S. who irrationally believe that there is some "conspiracy" of sending refugees to the EU to weaken the countries with the goal of an internal combustion. I find that reasoning invalid because I see it as falling into logical fallacy known as "Failing Occam's Razor" which holds that the simplest explanation of any situation is likely to be true. So, for example, a person didn't study for the physics test and then receives a failing grade and instead concludes that the reason the teacher gave him that grade is because the teacher didn't like him. However, the simplest explanation of the failing grade is that he failed to study and therefore failed to answer the questions correctly and therefore rightfully earned that failing grade. In this situation, the simplest explanation is that Syria has become a hellhole with the war and with Daesh currently brutally vying for power in the region against the brutal regime of Assad and brutalization of his forces. In the migration process, the Syrian refugees knew they might die but with the way things were and still are in Syria, they were likely to die anyway and so they chose the option that they felt would offer them a chance to escape the country and maybe find a semblance of stability and chance at a normal life without war.

Secondly, you're right that all of the events currently unfolding are God's plans. And Islamic end-time prophecies do not support what you're saying because in the end the battle that will take place immediately leading to Armageddon will be WWIII between Christian-majority nations and that means probably Russia and America as I once heard an Islamic scholar once also say. And the war of ideas doesn't happen until after one of them wins and then after that there really is an ideological war and physical war that occurs between on one side, Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) alongside the believers with Mahdi alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) against Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and his evil forces. For example, right now in the world, there is too much confusion and no one knows who is the standard-bearer of truth and who is the standard-bearer of falsehood. However, in that latter time to which I'm referring, the sifting of that confusion has already occurred and the war will literally be between good vs. evil, truth vs. falsehood.

Do I sound like someone who would join a losing proposition? If Islam had no chance of succeeding, do you really believe that I would be interested?

Ok. Say that the plan was to inject 5+ million Syrians into the European Union.
Half of the plan has succeeded already, because 2+ million Syrians have made it into the European Union already.
So, now my question: Are things going wrong right now, or are they going pretty much according to plan?

You may be confusing the real goals and real instruments.
The conflict will obviously be won by infiltration.
Bombings and shootings do not matter on the long run. They only make lots of noise, but they rarely achieve lasting results.

The civil war in Syria has not allowed whatsoever to the kafir to infiltrate Syria. It has allowed millions of Syrians to infiltrate the European Union. Erdogan tried to negotiate, and to turn the Syrian infiltration into more of a Turkish infiltration, by exacting "visa-free travel", out of his adversaries, for the Turks. Erdogan almost succeeded, actually. I must admit that his tactics reveal a very skilful player.

Difficult to say. Everything that happens, is always in one way or the other the will of the Creator of this universe, i.e. our Most Beloved Master, the One God, Allah.

If you mostly look at things that do not matter, you will get the wrong impression of what is going on.

Islam is obviously doing fantastically fine. That is exactly what the enemies of Islam are saying too, all the time, and they are absolutely right, but I can imagine that you do not see it! ;-)

Let me give you a historical example. The Roman empire kept persecuting and executing Christians, until in 313 in the Donatus Constantini, Christianity became official state religion of the Roman Empire, and started persecuting the pagans. The Christians did not win one single military battle against the pagans; not even one. They lost every possible battle, but still went on to spectacularly win the war. In another example, you can see that the North Vietnamese did not win one single military battle against the United States. Not one. They still went on to most decisively win the war.

In other words, military battles and their outcomes are usually unimportant. If you win a battle, but you cannot prevent the enemy from standing up and fighting again, you will lose the war, no matter how many battles that you have won, and will win, because in those circumstances, you will always lose the final battle. You can only defeat the enemy, if you can break his will to fight. It is utterly impossible to do that with weapons. However, if you make him doubt about his own beliefs, while you do not doubt yours, that is when you will have won.

[Serinity]

well, lets see how westerners see it:

They think all this terrorism comes from Islam, they think that the Qur'an supports those terrorists who kill people just because they are kafirs / non - Muslims. They think that the Qur'an actively endorses and commands terrorism, and complete intolerance towards every religion. To kill every non-muslim, regardless of religion. They think Shariah is to take over the whole world, and get rid of all non muslims..

And they think that Muslims think of non-muslims as lower-beings, etc.

Surely, USA has been bombing Middle east. And surely the Media does propaganda against Islam. And surely many think Islam and The Qur'an endorses terrorism, and that The angry Muslims, are true Muslims.

While those Muslims in the west who are nice and stuff have watered down their religion - if you want to see a real Muslim go to the middle east, they'll kill you.

you can't even call this watered down version of Islam, Islam, anymore. - That is how non-muslims think (or of what I've come to know)

So: Angry Muslim: Real Muslim. Kind Muslim: Someone who doesn't understand Islam.

Joining a kafir army and supporting a kafir army against Muslims is kufr, disbelief. assuming that USA is an enemy of Islam, it is. But I dare not make takfeer as things are way too unclear atm.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Aaqib]

well, lets see how westerners see it:

They think all this terrorism comes from Islam, they think that the Qur'an supports those terrorists who kill people just because they are kafirs / non - Muslims. They think that the Qur'an actively endorses and commands terrorism, and complete intolerance towards every religion. To kill every non-muslim, regardless of religion. They think Shariah is to take over the whole world, and get rid of all non muslims..

And they think that Muslims think of non-muslims as lower-beings, etc.

Surely, USA has been bombing Middle east. And surely the Media does propaganda against Islam. And surely many think Islam and The Qur'an endorses terrorism, and that The angry Muslims, are true Muslims.

While those Muslims in the west who are nice and stuff have watered down their religion - if you want to see a real Muslim go to the middle east, they'll kill you.

you can't even call this watered down version of Islam, Islam, anymore. - That is how non-muslims think (or of what I've come to know)

So: Angry Muslim: Real Muslim. Kind Muslim: Someone who doesn't understand Islam.

Joining a kafir army and supporting a kafir army against Muslims is kufr, disbelief. assuming that USA is an enemy of Islam, it is. But I dare not make takfeer as things are way too unclear atm.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

I don't understand.. how is it kufr? It's protecting your country, ISIS are muslims who are extreme/promote violence... C'mon, just because they're muslim, we can't attack them?! That's ludicrous. The USA isn't an enemy of Islam, how? What do you mean by "enemy of Islam"?

Seriously, I don't understand this at all.

[Serinity]

I don't understand.. how is it kufr? It's protecting your country, ISIS are muslims who are extreme/promote violence... C'mon, just because they're muslim, we can't attack them?! That's ludicrous. The USA isn't an enemy of Islam, how? What do you mean by "enemy of Islam"?

Seriously, I don't understand this at all.

I said assuming they are an Enemy of Islam.

Tbh I am confused too. But the fact that US bombs syria makes me think it is Haram to participate in the Army, and may even be kufr as you are actively supporting bombing civilians.

The media supports propaganda against Islam. Media is from the West. IF the US Army REALLY Wanted to attack Daesh/extremists. They should NOT use drones, and they SHOULD not destroy infrastructure.

I can't find a reason as to why and how it is justifable or Islamic to support US when they bomb Muslims, too.

Extremism is obviously haram and against/contrary to Islam.

[jabeady]

Search says in a reply, "Secondly, you're right that all of the events currently unfolding are God's plans."

Devout Christians also believe this, so I have a question to all of you: If everything happens according to God's plans, why complain? Why complain about anything? Why protest? Why resist? Why rebel?

[Aaqib]

Serinity I never said I supported the bombing of civilians, I support the ACTUAL FIGHTING against ISIS, the killings against civilians are disgusting, and my dad wouldn't do that.

I agree that the US shouldn't use drones and all that, but the main mission is to destroy the extremist ISIS.

[jabeady]

I can't find a reason as to why and how it is justifable or Islamic to support US when they bomb Muslims, too.

I know I'm going to get an argument from this, but when the US kills civilians, it's usually either an accident or unavoidable. When the enemy hides among the general population, noncombatants are going to suffer.

Daesh, OTOH, kills Muslims on purpose, and is very savage and brutal about it. I don't understand how Muslims can support them.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

And you're not understanding what I'm trying to say in return either! There seems to have existed a difference of scholarly opinion on joining the U.S. army as the fatwa (legal ruling) that I posted in my first post on this thread even indicates. What did Prophet :saws: say about differences of fiqh (Islamic legal) opinion? That they were a mercy for the ummah (nation). So, you bracketing Humayun Khan in a category that seems to fit in with your worldview of us vs. them is not necessarily the one that Humayun Khan followed or even one that I accept.

Islamophobia is currently a multi-million dollar industry, and the dollar signs are the reason people get into this business and not because they really hate Islam (though some of them might, but that does not take away from the fact that most of them in it are there for the moolah). The logical fallacy that you are making is called "failing Occam's razor" which holds that the simplest explanation of any situation is the most likely true explanation. Islamophobic pundits are rich, and getting richer, because there is an audience for this market that wants to buy into the us vs. them thing. So, again, I do not believe there is a "war on Islam" as there is the simplest explanation behind the phenomena which is atavistic greed.

Again, I have said before that I do have sympathy for Muslims' death toll in Muslim-majority countries. However, what I take objection to is the idea that Muslims who live in Western lands must somehow are not addressing the death toll of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries; they are. Muslims have in the past alongside their non-Muslim brethren tried to ensure that politicians who get voted into office are not warmongering politicians. In fact, electing of President Obama was largely about how tired non-Muslims and Muslims were in the United States about participating in this war, especially after Iraq War had been exposed to have been constructed on a political lie. However, just because the electorate want one thing doesn't mean that the political leaders who promise such things have the same goals and agendas as they progress through their terms in office; President Obama, for example, we know continued to use drones on Muslim-majority countries. However, that is not the fault of the electorate that voted in good conscience a leader who they thought would bring change and peace in the U.S. At the end of the day, we're not God and therefore cannot do more than that. Muslims in Western countries are also not unified or strong enough yet to be able to lobby for our interests to ensure that Muslim-majority countries are not attacked, but Muslims and non-Muslims are trying and I take objection to the fact that you dismiss that effort altogether.

Finally, I understand that I'm privileged because I live in the First World; I do not deny that privilege and therefore you are right that I cannot completely understand the horrors of those who live in the Third World. However, just because I have not experienced the horrors, does not mean that my sympathy is any less. I assume, for example, that you have two hands and two legs. However, I assume you are still able to sympathize with the plight of an individual who is handicapped or paralyzed. Do you really believe that you need to be handicapped and/or paralyzed too in order to feel "true" sympathy for people who are? If so, I find that position devoid of understanding of human emotions.

At the end of the day, I'd remind you that if the ummah (nation) is suffering and I do not deny its suffering, Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) asked us to be patient until we can be granted relief and remember that everything is Allah's Plan and therefore any relief can also only come from Allah.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Wa'alaikum as'salaam,

it seems that you are reading but not comprehending. I'm not the one making Takfir. I'm putting the two together for you, one, a muslim joining the kuffar army to go kill Muslims, invade and occupy a Muslim land and two, what the scholars say on the matter.

Since quoting the relevant portion did not help, i suggest visiting the site to read the whole passage in its entirety.

https://islamqa.info/en/33691

Sadly, you failed to comprehend this point as well. IF we do not address the holocaust of the Muslims then who will? I said there is a war ON Islam not with Islam. There is a war ON Islam and ON Muslims. The holocaust of 20 million Muslims, the invasion and total destruction of Muslim nations and the continued occupation and war mongering of more Muslim lands is the testament to that.

Stop trying to be a diplomatic Muslimah and open your eyes. Don't act so high and mighty just because your family wasn't wiped out, raped or burnt and pissed on. Those that were were also your brothers/sisters in Islam.

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is far greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason. [3:118]

[Serinity]

Serinity I never said I supported the bombing of civilians, I support the ACTUAL FIGHTING against ISIS, the killings against civilians are disgusting, and my dad wouldn't do that.

I agree that the US shouldn't use drones and all that, but the main mission is to destroy the extremist ISIS.

I know I'm going to get an argument from this, but when the US kills civilians, it's usually either an accident or unavoidable. When the enemy hides among the general population, noncombatants are going to suffer.

Daesh, OTOH, kills Muslims on purpose, and is very savage and brutal about it. I don't understand how Muslims can support them.

I am not saying to support ISIS either as they kill and do so many injustices/unislamic things, to my knowledge.

They can march on foot, rather than bomb unprecisely.

AFAIK, one can not fight for Democracy, but only Shariah.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Let me try to take a stab at answering this question. While everything is according to God's plan, we don't know what God's Plans are and we are held responsible for every individual action or individual reaction and collectively both as a humanity therefore we must ensure that the world a is fair and just place.

God's plan is our free will, but we are not to abuse our free will to oppress or be oppressed. So, while God has given us free will as part of His plan and also specific events in the world occur as part of His plan, we're not exempt from being accountable and trying to do our best.

The reason that believers of any faith complain about anything is because we're not patient and do not have rida (contentment) with God's Will. Islam means submission to God's Will, and it is hard as flawed human beings to find patience and contentment with things when things do not go according to our desires and accept God's Will and Plan over our own. A good Islamic lecture on this topic is Reliance on Allah: The Cure for an Ummah in Crisis.

Search says in a reply, "Secondly, you're right that all of the events currently unfolding are God's plans."

Devout Christians also believe this, so I have a question to all of you: If everything happens according to God's plans, why complain? Why complain about anything? Why protest? Why resist? Why rebel?

[jabeady]

I am not saying to support ISIS either as they kill and do so many injustices/unislamic things, to my knowledge.

They can march on foot, rather than bomb unprecisely.

AFAIK, one can not fight for Democracy, but only Shariah.

Your way of thinking and mine seem to be fairly close. I have always felt that the only way to win a war is to go after them with irresistible force and absolutely crush them. Unfortunately, I'm not the President.

The problem nowadays is that the US is tired, after 15 years of war. I know, the Middle East is just as tired, but it doesn't have the options of either just quitting or fighting at a distance. The US has those options, and a lot of people see no reason for a ground war. It really gets complicated when you realize that Donald Trump would be the President most likely to send in troops, but God only knows what else he'd do; I read a news story the other day, wondering how long it would take Trump to launch a nuclear weapon.

Regarding Shariah v Democracy, the only thing that matters to me is that the citizens can at least tolerate it. When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia initially tried to institute American style democracy; it didn't take long, though, for the present system to take hold, resembling a marriage of Czarist Russia and the Supreme Soviet. The saying that Russia needs a czar seems to be true.

We also seem to forget that American democracy didn't just appear one day, it was the result of at least 200 years of philosophical thought and British neglect. What we see in America today is the result of another two centuries of growth.

My point is, political and legal systems are like plants. They grow naturally over time, and only in certain settings. You could transplant a Scotch Pine tree to Tunisia just as "easily" as you could impose American democracy on Iran, or Shariah on China.

BTW, you might be interested in this story. Or, just Google Dearborn Muslims for other articles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...americans.html

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I disagree with the use of drones. And I do think we as a country are many times irresponsible in the way we use them.

The aforesaid does not excuse Daesh, however, in the slightest.

However, as to why some irrational Muslims would support Daesh, it is because they are too angry and yes even hypocritical to care about the irrationality of such a support position. For example, the emotional appeal Daesh makes to some susceptible Muslims is the death toll on account of drones as such. So, on one hand, Daesh foments anger against deaths of innocent Muslims elsewhere in the globe. And on the other hand, Daesh themselves go out of their way and kill and have successfully killed uncountable Muslims. For example, 6 Muslims died in Paris Attacks, 1/3 of the victims in the Nice Attack were Muslims, only Muslims died in the Turkish airport attack, and so on and so forth this does not include the Muslims in Syria who opposed Daesh and are dead for their show of opposition.

However, my disgust and opposition to Daesh doesn't hinge on Muslim death tolls, rather their deliberate plans that include non-Muslim deaths. Daesh are absolutely gung-ho about killing non-Muslim civilians in other countries and even in Syria, which from my worldview is disgusting and the most heinous un-Islamic position to take. Daesh's publications are psychopathic and celebratory about such deaths. In Islam, if you even kill one innocent life, it is as if you have killed all of humanity as the Quran says, yet these extremists do not care about that.

On another site, I had the misfortune of speaking with some idiotic Daesh supporters and received death threats for trying to show them the irrationality of their position from Quran and Sunnah and fatwas (legal rulings). However, one good thing is that I have seen on that site that even the few who used to support Daesh do not any longer, and yet Abz2000 here is an exception to that rule on IB.

I know I'm going to get an argument from this, but when the US kills civilians, it's usually either an accident or unavoidable. When the enemy hides among the general population, noncombatants are going to suffer.

Daesh, OTOH, kills Muslims on purpose, and is very savage and brutal about it. I don't understand how Muslims can support them.

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I disagree with the use of drones. And I do think we as a country are many times irresponsible in the way we use them.

The aforesaid does not excuse Daesh, however, in the slightest.

However, as to why some irrational Muslims would support Daesh, it is because they are too angry and yes even hypocritical to care about the irrationality of such a support position. For example, the emotional appeal Daesh makes to some susceptible Muslims is the death toll on account of drones as such. So, on one hand, Daesh foments anger against deaths of innocent Muslims elsewhere in the globe. And on the other hand, Daesh themselves go out of their way and kill and have successfully killed uncountable Muslims. For example, 6 Muslims died in Paris Attacks, 1/3 of the victims in the Nice Attack were Muslims, only Muslims died in the Turkish airport attack, and so on and so forth this does not include the Muslims in Syria who opposed Daesh and are dead for their show of opposition.

However, my disgust and opposition to Daesh doesn't hinge on Muslim death tolls, rather their deliberate plans that include non-Muslim deaths. Daesh are absolutely gung-ho about killing non-Muslim civilians in other countries and even in Syria, which from my worldview is disgusting and the most heinous un-Islamic position to take. Daesh's publications are psychopathic and celebratory about such deaths. In Islam, if you even kill one innocent life, it is as if you have killed all of humanity as the Quran says, yet these extremists do not care about that.

On another site, I had the misfortune of speaking with some idiotic Daesh supporters and received death threats for trying to show them the irrationality of their position from Quran and Sunnah and fatwas (legal rulings). However, one good thing is that I have seen on that site that even the few who used to support Daesh do not any longer, and yet Abz2000 here is an exception to that rule on IB. Abz2000, however, is perhaps even more deranged than I had initially thought when I came onto IB as others like him have reformed their views due to the fact that Daesh got too extreme for even them.

The rationale behind the drones is that it's the only practical way to go after Daesh's leaders. The saying is that they're trying to cut the head off the snake. They could have sent a drone after Bin Laden but they wanted to bring back proof, his body, that he was dead.

That said, I'm conflicted about drones. They do the job, but they do seem unnecessarily lethal and indiscriminate. It's pretty much the same, but not as bad, as the bombing campaigns of WW2. Think Hamburg or Dresden or London or Tokyo. Modern historians now think the bombing campaigns didn't really accomplish very much. In fact, indiscriminately bombing civilian populations has been shown to increase their will to resist.

Here in the US, many/most people own guns and either hunt or target shoot (I own several older - style guns and I target shoot). Gun safety is a major topic, and one of the primary safety rules is to hold your fire until you have positively identified your target. I can only hope that drone pilots and their commanders follow the same rules.

[Serinity]

Your way of thinking and mine seem to be fairly close. I have always felt that the only way to win a war is to go after them with irresistible force and absolutely crush them. Unfortunately, I'm not the President.

The problem nowadays is that the US is tired, after 15 years of war. I know, the Middle East is just as tired, but it doesn't have the options of either just quitting or fighting at a distance. The US has those options, and a lot of people see no reason for a ground war. It really gets complicated when you realize that Donald Trump would be the President most likely to send in troops, but God only knows what else he'd do; I read a news story the other day, wondering how long it would take Trump to launch a nuclear weapon.

Regarding Shariah v Democracy, the only thing that matters to me is that the citizens can at least tolerate it. When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia initially tried to institute American style democracy; it didn't take long, though, for the present system to take hold, resembling a marriage of Czarist Russia and the Supreme Soviet. The saying that Russia needs a czar seems to be true.

We also seem to forget that American democracy didn't just appear one day, it was the result of at least 200 years of philosophical thought and British neglect. What we see in America today is the result of another two centuries of growth.

My point is, political and legal systems are like plants. They grow naturally over time, and only in certain settings. You could transplant a Scotch Pine tree to Tunisia just as "easily" as you could impose American democracy on Iran, or Shariah on China.

BTW, you might be interested in this story. Or, just Google Dearborn Muslims for other articles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...americans.html

Idk why, but I like your aura for some reason! :/ LOL. may Allah :swt: guide you. Ameen.

Tbh, I do not know much about Shariah, So I can not talk about its legal rulings.

But I honestly just want the best for mankind. I am no near a good person. But I like like-minded people. As for war. None truly wants war.

But what I do know is that Shariah strives to uphold Law, Order, and security.

I hate murderers, and people who instigate disorder and insecurity. Regardless of religion.

Aside from the fact that I haven't read that link yet. I, after ironically watching horror stories on Youtube, want a society with TOP notch security. I, as a Muslim, want Shariah, which means justice for all.

My ignorance when it comes to Shariah Laws, is such, I can not make any comments, except that I know to be Just and fair, to all.

War is something I don't like. The only time War can be justified is to rid off people who impede the spread of Islam - dawah from entering. I.e. when someone is like "I won't let you guys have this community hear about Islam ever" or something .

Or when injustices or oppression is happening.

may Allah :swt: forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.

[jabeady]

Idk why, but I like your aura for some reason! :/ LOL. may Allah :swt: guide you. Ameen.

Tbh, I do not know much about Shariah, So I can not talk about its legal rulings.

But I honestly just want the best for mankind. I am no near a good person. But I like like-minded people. As for war. None truly wants war.

But what I do know is that Shariah strives to uphold Law, Order, and security.

I hate murderers, and people who instigate disorder and insecurity. Regardless of religion.

Aside from the fact that I haven't read that link yet. I, after ironically watching horror stories on Youtube, want a society with TOP notch security. I, as a Muslim, want Shariah, which means justice for all.

My ignorance when it comes to Shariah Laws, is such, I can not make any comments, except that I know to be Just and fair, to all.

War is something I don't like. The only time War can be justified is to rid off people who impede the spread of Islam - dawah from entering. I.e. when someone is like "I won't let you guys have this community hear about Islam ever" or something .

Or when injustices or oppression is happening.

may Allah :swt: forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.

You like my aura? Thank you. :)

I don't know much about Shariah, either. It does have the reputation of being unusually oppressive, harsh and strict. Even so, like I said earlier, I can well imagine there are places and people where it would be the only "natural" form of government.

OTOH, as an atheist, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near a place ruled by Shariah: http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/

[Aaqib]

.........

[Aaqib]

You like my aura? Thank you. :)

I don't know much about Shariah, either. It does have the reputation of being unusually oppressive, harsh and strict. Even so, like I said earlier, I can well imagine there are places and people where it would be the only "natural" form of government.

OTOH, as an atheist, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near a place ruled by Shariah: http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/

Please jabeady, you don't actually think those places which hold athiesm to death is real sharia, do you?

[jabeady]

Please jabeady, you don't actually think those places which hold athiesm to death is real sharia, do you?

I don't know. Google Shariah Atheist and a lot of articles appear. OTOH, I am quite ready to believe that Shariah in one place is not the same as Shariah in another.

From the cited article:

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

[Abz2000]

You like my aura? Thank you. :)

I don't know much about Shariah, either. It does have the reputation of being unusually oppressive, harsh and strict. Even so, like I said earlier, I can well imagine there are places and people where it would be the only "natural" form of government.

OTOH, as an atheist, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near a place ruled by Shariah: http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/

Salams oh Muslims, and may Allah guide those whom he wills to guide, just got back from watching some recent zakir naik shows and found a whole load of comments thrown apparently at a void so i'll comment on the last one.
Lol dude God knows where you'd go then coz out of all things that are possible for God, you somehow chose one of the very few He's incapable of granting, i don't think He's capable of throwing you out of His dominion since everything is His dominion, the sun, the moon, the stars, mars, mercury to pluto, the trees, the law of gravity and aging, are all governed by the shariah of Allah, pitiful position since even commiting suicide won't help, poor bugger. :)

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَسْجُدُ لَهُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَن فِي الْأَرْضِ وَالشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ وَالنُّجُومُ وَالْجِبَالُ وَالشَّجَرُ وَالدَّوَابُّ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنَ النَّاسِ وَكَثِيرٌ حَقَّ عَلَيْهِ الْعَذَابُ وَمَن يُهِنِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّكْرِمٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يَشَاء {18*022:018*Khan: See you not that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and Ad-Dawab (moving living creatures, beasts, etc.), and many of mankind? But there are many (men) on whom the punishment is justified. And whomsoever Allah disgraces, none can honour him. Verily! Allah does what He wills.
Quran 22:18

It's better that we aim to be servants of God than unwilling slaves since servants get a decent payoff at the end of the day, and the way He's shown is the best way when you make a comparitive unbiased study.

Some people are amazing, first they tell me to go back to my own country despite having only a british passport, i leave and find a country whose people at least accept me as their own (despite the government being a puppet) then they want to leave God's dominion and put the sun and moon on standby or even switch them off! Hell knows what they'll demand next......


.... 11In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land,*
12And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.

Deuteronomy 34

[Aaqib]

I don't know. Google Shariah Atheist and a lot of articles appear. OTOH, I am quite ready to believe that Shariah in one place is not the same as Shariah in another.

From the cited article:

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

I read that non muslims can live in a muslim ruled country peacefully, those countries might just simply have there own version of Sharia.

[Aaqib]

Well idk about athiests cuz no one in the prophet :saw: days were athiests, i think.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I do not agree with the use of drones primarily because of the reasons on which you have touched. While it is a convenient and expedient way, it is also indiscriminate and we end up taking civilian lives alongside. I do not believe we can ethically afford to follow the Machiavellian formula of the end justifying the means as it dishonors us as human beings.

Not only does drones in this case increases the will to resist but it leaves a vacuum for the next type of Daesh-type organization to rise. Eric H, one of our nicest Christian members, once said that hatred begets hatred and we need to instead expend our energies on constructive solutions. I agree with him.

It is not that I think our drone commanders and pilots are not careful but that I think militarily they are told they cannot afford the luxury of second-guessing in attacking the target and that target often does comprise of civilian deaths because that's largely unavoidable. Read Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target. And also read U.S. Dropped 23,144 Bombs on Muslim-Majority Countries in 2015.

The rationale behind the drones is that it's the only practical way to go after Daesh's leaders. The saying is that they're trying to cut the head off the snake. They could have sent a drone after Bin Laden but they wanted to bring back proof, his body, that he was dead.

That said, I'm conflicted about drones. They do the job, but they do seem unnecessarily lethal and indiscriminate. It's pretty much the same, but not as bad, as the bombing campaigns of WW2. Think Hamburg or Dresden or London or Tokyo. Modern historians now think the bombing campaigns didn't really accomplish very much. In fact, indiscriminately bombing civilian populations has been shown to increase their will to resist.

Here in the US, many/most people own guns and either hunt or target shoot (I own several older - style guns and I target shoot). Gun safety is a major topic, and one of the primary safety rules is to hold your fire until you have positively identified your target. I can only hope that drone pilots and their commanders follow the same rules.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I used to be an atheist and I can tell you that a lot of the propositions spouted about shariah (Islamic Law) are based in ignorance, half-truths, or distortions. I did discuss shariah in a post tangentially called "What Makes A Person a Muslim?" but for a wider understanding about shariah, I'd refer you to the treatise written by an Islamic scholar called Understanding Islamic Law.

Secondly, no, you won't die if you go to Saudi Arabia as an atheist; I'm sure when they speak of atheism in this context, they're referring to Muslim citizens apostatizing in those countries and adopting atheism. While these specific nation-states enumerated in the article are not a theocratic state (except for Saudi Arabia), they're not secular nation-states either; they're in-between types and therefore they conflate apostatizing with becoming traitors to the nation-states.

You like my aura? Thank you. :)

I don't know much about Shariah, either. It does have the reputation of being unusually oppressive, harsh and strict. Even so, like I said earlier, I can well imagine there are places and people where it would be the only "natural" form of government.

OTOH, as an atheist, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near a place ruled by Shariah: http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/

[Serinity]

:salam:

Apostasy Law applies on muslims who apostasise from Islam. There is a process to that. It is either a 3-day or a 30-day, Idk which. After which one is executed, if one doesn't return.

Allah :swt: forbade oppression for Himself, so how can His Law be oppressive? It isn't.

Apostasy Law doesn't apply on non muslims, to my knowledge.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@jabeady

I'm sorry for Abz2000 being obnoxious with you. Feel free to ignore him; I do...well, mostly anyway.

[islamirama]

I don't understand.. how is it kufr?

how is it not? you are joining the enemies of Islam to Kill Muslims. These enemies of Islam have killed 20 million Muslim, 12 million with their illegal wars and occupations and 4 million with their drone attacks and how knows how many with their sanctions and how many under reported or unaccounted for.


If you still don't understand and can't comprehend it then visit the link below to read the answer .

The scholars of Islam have stated that it is not permitted to support the kaafirs against the Muslims, and that that is kufr (disbelief) and riddah (apostasy), because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):


“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

https://islamqa.info/en/33691

It's protecting your country, ISIS are muslims who are extreme/promote violence... C'mon, just because they're muslim, we can't attack them?! That's ludicrous. The USA isn't an enemy of Islam, how? What do you mean by "enemy of Islam"?

Assuming you mean the western nation you call "your" country, which is why think its ok to join them. First of all, ISIS is not attacking your country, nor is it invading it so stop crying wolf.

Secondly, ISIS are not Muslims, not even extremist Muslims. They are a western intelligence created terror group to kill Muslims and clear out the sham area, especially the Euphrates river. I know this is over your head, sigh if only the older timers were around.

Thirdly, US is the enemy of Islam. What other nation has killed more Muslims in recent times? the previous president killed 12 million and the current president killed 4 million, what more do you want them to say they are not the enemies of Islam? how ignorantly blind can you be? or are you just trying to justify your daddy being a kuffar army boy?

Seriously, I don't understand this at all.

No, you don't. Just stop trying to defend your daddy and his kuffar army for the holocaust of Muslims.

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@jabeady

I'm sorry for Abz2000 being obnoxious with you. Feel free to ignore him; I do...well, mostly anyway.

[emoji28] [emoji28] [emoji28]

[jabeady]

Thirdly, US is the enemy of Islam. What other nation has killed more Muslims in recent times?

Umm... Syria? Russia?

previous president killed 12 million and the current president killed 4 million

Is there a reason we should believe these numbers?

[jabeady]

Apostasy Law doesn't apply on non muslims, to my knowledge.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

Well, someone in the Muslim world might want to clear up that little misunderstanding.

Just a thought.

[Serinity]

Well, someone in the Muslim world might want to clear up that little misunderstanding.

Just a thought.

How?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

how is it not? you are joining the enemies of Islam to Kill Muslims. These enemies of Islam have killed 20 million Muslim, 12 million with their illegal wars and occupations and 4 million with their drone attacks and how knows how many with their sanctions and how many under reported or unaccounted for.

Again, you keep assuming that United States is an enemy of Islam as they have killed Muslims. The two are separate things and not the same. AT ALL. During the time of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), Muslims were killed simply for following Islam. However, United States is not killing Muslims today because they are following Islam, rather because 9/11 instigated the entire fiasco. You may believe in some conspiracy theory of 9/11 being an inside job, but recent documents from the 9/11 investigation show clearly that the hijackers were Muslim and wanted to end the support for Israel. You do realize that as many as 60 American Muslims died in 9/11 Attack on U.S. soil?

If you still don't understand and can't comprehend it then visit the link below to read the answer.

Again, the premise is hinged on the assumption that United States is directly at war with Islam.

Assuming you mean the western nation you call "your" country, which is why think its ok to join them. First of all, ISIS is not attacking your country, nor is it invading it so stop crying wolf.

What Kool-aid have you been drinking? You do realize that Daesh has deliberately in their publications and via the Internet asked deranged Muslims to answer their call to attack the West. While Daesh did not itself commit any attacks on U.S. soil, indirectly Daesh-inspired attacks did occur with San Bernarndino Attack and Orlando shooting.

Secondly, ISIS are not Muslims, not even extremist Muslims. They are a western intelligence created terror group to kill Muslims and clear out the sham area, especially the Euphrates river. I know this is over your head, sigh if only the older timers were around.

Again, you tout a conspiracy theory and accept that conspiracy theory to be true when it hasn't been established at all.

Thirdly, US is the enemy of Islam. What other nation has killed more Muslims in recent times? the previous president killed 12 million and the current president killed 4 million, what more do you want them to say they are not the enemies of Islam? how ignorantly blind can you be? or are you just trying to justify your daddy being a kuffar army boy?

Again, you keep harping on the premise that U.S. is the enemy of Islam. Stop bullying him with phrases like "daddy being a kuffar army boy."

No, you don't. Just stop trying to defend your daddy and his kuffar army for the holocaust of Muslims.

He has every right to defend his father against your words.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[jabeady]

How?

Dunno. But when atheists are worried about losing their lives if they travel to a Muslim nation, because of a confusion between atheism and apostasy, it doesn't help Islam's image.

[Aaqib]

Assuming you mean the western nation you call "your" country, which is why think its ok to join them. First of all, ISIS is not attacking your country, nor is it invading it so stop crying wolf.

Secondly, ISIS are not Muslims, not even extremist Muslims. They are a western intelligence created terror group to kill Muslims and clear out the sham area, especially the Euphrates river. I know this is over your head, sigh if only the older timers were around.

Thirdly, US is the enemy of Islam. What other nation has killed more Muslims in recent times? the previous president killed 12 million and the current president killed 4 million, what more do you want them to say they are not the enemies of Islam? how ignorantly blind can you be? or are you just trying to justify your daddy being a kuffar army boy?



No, you don't. Just stop trying to defend your daddy and his kuffar army for the holocaust of Muslims.

Lol brother you're funny, good laugh.

Are you kidding me? Why can't you accept it that they are MUSLIMS, EXTREMEIST MUSLIMS. And yes, ISIS is attacking our country... 9/11, and killing American people. You're crazy man, if you seriously don't understand this.

And no, I'm defending my dad, because I know he is in the right, to fight ISIS, who has repeatedly killed many innocent people, Muslims and non muslims.

Btw way to misunderstand an aiyah bro.

:wasalam:

[Serinity]

Why would U.S bomb the living day lights out of Syria, etc. Just for 9/11? In that case I call them over-reactive. They could simply send in troops and march ahead, aiming the instigator rather than aimlessly, or carelessly dropping bombs on civilians.

What justification do U.S have for bombing buildings full of civilians? U.S isn't at all innocent either. Judging from History of how they bombed Hiroshima, etc.

Why this whole bombng anyway? Why can't U.S not just stop the bombing, march ahead on foot, WITHOUT (afaik) stealing, bombing, de-estabilishing, and raping our women?

If they really were the ones attacked by 9/11, why do they not then aim for the instigator, on foot? Rather than pay back with more bombings which will plant more hatred and more fuel for ISIS.

ISIS is no doubt unislamic that it kills non-muslims, indiscriminately, and kills muslims too. Without order. Why is that so? And where do they get all that weapon from anyway?

But it seems like U.S is just passing the ball to ISIS again.

[islamirama]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)



Again, you keep assuming that United States is an enemy of Islam as they have killed Muslims. The two are separate things and not the same. AT ALL. During the time of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), Muslims were killed simply for following Islam. However, United States is not killing Muslims today because they are following Islam, rather because 9/11 instigated the entire fiasco.

Wa'alaikum as'salaam,

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck?

I guess it's ok to wipe out all the Muslims so long as you don't declare them your enemy and are not at "war" with them. Your notion of enemy is extremely screwed. Maybe you should get out of your comfy first world life and go visit those nations destroyed and/or bombed by the US and ask those victims if US or its allies are the enemy of Islam and Muslims. It's easy to sit in your comfy life and pretend they are not.

You may believe in some conspiracy theory of 9/11 being an inside job, but recent documents from the 9/11 investigation show clearly that the hijackers were Muslim and wanted to end the support for Israel. You do realize that as many as 60 American Muslims died in 9/11 Attack on U.S. soil?

What Kool-aid have you been drinking? You do realize that Daesh has deliberately in their publications and via the Internet asked deranged Muslims to answer their call to attack the West. While Daesh did not itself commit any attacks on U.S. soil, indirectly Daesh-inspired attacks did occur with San Bernarndino Attack and Orlando shooting.

Well if we want to talk about conspiracy theories and nut jobs then, then you need to get off whatever you are smoking and parroting the official narrative like a good little stooge. The so called "conspiracy theories" have much credibility to them. The official narrative has been pulled apart thread by thread and thoroughly exposed. But i guess you can keep sipping that koo-aid you were talking about and we'll just pretend that land of unicorns and rainbows of yours is utopia handing out money and food and charity to the Muslims.

I'll let you in on a little secrete, well not so much a secrete since the rest of the world knows, just not you I guess. Orlando shooter was a gay secular product of his (US) society. Other then his name, there was nothing Muslim or islamic about him. Even his actions were done out of jealousy or something against his boyfriend. It had nothing to do with any daesh, and the so called "phone call" claiming allegiance to daesh doesn't exist, especially since the officials refuse to hand that over for confirmation and verification.


Have the people here become even more ignorant and brainwashed since my absence or is this the new generation raised plugged into the matrix....

or maybe you're just another revert that wants to defend her war mongering country out of some nationalist loyalty.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Dunno. But when atheists are worried about losing their lives if they travel to a Muslim nation, because of a confusion between atheism and apostasy, it doesn't help Islam's image.

To be honest, the article was deceptively misleading. It should have clarified from the beginning that the article was in reference to former Muslims turned atheists who are publicly known to have participated/are participating in activities that the government considers subversive and a threat to the nation-state due to apostasy itself being considered an act of betrayal of the nation-state and a threat to the stability and security of the country.

[Little_Lion]

Dunno. But when atheists are worried about losing their lives if they travel to a Muslim nation, because of a confusion between atheism and apostasy, it doesn't help Islam's image.

Back when I first started studying Islam, before I reverted, I took classes online from a place called Al Mawrid in Peshawar, Pakistan. Masha'Allah, they were awesome, AWESOME people. I seriously considered traveling there to study from them personally and while they said they would love to have me, it was not safe. Even if I had reverted, because I was American there were some there who would think my reversion was fake and try to kill me, or probably worse, try to capture me for ransom. But they made it very clear that the main threat was simply in being a Westerner, not my being Muslim or not being Muslim. Note, this was before the death of Bin Laden and we (the US) were much more active over there at the time than we are now - not to say we are not active now, but it was much moreso then - so I do not know if the threat would be the same.

[islamirama]

Are you kidding me? Why can't you accept it that they are MUSLIMS, EXTREMEIST MUSLIMS. And yes, ISIS is attacking our country... 9/11, and killing American people. You're crazy man, if you seriously don't understand this.

Do you even know when 9-11 happened? do you now the time gap between that and when daesh came about?

i suggest go brushing up on your current events and history.

[Abz2000]

Come on people, please, let's try reading the Quran in our own languages and it'll be easy, it makes more sense than anything we'll see or read in todays world and it'll answer these basic questions which some of us appear to be going around and around in loops with as if we've been asked to lift and move planet jupiter.
Let's be keys for goodness, for God's sake.
And isn't it embarrasing to the kuffar and munafiqeen when the world sees them in plain sight trying to deceive and push combinations frantically to provoke the wrath of God and open the doors of evil and hell



whilst the Muslims are seeking to be upright and walk straight whilst obeying God and seeking His good pleasure and meekly try to open doors to good and to paradise?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

I won't dignify the first paragraph of your post with a response.

Well if we want to talk about conspiracy theories and nut jobs then, then you need to get off whatever you are smoking and parroting the official narrative like a good little stooge. The so called "conspiracy theories" have much credibility to them. The official narrative has been pulled apart thread by thread and thoroughly exposed. But i guess you can keep sipping that koo-aid you were talking about and we'll just pretend that land of unicorns and rainbows of yours is utopia handing out money and food and charity to the Muslims.

Official version? Mate, you have no idea what's what. I have read Daesh's publications and interacted on the Internet with a self-confessed Daesh member, another who professed to have inside knowledge of the doings of Daesh, and also Daesh fanboys. There is no conspiracy, which is easy for you as a Muslim to tout, because then you can pretend that evil Muslims don't exist who are deranged and participate in heinous actions.

I have read conspiracy theories, and most of them, I do not find credible. I'm not saying there aren't conspiracies that exist in the world, and yet most of them I do not find creditable.

I'll let you in on a little secrete, well not so much a secrete since the rest of the world knows, just not you I guess. Orlando shooter was a gay secular product of his (US) society. Other then his name, there was nothing Muslim or islamic about him. Even his actions were done out of jealousy or something against his boyfriend. It had nothing to do with any daesh, and the so called "phone call" claiming allegiance to daesh doesn't exist, especially since the officials refuse to hand that over for confirmation and verification.

I participated in the discussion on the Orlando shooting, and I well know that he was gay. However, that does not take away from the fact that he did pledge allegiance to Daesh. Do I think he was a Daesh member? No. Do I think he was inspired by attacks around the globe that Daesh committed? Yes. Do I think he answered the generic call of Daesh on the Internet to attack the West? Likely.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Aaqib]

Do you even know when 9-11 happened? do you now the time gap between that and when daesh came about?

i suggest go brushing up on your current events and history.

Um.. did you read "killing American people"?

[Aaqib]

Why would U.S bomb the living day lights out of Syria, etc. Just for 9/11? In that case I call them over-reactive. They could simply send in troops and march ahead, aiming the instigator rather than aimlessly, or carelessly dropping bombs on civilians.

What justification do U.S have for bombing buildings full of civilians? U.S isn't at all innocent either. Judging from History of how they bombed Hiroshima, etc.

Why this whole bombng anyway? Why can't U.S not just stop the bombing, march ahead on foot, WITHOUT (afaik) stealing, bombing, de-estabilishing, and raping our women?

If they really were the ones attacked by 9/11, why do they not then aim for the instigator, on foot? Rather than pay back with more bombings which will plant more hatred and more fuel for ISIS.

ISIS is no doubt unislamic that it kills non-muslims, indiscriminately, and kills muslims too. Without order. Why is that so? And where do they get all that weapon from anyway?

But it seems like U.S is just passing the ball to ISIS again.

Ok... I'm NOT justifying the U.S. carelessly bombing/droning, I don't like that.

But, take my word, my dad isn't one of those bombers, he's one of those troops that come to go fight ISIS (if he is ever called to fight). And fighting ISIS = yes; droning/bombing innocent civilians = NO

Can't anyone understand that??

[MisterK]

A whole lot has been said regarding Islam by people much, much more educated on it than I am, so I won't comment on what is or is not Islamic.

What I do know is the mentality and typical tactics of those adhering to conspiracy theories, and that is that the truth of any matter as it relates to their conspiracy of choice tend to be irrelevant. No matter how often said conspiracy gets refuted, no matter how illogical or lacking in actual, objective, empirical evidence they are, it doesn't matter. Usually, all that matters is that the conspiracy confirms their biases. Reality need not apply.

The up side to arguing against the, usually, illogical and irrational claims of conspiracy theorists is that it shows those that may be on the fence of a view how wrong the conspiracy claims usually are.

That doesn't mean conspiracies don't exist, but most most conspiracy theories tend to be.

[islamirama]

That doesn't mean conspiracies don't exist, but most most conspiracy theories tend to be.

I agree that lot of conspiracies are just hogwash and nothing more. But at the same time, public is so brainwashed that they will dismiss anything contradicting and questioning the official narrative as "conspiracy theory". It is a convenient way for officials to dismiss opposing opinion and evidence using such labels, while the sheeples bahhh bahh along with them.

[Serinity]

Ok... I'm NOT justifying the U.S. carelessly bombing/droning, I don't like that.

But, take my word, my dad isn't one of those bombers, he's one of those troops that come to go fight ISIS (if he is ever called to fight). And fighting ISIS = yes; droning/bombing innocent civilians = NO

Can't anyone understand that??

What is your father fighting for? To defeat ISIS? When they do that, then what? What will happen of Syria? Will they turn it into a democratic state, not allowing Shariah?

I can perfectly see this as a way to demonize Islamic Law, and have people parroting for Democracy instead of Shariah, having anyone standing up for Shariah demonized and labelled "terrorist", "oppressive" etc.

But I can also see this as a way for Muslims to teach the non-muslims about Shariah and Islam.

his intentions is to fight ISIS, which is unIslamic (ISIS), he wants to show what Islam truly is. After doing so, what will he do?

No doubt, ISIS is not Islamic in its ways, but seems like ISIS is the perfect puzzle in the Narrative of U.S.
I can't see any reason why U.S is droning down Syria, and why they not instead take down the "head" as they call it. The oppressors who use Islamic Law and twist it to suit their agenda.

I am not critizing your dad, at all. Allah knows best his intentions and I pray that Allah blesses him with goodness, and that Allah makes him steadfast. Ameen.

I am all about dialogue, I rather have us discuss on a table. But seeing the recent bans, and Islamophobia, and the way Christians take advantage of Muslims' desperation by giving the Arabic Bibles - that is just disgusting and deceptive (those who do)

Allahu alam.

[jabeady]

I agree that lot of conspiracies are just hogwash and nothing more. But at the same time, public is so brainwashed that they will dismiss anything contradicting and questioning the official narrative as "conspiracy theory". It is a convenient way for officials to dismiss opposing opinion and evidence using such labels, while the sheeples bahhh bahh along with them.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume people can keep secrets. Washington DC is widely regarded as the worst place in the world to keep a secret. OTOH, a conspiracy theorist (CT) would say that's exactly what "they" want you to think. In the CT world, the complete lack of evidence that a conspiracy exists is, itself, evidence of the conspiracy.

[kritikvernunft]

However, you have to understand that many of your thoughts are extreme.

The "extremists" use a particular strategy to achieve their goal. They will attack the kafir, hoping that the kafir will wholesale attack the Muslims, which would unite the Muslims against the kafir, and force even the "weaker" Muslims to fight back. The underlying calculation is that the kafir cannot take on all Muslims, all at the same time. As I said before, the "extremists" are most likely right about that.

But then again, up till now the strategy has not worked, because the current kafir elite will never do anything that would unite the Muslims against them. Therefore, all the suicide bombing, shootouts, and so on, have mostly failed to attain their goal. Now, I must admit that if the kafir vote someone like our beloved Donald Trump into office, the "extremist" strategies are much more likely to succeed. You can indeed see that the pressure is growing on the kafir to appoint leaders who will respond by wholesale attacking all Muslims indiscriminately. The current complaint amongst the kafir right wing is that "we keep getting bombed and we are not doing anything about it".

Of course, western minds do not really understand that there is a substantial price tag attached to bombing faraway countries. These things never come for free. Seriously, western minds seriously believe that it is unfair that they get suicide-bombed back. But then again, I do not want to go into that subject, because people's haphazard opinions are utterly irrelevant in that matter. It is not what you haphazardly believe, that is important, but that what you are willing to risk your life for and die.

The kafir do not have a second line to fall back on. If the National State fails, there will be no second-line defense put up by the population itself, which is overly individualized and defenseless because it is purposely being kept individualized and defenseless, because that makes it much easier to exploit them. Therefore, the only thing standing between them and the inevitable, is an almost unarmed police force with absolutely no military capabilities, and a small, shrinking national army that is notoriously lousy at urban warfare.

By the way, it is a bit strange that you call me an "extremist" because I have never been involved in a suicide bombing. Proof. I am still alive! ;-)

I don't know enough to know one way or another why you would want to revert ...

My faith in the One God is something relatively private. However, there are political advantages to be had by getting along with the Muslims. I do not have the slightest doubt that Islam will achieve its goals. From every point of view, it all looks like a one-way bet. Some people are not patient enough and refuse to see why it can only work, but that is their problem. I don't care much about that.You see, I am a contrarian. I do my own thing. I tend to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing, whenever possible. To an important extent, that is what explains why I am here. Pretty much everybody I grew up with, dislikes or even hates Islam and the Muslims. That is what made me understand: "These Muslims must be onto something. They must be doing something really right, because otherwise the guys that I am so contrarian against, would not hate them so much." Consequently, I started investigating Islam, and indeed, it obviously works.

Also, I looked at your explanation of Syrian refugees infiltrating European Union, and I find your rhetoric similar to right wing groups in Europe and even in the U.S. who irrationally believe that there is some "conspiracy" of sending refugees to the EU to weaken the countries with the goal of an internal combustion.

It does not matter whether it is a "conspiracy" or not, it still suits me utterly fine that situation is injecting millions of Syrian Muslims into the European Union. In other words, the Syrian war is not entirely useless, since it does serve a useful purpose.

And Islamic end-time prophecies do not support what you're saying because in the end the battle that will take place immediately leading to Armageddon will be WWIII between Christian-majority nations and that means probably Russia and America as I once heard an Islamic scholar once also say.

I have not conjectured about whether the current situation will directly lead to the end times. In fact, I have no opinion about that.

For example, right now in the world, there is too much confusion and no one knows who is the standard-bearer of truth and who is the standard-bearer of falsehood.

The situation as it unfolds, suits me perfectly fine. The Syrian conflict will end up injecting millions of Syrian Muslims into the European Union. Therefore, the war is happily busy achieving its goal. Concerning the "extremists", the ball has never really been in their court. If the kafir elite does not react to their provocations, their strategy will not work. The "extremists" will have to wait until the kafir elite gets changed, which does indeed seem to be happening. After that, all odds are off.

If you can see that a new kafir elite would indeed wholesale attack the Muslims indiscriminately, in retaliation to "extremist" provocations, it means that the odometer has started ticking, because the "extremists" will obviously jump on this opportunity to produce the most spectacular provocation ever. At that point, the mainstream Muslims will have to prepare themselves for the inevitable. If at that point, anti-Islamic, kafir forces manage to knock you out, because you are unprepared, because you did not see it coming, then it was the One God's will that you would be knocked out.

[Abz2000]

Isis>alqaeda>militants>insurgents>oil>saddam's soldiers>wmd>saddam>iran>russia>the communists>vietnam>operation northwoods>>>>>>>


February 18, 2006

*The United States will allocate $5 million to finance the Syrian opposition, the State Department said yesterday, two days after announcing a similar initiative for the Iranian opposition.The State Department said in a statement that it will give the money*“to accelerate the work of reformers in Syria.”The money would come from the department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative, it said.The State Department announced on Wednesday that it would seek $75 million to step up efforts — through extra broadcasts and other activities — to influence democratic change in Iran.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States wants to strengthen its sanctions against Syria and is trying to convince other nations to follow suit.

“We intend to use the Syrian Accountability Act and use it to its fullest,” the top US diplomat told Congress, referring to a 2003 law that allows the US administration to impose sanctions against Syria. The law, which provides for a series of six diplomatic, economic and financial sanctions, was partially applied in May 2004 by President George W. Bush, but some sanctions have yet to be used.“The Syrian Accountability Act is a very important tool,” Rice told the House of Representatives International Relations Committee.“We’ve used a great deal of it,” she recalled.BTW.

The uk government seems to have plotted against itself when it made a law defining itself as a terrorist:
Since 1993, regime change by the use of force has been deemed an act of terrorism in UK law.*Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 states:

"In this section 'acts of terrorism' means*acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with,*any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing,*by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom*or any other government de jure or de facto."

Given that they readily admit to leading regime change via force and violence in Iraq, libya, and others, they leave themselves open to prosecution under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000, for which the punishment, on conviction, is life imprisonment.--------------------and anyone who works for the british government or encourages them would also become one under the terrorism act of 2006.....


24/06/2012:

.....but the only thing i can see them doing is giving nato and their corporate backed media propaganda to invade a country they are currently working to destabilize and send into chaos. (which they have been working on for over a decade).let me assure you that they don't care about how many casualties they cause in Muslim lands, they just want to invade.ur better off giving it to hotel staff at the bilderberg meeting, then there won't be any chaos.......

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1527442



Well, i said some of that in 2012 on this forum, they later just changed the law and definition of the term "terrorism" so as not to be guilty, just as they carve out and reform or make new idols and armed the Mujahideen and later attacked them just as foretold, not that i'm saying i'm ultra-bright, since even a dimwit could've seen it being planned.

And the same thing is still being done by shills in plain sight now, maybe coz they're cozy with the assurance that most kaafirs and munaafiqs get drunk and rebooted every saturday so they can't remember more than a few hazy hours back and can't see foward at all:


7.*The Word is proved true against the greater part of them: for they do not believe.
8.*We have put yokes round their necks right up to their chins, so that their heads are forced up (and they cannot see).
9.*And We have put a bar in front of them and a bar behind them, and further, We have covered them up; so that they cannot see.
10.*The same is it to them whether thou admonish them or thou do not admonish them: they will not believe.
11.*Thou canst but admonish such a one as follows the Message and fears the (Lord) Most Gracious, unseen: give such a one, therefore, good tidings, of Forgiveness and a Reward most generous.
12.*Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence).

From Quran Chapter 36, Yaa Seen, Yusuf Ali Translation


And some people seriously need to check the definition of the term "conspiracy" because it appears that the "quick! let's roll our eyes" method still works on people who like to feel accepted by wolves

[Abz2000]

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

The "extremists" use a particular strategy to achieve their goal. They will attack the kafir, hoping that the kafir will wholesale attack the Muslims, which would unite the Muslims against the kafir, and force even the "weaker" Muslims to fight back. The underlying calculation is that the kafir cannot take on all Muslims, all at the same time. As I said before, the "extremists" are most likely right about that.

You are perceptive: Yes, that's the goal of Daesh.

But then again, up till now the strategy has not worked, because the current kafir elite will never do anything that would unite the Muslims against them. Therefore, all the suicide bombing, shootouts, and so on, have mostly failed to attain their goal. Now, I must admit that if the kafir vote someone like our beloved Donald Trump into office, the "extremist" strategies are much more likely to succeed. You can indeed see that the pressure is growing on the kafir to appoint leaders who will respond by wholesale attacking all Muslims indiscriminately. The current complaint amongst the kafir right wing is that "we keep getting bombed and we are not doing anything about it".

You're right - Daesh do want a Donald Trump presidency. In fact, that's one of the things that I noticed was most odd about the entire matter; but then it's not odd because the people who support Donald Trump are prejudiced from the right wing in U.S. and the same is true from the Daesh who are entirely prejudiced against both non-Muslims and Muslims who oppose them.

By the way, it is a bit strange that you call me an "extremist" because I have never been involved in a suicide bombing. Proof. I am still alive! ;-)

No, I don't think you're an extremist YET. However, I do find some of your views extreme. The two are not equal. And the reason I brought your attention to your views is because there is a line between having some extreme views and then crossing into extremism, and I don't want you to cross that line. Not to mention, since you have expressed an interest in reversion, I want your views to be informed with Islam and not by extremist positions that are on the fringes of Islamic thought.

My faith in the One God is something relatively private. However, there are political advantages to be had by getting along with the Muslims. I do not have the slightest doubt that Islam will achieve its goals. From every point of view, it all looks like a one-way bet. Some people are not patient enough and refuse to see why it can only work, but that is their problem. I don't care much about that.You see, I am a contrarian. I do my own thing. I tend to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing, whenever possible. To an important extent, that is what explains why I am here. Pretty much everybody I grew up with, dislikes or even hates Islam and the Muslims. That is what made me understand: "These Muslims must be onto something. They must be doing something really right, because otherwise the guys that I am so contrarian against, would not hate them so much." Consequently, I started investigating Islam, and indeed, it obviously works.

I can see how being contrarian led you to Islam. It's true that throughout history, truth has been attacked and the case in point is the way the way all prophets (may God bless them all) were persecuted simply for calling peoples to submit themselves to the truth. That said, in Islam, we're advised by Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), "My community shall never agree upon misguidance, therefore, if you see divergences, you must follow the greater mass or larger group." This is one of the reasons why terrorism and extremism can never be accepted within Islamic thought as a valid position.

I have not conjectured about whether the current situation will directly lead to the end times. In fact, I have no opinion about that.

Everything that we're doing as humanity today is hurtling us straight towards the End Times. All prophets (may God bless them all) have given the same warnings to humanity.

The situation as it unfolds, suits me perfectly fine. The Syrian conflict will end up injecting millions of Syrian Muslims into the European Union. Therefore, the war is happily busy achieving its goal. Concerning the "extremists", the ball has never really been in their court. If the kafir elite does not react to their provocations, their strategy will not work. The "extremists" will have to wait until the kafir elite gets changed, which does indeed seem to be happening. After that, all odds are off.

I do not want a Donald Trump presidency for many, many reasons, but one of the reasons is that he three times asked during a briefing as to why U.S. doesn't use nuclear weapons when we have these weapons at our disposal. That's just sheer lunacy. I believe in the end-time prophecies. However, that doesn't mean that I want to live in a time wherein I experience Armageddon.

If you can see that a new kafir elite would indeed wholesale attack the Muslims indiscriminately, in retaliation to "extremist" provocations, it means that the odometer has started ticking, because the "extremists" will obviously jump on this opportunity to produce the most spectacular provocation ever. At that point, the mainstream Muslims will have to prepare themselves for the inevitable. If at that point, anti-Islamic, kafir forces manage to knock you out, because you are unprepared, because you did not see it coming, then it was the One God's will that you would be knocked out.

Believers, some of them have to die and some of them have to stay alive, according to Allah's Plan. Eventually, however, the remaining believers will be victorious. The nature of Truth is to be victorious and the nature of Falsehood is to perish as is Allah's will.

[kritikvernunft]

Yes, that's the goal of Daesh.

I think that it is obvious why they are hated by the mainstream Muslims. They want to force their hand. These people will obviously never be popular. However, my opinion is also that it will eventually work. Two players are utterly unwilling to enter their game: the kafir elite and the mainstream Muslims. They are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing things that they are absolutely not interested in.

You're right - Daesh do want a Donald Trump presidency.

I must disclose the truth on this matter. I happen to be long on anti-fragile assets: bitcoin and gold. Everybody agrees with me that I stand to make truck loads of money in capital gains, if our beloved Donald Trump manages to get elected. So, I have a vested interested in things going wrong. My entire financial and also professional position is about systematically shorting the National States. The worse they do, the better I do. Of course, I first adopted anti-statist, libertarian views, and then I started acquiring anti-fragile assets and anti-statist professional skills. Islam is a natural extension to this long-standing strategy of mine. The more the National State elites railed against Islam, the more I got pushed in that direction. I had no other option than to modify and improve my anti-statist, libertarian views in order to make them fit into the Islamic framework of morality and law. That is why I would never consciously argue against the Quran or the Sunnah. I have long-standing political reasons for this.

However, I do find some of your views extreme. The two are not equal. And the reason I brought your attention to your views is because there is a line between having some extreme views and then crossing into extremism, and I don't want you to cross that line. Not to mention, since you have expressed an interest in reversion, I want your views to be informed with Islam and not by extremist positions that are on the fringes of Islamic thought.

I can see what the "extremists" are doing, and I can also clearly see why the mainstream Muslims do not really like them. As a matter of fact, the "extremists" numbers are too small to be of political use to me. Furthermore, to the extent that they really alienate the really interesting head counts in Islam, I will disavow them, if only for political reasons. To the extent that particular "extremist" views are generally rejected by the mainstream Muslims, such views are, in fact, useless to me. What am I supposed to gain there? In the meanwhile, however, I am also not credibly opposing these "extremists" because I do not really consider any of that to be my problem. As they are seeking to accelerate the inevitable, my only reproach to them would be that their lack of patience could actually reflect an underlying lack of faith. Seriously, I am much more interested in mainstream Muslim views that are generally rejected by the western kafirs. Those are the truly interesting political opinions.

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), "My community shall never agree upon misguidance, therefore, if you see divergences, you must follow the greater mass or larger group."

Yes, this sounds quite true. However, it is only the Quran and its interpretation in the Sunnah that could ever receive a blank cheque, and not individual Muslims; as a first-order objection. Hence, also not groups of Muslims, as a second-order extension to the first-order objection. Hence, not even the largest possible group of Muslims, i.e. all of them.

I do not want a Donald Trump presidency for many, many reasons, but one of the reasons is that he three times asked during a classified briefing as to why U.S. doesn't use nuclear weapons when we have these weapons at our disposal. That's just sheer lunacy.

If you ever got to deal with State bureaucracies, you know that they do not really do as anybody says, including their bosses. They follow their own, utterly formalistic logic of regulations, clarifying memos, and long-standing habits. They are impossibly recalcitrant. One comma wrong and they send back the entire file. In fact, the American administration barely listens to Obama. He has a very hard time getting anything done, while his leadership is not even contested or questioned by the bureaucracy. I can pretty much guarantee to you that the entire American administration will almost immediately come to a standstill if our beloved Donald Trump becomes president. Even the staff in the White House will refuse to serve him coffee in the morning. He will pretty much have to make the coffee by himself, because the staff will end up mixing waste water with coffee whenever they can. He will become impossibly ineffective. He is not even president and everything he does is already rife with obstructionism. You see, when Hitler came to power, his followers really believed in Nazism and their "Führer". Who really believes in Trump or his Trumpist inconsistencies? His views do not even constitute a valid ideology. You need someone like Karl Marx to write a book like "Das Kapital" to power a functioning ideology. Our beloved Donald Trump just improvises his way through life. How is any of that supposed to really work? Our beloved Donald Trump will make the American government totally disfunctional, while just fighting silly skirmishes with all the people whom he has already designated as enemies, and while achieving nothing at all. Do you really believe that he will be able to build his wall with Mexico in these circumstances? With everybody obstructing him just for the fun of doing so? With all the Hispanics sabotaging everything he does? And then he has also promised to amuse us by sending the bill to Mexico. I mean, this is not optional. I want to see him doing that. We must insist that he does it. He will not escape this. Everybody will force him to do that. There is no way that he can retract that. At least half of the United States will in fact side with the Mexicans if he does that, if only to obstruct him, and to make him look silly. Seriously, our beloved Donald Trump is not really dangerous. He is actually just funny! ;-)

[MisterK]

Seriously, our beloved Donald Trump is not really dangerous. He is actually just funny! ;-)

I do agree with you that, policy-wise, odds are Donald Trump would be met with nothing but obstruction, even worse than what President Obama faces. At least for his plans. Pence, on the otherhand, is more a part of the Republican machine, and so his agendas are much more likely to be actionable, as far as the GOP is concerned.

However, in terms of Donald Trump himself, the real danger of a Trump presidency isn't his likely-to-be-blocked policies, but rather the social impact of someone with his jingoistic, regressive, xenophobic hate-mongering being president. It will, at least in the minds of those like him, legitimize their hate as something of merit. It will be seen as something to be proud of, something acceptable, and okay to act on.

After all, if the president can hold these views, act on these ignorant, hateful, views, then it must be okay for the citizenry to do so as well.

[Serinity]

Idk where this whole thing started. Why does US bomb Syria?

And for what purpose did ISIS emerge? I mean initially, ISIS emerging was/is/seemed a good thing. But seeing how they kill Muslims and kafirs.. That just blows it.

But I see it like a chain-reaction:

U.S Bombs Syria.
Justifies ISIS bombing the West.
U.S then bombs Syria, etc. Again.

And such it goes. U.S is giving fuel to ISIS by bombing their place. ISIS uses this to bomb their place.

I doubt the fact that it started at 9/11. Who started bombing anyways?

Idk why ISIS kills civilians and stuff. I will just keep myself out of this game, not supporting U.S nor supporting ISIS.

Idk why I should fight ISIS, and I feel that regardless of the reason, U.S bombing Syria/and civilians, is unacceptable.

Assuming it all started from 9/11. Those days are over, U.S seems like the ADHD kid in the classroom, who doesn't know except to rampage, using the media to demonize Islam - I don't care about the reasons, doesn't change it. U.S is basically helping ISIS to some extent.

If U.S stopped bombing aimlessly and cowardly, they should go on foot to attack those who even started or instigated whatever started this. They attack Muslims, they do propaganda against Muslims, they ban Hijab, Niqab. What more?

And if that is not enough, they most likely rape our women, how is that doing it because of 9/11? The fact that the U.S doesn't condemn this shows their corrupt morals.

They are no better than ISIS in this case, maybe even worse because of the hypocrisy. I'd call them a kind of "weapon" this whole thing seems unislamic anyway.

It is Cowardice of U.S to attack aimlessly, it is cowardice of ISIS to attack western countries. U.S is blameworthy of pouring fuel to the fire with their propaganda machine. Why do they even do it? Money? So they have no morals at all?

I doubt it is because of money, look at how many are brainwashed because of the Media, not many I suppose. But it is fuel.

I will leave this whole thing to Allah :swt:.

Allah :swt: knows best.

[jabeady]

Of course, western minds do not really understand that there is a substantial price tag attached to bombing faraway countries. These things never come for free. Seriously, western minds seriously believe...

You appear to have a rather deep and extensive understanding of Western thinking. How did you develop this phenomenal insight?

[jabeady]

Everything that we're doing as humanity today is hurtling us straight towards the End Times. All prophets (may God bless them all) have given the same warnings to humanity.

Yes, they have. In fact, the next time the world is supposed to end is this October 31st. I have lost count of how many times the world has ended, just in my own lifetime, and I'm getting a little tired of it.

I do not want a Donald Trump presidency for many, many reasons, but one of the reasons is that he three times asked during a briefing as to why U.S. doesn't use nuclear weapons when we have these weapons at our disposal. That's just sheer lunacy. I believe in the end-time prophecies. However, that doesn't mean that I want to live in a time wherein I experience Armageddon.

Here's a more horrifying thought: Just suppose that Armageddon is *not* the end of the world, and that you survive. Think real hard about it.

[kritikvernunft]

You appear to have a rather deep and extensive understanding of Western thinking. How did you develop this phenomenal insight?

The easiest way to know anything, I guess, is to grow up in it, and to just be part of it. Approximately everybody I know, seems to think it is ok to bomb Syria. The man on the left, Philippe, is our king. He happens to be close friends with Abdullah II of Jordan. The man on the right, Charles Michel, is our prime minister:

They have sent F-16 fighter jets to bomb things and people in Syria, and I can assure you that he certainly believes that it is ok to do that. I guess lots of people agree with him. The extreme left doesn't, but nobody listens to them. I don't tell them what I think, because there is obviously no point in doing that.

In the following interview, Michel, the prime minister, explains why he wants to do that: Premier Michel wil starten met luchtaanvallen tegen IS in Syrië. The article is in Dutch, but I am sure that you will have no trouble understanding it with your phenomenal understanding and insight in other people.

By the way, if you see me walking around there, you would have no clue that it is me, because I would sound exactly like everybody else there, and for the sake of the argument, I would possibly even repeat the same opinions. Seriously, if that is my fancy of the day, I would obviously get along much better with the kafir than with you. Seriously, Kafiristan is my home base! ;-)

[cooterhein]

Hey everybody, it's been a couple of days and this seems to have gotten quite a bit of attention. Thank you everybody, especially those who supplied links to fatahs and other scholarship on the matter, there is one post in particular with bout 30 different links. I appreciate everyone's insight.

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Hope you're doing well.

While I did miss the DNC convention speech of Khizr Khan, I caught it the next day on Yahoo! News. And I was like, "Yahoo!" (pun intended). Yet in all seriousness, I was really excited and elated at having a person speaking for us Muslims, that is, people who are both Muslim and American. To be honest, it's about Time that many get to see that Muslims are not some alien persons and share an American identity with them (whether they desire that or not, and no one has a right to judge or ostracize Muslim Americans from the conversation in regards to the direction or future of America); being "different" in terms of either religion or ethnicity doesn't disqualify a person from being an American, after all.

I can't give you an answer about fighting alongside non-Muslims in the army as that is a question for scholars. However, this fatwa (legal ruling) might provide some insight on this matter: Can a Muslim be an American Soldier.

I personally believe that Humayun Khan was a matyr Islamically as he died saving the lives of other persons under his care/supervision/command, and in the Quran, Allah compares saving the life of one person as saving all of humanity, and so he is a true hero. I recently found out that Daesh consider Humayun Khan an apostate, which further strengthens my belief that Humayun Khan was a martyr. There is no way to 100% know of course that he died a martyr, but in Islam, intentions matter and are accounted to deeds. If Humayun Khan died saving the lives of other human beings, he's a martyr. Period.

There are only a few Americans on IB as I think most members here are from U.K.; so, this thread might receive very limited responses. I'm not sure if what I've said helps you develop an insight into this matter, but if it does, I'm glad to have been of service.

Thank you very much, for the link and your opinion and the information about IB members- I wan't aware that most of the people here are from the UK, and the UK military situation would be of some interest to me as well.

It's my opinion that the US military is secular in nature, and although the US (and its military) are majority Christian, it isn't supposed to be the function of a republic (or of the military) to act as a cudgel in the hands of the majority in order to abuse all the minorities. There are supposed to be measures in place that make a point of serving the best interests of the minority, or the minorities as the case may be. I do realize this may be more of an ideal than an actuality in certain respects, but in the interest of making it more of an actuality, I believe it's incredibly important for Muslims to serve in the military (among other things, but this is one) and for some of them to be promoted or appointed to key decision-making roles. These are the people who can help the US military act more correctly toward Islamic extremism and find better paths forward in unstable Islamic countries and regions. Overall, with some exceptions of course, I actually think the US military is open to self-criticism, aware of its need to improve, and is (overall) fairly welcoming to the input and contributions of American Muslims who are well positioned to make things better.

Of course no one should be forced or compelled into military service, but as long as American Muslims (or UK Muslims for that matter) are able to square that with their religious beliefs, I think there is a lot of good to be done, it ought to be more of a welcomed and appreciated contribution in the public eye, and- just hypothetically, I'm not currently aware of anyone actually trying to do this- in the event that anyone was to try and restrict Muslims from military service, that would be one of the worst ideas ever, and such a restriction would very much suggest that such a military is more properly aligning itself against Islam and against Muslims. There really should not ever be any such restrictions, and....well, I would probably want to stop short of publicly encouraging Muslims to consider the military, since there is some potential for religious misgivings and that should be handled in a manner that's independent of outside influences. But when a Muslim dies while serving my country's military, I do hope that the sacrifice of him and his family is celebrated and appreciated by just about everyone. And it's all the more reason for non-Muslims to pay attention to, and listen to, the specific concerns of his family- and not just the Donald-related concerns.

[cooterhein]

I don't agree with Muslims joining the US military. I can't see why a Muslim would want to do that. If you want to help / protect people, join law enforcement, go into the medical field, become a firefighter, do volunteer work, etc... You don't need to strap a rifle around your neck and stand alongside kafirs to fight against other Muslims.

If I may, I do have one suggestion. Please let me know what you think.

When you think of the US military, and of US foreign policy in general, what is the main world religion that dictates the most of what happens, apart from Christianity? What is the one fairly-small country in the world that has the most in the way of a disproportionate influence on the US military, and by extension its closest allies?

If we are both thinking of Israel, and of Jews in both the US and Israel, I think we're on the same page. Granted, they didn't get all that influence by military service, but they did get there and American Muslims aren't really well positioned to duplicate the same exact course of action.

So why might a Muslim want to be in the US military, or to a lesser extent but for similar reasons, the UK military? Why not just go into medicine and save lives that way? Well, perhaps there are some Muslims who notice that Jews have a tremendous amount of influence in this specific area, and maybe it would be a good thing if some Muslims went out of their way to inject some Islamic influence into US foreign policy.

Consider for a moment what other things Humayan Khan's parents might be able to do in the future. Today, they are pretty exclusively exerting influence on the ClinTrump battle. But now that their names are known and their level of influence has been made apparent, what else might they be able to speak out about? Surely anything that involves the US military and Muslims would be in play. A carefully worded five minute speech from either of them is going to do more for public opinion than just about anything else. Firefighters and doctors are incredibly important and they should be appreciated for what they do, but this is something that the Khan parents are uniquely well positioned for and this is something that only they can do.

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

The scholars are also very clear that whoever makes takfir (calling a Muslim a kaffir) has that takfir revert back to him. Scholars are also agreed that we must have husn-dhann (good thoughts) about our brothers and sisters in Islam. There's also a fatwa (legal ruling) to which I'd like to link you that might be of some relevance here: I Have Entertained Thoughts About The Disbelief of Another Muslim: Am I Still Muslim?

I don't want to address the death toll of Muslims in different countries, because I agree that it's sad and heartbreaking. That said, promoting this idea of "war with Islam" only breeds hatred and radicalization of susceptible Muslims (as I've previously discussed on IB) and we have terrorists emerge with the idea that they will somehow end this injustice. However, the consequences of such terrorism is the antipathy and disgust of normal Muslims, more Muslim deaths in different countries held responsible for the actions of the few terrorists, and individuals like Donald Trump being able to come onto the national stage and confidently tell the gullible public that there's something hideous within and insidious about Muslims and Islam.

So, again, I agree to disagree with you.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

There is a particular Muslim in the UK that I'd like to bring to your attention, if you aren't familiar with him already. Maajid Nawaz- he used to be an extremist himself, he spent 5 years in prison in Egypt because of this but then he reasoned his way out of extremism, formed an organization called Quilliam along with another ex-extremist named Ed Hussein (in the UK), he is still a Muslim but now he's making a point of speaking out against extremism. Given his history and his experience, he continues to have a rather easy time of finding extremists that he can talk to, and he argues with them all the time. He's kind of intense and focused if you ever see his videos, he's also quite well-spoken and is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast.

At any rate. I see him as a trustworthy source of information, I'm not sure how he's viewed by IB in general. But this is the gist of what he has to say on the matter. Although the entire situation is quite complicated, in broad terms, it is a mistake to say Daesh has nothing to do with Islam. Using his exact words, are they The Islam, are they True Islam? no they are not, of course they are not. But they do have Something to do with Islam.

He's also talked about something that President Obama said on the matter. (Obama really doesn't agree with him on the previous point however). But the thing that Obama said was this: "There's an ideology that we must challenge." He didn't call it by any name, though. We all know he's talking about an ideology that leads to horrible terror attacks, an ideology that recruits people to terror groups. It's fairly clear that it's a dangerous ideology, and he explicitly says that Americans in general must challenge it. This is the point where Maajid Nawaz says, "Well, you tell Americans to challenge this ideology, but then you don't say what it is. What do you think most Americans are going to do with that?" I can't help but agree with this, it's a rather careless way of presenting a point that is sure to have the opposite effect of what it's supposed to.

Most Americans are going to come away from that thinking "We must challenge an ideology that probably has to do with...well, what exactly. Something something Islam." And most unfortunately, The Donald will fill in all the blanks in the worst possible way. It's not the intended message, but that's how it comes across, and a lot of this has to do with well-meaning people who don't want to say certain things for fear of inciting something bad, but then they don't properly define terms and they don't ever get around to saying exactly what they do mean.

So in the end, one of the things that Maajid Nawaz will repeat the most is this. Islam is a religion, Islamism is more of a concerted effort to impose a religion (in this case Islam) on a society. Islamism is the dangerous ideology, and it's one that he personally supported and worked on behalf of once upon a time. But Islam as a voluntarily-practiced religion is not a dangerous ideology and that's where a helpful distinction could be made.

The Quilliam Foundation has a YouTube channel! It gives you pretty easy access to a bunch of stories from men in the UK who were once extremists and now they fight extremism. There is also a new video that's a teaser to the question of whether Islam needs to be reformed; it is just a teaser however and it doesn't really answer the question.
https://www.youtube.com/user/QuilliamFoundation

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Post detailing all the fatwa (legal ruling) and general positions about terrorism from Islamic scholars who have utterly condemned Daesh and also Muslim speakers condemning Daesh and also terrorism in any form alongside explanation of jihad:

1. Talk to Al Jazeera - Former al-Qaeda Mufti: I condemn ISIL attacks (Video)
2. Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings (512 page PDF Fatwa)
3. The Crisis of ISIS: A Prophetic Prediction | Sermon by Hamza Yusuf (Video)
4. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf speaking about ISIS (Video)
5. UpFront - Why do people join ISIL? (Video)
6. How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To Terrorism (Article)
7. Islamic State And What Muslims Need to Be Doing? By Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
8. Mufti Menk On ISIS & Extremism (Video)
9. Does Islam allow Idols to be destroyed like ISIS did? Nouman Ali Khan (Video)
10. Letter to Baghdadi (Letter)
11. Refuting ISIS - Lecture by Syria's Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoub
12. ISIS burns alive Jordanian Pilot - Sheikh Dr. Haitham al-Haddad responds (Video)
13. The Dangers of Extremism (ISIS - Al Muhajiroun - Zionists) - Sheikh Abu Usamah At-Thahabi (Video)
14. Historic Islamic Edict (Fatwa) on Joining ISIS/ISIL (Fatwa)
15. Khawarij Ideology, ISIS Savagery: Part One (Article)
16. Muslims Against ISIS Part 1: Clerics & Scholars (Article)
17. MUI: No Need Fatwa, ISIS already Haram (Article)
18. Al-Azhar graduates reject ISIS 'caliphate' (Article)
19. Syrian Islamic Fatwa Council about the state of Iraq and the Levant (Daash) (Article)
20. Syrian Islamic Council (Article)
21. Shaykh Salih Al-Suhaymee (Video)
22. ISIS is a terrorist organization! Explained by Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee (Article)
23. Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi Interviewed by Syria Comment (Article)
24. Fatwa : Haram Ikut ISIS Dalam Jihad Suriah (Video)
25. ISIS & The Alleged Khilāfah - Shaykh Sālih as Suhaymī (Video)
26. ‘ISIS is enemy No. 1 of Islam,’ says Saudi grand mufti (Article)
27. Don't Blame Others, Blame Yourself (Video)
28. Iraq Sunni Mufti: ISIS and Al Qaeda Slaughtered 300 Sunni Clerics (English Subtitles) (Video)
29. Daesh/Shaytan State are Khawarij (outside Islam) (Video)
30. The Khawarij: ISIS Crisis and the Youth - Brother Alyas Karmani (Video)
31. ISIS 1 of 2: A Historical Analysis of their ideology, and the Kharijites (Video) & ISIS: Historical Analysis of Its Ideology (Kharijites) 2 of 2 (Video)
32. The Khawarij of Our Times (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc) & The True Khilafah (Video)
33. Yayasan Ta'lim: ISIS Is Not Islam [19-03-15] (Video)
34. Egypt's Grand Mufti refuses to call Jihadists in Iraq as Islamic State (Article)
35. ISIS action is worse than genocide: Muslim intellectuals (Article)
36. A statement on the status of al-Shami Jihad and the risks surrounding the scientists dialogue in Riyadh with Mr. Osama Hamdan, Hamas representative in Lebanon D.oled Tabtabai: Istanbul Conference open vistas large to support the Gaza .. and steadfastness revived the role of scientists hunting Media General Supervisor of rational Media Forum for the third satellite is designed to the advancement of media industry (Fatwa)
37. Prominent Muslim Sheikh Issues Fatwa Against ISIS Violence (Article)
38. Canadian imams issue fatwa against ISIS (Article)
39. Muslim leaders including the Grand Mufti of Australia back fatwa against Islamic State
40. Grand mufti says Daesh un-Islamic (Article)
41. Conclusive scholarly opinions on ISIS (Article)
42. Qaradawi says ‘jihadist caliphate’ violates sharia (Article)
43. Arab League denounces ISIS attacks as “crimes against humanity” (Article)
44. Turkey's top cleric calls new Islamic 'caliphate' illegitimate (Article)
45. Islamic State (IS): Hate, Brutality, Oppression & Mayhem (Article)
46. Leading British Muslims issue fatwa condemning ISIS (Article)
47. ISIS: The Enemy of Islam (Video)
48. On War & Beheading: How ISIS Manipulates Hadiths - Shaykh Faraz Rabbani
49. Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not
50. 24 reasons ISIS are wrong: Muslim scholars blast Islamic State (Article)
51. Shaykh Habib Ali Al-Jifri Refuting ISIS Khawarij Ideology (Video)
52. Concept of Jihad in Islam - Al-Habib Ali Al-Jifri & Hamza Yusuf (Video)

Thank you very much for all of this! I don't really have anything to add, I mostly just want to give it a bump and make sure people have another chance to see it if they're just now coming across the thread.

[cooterhein]

Your way of thinking and mine seem to be fairly close. I have always felt that the only way to win a war is to go after them with irresistible force and absolutely crush them. Unfortunately, I'm not the President.

The problem nowadays is that the US is tired, after 15 years of war. I know, the Middle East is just as tired, but it doesn't have the options of either just quitting or fighting at a distance. The US has those options, and a lot of people see no reason for a ground war. It really gets complicated when you realize that Donald Trump would be the President most likely to send in troops, but God only knows what else he'd do; I read a news story the other day, wondering how long it would take Trump to launch a nuclear weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13kaQAg5KE

Donald Trump says, If we have them, why don't we use them? And to that I say, Boo this man.

[cooterhein]

Aside from the fact that I haven't read that link yet. I, after ironically watching horror stories on Youtube, want a society with TOP notch security. I, as a Muslim, want Shariah, which means justice for all.

My ignorance when it comes to Shariah Laws, is such, I can not make any comments, except that I know to be Just and fair, to all.

War is something I don't like. The only time War can be justified is to rid off people who impede the spread of Islam - dawah from entering. I.e. when someone is like "I won't let you guys have this community hear about Islam ever" or something .

I hope I don't regret asking this, but I am curious. You do say you want justice for all, regardless of religion. This justice includes the right to spread Islam, so when someone says "I won't let you guys have this community hear about Islam ever," that is a problem. And I do agree, that is a problem that should be stopped.

My question is, does your sense of justice extend to those who would stop the spread of Christianity? For example, if someone were to say "I won't let you guys have this community hear about Christianity ever. You can practice it in private, but you're not allowed to visibly display anything Christian-related, you definitely can't try to convince any Muslim to leave Islam. That's going to be against the law." Does this also qualify as a religious freedom issue that needs to be taken seriously?

[cooterhein]

I don't know. Google Shariah Atheist and a lot of articles appear. OTOH, I am quite ready to believe that Shariah in one place is not the same as Shariah in another.

From the cited article:

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

I have a bit of a working hypothesis on this, although it's open to development and to new information. Islam as a religion cannot be held responsible for lone wolf nutjobs who kill in the name of a religion that condemns these actions. Islam as a whole should not be held responsible for terror groups that seek to overthrow duly established governments- generally established by Muslims- although this is a more serious threat and in either case it does have Something to do with Islam. It doesn't have nothing to do with Islam, but at the same time Islam proper can't be held to account for what they're doing.

On the other hand, I do believe Shariah is a very good example of something that Islam can and should be held accountable for. Like you say, not all Shariah is just the same from place to place, and it is well worth noting that one of the key distinctions has to do with whether Shariah strictly applies to Muslims who choose to opt-in to it or if it is imposed on an entire population regardless of its religious diversity. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Shariah in general covers a lot more ground than just rules against what thou must do, and it's not exactly as simple and brief as the Ten Commandments. There are much better things to compare it to, I think I would struggle to pick just the right one but the point is it's a fairly comprehensive guide to daily living and it also entails religious courts for settling civil matters, as a bit of an alternative to regular civil court. There's a lot to it.

With that being said, and allowing for specific differences from place to place, when some part of Shariah is incredibly unfair and/or harmful to you personally, and especially when it's imposed on a population with no regard for religious minorities, it's totally understandable for you to take exception to that, and at this point in time I believe this is one example of a situation where it would be appropriate to hold Islam accountable for something. Perhaps in a limited or provisional sense, but as far as I can tell, it would be appropriate for Islam to be held responsible for it Shariah.

[cooterhein]

The situation as it unfolds, suits me perfectly fine. The Syrian conflict will end up injecting millions of Syrian Muslims into the European Union. Therefore, the war is happily busy achieving its goal. Concerning the "extremists", the ball has never really been in their court. If the kafir elite does not react to their provocations, their strategy will not work. The "extremists" will have to wait until the kafir elite gets changed, which does indeed seem to be happening. After that, all odds are off.

I think you may be making a mistake in your assessment of the refugee crisis, and it is a mistake that Daesh noticed from the very beginning. Even before very many refugees had left the borders of Syria, Daesh had already publicly stated a personal concern of theirs- that an unacceptably large number of these refugees would leave Islam, which they would not do if they had stayed in Syria- and along with this, in order to sow dissent and distrust between refugees and Europeans, they also announced their intent to send Daesh members into Europe and carry out attacks. That is a whole conversation of its own, but let's not overlook their initial observation- that Muslims raised in Syria and living their whole lives in Syria, will most probably not ever leave Islam. There is a very near-zero chance of that happening. But if these Muslims become displaced and go to Germany, or Greece, or the US or Canada, there is a non-zero chance that they will convert. It might not be overwhelming or extremely high, but this elevated chance was apparently unacceptable to Daesh.

In the interest of a bit more specificity, there are a few different things that could happen that are related to this. For one, some of these refugees may simply want to hang onto a higher standard of living, and they don't want to return to Syria. Some of those people might decide to leave Islam just so they don't ever have to go back. Along with this, there also may be some people who always wanted to leave Islam but never had the chance until now, and some others who never really considered leaving but then they actually changed their beliefs. And then there might be some other Syrians who want to break every law of Islam but still call themselves Muslim, and they can do that in the West without coming to any harm (usually). In any case, there surely are some people who never took their faith very seriously but they put on a good show until they don't have to anymore.

All told, general estimates would indicate that about 20% of refugees, taken together with their children being raised in Europe or North America, can be expected to become non-Islamic in some form or fashion. If these exact same people had been able to stay in (a stable not-at-war) Syria, we could ballpark that number at 0%, and the death toll could have certainly been less bad along with that if not for all the instability.

Take along with that a more long-term view, in which many if not most of these refugees will be planning to return to Syria in order to rebuild once it's more stable. Not all of them will even want to go back, of course, and many if not most of the people who stay gone from Syria will be those who have chosen to leave Islam. But the time will come when Syria needs rebuilding, and the Syrian diaspora will largely seek to return home. The ones who don't, though- let's keep an eye on just who's left in Europe and doesn't want to go back to Syria. At the very least, this would be the people who feel more at home there than they do in their homeland.

I don't think any of this has so far entered into your analysis. You seem to be thinking that all these refugees are coming into Europe, they will be there forever, none of them will be at all likely to leave Islam and somehow they will convince all of Europe to become Muslim. This is having quite an effect in the short and medium term, to be sure, but even Daesh was recognizing the likelihood of some significant levels of apostasy right from the outset, and this idea that the most unstable regions on the planet are extremely well positioned to use that instability to their advantage....there are some significant flaws in this analysis.

[kritikvernunft]

Daesh had already publicly stated a personal concern of theirs- that an unacceptably large number of these refugees would leave Islam...Muslims raised in Syria and living their whole lives in Syria, will most probably not ever leave Islam. There is a very near-zero chance of that happening.

Even though I am definitely anti-statist left wing, and even though the left-wing majority is clearly statist, we agree on a lot of things. a first one of which is that western involvement in Syria is obnoxious, and a second one that we are to take in the Syrian refugees into the European Union, if they so desire. I can completely confirm with you that they are not meant or expected to leave Islam, since doing so, would pretty much neutralize the entire strategy itself. The dislike of the right wing for the Syrian refugees is not necessarily on racist grounds, but is primarily a statement against Islam. Left-wing statists believe that they can adjust or even "modify" Islam as to fit into a National Statist model, and are in conflict with the right wing over this, but you can imagine that left-wing anti-statists do not believe at all that these modifications would be desirable. For the anti-statist left wing, the fact that Islam does not fit into the National State model is a feature and not a bug. Hence, there is no need whatsoever for any changes to Islam -- on the contrary, there is an important requirement to keep it the way it is now -- and the Syrian refugees are obviously not expected to apostatize.

...this elevated chance was apparently unacceptable to Daesh.

These people seem to be a bit ineffective at what they do, and if they keep alienating everybody, they will fail to achieve anything. The kafir elite has already declared umpteen times that they will not play ball. The game that they want to play, is too simplistic. Still, I agree that our beloved Donald Trump may fall for it. But then again, from our point of view, it is a one-way bet. Concerning the statist left wing, it is clear that their attempts to water down Islam will generally fail. It is the pure, raw form that is truly an active ingredient and that is politically effective.

they don't want to return to Syria.

Of course not. They were supposed to beef up the head count of the Islamic constituency in the European Union. Returning would simply defeat the object.

Some of those people might decide to leave Islam just so they don't ever have to go back.

That would be another exercise in pointlessness. Even the statist left wing does not want that. They only want to water down Islam, and not remove it. But then again, for the anti-statist left wing, it would make Islam pointless, if they manage to water it down.

And then there might be some other Syrians who want to break every law of Islam but still call themselves Muslim, and they can do that in the West without coming to any harm (usually). In any case, there surely are some people who never took their faith very seriously but they put on a good show until they don't have to anymore.

There is a major difference between apostatizing and sinning. There is no serious problem with Muslims who are just sinning. They will inevitably get older and abandon any self-defeating ways along the way. I would not worry about that. If they pronounce statements against the religion, however, then they become enemies of Islam, which is another ball game altogether. Their own families may repudiate them. I recommend against doing that.

You seem to be thinking that all these refugees are coming into Europe, they will be there forever, none of them will be at all likely to leave Islam and somehow they will convince all of Europe to become Muslim.

Nobody is trying to convince anybody else to do anything, actually. It is more a question of letting the contradictions in the system take it to the place where it irresistibly wants to go, and just to make sure to be there, and wait for the time that it is your turn to do your job. It is utterly pointless to try to actively manage the situation. Not one person manages it. It is being managed by invisible higher-order logic, of which you can more or less second-guess where it wants to go.

...this idea that the most unstable regions on the planet are extremely well positioned to use that instability to their advantage...

Well, I suspect that they do not really know or see what of who exactly is doing all of the positioning, and that there is an inescapable higher-order logic to all of this. But then again, it is not really a requirement that they would understand this.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

I feel like giving your post a standing ovation.

*Claps*

And THAT's, folks, is the MAIN reason why I do not want a Donald Trump presidency.

Many crib about political correctness and the like, but that political correctness is the reason that people today behave today with a modicum of civility with one another and don't articulate their hatred or dislike of race, sexual orientation, gender, what-have-you.

I do agree with you that, policy-wise, odds are Donald Trump would be met with nothing but obstruction, even worse than what President Obama faces. At least for his plans. Pence, on the otherhand, is more a part of the Republican machine, and so his agendas are much more likely to be actionable, as far as the GOP is concerned.

However, in terms of Donald Trump himself, the real danger of a Trump presidency isn't his likely-to-be-blocked policies, but rather the social impact of someone with his jingoistic, regressive, xenophobic hate-mongering being president. It will, at least in the minds of those like him, legitimize their hate as something of merit. It will be seen as something to be proud of, something acceptable, and okay to act on.

After all, if the president can hold these views, act on these ignorant, hateful, views, then it must be okay for the citizenry to do so as well.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Yes, they have. In fact, the next time the world is supposed to end is this October 31st. I have lost count of how many times the world has ended, just in my own lifetime, and I'm getting a little tired of it.

Hey, cheeky sir, the world is not ending on October 31st.

:/ I am estimating the end date to be on November 8th, 2016 - gotcha, well, I'm kidding!

But honestly, do you really believe we religious folks are that dumb? No, it's not going to end like that.

However, I truly believe that there's going to be a WWIII just as all holy books have warned, and this time it's going to comprise of a nuclear holocaust, or in other words, Armageddon. That Armageddon is not the end of the world, however. A good book to read on this from the Islamic perspective which I'd recommend to you or anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, interested in this topic is this 6-star rated book on Amazon, The Approach of Armageddon? An Islamic Perspective

And the reason the nuclear holocaust is not said to be the end of the world in Islam is because there are things like the Gog and Magog that have to be released alongside the sun rising from the West. So, many people do survive in the nuclear holocaust, or Armageddon, but many don't also.

Here's a more horrifying thought: Just suppose that Armageddon is *not* the end of the world, and that you survive. Think real hard about it.

An Islamic scholar once said that the next WWIII will be between Russia and America as from what I understand the end-time prophecies relay two Christian majority nations are going to be fighting one another with Muslim-majority nations also taking sides. This makes sense to me.

For example, read this news article published on February 16, 2016 in which Russia affirmed the possibility of WWIII. Also, in another article published April 20, 2015, called Russia vs. US: The World War 3, it literally says if that war were to happen, "[t]he U.S. will be completely destroyed."

Hey, learn to give us theists credit - we're not as dumb as we sometimes sound! Actually, I like to think we're misunderstood souls in a trying world - *sighs.*

[kritikvernunft]

And THAT's, folks, is the MAIN reason why I do not want a Donald Trump presidency.

With the National State being a false pagan belief that attacks the very nature itself of mankind, by utterly depraving it, the most appropriate way to sink this dangerous false god, is to let it discredit itself. Seriously, it must do all the hard work by itself. I am not going to lift a finger by myself and I will not try to further point out how evil it is. I just want its followers to see it with their own eyes, when their obnoxious false god starts eating their flesh and drinking their blood.

My computations say that our beloved Donald Trump is very likely to extensively do all of that for us.

If the mayhem will come as a surprise to you, because you are unprepared, you are obviously a believer in that false god, the pagan National State, and then it is only fair that you will be useful as a human sacrifice to that satanic thing. Your soul will already be its property. Therefore, he will also have the right to completely devour you. If you are prepared, however, you will just be able to watch and enjoy how Satan turns on his own followers. He always does that, as soon as he can no longer use his followers to turn on other people. Satan will always keep eating, no matter what happens. It is the One God himself who enforces the law, and who agrees to turn over Satan's followers to their false god. In the One God we trust and in nothing else.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I have discussed this issue before on IB at least tangentially, and I understand what you mean. However, I don't see my view as being nationalistic but as expressing a natural attachment to one's place of residence. And I do trust in Allah.

With the National State being a false pagan belief that attacks the very nature itself of mankind, by utterly depraving it, the most appropriate way to sink this dangerous false god, is to let it discredit itself. Seriously, it must do all the hard work by itself. I am not going to lift a finger by myself and I will not try to further point out how evil it is. I just want its followers to see it with their own eyes, when their obnoxious false god starts eating their flesh and drinking their blood.

My computations say that our beloved Donald Trump is very likely to extensively do all of that for us.

If the mayhem will come as a surprise to you, because you are unprepared, you are obviously a believer in that false god, the pagan National State, and then it is only fair that you will be useful as a human sacrifice to that satanic thing. Your soul will already be its property. Therefore, he will also have the right to completely devour you. If you are prepared, however, you will just be able to watch and enjoy how Satan turns on his own followers. He always does that, as soon as he can no longer use his followers to turn on other people. Satan will always keep eating, no matter what happens. It is the One God himself who enforces the law, and who agrees to turn over Satan's followers to their false god. In the One God we trust and in nothing else.

[islamirama]

Some people here sure talk a lot, not sure if its because they love to "listen" to their own voice or just lot of time and words to waste...

Abu Umamah Al-Bahili (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said,
"I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a home in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannahfor one who has good manners.''
[Abu Dawud]


When we argue, the devil [Shaitaan] joins us!

Once the Prophet [SallAllahu Alayhi Wasallam] was sitting with his Companions, and one person used insulting words against Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] causing him pain. But Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] remained silent. The person again used bitter words against Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu], and still Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] did not respond. The third time when this ignorant person hurt Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] with his tongue, Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] tried answering back.

At this point the Prophet [SallAllahu Alayhi Wasallam] got up. Abu Bakr [Radhiallahu 'Anhu] asked him, “Are you displeased with me, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet [SallAllahu Alayhi Wasallam] replied, “No, but (when you remained silent) an angel came down from the heaven responding to this man’s talk. But the moment you started replying to that man, the angel went away and the devil sat down. And I cannot sit where the devil is sitting.” (Abu Dawud B41#4878)

There is a particular Muslim in the UK that I'd like to bring to your attention, if you aren't familiar with him already. Maajid Nawaz- he used to be an extremist himself, he spent 5 years in prison in Egypt because of this but then he reasoned his way out of extremism, formed an organization called Quilliam along with another ex-extremist named Ed Hussein (in the UK), he is still a Muslim but now he's making a point of speaking out against extremism. Given his history and his experience, he continues to have a rather easy time of finding extremists that he can talk to, and he argues with them all the time. He's kind of intense and focused if you ever see his videos, he's also quite well-spoken and is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast.

At any rate. I see him as a trustworthy source of information, I'm not sure how he's viewed by IB in general.

The Muslims in UK are well aware of him and do not like him one bit. He has been exposed as a fake, a liar and a hypocrite. No one takes him seriously except the ignorant and the naive, especially among the non_muslims. Most members here are UK based, you can check with them..

Here's an article exposing his tall tales of "extremism" and being "enlightened"
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pro...rror-celebrity

and here's an article exposing his "islamic" character:
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/04/10/maa...don-nightclub/

[Abz2000]

If anyone goes through the thread and reads through, you'll find that some questions were asked and clear and rational answers were provided based upon the truth, the best source of which is Quran, sunnah, and wisdom. Then you'll notice the decepticons resorting to lying and making totally and openly false accusations with apparent attempts at creating discord and unnecessary fighting based on blind hatred which were refuted with truth, better to stick with Allah and proclaim His message than flounder in a confusion of falsehood.



Remember, let's keep it real by trying to adhere to Allah and obeying Him to the best of our abilities :)
The questions have been answered clearly and there is no point in wasting time and bickering over nonsense.
It's almost as transparent as american democracy:






:threadclo

[cooterhein]

With the National State being a false pagan belief

From the way that you've consistently been using the word "pagan," I don't think that word means anything close to what you think it means.

I may regret pointing this out, I know you won't really listen and you probably won't respond in a healthy way, but I can't help but say it just once.

[kritikvernunft]

From the way that you've consistently been using ...

That sounds like an endorsement. Consistency is desirable.

the word "pagan,"

The term "paganism" corresponds to shirk (شرك‎‎ širk) and "pagans" to mušrikūn (مشركون).
It is the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God i.e. Allah.
It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).

I don't think that ...

You see, that the is the difference between us, people who specialize in provability (=math) and falsifiability (=science), versus people who just inanely repeat conjectures and entire ideologies from textbooks. What you guys do, is not a valid academic endeavour. We have never and will never consider you to be real intellectuals. Seriously, since you do not even know how to think correctly, it does not matter to us that you "don't think that". Who cares?

[nadinesauriol]

Salam walikum

Allah is Great

[Serinity]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Aaqib]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

I wonder how you think the US is the enemy of Islam if only a small population of people here are Islamaphobes.

Don't stereotype, and yes, the civilian bombings, they aren't bombing because of just killing muslims, it's because they think they are terrorists, they are too clueless to know the difference (the army).

If the US was the enemy of Islam, then no muslims would be living in peace here. If we were to point fingers on who hates muslims, then we should point to Myanmar: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/world/...ute/index.html

[jabeady]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

Maybe you should read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...americans.html

[cooterhein]

The term "paganism" corresponds to shirk (شرك‎‎ širk) and "pagans" to mušrikūn (مشركون).
It is the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God i.e. Allah.
It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).

Okay, see, nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with worship. National identity is a non-religious concept. You need to be informed of this at least once, even if you ignore it and are incredibly rude about it.

[Serinity]

Maybe you should read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...americans.html

So you are saying this propaganda is just to steer non muslims to hate muslims. And vice versa? although those who propagate hatred for Muslims, well. Best not to bundle everyone in the same boat.

The rise in Muslim hate, propaganda, and the demonization and terrorization of Islam, trying to link Islam and terrorism together - trying to make them synonymous.

I won't paint everyone with a broad brush. This media propaganda is trying to steer Non-muslims to hate Muslims, and Muslims to hate non muslims. What I find ridiculous is the increase in hatred for Islam.

Politician will prob start being like "we see Niqabs/hjiabs as a form of terrorism, or potential threat of terrorism, therefore we must ban it for security and safety reasons" doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

By that logic, I should have you be in Jail cuz you are a potential terrorist. But what the implications this ^ above quote is sending is that "Terrorism = Islam".

But given the situation with ISIS, being terrorists using Islam to further their agenda. Their goal is for the West to hate ISlam, innit? What kind of Islamic State would do that?

I'd call myself a hypocrite if I'd generalise whole USA for being Enemies of Islam, cuz it is the politicians, and Allah :swt: knows best.

However it does give the vibe and the consequences of this propaganda against Islam, banning Islamic symbols in the name of "terrorism" or "extremism" is that for a Muslim:

It is offensive to see our religion being seen as synonymous with Terrrorism. We know this is propaganda.

For the non muslim:

he thinks this is Islam and distances from it.

Problem is, how is it fair for politicans to ban stuff in the name of extremism just because of some group Like ISIS?

I am tired of politics, and Idk.

I feel like this is all a trap to further Islam vs. the world image. Brainwashing non-muslims. If we muslims act on this propaganda by furthering away and going against US, would we have contributed to the problem?

But thing is, USA is bombing Iraq, etc. and what excuse did USA have for bombing? All in the name of Terrorism. In Islam if one's homeland is bombed on has a right to self-defense.

Or this is just the media trying to further hatred towards both sides. But what I do know is the obvious Islamophobia, which I think the government and those who do it are guilty for.

The USA bombing, and the citizens do nothing about it? Why so?

But seriously, I find this whole politic game pathetic.

[jabeady]

Sigh. The story is about how Muslims are "just people,",and neither to be feared or hated.

Never thought I'd have to defend a pro-Muslim story to a Muslim.

[Serinity]

Sigh. The story is about how Muslims are "just people,",and neither to be feared or hated.

Never thought I'd have to defend a pro-Muslim story to a Muslim.

Lol, I guess. I guess we had a misunderstanding. I don't hate you personally. :)

my motto in MMORPG is "solo-it-out!". I am still firm on the fact that joining the US army is kufr and apostasy.

There is no need to and the West hates Shariah, so what you are fighting for is their laws and their ways.

[jabeady]

Lol, I guess. I guess we had a misunderstanding. I don't hate you personally. :)

That's good to know.

There is no need to and the West hates Shariah, so what you are fighting for is their laws and their ways.

"The West" doesn't hate Shariah so much as it fears it. The image Shariah has is that of a code of laws characterized by strict intolerance, repression and brutality. It is also the impression of most here that Muslims are dedicated to imposing Shariah on the entire world by force.

From what I've learned here, even in Muslim - majority jurisdictions Shariah cannot be imposed on non-Muslims. Assuming that's true, I have absolutely no idea why Muslims apparently make no effort to publicize this fact. OTOH, it has long appeared to me that most Muslims really don't care how they're seen by the rest of the world, except to complain about how the world sees them. I see almost no interest in correcting the West's admittedly mistaken view.

The tragedy is that, Trump not withstanding, there are plenty of Westerners willing to listen. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands of non-Muslims volunteered to escort Muslims on shopping trips and such, just as one example.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

That's good to know.

Well, I like you. ;)

"The West" doesn't hate Shariah so much as it fears it.

I think that is definitely a big part of it. People often fear what they don't understand, and this has been happening since time immemorial (that is, fear of the unknown). So, nothing new in regards to the human nature fearing the unknown or that which is considered strange.

The image Shariah has is that of a code of laws characterized by strict intolerance, repression and brutality. It is also the impression of most here that Muslims are dedicated to imposing Shariah on the entire world by force.

From my study of shariah (Islamic law), granted I'm a layperson and not an Islamic scholar, is the complete antithesis of that. However, I can see how it can be interpreted that way when people have a very simplistic understanding of the matter.

From what I've learned here, even in Muslim - majority jurisdictions Shariah cannot be imposed on non-Muslims.

True.

Assuming that's true, I have absolutely no idea why Muslims apparently make no effort to publicize this fact.

Well, since for Muslims following shariah (Islamic law) mostly means dealing with marriage, divorce, funeral, hygiene, prayer, finances, etc., I think Muslims to be honest are generally quite perplexed as to why non-Muslims are quite fussed (when that should not be so) as there isn't anything about which to be concerned. Also, Muslims, especially in the U.S., are politically not organized to get their voices out and do not have a lobby. The closest Muslims have anything to speak for them is CAIR, which focuses specifically on civil liberty violations of American Muslims. Also, I think the issue is twofold: (1) Muslims do not have a lobbying platform in which they can unitedly be heard, and (2) the media and the public is also generally not giving mainstream Muslims a free space to say their piece.

OTOH, it has long appeared to me that most Muslims really don't care how they're seen by the rest of the world, except to complain about how the world sees them. I see almost no interest in correcting the West's admittedly mistaken view.

Yes, I have noticed that too. I think honest dialogue is important in the context of such discussions, and therefore I hope I do not get any flak for saying that I feel many Muslims have adopted a victim mentality from which they are unwilling or unable to budge. Now, in case someone wants to tell me differently here, let me amend that to say I'm not saying that Muslims in other parts of the world have not felt the imperialistic ambition of Western countries or that Muslims have not died elsewhere in the globe and unfairly due to a result of wars. However, I also think some Muslims would rather complain than be proactive and positive about making any difference in Western perception of Islam and Muslims.

The tragedy is that, Trump not withstanding, there are plenty of Westerners willing to listen. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands of non-Muslims volunteered to escort Muslims on shopping trips and such, just as one example.

You said it! It's a tragedy that people are not willing to have those conversations even when there is a willing audience. That said, I do think that there's a rising far right in many Western countries, including the U.S., that sees Muslims increasingly as a problem because of how Islamophobia has now entered the mainstream public discourse and discussions on how evil Muslims or Islam is even considered a valid political talking point! This does need to change; however, like with any change, I hope people, Muslims and non-Muslim, realize that there is no magic wand to wave and make it happen. Sometimes, it starts with just one ordinary person, a person perhaps like Khirz Khan.

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)Well, I like you. ;)

Oh, well thank you. [emoji5] I like you, too.

I think that is definitely a big part of it. People often fear what they don't understand, and this has been happening since time immemorial (that is, fear of the unknown). So, nothing new in regards to the human nature fearing the unknown or that which is considered strange.

As an illustration, I posted one of the news stories at the beginning of the thread about a female Muslim student in Chicago being roughed up by police, in an atheist forum; the following quote is the entire text from one of that forum's more even-handed replies.

Note that both here and in the other forum I have deleted any personally - identifiable information regarding the poster, and have omitted any identification of both forums. Additionally, in the other forum I quoted only the news article and nothing that originated on IB.

Finally, since the other forum is for atheists, there is at least in theory no religious bias (this guy hates everybody equally).

I will explain my view a little more eloquently and I will break it down into two sections that are in the victims claim.

1: Her right as a citizen and a human being.

Yes she should of been told to stop, she should of course been informed of the reasons and be asked to cooperate and of course the police need to give a legitimate reason as to why the stop happened.

No matter what, a strip search of course should be conducted fairly and humanely. If some 'lucifer effect' made the male cops powertrip and abuse their position of power and ogle and laugh at the woman of course they need to be punished and it needs to be investigated (Or maybe from the police perspective, covered up).

2: Claims of rights by an ironic, overpowering bullshit religion.

I'm sorry but again I find it ironic how somebody who covers themselves up, much beyond the hajib, because their religion does not trust them and that they wont tempt men by showing skin. An ideology that treats women as second class, where they can be 'owned' under polygamous marriage, can then bleat on about having 'rights' that in the western world, they have already given away through their religion and include it in a lawsuit.

I compare that to the christian who thanks god for curing their loved one of cancer, whilst not questioning the very same god for giving them cancer in the first place.

Its hipocritical, parodoxical and illogical.

The case should be about number 1, it should not include number 2.

But then again im biased as an atheist and see all religion as bullshit.....

[kritikvernunft]

Okay, see, nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with worship. National identity is a non-religious concept.

Every belief concerning law is a matter of religion. Pure monotheism claims that there is only one legitimate lawmaker, the singular God. Therefore, any belief claiming that the National State would be a legitimate lawmaker is a false, pagan belief. It has nothing to do with national identity. As a believer, you are certainly allowed to identify with a territorial polygon, but you are not allowed to claim that this territorial polygon would also be a legitimate lawmaker next to or above the singular God.

[cooterhein]

Every belief concerning law is a matter of religion. Pure monotheism claims that there is only one legitimate lawmaker, the singular God.

I (and the rest of the West) would argue that God's laws- although they're called laws- are not compulsory in the same sense that actual laws are compulsory, they should never be compulsory, and they were never intended to be compulsory by God when He was letting people know about these laws.

Religious laws are a thing. But there is no compulsion in religion, or so you say. But it's not what you really mean, because when I say God's laws are strictly optional- God's laws are opt in, or opt out, at will- God's laws cannot, or should not, ever be laws that anyone is forced to follow- you don't agree with any of that. People should always have the free choice to obey God's laws or not, in whatever capacity they understand God to have laws. They should not be enforced on a broad population in any compulsory way.

Now, this is where we differ, because I am not only arguing that God's laws should not be forced on people- they should not be compulsory- I am arguing that God Himself Never Wanted Them To Be That Way. Optional, non-forced, non-coerced adherence to God's laws was always Always ALWAYS the plan for these laws, and this idea that the laws of a particular religion- which claims that their laws came from God- should be the sole law of a country? Or of anyone? That is an aberration. That does not align with the plan that God had for His laws from the beginning. They were never supposed to be compulsory. There was never supposed to be compulsion in religion, and yes religious law has something to do with religion. Of course it does, it's right there, "religious" law. No, of course it's not supposed to be compulsory. My position does align with the plan God had for His laws all along, yours does not.

But you don't get that. You have an entirely different way of looking at it. You claim that there is no compulsion in religion, and yet you somehow think that God's laws were always supposed to be compulsory from the very beginning. You believe that God said "There is no compulsion in religion" out of one side of his mouth, then out of the other side he said "This religious law that I give you should be compulsory." And you believe that in every country where Islamic law is enForced on everyone, regardless of religion, they are carrying out the original plan that God always had and you dream of the day when the whole world is forced to follow Islamic law under pain of punishment as decided by Shariah courts.

You're wrong about all of that. God never wanted His laws to be compulsory. He never intended to force anyone to obey His commands, and He never appointed anyone to be law enforcement for God. God's laws were never supposed to be mandatory.

Now, there are other laws that are supposed to be mandatory. They're not God's laws, but people are forced to follow them. They get punished in some way if they don't. I got a parking ticket just recently, as one example. There was a time restriction on the parking space, I parked there on a Sunday when there was no fine attached to parking there but I didn't get to my car before 9 am on a Monday morning and so I found a ticket on the windshield when I got there. And so I payed the fine.

The reason I tell you about this is in order to drive this point home. Actual laws of cities and countries are not greater than God's laws. They are just different. I got a parking ticket, I paid the parking ticket, what does that have to do with God's laws? Has God ever been in the business of parking tickets? Has He ever left a ticket on someone's windshield? No sir, this is just a completely different thing. God is doing something when it comes to laws that are non-compulsory, and then there's a whole different legal code that is compulsory. There is some overlap, of course, but where it does overlap mostly deals with truly heinous crimes that are forbidden by God's law (which, as far as I'm aware, mostly specifies eternal consequences without very specific temporal ones) and they're also forbidden by, let's call it, Mandatory Law. Within a legal code that has very specific penalties, bail procedures, and ways in which legal recourse and review can be carried out. Legal systems, law enforcement, representation, ensuring that people are forced to obey His laws- all of these are things that God never even remotely did when it came to His laws, so even though God's laws are the greatest laws ever (as long as you properly know what His laws actually are, and respectfully, I don't trust Islam to show me that), there is no question at all that God never created an entire legal system or courts or any means of forcing people to obey His laws. People can obey them if they want to, in light of eternal consequences and their love for God, or they can choose not to do that and only follow the Mandatory Laws that are created by men. Yes they are created by men, and yes you must follow them because you're forced to.

But they aren't greater than God's laws, one set of laws simply happens to be mandatory (and a bit more broad, also totally unrelated in its content in many parts of the legal code) whereas God's laws are superior in quality, entirely non-compulsory, shouldn't ever be enforced by people who seek to compel obedience, and they are typically a bit more stringent and difficult to follow in their entirety. For many people of many different religions, one of the defining features of their religion is that they constantly breaks God's laws, and despite never being fined or sent to prison, they repent, seek forgiveness from God and not from a religious court, and they gradually get better at adhering to more and more of God's laws while helping other people do the same.

Yes God's law is superior. No it is not mandatory, and it was never supposed to be. That makes it different, it does not make it less good or inferior. The question of compulsion has absolutely no bearing on the good or bad qualities of laws, it's just another detail about them.

So with all that being said, there really is no compulsion in my understanding of religion, in that God's laws are non-compulsory and they were always meant to be non-compulsory. Now let me ask you something, and please be very clear and straightforward in your response. (I know you won't, but I'll ask you to anyway). Where do you stand on compulsion in your religion? Do you believe God's laws are or ought to be compulsory, or do you believe they are and ought to be understood as non-compulsory?

Please make sure you answer the question about compulsion in your religion. Do you understand God's laws, and the intent behind them, to be compulsory or non-compulsory? Please pick one. If you pick one, I will thank you for agreeing with me, if you pick the other I will nail you to the wall because of the massive contradiction that you are obviously guilty of.

Please, take your time. Choose wisely.

[kritikvernunft]

I (and the rest of the West) would argue that God's laws- although they're called laws- are not compulsory in the same sense that actual laws are compulsory. God's laws are strictly optional ... Actual laws of cities and countries are not greater than God's laws. They are just different.

Well, yeah. All laws are optional in a sense. However, that makes the laws that protect you from harm, also optional. Since it is Divine Law that prevents believers from arbitrarily killing you, if you give up Divine Law, in a sense, you also give up your rights under Divine Law. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law against believers who are hostile to them, they should expect that they will only fail to address their hostility. As you know, this is exactly what is happening around you. Some believers arbitrarily kill unbelievers. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law, the unbelievers have no recourse whatsoever against the believers who are hostile to them. You see, that is not my problem, because the believers are not hostile to me. It is only a problem that the unbelievers suffer, and not a problem that concerns me personally. In theory, I could possibly tell these unbeliever-hostile believers that I think that they are over the top. In practice, I don't, because I don't care. Seriously, it is not my problem.

... only follow the Mandatory Laws that are created by men. Yes they are created by men, and yes you must follow them because you're forced to ...

Well, the suicide bombers are also "forcing to". I do not see the one as better or worse than the other. Concerning the use of force, the unbelievers are now obviously sitting on a very serious problem. They increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of it. There is a growing price tag attached to enforcing man-made law. As you can imagine, it is not in my interest whatsoever to do anything about that price tag, because I do not really see it as a problem, since it is not me paying for it. In fact, if it is a problem, which is debatable, it is certainly not my problem.

Where do you stand on compulsion in your religion? Do you believe God's laws are or ought to be compulsory, or do you believe they are and ought to be understood as non-compulsory?

No. Divine Law is not compulsory. You will never be forced to accept its obligations nor to claim its rights. Furthermore, I have already argued that in practical terms, I do not believe that, unlike Divine Law, man-made law actually works. As far as I am concerning, I consider man-made law to be an "evolutionary dead end". Of course, it is not my job to try to prevent people like you from trying. You can see, however, that you are increasingly expected to prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in. So, let the show go on. I am watching with amazement! ;-)

[cooterhein]

Well, yeah. All laws are optional in a sense.

Let me stop you right there. Typically, laws are very very not optional. You will face fines imprisonment or maybe even death as punishment for breaking them, That is what Makes them Not Optional. Punishment is forced on you when you break these laws, and that punishment is not optional. If you make the mistake of acting like it is, your situation snowballs and it gets worse and worse for you. If I could avoid paying parking tickets I certainly would, and I would park wherever I like. But parking tickets do happen, fines need to be paid or they lead to larger fines and a summons to court that really shouldn't be ignored, there is crime and there is punishment. That is how laws typically work, and they're not optional Specifically Because Of the Punishment. The only way you could possibly think that laws, which are enforced, are in-a-sense optional is if you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that a Punishment is forced upon you if you break these laws.

Bringing it back to the point at hand, God's law Is optional because there are not specific temporal punishments or penalties that are attached to it. No one enforces God's laws. Unless they do, and then I tell them they shouldn't be doing that, and get off me with that. It is the Punishment, or lack thereof, that makes laws mandatory or optional.

Do you understand?

However, that makes the laws that protect you from harm, also optional.

This is incredible. You managed to make a solid chunk of your post completely worthless with that awful premise in the first sentence.

Since it is Divine Law that prevents believers from arbitrarily killing you, if you give up Divine Law, in a sense, you also give up your rights under Divine Law.

I haven't given up Divine Law. And at the same time, I'm protected from being arbitrarily killed by Mandatory Law, the kind that is actually enforced, and that acts as a pretty effective deterrent whenever someone is feeling incredibly violent.

I did mention previously that there was some overlap between Mandatory Law and Divine Law, yes? I even said that it mostly applies to particularly heinous crimes. Arbitrary murder would be one of those crimes. Divine law condemns it without specifying exactly what sort of penalty should result, and Mandatory Law prohibits it while specifying specific types of punishment depending on circumstances, depending what country or state you're in, and depending on whether it's judged to be First Second or Third Degree Murder. Divine Law doesn't explicitly lay out anything that specific, but there it is in the legal code of Mandatory Law.

So in the actual reality that I live in every day, I haven't "given up" Divine Law and I'm not in any great danger of being killed at random either. It works out.

Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law against believers who are hostile to them, they should expect that they will only fail to address their hostility. As you know, this is exactly what is happening around you. Some believers arbitrarily kill unbelievers. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law, the unbelievers have no recourse whatsoever against the believers who are hostile to them. You see, that is not my problem, because the believers are not hostile to me. It is only a problem that the unbelievers suffer, and not a problem that concerns me personally. In theory, I could possibly tell these unbeliever-hostile believers that I think that they are over the top. In practice, I don't, because I don't care. Seriously, it is not my problem.

I don't have the first idea of exactly what you are trying to reference. A significant part of my confusion stems from how I know you're using the term "unbeliever" in a way that would be considered non-standard by almost anyone whether they're religious or non-religious, I just don't have any idea what "unbeliever" means to you when you're referencing the term.

Well, the suicide bombers are also "forcing to". I do not see the one as better or worse than the other. Concerning the use of force, the unbelievers are now obviously sitting on a very serious problem. They increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of it. There is a growing price tag attached to enforcing man-made law. As you can imagine, it is not in my interest whatsoever to do anything about that price tag, because I do not really see it as a problem, since it is not me paying for it. In fact, if it is a problem, which is debatable, it is certainly not my problem.

Now in this part of your response, I must admit, I suspect there is something that I could hope to understand and maybe even agree with. Up to a point at least. I'm still not sure what you mean by "unbeliever" though. There are a couple of really standard ways in which the term is typically used, and I just know you're not doing either of them.

No. Divine Law is not compulsory. You will never be forced to accept its obligations nor to claim its rights. Furthermore, I have already argued that in practical terms, I do not believe that, unlike Divine Law, man-made law actually works.

Thank you so much for clearly stating that Divine Law is not compulsory! I am incredibly relieved to see that you gave an actual answer to a straightforward question.

Now, I am curious about something. If Divine Law is not compulsory- if no one is forced to accept or follow it- and presumably, if no one is punished when it is broken- how exactly does Divine Law "work"? By what measure do you see that working? Especially, and this is important, since you're coming at this from an anti-Statist perspective in which you foresee a much better future without government, law enforcement, or Mandatory Laws as we now know them. What exactly is it that happens with Divine Law under this particular set of circumstances that would cause you to say "That's much better, this is working really well"? Please feel free to correct this premise if I got any part of it wrong, restate that as necessary. I am genuinely curious to know what you mean when you compare the two things and you say one works well and the other does not, I apologize if I didn't do the best job of leading you into a clarifying response but I am actually curious about this.

[kritikvernunft]

Let me stop you right there. Typically, laws are very very not optional. You will face fines imprisonment or maybe even death as punishment for breaking them, That is what Makes them Not Optional. Punishment is forced on you when you break these laws, and that punishment is not optional. If you make the mistake of acting like it is, your situation snowballs and it gets worse and worse for you.

Not necessarily. It depends on who exactly would win the shootout. We recently had a black veteran who killed 12 cops in Dallas. I think that he clearly won. The score was 12-1. Then, you have the suicide bombers who also often win, even though in my impression they may to an important extent pick the wrong adversary. Still, that is just a detail. The truck driver's score in Nice was 84-1, not counting the people who ended up in hospital in a terminal condition. There is a very simple way to redefine "winning" and "losing" in this game. Let's say that I have enough of your threats and that we are both going to leave. If I end up taking 10 000 with me, the score of the game will be 10 000-1, and I will obviously have won. You incorrectly assume that you are the one who would be defining the goal of the game. That is a totally wrong perception of the situation. What's more, both of us will be dead, but I will go to heaven, while you will go to hell.

That is how laws typically work, and they're not optional Specifically Because Of the Punishment.

Correction. That is not how the game works, but how you believe that the game works.

The only way you could possibly think that laws, which are enforced, are in-a-sense optional is if you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that a Punishment is forced upon you if you break these laws.

The laws that really matter are the ones that are in vigour when we are dead already. So, if I die and I take 500 people with me, who the hell cares about your man-made laws at the point? The only laws that matter from there on, are the ones of the singular God.

Bringing it back to the point at hand, God's law Is optional because there are not specific temporal punishments or penalties that are attached to it. No one enforces God's laws.

Of course there are penalties attached. Don't you see that there is a growing extermination fest being carried out amongst the unbelievers? They are increasingly dying like flies, while you and I know that all of that is not going to get better any time soon.

... since you're coming at this from an anti-Statist perspective in which you foresee a much better future without government, law enforcement, or Mandatory Laws as we now know them...

As you can see, government, law enforcement, man-made laws have simply run out of control. All of that will just get cut down to the very, very, very minimum. There may still be something like a State after that, but certainly not anything that can overrule Divine Law. I suspect that the Statists are just going keep dying like flies until the laws of nature will have reasserted themselves. You cannot stop the laws of nature, if only, because they reflect the will of the singular God.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I haven't given up Divine Law. And at the same time, I'm protected from being arbitrarily killed by Mandatory Law, the kind that is actually enforced, and that acts as a pretty effective deterrent whenever someone is feeling incredibly violent.

If you are murdered, then God can restore you to a greater good life after death. But we all have to answer to God for our own actions, we spend a few years on earth and an eternity with or without God. I fear God's judgement more than I fear the judgement of any court on earth.

In the spirit of praying to a just and merciful God,

Eric

[cooterhein]

Not necessarily. It depends on who exactly would win the shootout. We recently had a black veteran who killed 12 cops in Dallas. I think that he clearly won. The score was 12-1.

First, this does not help to prove any point that you've previously been arguing for. Laws are optional if you can break them and not experience any sort of temporal punishment. In every example that you've given, the people who were guilty of lawless action died almost immediately, if not sooner. If they hadn't died, they would have been imprisoned and then maybe killed. If your side of one person dies in your lawbreaking and you kill more than one person, it's rather twisted that you think of this as winning, but it doesn't make the laws governing your actions any more optional. You're still dead.

Second, I think you're underestimating the extent to which American police officers in most major cities are continuing to play this game, if that's what you want to call it. Tensions are rather high and people will continue to die, whoever kills any number of police officers will surely die and any officer who kills an unarmed black man will....probably not be indicted, I suppose we have to work on our judicial system as it applies to cops.

Then, you have the suicide bombers who also often win, even though in my impression they may to an important extent pick the wrong adversary. Still, that is just a detail. The truck driver's score in Nice was 84-1, not counting the people who ended up in hospital in a terminal condition.

None of these people won in the sense of successfully promoting any of their ideology, or in terms of changing laws or changing society to any of their preferences. I think you're overly focused on body counts, as if that is even the primary motivator and goal of these particular types of terror attacks. Every single thing that these terrorists wanted (apart from just killing people) is something you can put in the loss column. The caliphate isn't going to happen, and France continues to be dead set on a secular existence of a particular strand that is not terribly friendly to religion of any kind. And yes, these terrorists are very much dead, and their efforts did not create any safe spaces for terrorists or extremists. It made certain parts of the world decidedly less safe for terrorists and extremists.

There is a very simple way to redefine "winning" and "losing" in this game. Let's say that I have enough of your threats and that we are both going to leave.

The point that I made which led into this is that Regular, Actual Law, or what I've been calling Mandatory Law, is enforced. By force. People are forced to follow it, they are penalized sometimes quite heavily if they don't. And now you're talking about a redefinition of winning? As if that makes Mandatory Law any less mandatory? It doesn't do anything to push back against the point that I'm making, but if you want to think of a terrorist as a winner you're more than welcome to. Like I said though, it's not a particularly direct rebuttal to any of the points that I've been making, and I can only assume that you're going in this direction because some part of you enjoys thinking of terrorists as the winners in some odd fashion.

If I end up taking 10 000 with me, the score of the game will be 10 000-1, and I will obviously have won. You incorrectly assume that you are the one who would be defining the goal of the game. That is a totally wrong perception of the situation. What's more, both of us will be dead, but I will go to heaven, while you will go to hell.

It seems you have thought about this in some detail, and by the way I would actually go to heaven because I'm a Christian, saved for all eternity by Jesus Christ while being indwelt and reborn by the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't begrudge that belief to me, I also hope that you're coming at this with a "game theory" sort of mentality. It is important to clarify that, given the circumstances under which we are communicating. It's almost exactly like communicating sarcasm via the Internet- it doesn't always come across clearly and immediately, so clarification is sometimes a helpful thing.

Correction. That is not how the game works, but how you believe that the game works.

I'm not choosing to frame this as a game with winners and losers, I'm simply describing how crime and punishment works vis a vis the "mandatory" label that I am putting on a regular, everyday legal system. Identifying a winner and a loser is not the issue, distinguishing the mandatory from the optional is the whole point of this, and calling someone a winner or a loser in any of a wide variety of situations is not super relevant to this distinction. I will admit that I do have an aversion to the idea of calling any terrorist a winner, and I probably have a tendency to disagree with the assertion that any dead terrorist has been able to win anything. But the main thing I want to say is that this is all rather discursive.

The laws that really matter are the ones that are in vigour when we are dead already. So, if I die and I take 500 people with me, who the hell cares about your man-made laws at the point? The only laws that matter from there on, are the ones of the singular God.

Well, yes, I have at several points specified that Mandatory Laws deal in temporal punishments, which as I'm sure you know references consequences that we experience in life, before death. I would most likely describe this as a situation in which Mandatory Law applies its consequences and punishments to offenders right up until the point of death, sometimes capital punishment even takes people over the line, and then Divine Law kicks in. In the example of a terrorist, I would argue that Divine Law is very unkind to this person, and I would further argue that terrorists have a very poor understanding of Divine Law. They think that when they murder innocent civilians, especially during Ramadan, they will be rewarded with paradise and sexual goodies. But they won't, because they're completely wrong any won't listen to anyone who disagrees with them.

Do you share this confidence, in the justice of Divine Law after death in the example of these terrorists that you've brought up? Do you share my confidence in the punishment that awaits them, or do you still want to say they are the winners? In their own self-appropriated game theory, of course they are the winners who will have 72 virgins, or perhaps 70 virgins and two young boys, if they're into that. But what do you really think? Under Divine Law, specifically after they have died, do you really think that terrorists really discover that they are winners in the eyes of God?

Of course there are penalties attached. Don't you see that there is a growing extermination fest being carried out amongst the unbelievers? They are increasingly dying like flies, while you and I know that all of that is not going to get better any time soon.

Still not exactly sure what you mean by "unbelievers." It throws me every time you use the word.

As you can see, government, law enforcement, man-made laws have simply run out of control. All of that will just get cut down to the very, very, very minimum. There may still be something like a State after that, but certainly not anything that can overrule Divine Law. I suspect that the Statists are just going keep dying like flies until the laws of nature will have reasserted themselves. You cannot stop the laws of nature, if only, because they reflect the will of the singular God.

I was hoping I would find out exactly how the "will of the singular God" asserts itself in the lives of people who are still, you know, alive. You've already told me these laws are optional, that no one should be compelled to follow them by force (although there are some Muslim countries that enforce Shariah law on their whole population, which they equate with Divine Law and with the will of the singular God, although I would disagree with that in principle and even if I didn't, I would vehemently disagree with any such enforcement in practice). With all of that being said....I was hoping to find out one main thing from you, and I guess I didn't.

[kritikvernunft]

... the people who were guilty of lawless action died almost immediately ...

In terms of man-made law, their action may have been lawless, but since they are dead, only Divine Law matters now. It is not simple to determine the status of their action in terms of Divine Law. Some people say that they broke it. Other people say that they are martyrs and will be admitted into paradise on the spot.

... You're still dead ...

What if dying does not matter? In order to take the matter before the singular God, you can die along with your enemies, and then it is the singular God who will have the last word over what happened. Trying to stay alive at any cost, looks like a silly ambition to me. We are going to die anyway. Why not die in glory and in beauty, head up high?

... None of these people won in the sense of successfully promoting any of their ideology ...

Not sure about that. Lots of people feel gleefully vindicated! ;-)

...The caliphate isn't going to happen...

Well, it's there already. What you probably mean, is that it will not last and disappear again. Possibly.
I am anti-Statist. Hence, I cannot consider to be legitimate the ambition to create yet another National State.
I would only be ok with the idea that the clergy buys a slave in order to make him the Sultan and give him a bunch of unruly slave girls. So, no problem with me if they just want to reopen the Porte Sublime in Istanbul! ;-)

And yes, these terrorists are very much dead, and their efforts did not create any safe spaces for terrorists or extremists. It made certain parts of the world decidedly less safe for terrorists and extremists.

You would still have to know who they are. That is where the surprise always comes. This time it was the boy working in the bakery!

The point that I made which led into this is that Regular, Actual Law, or what I've been calling Mandatory Law, is enforced. By force.

If you live by the sword, you must also agree to die by the sword.
Is MAN-MADE LAW worth dying for?
Not sure at all, because it will do nothing for you, after you will be dead already. Only Divine Law will matter then.
Furthermore, your participation in MAN-MADE LAW will be held against you after you die, because in your lifetime, you will have appointed something next to or above the singular God. You will be guilty of paganism.

People are forced to follow it, they are penalized sometimes quite heavily if they don't.

Yes, and that could have a chilling effect. Therefore, it was really important that the Dallas black veteran shot 12 cops, killing 5, and that the Baton Rouge black veteran shot 7 killing 4.
People would need to do that much more often. You see, all you need is dump of the personnel records by hacking the computers that store them. From there, you would have all the home addresses of all policemen in the country. The next step would be utterly trivial, because you can just have small groups of executioners visiting them one by one, and unceremoniously kill them on the spot. In fact, the willingness to fund this kind of operations, also exists. In the US, you could easily collect a few million dollars for this operation, in bitcoin, just from the black population. That would be more than enough to kill, say 10% of all policemen over the next year. You can reasonably expect at least 50% to resign, because they would obviously understand that they are just sitting ducks.

Hence, with a budget of less than 0.5% of the yearly appropriations to maintain a police force, you can pretty much completely annihilate it. The main problem is that someone has got to do it, and get out of his lazy chair, to start rolling it out. It would be insanely profitable. Seriously, you can make truck loads of money by transforming the willingness to pay to kill the police into an instrument that actually does it. It is not even really dangerous to do it, because how would the police shut down that kind of system? The tor network is full of them already. If they could shut them down, they would, wouldn't they? Maybe some day, I should just set it up! ;-)

The National State stores too much information about itself, that you can use to smoothly destroy it. The National State is incredibly vulnerable. It is really not hard to hack your way through life and get a dump of all home addresses of policemen, and since we are at it, of all army men too. You see, on paper it was possible to create Facebook or Google. That does not mean that it happened right away. Someone still had to actually do it. So, one day someone will indeed monetize on this business model, make truck loads of money, and delight his satisfied customers! ;-)

And now you're talking about a redefinition of winning? As if that makes Mandatory Law any less mandatory? It doesn't do anything to push back against the point that I'm making, but if you want to think of a terrorist as a winner you're more than welcome to. Like I said though, it's not a particularly direct rebuttal to any of the points that I've been making, and I can only assume that you're going in this direction because some part of you enjoys thinking of terrorists as the winners in some odd fashion.

Well, I do not particularly agree with their choice of target. They do not lose because they would not have managed to kill a lot of people, as they desired and planned to do, but because I personally feel that they are picking the wrong targets. Suicide bombing the general population is possibly a questionable practice. There is a legitimacy problem attached to doing that. But then again, I do not see it as my personal job to dissuade them from doing that. As I said before, it is essentially not my problem. I really do not care. It suits me fine that they are possibly misguided, because in the end, what they do, is their own responsibility, and not mine.

I'm simply describing how crime and punishment works vis a vis the "mandatory" label that I am putting on a regular, everyday legal system.

In terms of technology, the National State is an evolutionary dead end. It is so easy to knock it out, that I cannot imagine that someone would not do it one day. So, it is pretty much inevitable that the National State will be annihilated, just as it was inevitable that someone would understand that it was possible to set up something like Google or Facebook. There is simply too much money in doing that. There are simply too many people who would pay for it. That is also the reason why I feel that I would not need to do it. I could as well wait until someone else does it! ;-)

I will admit that I do have an aversion to the idea of calling any terrorist a winner ...

Well, the black veterans are winners, because they obviously picked the right target. Their behaviour was 100% justified in terms of the Qisas. Furthermore, the head count clearly say that they won (12-1 and 7-1). At the basis, the Muslim suicide bombers may have a much more noble motivation, i.e. their faith in the singular God, but by targeting the general population -- no matter how pagan it may be -- they are raining on their own parade. But then again, it is not my job to try to convince them of this. I would be saying things that sound too much like what National Statists would say, and I do not like that too much.

I would most likely describe this as a situation in which Mandatory Law applies its consequences and punishments to offenders right up until the point of death, sometimes capital punishment even takes people over the line, and then Divine Law kicks in.

Well, I do not care about MAN-MADE LAW, and I never will. People in technology generally feel that they are much more dangerous to the National State than the other way around. What the National State could do, is bad, but what we could do, is several orders of magnitude worse. Just to give you an example. What if we hacked their systems (that we actually built for them) and sent the GPS coordinates of the whereabouts of their army operatives and soldiers in real time to their enemies? How long would they survive that? We are very capable of doing that, while they are totally and utterly incapable of defending against that. Therefore, the National State does not impress me at all.

They think that when they murder innocent civilians, especially during Ramadan, they will be rewarded with paradise and sexual goodies. But they won't, because they're completely wrong any won't listen to anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, I may have negative opinions of my own on these matters, but seriously, I do not see any value in explaining this to them. It does not cost me anything to shut up, while advocating against what they are doing, could actually be counterproductive. It would free resources at the National States that are now committed to combating these people. We do not want to see these resources re-assigned to something else, because we don't know what they would be re-assigned to. You cannot deny that they still have some merit by tying up the National State's security departments in a hopeless fight. Hence, they are not completely useless.

Do you share this confidence, in the justice of Divine Law after death in the example of these terrorists that you've brought up? Do you share my confidence in the punishment that awaits them, or do you still want to say they are the winners?

Well, my own personal opinion is that it is not a particularly winning proposition to target and attack the general population. Still, I do not publicize this opinion. I do not insist on it. I am utterly inefficient in getting that point across, and I want to keep it that way, because that suits me absolutely fine.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I was hoping I would find out exactly how the "will of the singular God" asserts itself in the lives of people who are still, you know, alive. You've already told me these laws are optional, that no one should be compelled to follow them by force (although there are some Muslim countries that enforce Shariah law on their whole population, which they equate with Divine Law and with the will of the singular God, although I would disagree with that in principle and even if I didn't, I would vehemently disagree with any such enforcement in practice).

Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give unto God, what belongs to God. You would expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, so why would you object to living under Sharia law if you lived in a Muslim country? If you don't break their laws, then you would be ok.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[kritikvernunft]

You would expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain ...

If the British were consistent, the argument could possibly make sense.

Let's investigate: You would expect the British to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries ... Euh. They didn't. In other words, the following argument would also make sense: The British have no right to expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, because they did not agree to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries. They could try to enforce such asymmetry. However, that would also imply that they are willing to risk their lives and die for that. I do not believe that. I want to see it first! ;-)

In a country where men are equal to women, in that case, why don't the women do the fighting? Every time that it revolves around armed conflict, there is the issue that you cannot give weapons to, and arm British men, while the women would just wait at home, because that would imply that it is the men who wield the real power. In that sense, forcing the British to fight, would immediately propel the underlying contradiction in British society to the foreground. If I am the one supposed to be doing all the fighting, while you are just going to sit there and watch, in what sense would you be equal to me? But then again, if you are not equal to me, then the guys on the opposite side are actually right about that. Hence, British defense would end up utterly collapsing on its internal contradictions. That means that the country and its ideology are fundamentally indefensible. In other words, as soon as someone credibly calls their bluff, they will be toast.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give unto God, what belongs to God. You would expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, so why would you object to living under Sharia law if you lived in a Muslim country? If you don't break their laws, then you would be ok.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

Several reasons.

1) In a Muslim country that has Shariah law that's enforced on everyone (and I know not all of them do), I wouldn't be super welcome there for a number of reasons, not least of which is that as a Christian, it's rather important to me that I evangelize and at least present the opportunity for people to leave whatever religion or non-religion it is that they currently belong to and become a Christian. This is a rather central tenet of Christianity, especially for the particular strand of Christianity to which I belong with is Evangelical. It's no coincidence that evangelism is emphasized to a rather large degree. By way of comparison, Muslims- although they may not feel as welcome as they could be in the West- are perfectly free to invite people to come to mosque, their mosques are free to publicly display whatever it is they want to pertaining to their religion, and in Western countries, you won't be told that you should be satisfied to practice your religion in your home and grit your teeth through a slew of restrictions in public places, all while being told that you are expected to say "thank you" for having the right to have a minority religion that is in effect a bit of a secret.

2) Shariah law is believed by many Muslims to be divine in origin and perfect, and in countries where Shariah law is the only law, that is absolutely believed to be the case by at least two thirds of the population in every example. Such a legal system- especially as it pertains to someone outside the religion, although it is still applied to me- is obviously rather immune to change, to reform, to improvement. Why improve on perfection, and who is this unbeliever to answer back to God and question His will? That's what we're looking at, and that's a huge problem. I happen to be a proponent of natural law, in a certain sense, not in the exact way that Aquinas envisioned it but in a more evolved post-Enlightenment sort of way. You can read up on some of the gory details here. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/
In any event, two of the best things about the core concepts of natural law are as follows. For one, for laws to be just they must be equally applied to everyone and this application must be just and fair in all cases and to all concerned. Shariah law completely dismisses that, as it is clearly intended at all stages to favor Muslims and screw over non Muslims. I don't like being screwed. If you come to the West, you probably miss being shown blatantly obvious favoritism at all times, but instead of that you are treated fairly and equally before the law as compared to all other religions and that is decidedly different from getting screwed.
A second core principle of natural law has to do with the very nature of what it is. Natural law is conceived of as an unwritten law that exists independent of any actual laws, something of a hypothetically perfect law, to the extent that a perfect legal code can be accurately surmised. What's great about it though, is that it puts you in a position where existing laws are up for review, and if they are bad then they should change. What that means is the West is constantly looking for things that could be improved in its legal system and tinkers with it in order to make it better. Under Shariah law, however, there is no improving and no tinkering because Shariah is presumed to be perfect already. The thing is though, it's not, especially in terms of the way non Muslims are mistreated. It violates natural law and flagrantly so, at its very core, and by design, it is impervious to the criticism that it so richly deserves. That's what it feels like when I am approaching Islamic law, whereas you get to approach the laws of the West and make some specific suggestions for potential changes, and the West says you may have a good point there, let's examine that and see what we can really do.

Are you beginning to notice that I have some real things to complain about, while you really don't? Maybe that's why I complain, and you don't.

3) I acknowledge that God created laws, I just don't think he ever told Mohammed about them and to whatever extent Islamic law really is God's law (meh), God did not intend for religious law to be enforced on nation states as a matter of common law. Divine Law, as I have repeatedly stated in previous posts, is supposed to be optional in this life and to only be enforced after death, by God, who is the judge. There is not supposed to be compulsion in religion, Muslims at least know that talking point, what you don't seem to understand is that Laws, when they are enforced, are the most basic and common means of compulsion in the history of humanity. Therefore, to whatever extent Any religious law is enforced, and to whatever extent punishments are meted out by religious law enforcement, that is the extent to which there is compulsion in your religion. And there is quite a lot of that in Islam, more so than in any other religion if I may say so. If you think about it, the vast majority of Muslims practice Islam because they were raised in a Muslim family. And then, once they reach adulthood and if they live in a country where Shariah is their law, they are not allowed to leave Islam. They will be punished, and if they speak out against Islam in a public way they will most likely be killed. If you can't see that as a prime example of compulsion then I don't know what it will take. Shariah, when enforced on a society as its law, is basically just compulsory Islam and beyond the life and death business, all manner of other Islamic laws must be followed or violators will be punished in some way. (Not death of course, usually not, but there are punishments for hundreds of different things all pertaining to Islamic law). It is just overwhelming compulsion of a specifically religious variety, and the very thing that so many Muslims look to as the perfect way for Muslims to order their societies is also the perfect example of pure, unadulterated, overwhelming compulsion in their own religion. This should be rather obvious, and I honestly don't know how in the world anyone can read this, think about it for a second, and just not see it. It absolutely boggles my mind.

Shariah is just awful, especially for a non Muslim or for anyone who might even consider leaving Islam (and anyone else that Shariah deems worthy of mistreatment). The West, on the other hand, is not awful for non Westerners and from a legal standpoint, it's as good to Muslims as anyone else. There are some cultural tendencies that are certainly worth complaining about, and the legal system does have its flaws, but we are working on that and unless your favorite Shariah-governed country is working on being secular, Muslims are absolutely not working on improving anything where I am concerned. You have very little to complain about as a Muslim in the West, but I do have all sorts of very good reasons to complain about Shariah law on a very fundamental level.

Thank you for asking, and I certainly don't mind going into detail.

[cooterhein]

If the British were consistent, the argument could possibly make sense.

Let's investigate: You would expect the British to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries ... Euh. They didn't. In other words, the following argument would also make sense: The British have no right to expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, because they did not agree to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries. They could try to enforce such asymmetry.

That is an excellent point about the British, their colonizing was rather odious wasn't it?

Ah, but the Muslims in India, they had the right idea. Instead of getting along with their neighbors under democratic rule, partition the country into three parts (four if you count Kashmir), give the religious minorities in the newly Islamic countries some time to move out, and then cleanse the rest of those religious minorities as much as possible! That's the way to do it.

In a country where men are equal to women, in that case, why don't the women do the fighting? Every time that it revolves around armed conflict, there is the issue that you cannot give weapons to, and arm British men, while the women would just wait at home, because that would imply that it is the men who wield the real power. In that sense, forcing the British to fight, would immediately propel the underlying contradiction in British society to the foreground. If I am the one supposed to be doing all the fighting, while you are just going to sit there and watch, in what sense would you be equal to me? But then again, if you are not equal to me, then the guys on the opposite side are actually right about that. Hence, British defense would end up utterly collapsing on its internal contradictions. That means that the country and its ideology are fundamentally indefensible. In other words, as soon as someone credibly calls their bluff, they will be toast.

I would like to point out very quickly that I'm from the United States, and I have been paying attention to this exact issue over the course of the last couple of years as people argued about having women in active combat, and eventually it happened. It turned out to be a bit of a non-issue, as far as I've been aware, and the gender-integration seems to be going as well as anyone had hoped. I'm not sure what's going on with the British military, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're working on something similar.

Bringing it back to the OP for the first time in quite awhile- wouldn't it be something if a female Muslim was able to serve in the US military, right? I mean, female military personnel who know Arabic are currently the most-in-demand thing that we need. It also feels good to hear about women killing terrorists, too, because the terrorists believe (some of them believe, anyway) that being killed by a woman causes them to forfeit the martyr's reward that they thought was coming to them. Now, that would be the ultimate indignity for a terrorist, wouldn't it- getting killed by a Muslim American woman serving in the US military. I'm hoping that can be the next step in all of this, and although I'm not up to date on the status of the British military, I know the US military is ready to go and the sooner this can happen, the better.

Actually, now that I've looked it up, as of 2015 the British military determined that in the fall of this year, 2016, British women will begin basic training in order to enter all roles in the military by the end of this year. So good news, that is just starting to happen right now.

Edit- it's a good thing to, they're doing it just in time to avoid your dire predictions pertaining to their implosion and to them being toast. Ah, your wild predictions sure are funny. Now I suppose you'll have to switch to some new predictions, now that they're doing exactly what you said they should. And I assume the British military will still somehow implode and they will still somehow be toast, even though the opposite course of action was supposed to yield that imaginary outcome 15 minutes ago.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you kritikvernunft;

If the British were consistent, the argument could possibly make sense.

Let's investigate: You would expect the British to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries ... Euh.

You can only colonise a country if you are stronger than them. People in power live under the laws that suit them, they can make their own law, and the victors write the history books. The reasons to colonise are more to do with exploiting trade, wealth and power.

The British have no right to expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, because they did not agree to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries.

The British hold the power in the UK, so they make the laws, but I do believe Sharia Courts exist in the UK to rule over some civil matters.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[jabeady]

If the British were consistent, the argument could possibly make sense.

Let's investigate: You would expect the British to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries ... Euh. They didn't. In other words, the following argument would also make sense: The British have no right to expect Muslims to live under British rule whilst living in Britain, because they did not agree to live under Sharia rule whilst colonizing Muslim countries.

Let me get this straight:

You, as a Muslim, speaking on behalf of Islam and Shariah, are saying that two wrongs make a right; that revenge is a tenet of Islam; that the trials sent to Muslims by Allah can be avenged by oppressing others; and so on.

Are you sure you're not a Christian?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

You, as a Muslim, speaking on behalf of Islam and Shariah, are saying that two wrongs make a right; that revenge is a tenet of Islam; that the trials sent to Muslims by Allah can be avenged by oppressing others; and so on.

Are you sure you're not a Christian?

I am sure you already know, but Christians should love and pray for their enemies, we should also forgive.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;



I am sure you already know, but Christians should love and pray for their enemies, we should also forgive.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

I used to be a Christian.

But I got better.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Thank you for sharing that. :) I did see the thread about the Chicago student even on IB; however, I didn't participate in it because I obviously want justice for her but also at the same time I don't believe demonizing our police force is in our best interests. I see what happened as an opportunity for CAIR to demand cultural and religion sensitivity training.

That said, I'd like to correct the opinions in the post you've quoted from the other forum. I just want to say that I described myself as a staunch feminist in the past and I've also been an atheist, and I've been an atheist and feminist longer than I've been a Muslim.

In Islam, we as Muslim women don't cover because we believe that we might tempt men but because we believe that it is a simple act of communicating our love and submission to God who created us; men don't factor into our decision. I didn't submit myself to God as a Muslim because I thought men were telling me this; it was my heart, and my conscience telling me this was the right thing to do for myself as a woman. I didn't feel oppressed; I felt liberated. All my life, I had been told how pretty I am; however, I have felt that nobody would ever see me beyond my looks. It felt freeing to be able to see myself as a person who had more to offer people than mere superficiality. I have rushed a sorority in college; I have been to frat parties and I've worn dresses and shorts that perfectly define "showing skin." I have lived that life. I can honestly say Islam brought me the dignity as a human being that I've felt was denied me as a person otherwise. I don't feel like I'm second class; I feel like I'm first class, always. :)

Islam doesn't see women as chattel to be "owned" in either monogamous or polygamous marriages. Polygamous marriages afford protection to all women in a way that being a girlfriend on the site with whom someone else's husband cheats can't. There are non-Muslim women who fall in love with married men everyday in our own American culture; these women have no rights or protections in an extramarital relationship, and good luck to them for going to court and collecting child support if they get pregnant because these men usually walk away and women are shafted. Also, there will be times when the number of women will outnumber men due to war; what are these women in these types of situations supposed to do? Do they not have sexual needs? If they believe that the only way to share their bodies is in a marital relationship, what are these women supposed to do? Remain single all their lives? Never have children? Are these women not human beings deserving of happiness? I am a woman, and I support the concept of polygamous marriages. Also, we need to remember that Islam doesn't require polygamous marriages of men but it gives men and women the option to enter into polygamous marriage should they desire that for themselves. Let me just say that part of what attracted me to Islam at least partially is that many of the rights that the West didn't come until the last 200 years was given to women more than 1400 years ago in Islam.

Maybe advise this quoted person to come to IB; certainly, I agree with this individual's first part of the quoted post, but I certainly feel that the second part of the quoted post could use revision from interacting and speaking with Muslim women.

Oh, well thank you. [emoji5] I like you, too.

As an illustration, I posted one of the news stories at the beginning of the thread about a female Muslim student in Chicago being roughed up by police, in an atheist forum; the following quote is the entire text from one of that forum's more even-handed replies.

Note that both here and in the other forum I have deleted any personally - identifiable information regarding the poster, and have omitted any identification of both forums. Additionally, in the other forum I quoted only the news article and nothing that originated on IB.

Finally, since the other forum is for atheists, there is at least in theory no religious bias (this guy hates everybody equally).

[jabeady]

Maybe advise this quoted person to come to IB; certainly, I agree with this individual's first part of the quoted post, but I certainly feel that the second part of the quoted post could use revision from interacting and speaking with Muslim women.

No, I don't think I'll invite him here. Most atheists on that board are jerks, and most folk here are pretty nice. If you feel like entering the lion's den, however, check in at The Thinking Atheist. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Just to give you an idea, they'll say something on the order of, you are so oppressed that you don't know you're oppressed.

I never saw atheism as a religion until I started talking with other atheists. That's why I prefer to be called an Unbeliever.

[kritikvernunft]

The British hold the power in the UK ...

The National State and especially its police force are absolutely outdated technology that are no longer viable. I already gave an example of why it is trivial to knock out the police force. If you have a relatively small group of people, who hack any of the systems containing the list of names and home addresses of the police force, they can visit them -- and knock them out -- one by one. There is no way that the National State can prevent that from happening, because the functioning itself of the National State requires collecting this information. Even the banks, the city councils, insurance companies, and so many organizations collect data on the profession of their users, members, customers, and patients. Hence, you can always reconstitute this list by extracting information from various other sources. Any system that generally collects that kind of information is trivial to knock out. The National State cannot overcome the fundamental information asymmetry between themselves and any of their determined enemies. Therefore, such system is not viable on the long run. Furthermore, there are many other reasons why the National State cannot possibly survive on the long run. This is just one of them.

[kritikvernunft]

You, as a Muslim, speaking on behalf of Islam and Shariah ...

For a starters, my profile says "Religion: other". I do not say that my religion is "other", but the qualification actually suits me fine. That would make me an "Other" speaking on behalf of Islam and Shariah. I already said as an "Other" that Islam and Shariah suits me fine. I never said that anything had to be changed about it. Islam and Shariah are absolutely suitable and useful instruments for "Others" to utilize and apply in order to attain particular goals. Islam and Shariah may also be their own goals, and they often clearly are, but from my "Other" point of view they are first and foremost instruments and tools.

...are saying that two wrongs make a right ...

There is something like the Qisas, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It originally appeared in the Codex Hammurabi, was mentioned in the Torah too, and ended up in the Quran as well. Divine Law emphasizes that the morality of hostile behaviour is neutral at the basis, and that its moral status is entirely predicated on the history of hostile behaviour that precedes the particular act of hostility. In other words, there is no out-of-context morality possible about hostile behaviour. Outside of its history, the status of hostility is undetermined.

... that revenge is a tenet of Islam ...

The Qisas does indeed allow the victim to waive his right to retaliation. However, the Qisas does not mandate this. As a matter of fact, nobody can detract the justice-seeking victim from his rights under the Qisas. Symmetry is indeed a central tenet of Divine Law, Fundamentally, Divine Law will overrule symmetry in just a few explicitly mentioned cases: Parents will asymmetrically govern over their children, husbands will asymmetrically govern over their wives, and masters will asymmetrically govern over their slaves. Any asymmetry not mentioned in the scriptures of Divine Law is unlawful.

...Are you sure you're not a Christian?...

As I have mentioned already, the site classifies me as "other" and that suits me perfectly fine. I generally really do not care what other people believe about what I believe. It is of zero importance to me. There are a very limited number of specific circumstances in which your official status matters. It matters when you ask a Muslim family for their daughter in marriage. It also matters when you request a Sharia court not to detract you from the rights and obligations exclusively reserved to Muslims. But then again, in both cases, your own declaration will always overrule third-party declarations. Hence, third-party declarations are of zero importance whatsoever. It is only your declaration that matters.