What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

[cooterhein]

There are certain people and a certain organization in the UK that (from what I've been told here) don't have grassroots support from UK Muslims on the whole. They do have support from the UK government, but it's not getting much traction from the broader Muslim community, specifically most of the people on this forum.

So. Without naming names or engaging in ad hominem attacks on people that I went out of my way Not to name, I have a couple of questions about where you are at.

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

[Abz2000]

One would need to research the definotion of the term "extremism" and wonder if a government is guilty of atheist/secular/economic extremism, or atheist transgression beyond bounds before looking at how people who are reacting should be labelled and what should be done to stifle lawful reaction.

Actually, i find that people haven't yet reacted to the crimes of the u.k government up to the extent allowed by the law of equal retaliation which keeps criminals in check, for if they had, london, and especially SW1 would be a smouldering ruin.

[M.I.A.]

can't stop em, stay away from them.

doesn't really help that the western government's are penalising western Muslims..

my advice would be to pick up on any discrimination and report it to the police.

Maybe raise how the police respond, with local councillors and mp's.

...that probably doesn't answer the opening post, such a narrow minded view of the world probably already has its own answer.

my post?

it's what the Jews do.

you might think it fear.. never be so niev, most people don't chuck there lives away for people that couldn't care less.

as for protecting anybody,

all people are free to walk the land and do as they do.. and each person is lead on a path of questions and answers.

no comment and a quick phonecall should always be available.

...for those with low speech skills.


cool I'll have one of everything.

[Serinity]

we have to know extremism according to what Qur'an and the Sunnah deems extremism.

Sodomy is condemned in Islam, so I don't see why we'd ever protect their rights. Apostates are killed after trial, if they don't return in a state controlled by Shariah.

As for protecting offenders and those who do propaganda against Islam, with satire etc. I'd assume it to be kufr if one knows what he is doing. Protecting someone who ridicules your religion? Never.

Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother. But to a higher level.

you are basically asking us to go against our religion by protecting people who transgress the limits of Allah?

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

[kritikvernunft]

On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism.

Yes, but if the government pays you enough money to say that kind of things, why would you NOT do that? Extracting money from the government is a good thing (tm)! As long as it is clear to everybody that you are being paid good money by the government to say what you are saying, there should be no problem whatsoever in doing that. I would actually quite encourage it.

Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism.

Since it is not particularly clear what "extremism" means, there is no problem with convincing people to abandon and leave undefined beliefs. I do that all the time!

The term "extremism" has no definition but it certainly has a negative connotation. So, you could educate other people on the truth: "Extremism" is a term meant to express negative feelings about others. If I call you a "extremist", I do not mean anything besides the fact that I want to say that I do not like you.

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists?

When I do not like someone, I will not particularly call him an "extremist", because the government already uses that term to designate people that they consider undesirable. I am too single-minded to adopt other people's terminology. That is why I use my own. Therefore, I prefer to use another term to express negative feelings about someone:

You are an unorthodox abnormalist!

It means nothing else than the fact that I do not like this person.
This person should be shunned, rejected, banned, expelled, disavowed, reprobated, dismissed, and utterly repudiated!

[cooterhein]

we have to know extremism according to what Qur'an and the Sunnah deems extremism.

Sodomy is condemned in Islam, so I don't see why we'd ever protect their rights.

Hopefully, out of a general distaste for extra-judicial violence. Everyone should be protected from that, right?

Apostates are killed after trial, if they don't return in a state controlled by Shariah.

I think you know there's plenty of apostates that are frequently killed without any judicial process, and it happens in Muslim majority and minority countries that are not controlled by Shariah all the time.

As for protecting offenders and those who do propaganda against Islam, with satire etc. I'd assume it to be kufr if one knows what he is doing. Protecting someone who ridicules your religion? Never.

I think I understand what you're saying. Nobody, especially some kufr, should feel as if they are able to propagate anything anti-Islam, criticize the religion or satirize Mohammed. My question is:

Or what?

Answer carefully, depending on how you answer you may be an extremist.

Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother. But to a higher level.

I understand the comparison, however in both instances I would have an interest in protecting freedom of speech and the speaker as well.

you are basically asking us to go against our religion by protecting people who transgress the limits of Allah?

No, I'm not asking you to do that. Here's what I'm asking you to do.

I'm asking you to understand that although you believe in Islamic law, and although you may see people breaking Islamic law, you are not law enforcement. No one has ever given you the responsibility of enforcing that law or any other, and you probably don't know anyone who actually has the job of enforcing Islamic law.

So you are not law enforcement, neither is he, neither is that guy, and the guy who just threw a gay man off the roof? He's not law enforcement either. So you shouldn't take it on yourself to punish those who break Islamic law, and you should also help inform other potentially confused Muslims if they seem to think they are law enforcement, because they are not. Could you pass that along if the situation should arise?

Now, does any of that put you in a position where you're going against your religion?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I'm asking you to understand that although you believe in Islamic law, and although you may see people breaking Islamic law, you are not law enforcement. No one has ever given you the responsibility of enforcing that law or any other, and you probably don't know anyone who actually has the job of enforcing Islamic law.

America has bombed and invaded countless countries, who gave them the right to impose their law on other countries? America and Britain have caused far more misery on this Earth than ISIS. If America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian Nations, then we should love and pray for our enemies, not bomb them.

Serenity
Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother.

Cooterhein
But to a higher level. I understand the comparison, however in both instances I would have an interest in protecting freedom of speech and the speaker as well.

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[jabeady]

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

All rights have limits. One saying we have here is that Free Speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Publishing pornographic pictures of someone without their permission violates their rights on several grounds, and is generally illegal for other reasons. A second saying is that your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

[sister herb]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

I am still waiting the situation where those whose protect the unlimited freedom of speech, spread their own hate speech and then start to protect the rights of some other extremists whose yell at the street corners that all non-Muslims should to kill. They don´t do anything else than only use their unlimited freedom of the speech.

Then we have real "freedom of the speech" in the society.

[M.I.A.]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

...did he win?

or turn into a sheep or something?

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



America has bombed and invaded countless countries, who gave them the right to impose their law on other countries? America and Britain have caused far more misery on this Earth than ISIS. If America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian Nations, then we should love and pray for our enemies, not bomb them.

I think you basically want to hurt people who make you angry, and if this wasn't your excuse you'd find a different one.

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

That's actually illegal, and I would do everything in my power to ensure that law enforcement handles it properly. Actual law enforcement, not me taking the law into my own hands.

Can you please say just one thing that would indicate that you're opposed to extra-judicial violence on principle? Give me something. All I see so far is excuses for illegal behavior.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

You know there's people who get hired and have an actual job description that involves ensuring justice for all people.

[cooterhein]

All rights have limits. One saying we have here is that Free Speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Publishing pornographic pictures of someone without their permission violates their rights on several grounds, and is generally illegal for other reasons. A second saying is that your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

You bring up a very good point, freedom of speech is not entirely without legal limits. Notice I'm invoking legality, while acknowledging there are limits.

Speech that incites violence (accompanied by words like imminent present danger) may be prosecuted by law, certain pornographic speech is restricted especially where it's underage or non-consenting, yelling fire in a crowded theater is another good example. There are limits to free speech, and in the UK, as it is almost anywhere that you'd want to live, there are laws that describe the limits of free speech pretty precisely.

There are also people who enforce the law, they are collectively known as law enforcement.

There is also a certain kind of person who becomes very angry when someone offends them, albeit without breaking any of the laws of the UK, and they decide it's time for some illegal, lawless, extra-judicial violence. Why? Because somewhere else in the world, bombs are being dropped. Or because back in their homeland, important religious leaders will praise them and say "you are a ghazi," or "you died a shaheed," or "you were defending namoos-e-Rasool."

So yes, there are limits to free speech. Those limits are known to us by laws, and they are enforced by law enforcement. It's a pretty simple system, and if anyone is looking for the place where you get to break into that system and do harm (illegally I might add) because of your great anger and offense, that's not supposed to happen. It's not a part of the system, and it will always be a bug no matter how much anyone wants to make it a feature.

Not you, of course, not the person I'm replying to. Thank you for pointing out the limits of free speech and for the rest of your reply, which was very nice to see. I know it's hard sometimes, and I appreciate the effort that you're making.

[Scimitar]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

Do what? protect the right to someones hate speech?

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, but the American bill of rights has blurred the difference.

And that's the American brand of "free speech", the sheeple version. Yes.

Scimi

[cooterhein]

I am still waiting the situation where those whose protect the unlimited freedom of speech, spread their own hate speech and then start to protect the rights of some other extremists whose yell at the street corners that all non-Muslims should to kill. They don´t do anything else than only use their unlimited freedom of the speech.

Then we have real "freedom of the speech" in the society.

Anyone who believes in truly unlimited freedom of speech is bound to do something illegal at some point and get in trouble for it, because the law of the UK does not permit truly unlimited freedom of speech. I actually am aware of the legal limits on freedom of speech, and it is good that there are some limits.

Here's the thing. I have a particular message that I'm trying to get across, and it doesn't have anything to do with arguing that free speech is limitless (it's not) or that I may offend people however much I want (again, there are limits, and I don't particularly want to offend people a whole lot). There is a certain message I'm trying to get across though, and here it is.

Obey the law. Seriously, obey the law. Even if you are angry, even if you are offended, obey the law. Don't change the subject to foreign policy, don't explain to me just how super angry you are, just obey the law. Once I'm very sure that you intend to obey the law on a consistent basis, then you can talk about whatever you like.

You are not law enforcement. If you think you are, but you're really not, and you go ahead and punish someone for breaking Islamic law, you are actually the one who's breaking the law. UK law, the kind that gets you sent to prison. If you survive the encounter.

So it all really comes back to just one thing. Obey the law. Which is to say, the law of the UK, if that's where you live.

Pretty simple, right? I hope everybody can do that, even if you do object to certain aspects of UK and US foreign policy. Of course there are very good reasons to have a problem with that, I'm sure those reasons are well founded, but still. Obey the law. It's pretty simple, and I honestly hope that everyone here will be able to do that.

Also, please keep in mind that every once in awhile, you will be offended and angered by people for religious reasons- just ask yourself if the offensive person is breaking the law. If they are, get law enforcement on it. It's not your job to handle. If they are not breaking the law, do whatever you like, just as long as you make sure you're not breaking the law either.

[cooterhein]

Do what? protect the right to someones hate speech?

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, but the American bill of rights has blurred the difference.

And that's the American brand of "free speech", the sheeple version. Yes.

Scimi

It's a pretty simple concept, Scimi. I'm asking you to obey the law.

Just obey the law. Do you think you can do that? If you are offended and angered by someone for religious reasons, make sure you put an actual law enforcement person on it if someone broke the law while offending you. Don't handle it yourself. And if you are offended by someone who didn't break the law while doing so, make sure you don't break the law either.

Do you think you can obey the law, Scimi? Can you make sure you always do so on a regular basis, please? That's all I want. If you want to call me "sheeple" because of that, well and good. Just as long as you obey the law, okay?

Yes, of course I'll obey the law, what do you take me for? Of course I'll obey the law, why would you even question that? Is what I hope to hear back from you.

[Abz2000]

Yes, obey the law which is most just and most authoritative, you'll always end up at square one in it's complete form because nothing whatsoever can stand against the wisdom of the Creator and Master of the universe and succeed long term.
It is also futile to attempt to totally compartmentalize the law into "foreign policy" and "local policy"
in order to attempt to justify an unjust standard since the same sun rises over all of us and so does the moon.
Such methods of provoking greed and unjust selfishness via racism are quite outdated and impotent before a globally awakened people.
And i also find it quite distasteful when people duped into secularism shift the blame for criminal actions by the government between margaret thatcher, john major, tony blair, brown, cameron, labour, lib-dem, tories, con-dem, etc when they had the same monarch either blackmailed or willingly signing the authorization letters, appears to be quite a distractive theatre.

The distinction of Islamic law is that it doesn't differentiate based upon racism and imaginary borders that are regularly violated, but upon justice and injustice, truth and falsehood.
So please consider when the devil attempts to instigate into placing bull/horse manure on the scales to counter-measure pure and wholesome food grain.

[cooterhein]

Abz, all I'm asking you to do is clearly state that you will always obey the law of the UK (assuming that's where you live) and that you will not attempt to enforce Islamic law on account of you not being law enforcement, and you will most certainly not do anything pertaining to Islamic law that would violate the law of the UK.

Can you do this?

[Scimitar]

It's a pretty simple concept, Scimi. I'm asking you to obey the law.

Just obey the law. Do you think you can do that? If you are offended and angered by someone for religious reasons, make sure you put an actual law enforcement person on it if someone broke the law while offending you. Don't handle it yourself. And if you are offended by someone who didn't break the law while doing so, make sure you don't break the law either.

Are you an idiot or something? honest question. Where did I state I don't obey law? :D you must be completely heretical as a Christian to come off with such idiotic appeals... don't be offended - free speech is all good right? :D

Do you think you can obey the law, Scimi? Can you make sure you always do so on a regular basis, please? That's all I want. If you want to call me "sheeple" because of that, well and good. Just as long as you obey the law, okay?

I won't call you a sheep, i'll call you something more accurate - fundamentally inflexible to ideas - hypocritically you think you can discuss the very same ideas you make mince meat out of.

And yes, in case you were wondering, I'm typing this from a cell coz I broke laws - NAAAAT :D

Yes, of course I'll obey the law, what do you take me for? Of course I'll obey the law, why would you even question that? Is what I hope to hear back from you.

You can obey whoever you like - I'll obey God instead - while you obey the laws of men.

My doctrinal investment ensures that I stay well within the boundaries of laws men make - because as a Muslim I have a tighter understanding of what I can and cannot do. While western laws give humans rights to abuse each other - the very same you hold highly, I crush under my foot and treat all humans equal, regardless of race, religion or whatever.

Meanwhile - you as a Christian have no moral laws nor limitations on diet or alcohol because Paul did away with them - the man your camp call a saint, but is actually described in Zechariah 11:16-17 no?

How about we indulge in some comparatives? between your book and mine?

You clearly have come here with green ears and zealoutry misplaced - the most morally sound religion on the face of this earth is Islam - and modern law systems owe a debt of gratitude to Islam and Muhammad pbuh last sermon.

Oh look, we back here again. :D

Scimi

[Abz2000]

Abz, all I'm asking you to do is clearly state that you will always obey the law of the UK (assuming that's where you live) and that you will not attempt to enforce Islamic law on account of you not being law enforcement, and you will most certainly not do anything pertaining to Islamic law that would violate the law of the UK.

Can you do this?

Oh dear, now you're asking for conditions despite the status quo?
Ok, let me be straightforward and simple: i will to the best of my ability comply with any law which complies with the laws of God and doesn't go against the laws of God.
It is necessary at this point to ask yourselves and your politicians if you and they will do the same.

[Scimitar]

Oh dear, now you're asking for conditions despite the status quo?
Ok, let me be straightforward and simple: i will to the best of my ability comply with any law which complies with the laws of God and doesn't go against the laws of God.
It is necessary at this point to ask yourselves and your politicians if you and they will do the same.

Allow him bro Abz, Cooterhein doesn't realise that Gods laws are harder to keep than mankinds laws - what I find ridiculous is how he seems to think man made laws are more important :D

When I obey Gods laws I already adhere to man made laws...

but If I adhere to man made laws, I'm left short in fulfilling Gods laws.

His fundamental faculty of reason doesn't exist. His premise is faulty and his logic - broken.

Scimi

[sister herb]

I am also wondering what UK non-Muslims are planning to do to stop extremist islamophobics. Isn´t that too a rising problem in your society? Specially after the brexit voting.

Hate creates hate.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Eric H
America has bombed and invaded countless countries, who gave them the right to impose their law on other countries? America and Britain have caused far more misery on this Earth than ISIS. If America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian Nations, then we should love and pray for our enemies, not bomb them.

cooterhein
I think you basically want to hurt people who make you angry, and if this wasn't your excuse you'd find a different one.

I am British and a Christian, and as I said above, if America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian nations, we should love and pray for our enemies, and NOT bomb them. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The Chilcot report pretty much condemns the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen years later, we can see the mess Iraq has been left in, 150,000 dead, 2 million refugees, countless numbers of wounded civilians, and a generation of Iraqi children growing up with mental health issues.

Eric H
So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

cooterhein;
That's actually illegal, and I would do everything in my power to ensure that law enforcement handles it properly. Actual law enforcement, not me taking the law into my own hands.

Ok, so if it offends you directly, then you would do something about it legally. But just hypothetically, if you were to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of the wives and mothers of a million random people. The chances are, that some of them would violently take the law into their own hands, not everyone would react like you say you would.

Similarly, when cartoonists draw offensive cartoons of the prophet pbuh, they reach an audience of a billion Muslims, most of whom would be offended, but not react violently, But out of a billion Muslims, the odds just will be that some will react violently, a few million Muslims will suffer mental health issues. Why would anyone want to offend people with mental health issues?

As a Christian, I am deeply offended by the cartoons of the prophet pbuh, why should anyone have the need to offend, surely it is better to be kind and bring out the best in all people.

cooterhein;
Can you please say just one thing that would indicate that you're opposed to extra-judicial violence on principle? Give me something. All I see so far is excuses for illegal behavior.

It is far better to forgive than to hate, we should pray for those we consider to be enemies, you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

cooterhein;
You know there's people who get hired and have an actual job description that involves ensuring justice for all people.

Lawyers get paid, they will defend murderers for a price. My idea of justice for all people does not need lawyers, twenty thousand children are left to die every single day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. The world has enough resources to feed them all, but we spend trillions on wars that kill people, in the west, we spend billions on diets because we overeat, we pay footballers millions for kicking a ball. Our idea of justice that overlooks the unnecessary deaths of a hundred million children since 9/11, but focuses on the deaths caused by ISIS, seems very wrong.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[cooterhein]

Allow him bro Abz, Cooterhein doesn't realise that Gods laws are harder to keep than mankinds laws - what I find ridiculous is how he seems to think man made laws are more important :D

They aren't necessarily more important. However- and this goes for both of you- Islamic law and any other religious law for that matter is optional, while actual laws, like UK law, are mandatory.

Again, Islamic law is optional. You opt in and out of it freely, by choice. There is no compulsion in religion, remember? But UK law is mandatory. It is not optional. You live in the UK, you must obey UK law. You don't have a choice. These laws are not even a little bit optional. They are, wait for it, compulsory. There may be no compulsion in religion (allegedly), but there is compulsion in actual laws of a state that pays people to enforce these laws.

When I obey Gods laws I already adhere to man made laws...

Well, you have to adhere to man made laws. So does everybody, pass the word along if anyone is confused about that. Good on you for obeying God's laws, those are optional and don't you forget that either. This links up nicely with something else I keep repeating- you are not law enforcement.

but If I adhere to man made laws, I'm left short in fulfilling Gods laws.

Feel free to get yourself the rest of the way there then, I said Islamic law is optional, that includes the option of obeying them and adhering to them by choice.

His fundamental faculty of reason doesn't exist. His premise is faulty and his logic - broken.

I respectfully disagree.

[cooterhein]

I am also wondering what UK non-Muslims are planning to do to stop extremist islamophobics. Isn´t that too a rising problem in your society? Specially after the brexit voting.

Hate creates hate.

Well, let's take a look at how much of a problem that really is. Ramadan ended not that long ago, from the beginning of this past Ramadan to right now, how many people in the UK were killed by Islamophobes?

I'm going to estimate zero. There was, however, a Desi Sunni who drove a couple hundred miles to Scotland and killed an Ahmadi who was well loved by his community, this became the first clear-cut example of murder-specific spillover from Pakistan to the UK. That happened in....oh, that was in June, during Ramadan.

Are you suggesting that we focus on Islamophobia because you think that will solve the extremism problem? If so....I doubt that will actually work. Or maybe you don't think extremism is really a thing, or that it's not really a problem, so you want to shift the focus to something you care about.

If that is the case, I will suggest that you go make your own thread. They're free. No cost to you.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



I am British and a Christian, and as I said above, if America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian nations, we should love and pray for our enemies, and NOT bomb them. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The Chilcot report pretty much condemns the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen years later, we can see the mess Iraq has been left in, 150,000 dead, 2 million refugees, countless numbers of wounded civilians, and a generation of Iraqi children growing up with mental health issues.

I agree, that was terrible, and the estimated number of Muslims in the UK who should now break laws and kill people is....zero. They still should't do that. I mean, why bring that up if not to excuse lawless action? What other reason is there to bring it up?

Ok, so if it offends you directly, then you would do something about it legally.

No no no, not just if it offends me directly. It has to be illegal, and it could happen to anyone. If something is illegal, then law enforcement should be called upon to handle it. Whether it's me or you or anyone. Some offensive material is actually illegal, and you happened to give me an example of something that was. If anyone's likeness if widely disseminated in pornographic fashion without their consent, this is grounds for legal action. For me, if it happens to me, or for you or for anyone. Notice I say grounds for legal action, Not grounds for lawless action.

But just hypothetically, if you were to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of the wives and mothers of a million random people. The chances are, that some of them would violently take the law into their own hands, not everyone would react like you say you would.

Okay, first, in this hypothetical, that would be illegal and the guilty person would probably be locked up before anyone else could get to them. But then you have a bunch of angry people, and what do you say to these people? Do you tell them to go ahead and find someone who looks like they might be vaguely associated with the guilty party, and to commence with some lawless violence against that person?

I get the gist of what you're talking about, and I'm going to remind you that the first people who usually get hurt or killed in these types of incidents are the people who happen to be in whichever US embassy is most conveniently available for burning. We're talking about innocent people- more than just innocent, these are people who traveled outside their country of origin in order to establish ties with another country- and then because millions of people are angry about what someone else did, those people get hurt or killed.

That's the thing that needs to stop.

Similarly, when cartoonists draw offensive cartoons of the prophet pbuh, they reach an audience of a billion Muslims, most of whom would be offended, but not react violently, But out of a billion Muslims, the odds just will be that some will react violently, a few million Muslims will suffer mental health issues. Why would anyone want to offend people with mental health issues?

Okay, first, if we're talking specifically about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons those were not terribly offensive and they did not initially reach a very wide audience. What happened was this, and you can feel free to use the Internet to check this out. There were some Muslims who were able to discover the cartoons in their extremely limited circulation, and they were so offended that they decided it was necessary to disseminate them far more widely in the Middle East and North Africa. Oh, and by the way, they altered some of the cartoons so that they would be much more offensive than they initially were. It was Muslims who spread that to the angriest Muslims in the world, and they intentionally stirred things up as much as they could. THAT is what led to these people getting killed, and just as soon as those heinous murders became worldwide news, THEN Charlie Hebdo became a household name outside of its limited circulation in Denmark and demand for the cartoons went from a few thousand to millions and millions.

So that's what happened there. Muslims should not act as if they were poor victims who just sat there through all of that, and for the record I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the Charlie Hebdo murderers were mentally ill. Neither were the Muslims who disseminated the altered-and-more-offensive cartoons to the angriest Muslims that they could find.

I do understand that with this kind of thing, there's an argument to be made for inciting speech. You could plausibly conclude that very offensive portrayals of Mohammed are that type of speech. An important corollary to this, however, is the aspect of this type of law which stipulates that it can't be properly considered inciting speech unless it is directed at the person of the hearer. In other words, the Charlie Hebdo thing was a situation where somebody, somewhere in the world and in a limited capacity, put some things out there that would offend Muslims if they ever saw them. But Charlie Hebdo was not responsible for putting these things in front of Muslims. Instead, it was Muslims who altered some of these cartoons and disseminated them inappropriately, and I can only assume they did this because they wanted to make sure somebody got killed. And of course it worked.

Now how do you feel about that course of action?

As a Christian, I am deeply offended by the cartoons of the prophet pbuh, why should anyone have the need to offend, surely it is better to be kind and bring out the best in all people.

That's good to know, and are you equally offended by the actions of the Muslims who altered some of those cartoons and disseminated them in the Middle East and North Africa in order to provoke a conflagration? Please be clear in your response.

It is far better to forgive than to hate, we should pray for those we consider to be enemies, you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

Okay, I can agree with that.

Lawyers get paid, they will defend murderers for a price. My idea of justice for all people does not need lawyers, twenty thousand children are left to die every single day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. The world has enough resources to feed them all, but we spend trillions on wars that kill people, in the west, we spend billions on diets because we overeat, we pay footballers millions for kicking a ball. Our idea of justice that overlooks the unnecessary deaths of a hundred million children since 9/11, but focuses on the deaths caused by ISIS, seems very wrong.

Those are some very good things to be concerned about, however the nature of talking about things and focusing on things is such that we can only do one thing at a time. I think we actually should spend some time focusing on the deaths caused by Daesh, and also spend some other time focusing on a variety of other things. Like how athletes are overpaid, and much food is wasted without being distributed in a way that makes sense. Those would be a couple of things, but I'm not sure how likely they are to come up on a specifically Islamic forum.

Edit- when I mentioned that some people get paid to ensure justice for all, I didn't have lawyers in mind. I actually had law enforcement in mind. Muslims who think they're Islamic law enforcers are part of the problem, not the solution, that was the main idea behind that.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

I hope that does include the minority within the minority- Ahmadi Muslims in Scotland, gay Muslims who maybe....aren't supposed to....hold on to their religion while also pursuing a gay relationship, but let's hope for enough justice that nobody goes and kills these people. Justice for apostates as well, including the ones who speak out in a very public manner after they've left Islam.

And justice for everyone else too. But these people ^^^ are part of that.

[cooterhein]

Are you an idiot or something? honest question. Where did I state I don't obey law? :D you must be completely heretical as a Christian to come off with such idiotic appeals... don't be offended - free speech is all good right? :D

There are some Catholics and perhaps some Orthodox Christians who would agree that I am indeed a heretic, although it's not considered polite or beneficial to put that out there very often. And yes sir, free speech is all good.

I won't call you a sheep, i'll call you something more accurate - fundamentally inflexible to ideas - hypocritically you think you can discuss the very same ideas you make mince meat out of.

Noted.

And yes, in case you were wondering, I'm typing this from a cell coz I broke laws - NAAAAT :D

Okay, so there's two basic types of extremists. There are violent extremists who break laws because they think they were put on Earth to enforce Islamic law, and then there's non-violent extremists who don't do the things that get you put in a cell, but they do make excuses for the people who do and they believe there are some instances where it's permissible for a Muslim to break the law in the name of Allah. If I were very confident in your non-extremist status, I would ask if you're planning on passing anything along to anyone you know who might potentially become a violent extremist. (What are really the odds that you know someone like that? Well, if you include everyone you talk to on the Internet, the odds go up significantly).

But I'm not totally confident that you're not an extremist. You're definitely not a violent extremist, but there's a reasonable chance that you're the type of person who would make excuses for the people who are.

You can obey whoever you like - I'll obey God instead - while you obey the laws of men.

I'll obey the laws of man because I have to, and it's not optional. I will also obey the laws of God as I have understood them from the Bible and from a reasonable amount of religious education. By choice, mind you, not because anyone is forcing me to. And although I'm not planning on opting out, that option does exist for me and it's something I can do without living in fear of violence.

My doctrinal investment ensures that I stay well within the boundaries of laws men make - because as a Muslim I have a tighter understanding of what I can and cannot do. While western laws give humans rights to abuse each other - the very same you hold highly, I crush under my foot and treat all humans equal, regardless of race, religion or whatever.

Okay, Mr. Tight Boundaries. Couple of questions. If you had the chance to kill Salman Rushdie, would you?
If, in a somewhat contrived situation, another Muslim seemed plausibly able to kill Salman Rushdie- and you had the ability to stop him, thus protecting Salman Rushdie- would you protect Salman Rushdie?
If anyone ever succeeds in killing Salman Rushdie and is then, maybe, rewarded with much wealth from the Iranian ayatollah, will you make excuses for that Muslim or will you condemn his actions?
And finally, what is your personal assessment of what the Iranian ayatollahs have done? One of them put a large bounty on this man's head, and the other one raised the bounty and made the reward even larger. I completely condemn this course of action, but what about you? You did just tell me you have a really tight understanding, so let's see what you do with this.

Meanwhile - you as a Christian have no moral laws nor limitations on diet or alcohol because Paul did away with them - the man your camp call a saint, but is actually described in Zechariah 11:16-17 no?

Okay, first, my particular branch of Christianity is fairly likely to have a friendly relationship with limitations on alcohol. The college I went to, for example, was a dry campus, even students who were of legal age aren't allowed to drink as long as they're enrolled there. (This includes spring break, which is intentionally timed so it doesn't coincide with very many other colleges). As a matter of fact, there was a time when the professors of this college were also not allowed to drink, even at home. This restriction was eventually put to an end, but professors are still encouraged to adhere to sometimes-vaguely-worded levels of conduct that amount to a similar sort of thing.

And second, I'm looking at a few of the commentaries on that verse and the general consensus seems to be that the bad actor in question is probably the Antichrist, who is never specifically named. And one more thing- I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so I'm one of those Christians who doesn't really do the saint thing. I do acknowledge what's admirable in a large number of saints, but I'm also comfortable with questioning whether certain people deserved to be saints, and whether certain portions of hagiography are less than historically accurate, sometimes to the point where I question if certain saints properly existed as described, or were they perhaps a character created from an amalgam of different stories that were partially true. None of that particularly applies to Paul, but the main thing here is that I'm not someone who gives you a good opportunity to hold my feet to the fire when it comes to sainthood.

How about we indulge in some comparatives? between your book and mine?

There's so much that I could say about this, but I realize where I am and I'm going to hold back. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't particularly wish to offend anyone very much. You may feel differently, but that's where I'm at.

[kritikvernunft]

It's a pretty simple concept, Scimi. I'm asking you to obey the law. Just obey the law. Do you think you can do that?

I voluntarily obey Divine Law. However, the very first statement in Divine Law says that there is just one Lawmaker, and that it is forbidden to associate other lawmakers as partners next to or above this One Legitimate Lawmaker. Therefore, it is forbidden behaviour unto me to voluntarily obey any law that is was not instituted by the One God, our Beloved Master, the Creator of the Universe. Therefore, as matter of faith, I will seek to utterly disobey any law of which the origin cannot be brought back to the One God. Hence, I consistently seek to prove my loyalty to the One God by NOT obeying other masters.

Therefore, what you call "the law" is therefore something to disobey and to utterly NOT obey. You will go to hell after you die, if you voluntarily obey that kind of rules.

There are 200+ national states claiming that they have the right to invent new laws. Which one of these should you obey? All of them? That would even be impossible because the entire set is utmost inconsistent.

Furthermore, I consider people who voluntarily obey man-made laws to be despicable traitors.

If you are offended and angered by someone for religious reasons, make sure you put an actual law enforcement person on it if someone broke the law while offending you. Don't handle it yourself. And if you are offended by someone who didn't break the law while doing so, make sure you don't break the law either.

All legitimacy necessarily emanates from the laws of the singular God. The people whom you call "law enforcement" were not appointed by the singular God. Hence, these people have no special status whatsoever, and are not exempt in any way from the provisions in Divine Law. More specifically, the mere fact of wearing a uniform will never exempt these people from the provisions in the Qisas, i.e. the Lex Talionis, governing the moral status of hostile behaviour, and summarized as: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. What's more, anybody arguing against the Qisas as universal, Divine Law, is a blasphemer and must be dealt with under the provisions in Divine Law concerning blasphemy.

Do you think you can obey the law, Scimi? Can you make sure you always do so on a regular basis, please? That's all I want. If you want to call me "sheeple" because of that, well and good. Just as long as you obey the law, okay? Yes, of course I'll obey the law, what do you take me for? Of course I'll obey the law, why would you even question that? Is what I hope to hear back from you.

Advocating that anybody should obey man-made law is a pagan depravity. This behaviour is strictly forbidden onto the believers, who may only advocate that other people voluntarily submit to Divine Law.

[kritikvernunft]

There are violent extremists who break laws because they think they were put on Earth to enforce Islamic law ...

The strategies of these people may not always work. It is true that they may do things that are self-defeating. So, they should learn to modulate their behaviour a bit, in order to make it more effective.

... and then there's non-violent extremists who don't do the things that get you put in a cell, but they do make excuses for the people who do and they believe there are some instances where it's permissible for a Muslim to break the law in the name of Allah ...

There is no need to make excuses for them. My main strategy, is to just ignore them, as long as they don't badly exaggerate by breaking Divine Law. In those cases, it is more a question of confronting them with the idea that you cannot promote Divine Law by breaking its very provisions. As long as they remain consistent and non-contradictory, I will personally just keep ignoring them. If they are self-defeating, I will probably express my disapproval. However, if they manage to be effective, and there was arguably no other way to make an omelet than by breaking eggs, I may even applaud them.

I'll obey the laws of man because I have to, and it's not optional. I will also obey the laws of God ...

That is contradictory and inconsistent because the very first law of God says that you shall recognize no other lawmakers than God. You will not get any benefits out of obeying God's law, if you also obey Satan's law.

This is exactly what the pagans also do. They obey to God, but they invent lots of other gods to whom they also obey. Paganism is pointless. It destroys the active ingredient in religion, which is the refusal to obey to just whoever claims that you should: There is just one God, and it is not the ruler. Seriously, it is not the obedience to God's law that is the active ingredient, because in that case paganism would also be valid as a religion. It is the disobedience to everything else, that is. The faith in the singular God will always lead to conflicts with the rulers, who will always desire to get associated as partners next to or even above the singular God. Therefore, you must embrace and glorify conflicts with the rulers over this.

You see, as an anti-statist liberterian, I know that there are libertarians who do not believe in God and do not desire to obey Divine Law, and I also know that there are also Muslims who voluntarily obey to man-made law, but still, at the core of both views -- Islam and anti-statist libertarianism -- you can still find the active ingredient of rejecting man-made law, which should allow for duly dismantling and sinking the National State. Divine Law is not anarchy. There are undoubtedly enough Muslims who believe that too. Libertarians probably don't, but they also have no alternative, which should allow Divine Law to win by default. The National State is a serious impediment to Divine Law. Therefore, it has to go.

[kritikvernunft]

If you had the chance to kill Salman Rushdie, would you? If, in a somewhat contrived situation, another Muslim seemed plausibly able to kill Salman Rushdie- and you had the ability to stop him, thus protecting Salman Rushdie- would you protect Salman Rushdie?

The real punishment for Salman Rushdie is that there is a fatwa commissioning his assassination and that there really are people who want to carry it out and kill him. Effectively killing him, however, is actually not such a good idea. It would also destroy his punishment. So, the current outcome is certainly satisfactory. He must live under 24/7 round the clock police protection, because otherwise, he will indeed get killed. Therefore, as long as his police protection constitutes a sufficiently credible effort to protect him from his fatwa, the execution of the fatwa itself should remain suspended.

[Zafran]

If your talking about Quilliam foundation then they are stupid - Its like ex racists teaching non racist people how not be racists. This time around you have extremists teaching non extremist Muslim how not to be extreme. Its laughable. Its one of the reasons they have jumped to Sam Harris and others for back up.

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped? Non - Its a hustle and non Muslims and paying for it.

[LaSorcia]

As I re-read the Bible book of Numbers for the nth time, I decided not to gloss over it. There must be a reason God wanted us to read it. So I paid attention and came to a great realization: it is our brothers and sister we are fighting with. We should stop. On both sides.

And, as Christians, we should act as guests here on IB. I have found good hospitality here for the most part, and I try to be an accommodating guest.

[cooterhein]

[QUOTE]

Its like ex racists teaching non racist people how not be racists. This time around you have extremists teaching non extremist Muslim how not to be extreme. Its laughable. Its one of the reasons they have jumped to Sam Harris and others for back up.

I'd probably say it's more similar to a strategy where you hire ex-hackers in order to do a really good job of building a firewall. Or using an ex-thief as a consultant on how to properly secure things. There are some real-world examples of very comparable situations where this is a widely accepted strategy.

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped? Non - Its a hustle and non Muslims and paying for it.

Any time you ask how many of the things that haven't happened, didn't happen although otherwise they would have happened....I understand the basic premise, that it hasn't been terribly effective so far, but the precise way in which you phrased it is a bit problematic. There's just no way to measure how many things haven't happened. Nobody even tries to keep track of that, and it would be impossible to do that if anyone did.

Now, speaking as a non Muslim, I think I can see why non Muslims would feel inclined to give money to these kinds of people- maybe not these exact people, but in general I feel like this sort of thing codifies arguments and ideas in ways that non Muslims don't have easy access to, and it makes us feel like something is being built by people who are better positioned to do it than we are. And we feel like we learn things from it. In the analysis of Sam Harris, for example, he wrote a book about reforming Islam, he had a certain co-author on the book, and according to Sam Harris, his views and his way of thinking about the issue were modified to a large extent by his co-author and his co-author was influenced to a certain extent but not nearly as much. Which is about what you would expect, but it means something to hear it stated explicitly.

People who really hate these types of efforts might suggest that these Muslims are Uncle Toms who are simply amplifying what the non Muslims are saying anyway, but I think that vastly underestimates the extent to which these particular Muslims are really modifying the way that non Muslims think about all of this. I suppose I'm not surprised to find out that isn't happening to any great extent at a grassroots level among UK Muslims, but it may be possible in the long term, and either way non Muslims are getting something out of it. We modify how we think about this, we welcome the change and we like it. That's typically how it goes.

[kritikvernunft]

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped?

You see, the National State uses force, say, "violence", to impose its man-made law onto the believers. That is detestable behaviour. Why would any believer prioritize the issue with the occasional suicidal extremists over the problem of the obnoxious behaviour of the National State? In ways, the National Statists may just be getting a taste of their own medicine. Quite a few of these suicide bombers are indeed possibly misguided, and are just causing mostly useless trouble. Point conceded. However, in my opinion, none of that can be a priority for us. In the greater light of things, all of that is obviously unimportant and has nothing to do with the real problem. Why would anybody pay attention to what a National State sees as their priority? What exactly are these National Statists offering in exchange to entice us to prioritize their needs above our own? My priorities are mine, and their priorities are theirs. Therefore, while sitting around the negotiation table with the National Statists, we should only agree to pay attention to their problems, on the condition that they agree to pay attention to our.

[Zafran]

I'd probably say it's more similar to a strategy where you hire ex-hackers in order to do a really good job of building a firewall. Or using an ex-thief as a consultant on how to properly secure things. There are some real-world examples of very comparable situations where this is a widely accepted strategy.

In the movies - In real life they go to jail and stay there. Its also doesn't make the world safer but it does make the thief and hacker richer. While we are at it we can let the ex BNP members teach non racist white people how not be racist. If this isnt absurd to you then I dont know what it.

People who really hate these types of efforts might suggest that these Muslims are Uncle Toms who are simply amplifying what the non Muslims are saying anyway, but I think that vastly underestimates the extent to which these particular Muslims are really modifying the way that non Muslims think about all of this. I suppose I'm not surprised to find out that isn't happening to any great extent at a grassroots level among UK Muslims, but it may be possible in the long term, and either way non Muslims are getting something out of it. We modify how we think about this, we welcome the change and we like it. That's typically how it goes.

Wrong about "Non Muslims saying" - there are plenty of non Muslims who can see shill Sam Harris and the Quiliam foundation are. Actually if you look broad enough you will see that non Muslims have varied opinions and views - from banning every muslim or nuking them to re educating the radicals etc etc. The Muslims are varied as well but I believe that you cant seem to see that.

Any time you ask how many of the things that haven't happened, didn't happen although otherwise they would have happened....I understand the basic premise, that it hasn't been terribly effective so far, but the precise way in which you phrased it is a bit problematic. There's just no way to measure how many things haven't happened. Nobody even tries to keep track of that, and it would be impossible to do that if anyone did.

Lets ask the MI5 and the army and compre them to how effective they stop the terrorists organisation and compare them to Quiliams "effective" work.

[talibilm]

:sl:

We can't persuade such brain washed people except through making them understand Islam through the right meaning of understanding the verses of Noble Quran with Daleels like quoting asbabe nuzul or the situations on when those verses which are misquoted (favouring extremism) where revealed and the bad effect of ' unrest ' on Islam also seen in the history of Islam where islam grew at slow pace (about 1500 Sahabas in 16 years of preaching) untill Treaty of Hudaibiya which was considered as a loose of face even by the greater Sahabas when Prophet :saws: accepted peace instead of fight but Allah, Al Hakim described as THE VICTORY in the noble Quran and in just couple of years Muslims swelled many times into 10,000 Sahabas leading into peaceful conquest of Mecca where these brain washed brothers need to learn. In my opinion those stir extremism unreasonably ( except in cases like Israeli occupation etc) are not well wishers of Islam.


Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 53 :: Hadith 406

Narrated Abu Wail:
We were in Siffin and Sahl bin Hunaif got up and said, "O people! Blame yourselves! We were with the Prophet on the day of Hudaibiya, and if we had been called to fight, we would have fought. But 'Umar bin Al Khatab came and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Aren't we in the right and our opponents in the wrongs' Allah's Apostle said, 'Yes.' 'Umar said, 'Aren't our killed persons in Paradise and their's in Hell?' He said, 'Yes.' 'Umar said, 'Then why should we accept hard terms in matters concerning our religion? Shall we return before Allah judges between us and them?' Allah's Apostle said, 'O Ibn Al-Khattab! I am the Apostle of Allah and Allah will never degrade me. Then 'Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him the same as he had told the Prophet.On that Abu Bakr said (to 'Umar). 'He is the Apostle of Allah and Allah will never degrade him.' Then Surat-al-Fath (i.e. Victory) was revealed and Allah's Apostle recited it to the end in front of 'Umar. On that 'Umar asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! Was it (i.e. the Hudaibiya Treaty) a victory?' Allah's Apostle said, "Yes"


The thread below will elaborate those daleels or proofs from the Noble Quran and hadiths where Allah & his Prophet :saws: clearly endorsed Peace instead of Confrontation & called it as'' THE VICTORY - Surah Al Fath ''

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...rse-9-5-say-So


and also this allied thread if you have ample time

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...of-with-Proofs

[sister herb]

Well, let's take a look at how much of a problem that really is. Ramadan ended not that long ago, from the beginning of this past Ramadan to right now, how many people in the UK were killed by Islamophobes?

You think that islamophobic hate speaking can continue as long as nobody lost their life? But isn´t it too late to stop it after that? What I just wrote: hate creates hate. If you want that your neighbor doesn´t hate you, treat him kindly. If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence, he most likely doesn´t think that you want anything good for him.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...says-tell-mama

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Nope.

[talibilm]

You think that islamophobic hate speaking can continue as long as nobody lost their life? But isn´t it too late to stop it after that? What I just wrote: hate creates hate. If you want that your neighbor doesn´t hate you, treat him kindly. If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence, he most likely doesn´t think that you want anything good for him.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...says-tell-mama

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Nope.

Yep, This could be a Main cause of the roots of consequent extremism by the Muslim victims there :phew .

[kritikvernunft]

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you. Hate creates hate.

You describe the mutual hate between mister A and mister B, but you forget to describe the situation of the bystander, mister C. Is it a problem that mister A and mister B hate each other? No, not necessarily. There could be advantages for mister C. You see, A and B will hate each other anyway. So, the question then becomes, how can we benefit from that? What can we achieve by taking advantage of that? I think that this is the point where you seriously underestimate the potential. It may even be possible to turn all of that into a one-way bet: whether A and B hate each other then no longer matters, because regardless of that, there will always be benefits for C.

Furthermore, the Qisas insists that hatred is morally neutral. Its moral status depends on the common history of mutual hostility that precedes the hatred. Hence, I do not automatically disapprove of hatred. The feeling may be absolutely understandable.

[sister herb]

You ask how Muslims in UK can persuade extremists to be extremist. You seem to start to solve the problems from the wrong points. I have thought kind of matters a long time and I have one solution.

We need the new world order which is based on justice and equality. Hate and extremism get its fuel from unequality. People all around the world have been too long time under the political, economical and military pressure of the rich countries. The whole world economy system bases to the same unequality. So-called developed countries want to secure their own economic and don´t let enough for the others to survive and to develop their own economies. Those wars are a tool how the West keeps other countries in fear and under their rule. What wars then cause to those other countries? In a nutshell: their economy is in ruins, the GDP remains low, society can not evolve, people feel that they have no future, refugee flows are growing and extremism feels well. People feel they don´t get justice and they behave like people usually do in kind of situation: they take the justice to their own hands.

Is the new world order like this one a realistic option? Of course not. But without it efforts to end extremism are baseless. They are like cure the symptoms although you should try to solve the basic problem which cause those symptoms like hate speech and extremism.

[cooterhein]

If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence,

You're playing rather fast and loose with the term "violence." No Muslims were physically harmed in the creation of these cartoons, even after they were reprinted and widely distributed in Egypt of all places (who decided to do that)? If Jesus is depicted walking into a room, saying "Hi," and Mo (actually labeled as Mo in the cartoon) is depicted as saying "Hey," no violence is involved here, and under Danish law let's also remember this is perfectly legal. (Again, why was this reprinted in Egypt? Who decided to do that?) The only violence that's happening here is when Muslims ignore every applicable law against violence and they go and murder people. That's where the violence comes in, and don't you dare make any excuses for that.

You shouldn't ever kill people. You in general, nobody should ever kill anybody. Even if it's in self defense, you should plan ahead and use non-lethal force to defend yourself, and let's be honest, in the UK it's not that easy to get a gun so it's not very realistic in any event. Basically, there are laws against violence, there are laws against murder, and they should not be broken. Period. End of story.

Stop making excuses. It's unacceptable.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

Has it ever occurred to you that Muslims are doing some things that earn them just a bit of hate? If I did hate Islam- which I don't, you said it not me- do you honestly think I would hate it because of how good and perfect it is, and for its impeccable record of peace, and for all the good things that Muslims have done? Do you honestly think that non Muslims assess Islam in this manner and then decide this is a thing that's worthy of hate?

No, no, no. Check this out. Muslims kill non Muslims for breaking the laws of a religion that they don't belong to. That is unacceptable. And it's something that Islam, as a religion, is responsible for. Non Muslims are not responsible for these lawless acts of violence, Muslims are. I hold Islam responsible for these attacks and so many others, and I'm saying that doesn't mean I hate Islam, it just means I hold the perpetrators responsible and not the victims. And I am telling you for what will probably not be the last time, that you need to stop making excuses for people who murder other people. Stop it. I won't get tired of telling you that, so I hope that you eventually get tired of making those excuses.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

How many murders, exactly?

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

The ascendant threat of the far right is a legitimate problem that's worth spending some time being worried about. Do you honestly think that any attempt at imposing Islamic law on a resistant secular population is an actual solution to that problem though?

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Islamist extremism comes from Islam, and from the imposition of Islamic law on people who are clearly saying No Thank You. That's optional, and I opt out. And then very devout Muslims say There is no compulsion in religion, but this is actually not optional.

Seriously though, it comes from Islam. We're not talking about a secular movement, we're not talking about economic theory. This isn't Marx and Engels. We're talking about religious text. The people who lead these movements and give form to their core ideologies tend to be people with plenty of advanced education in Quranic study, some are basically scholars in their own right, and that is the skill set that goes into these sorts of things.

Nope.

Oh, well done, two groups that came into existence relatively recently. There's a couple of things completely wrong with your line of reasoning, though. If al-Quaeda and Daesh really just boil down to the logical reaction toward an aggressive Western Satan, why in the world is Daesh going after the Yazidis so hard? What sort of connection does a Yazidi person have to the West, and when was it exactly that they invaded a country? While I'm waiting for your explanation, I'll go ahead and offer up the idea that Quranic texts and Islamic ideology are the very obvious and only reason for why they're doing what they're doing, and you could go on and on with several dozen other examples. I will go on to point out that it's not at all uncommon in the UK for some very odd statements to come out of the Muslim community. For example, if you look around just a little bit, you'll probably be able to find a London-born Muslim of North African origin who talks about drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and talks in a critical fashion about UK and US foreign policy in terms of their military "abusing our land" and "killing our civilians, our women and children." If religion had no role to play in this, it would be extremely odd to hear a Londoner of North African origin talking about the ME and South Asia in possessive terms like this. But there clearly is a very strong religious aspect, and it really doesn't just boil down to an aggrieved people upset at being attacked. Of course there is a strong religious component, even when foreign policy also has something to do with it.

I will also point out that these groups are not doing very much that's terribly new. No matter how much the Saudis insist otherwise, Daesh is basically the second coming of Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab. He imposed jizya, he killed other Muslims that he didn't consider sufficiently observant, he targeted whole sects of Muslims, he executed people in exactly the same ways that Daesh is. And he did all this without being opposed by forces outside the region, and the Saudi state is what eventually came of it. As of right now, over half of the suicide bombers in Syria and Iraq are people who have Saudi citizenship. So how about that.

Now, the roots of al-Qaeda begin in Afghanistan and the fight against the Soviets, but 1983 was a bit of a turning point in that jihad had never previously included the possibility of being a suicide bomber, or of killing innocent civilians not at all involved in the field of battle among several other things. These are innovations, and it requires ignoring many parts of the Quran that otherwise clearly forbid such things. However, the rationale for normalizing these innovations is religious in nature and not at all secular. Arguments for the normalizing of suicide bombing and the murder of innocents do not hinge on US foreign policy or on the way in which wars are being fought, they hinge on a rather bad method of analyzing religious text and it is and always has been an argument from Islamic history and from Islamic teaching. The US did not bomb al-Qaeda into those conclusions, Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study.

[sister herb]

As you claimed before that nobody hasn´t died because of the anti-Islam extremism in UK at the last times you forgot this one:

Jo Cox

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nesses-report/

Now this hate has spread so wide that not only Muslims (or other non-Christian, non-whites) in UK might be victims. Isn´t it now the last moment to start to work against hate and extremism in your society?

"Hate doesn’t have a creed, race or religion, it is poisonous.”

Or is it too late already?

[cooterhein]

As you claimed before that nobody hasn´t died because of the anti-Islam extremism in UK at the last times you forgot this one:

Jo Cox

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nesses-report/

From the source you just gave me.
"Police arrested a 52-year-old former psychiatric patient named locally as Tommy Mair."

Evidently, this man was able to get a gun despite being a former psychiatric patient. The reason for his target was that she supported the Remain campaign, and he wanted the UK to Leave, so....well, honestly, there's nothing problematic about her position. I mean, unlike you, I'm not going to blame the victim. How dare she not put Britain first! She clearly caused him to....no that doesn't make sense. Insisting that Remain people switch their political positions on account of the demands of a crazy, yes a literally crazy, person is just not a strategy.

Here's a strategy. Let's look at this as a wake-up call when it comes to former psychiatric patients and the access they have to guns. That was the root cause of the attack, right? There was political reasoning, not really much in the way of any discernible religious motivation, but there was clearly a history of psychiatric problems that maybe could have been treated better, and that's why he shot her, calmly reloaded, shot some more, and stabbed a very old man who tried to protect her. He didn't get here through the study of religious texts or through the hatred of religious texts, he got here by being crazy and by reacting in a completely reprehensible way to a major political event that actually went his way, although she was on the wrong side of it as far as he was concerned.

Now this hate has spread so wide that not only Muslims (or other non-Christian, non-whites) in UK might be victims. Isn´t it now the last moment to start to work against hate and extremism in your society?

This isn't a religious issue that you're pointing me to, this isn't even an extremist issue. This is a mental health issue. I'm not suggesting that better examples are totally non-existent if you go searching deep enough and if you go back to 2007 or 2005, and before that I think you'd have to go back over 15 years, all I'm saying is that your first attempt at a good example is pretty bad, and you are probably going to wish that you'd spent a bit more time finding it.

But instead of spending a good deal of time finding examples of non-state violence against Muslims that is deadly, why don't you access the helpful side of your personality and see if you can come up with an answer to what I'm actually asking for in this thread? If you can imagine Muslims being fairly successful in convincing Islamist extremists to abandon the more harmful aspects of their religious beliefs, how can that be done and how would that work?

Seriously, if you want to leave off with your search for better examples of Islamophobic murders, you can do that. I found a couple of good examples myself, and I am interacting with the information properly, in that I'm not blaming the victims or making excuses for the murderers.

Or is it too late already?

I don't think it's too late to re-examine how a former mental health patient was able to get a deadly weapon. That seems like a fairly manageable situation, especially in a country where gun control laws are pretty tight to begin with. There will be many more opportunities for people to become upset over politics, but I expect it will be less easy for people with mental illness to get a weapon and carry out such an attack. No sister, I don't think it's too late for that at all, and with any luck the next couple of generations of psychotropic medications (and hopefully their wide availability) will cause these types of underlying causes to be more manageable to begin with.

[sister herb]

Police arrested a 52-year-old former psychiatric patient

Exactly. When it goes to those haters, they always have mental problems. When it goes to Muslims, they always are terrorists because of the religion.

(This is not answer to your post, just a common notice how the media creates the image of this problem of hate and extremism. As well as a guy who made his attack in Nice, had also mental problems as like a guy in Munich. But does media remember this on their headlines...)

What comes to the case of Jo Cox, that was well said: "How dare she not put Britain first!"

We all should to be so brave that not put "I" or "WE" the first. Maybe we then could find the mutual ways to beat the extremism of the both side - together.

if you can come up with an answer to what I'm actually asking for in this thread

I answered to this in my earlier post (post 39). We all can start to make work for it and together it´s far easier than alone. Muslims in the UK and everywhere can start now to demand the new world order and work for it. But as I also wrote, I realize it´s not easy at all.

Still, as I believe, it´s the only way to beat the extremism. Other ways and methods are only some kind of makeup and ways not to solve the basic problems.

[Serinity]

The extremists transgress, and in order to help them, we need to show them what Islam is. But, we can not trust disbelievers in that.

It is best to go back to the Quran and to The Sunnah, and show them.

I also feel it is important for the Muslim youth to know about Jihad, war self-defense and Shariah.

we see Islamophobes talking about Islam and seen as "experts" when they have not even read or opened the Quran, nor have they had a face to face conversation with a Muslim about Islam, in depth.

There are two extremes, one: The one who kills and are like the Kharawij (Idk how to spell that)

And there is the other: pleasing disbelievers at the expense of one's deen.

Primary goal should be to please Allah, and have a face to face talk with the extremists. On the basis of Quran and Sunnah.

Islamophobes should NOT have the right to spread misleading information or distorted information about Islam where Islam says to kill all non muslims to breakfast.

Free speech should not be an excuse or a right to be able to talk lies or spread misinformation.

[sister herb]

More islamic education to the schools maybe? And same also to non-Muslims that they would learn to separate the truth from the false "news".

[Abz2000]

Much better to repent to God and obey God than to continue to be crooked and debauched and try to lamely face God off in chess no?

[Serinity]

More islamic education to the schools maybe? And same also to non-Muslims that they would learn to separate the truth from the false "news".

Yeah. we need people to know what is Islam and what is not Islam. you do not judge a car or a knife by the driver or the one holding the knife, do you?

Ignorance is no excuse in this day and age. And this freedom of speech is taking it too far, there SHOULD be limitations.

The right to criticize, should be there, but within bounds. I.e. not being deregatory or unreasonable, or a propagantist.

Cartooners should NOT be allowed to make paintings that is intended to ridicule an entire religion. It should be seen as a criminal offense, tbh.

telling lies, making propaganda, making those filthy cartoons, should all be banned. And should be treated as offensive.

The indoctrination of gay being normal should be banned too. Just because it feels right, doesn't make it right. That is just delusional.

Same can be said with criminals who rape people - it feels good and they derive pleasure from raping, does it make it right, although it may feel good? This is psychopathic.

And this failed quote of "as long as it doesnt hurt others" is hurting whole society as a whole - in the long run. To say "as long as it doesnt hurt others" is short-sighted, and an intellectually weak arguement. Because people do hurt themselves and their relatives/ wife/children/family.

An immoral act can not be justified with "as long as it doesn't hurt others".

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Abz2000]

Banning a very very very mild dude like zakir naik from visiting the uknotted kingdom just because he tones it down but doesn't work for mi5 doesn't help at all.
and then setting his local puppets on him when people start wondering how the rest of the world tolerate and even revere him is also a lame tactic.
He also appears to be practicing self censorship on a number of issues, because when an intelligent person speaks straight to a people who can bear his words, he'll tell you that it's necessary for all people to submit to God and walk straight in order to achieve lasting peace.
you enforce servitude to God thus servitude to humans, mud, monarchs and flags disappears, you enforce Islam and jizya disappears, easy innit? You obey Allah together and the sword disappears.


If the fools in the british government called him an extremist, God knows what they must be thinking of the common Muslims who speak the truth plainly without concern for the perception of the deluded masses

[Search]

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

There are certain people and a certain organization in the UK that (from what I've been told here) don't have grassroots support from UK Muslims on the whole. They do have support from the UK government, but it's not getting much traction from the broader Muslim community, specifically most of the people on this forum.

The reason Quilliam Foundation doesn't have grassroots support from U.K. Muslims as a whole (a) because the founders weren't ever engaged with the mainstream Muslim community, (b) seen as misrepresenting Islam and Muslims, and (c) were seen as creating a deliberately hostile environment for mainstream Muslims and fear-mongering about extremism. Moreover, the founders of the Quilliam Foundation were defects of Hizb ul-Tahrir group, which had not enjoyed popular support from U.K. Muslims because the organization was seen as cliquish and its membership in U.K. was never high. Also, the political extremism which Maajid Nawaz laid claim and said to have defected from, even when considered true (though his story has been debunked in Muslim community), can only said to represent himself and not the mainstream community. Also, I have heard Maajid Nawaz on Fox News, and I can honestly say that much of what he says is no doubt an appeasement of baseless fears that Islam is there to terrorize non-Muslims, which is why I myself have never liked him. I can honestly say from my observation and discussion in different Muslim sites over the years of which U.K. members had been over-represented in the Internet community, that U.K. Muslims have not liked Maajid Nawaz for the reason that he seems to have acquired monies from the government for what he calls counter-extremism but is seen as a counter-productive disaster within the Muslim community in the U.K.

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

The U.K. government recently had established the PREVENT strategy in implementation of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in 2015 and enforced it on schools in an attempt to prevent children and teenagers from being drawn into terrorism. However, the Muslim community felt the disproportionate impact of the bill with their school children, and it was also not an effective gauge of radicalization. For further understanding, please read "The mental trauma caused by Prevent on Muslim children." Also, the government had failed to engage the Muslim community in trying to understand what would or would not constitute radicalization in a young adult.

Also, the problem in regards to what the U.K. government is saying about extremism is that extremism is not mainstream and should not be made to feel that it is mainstream either to the Muslim or non-Muslim communities. Otherwise, it would be buying into the "negative press" (pun intended) that for example an article showed, "In one example, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, commissioned a report in November 2007 that found that in one particular week in 2006, over 90 per cent of UK media articles that referred to Islam and Muslims were negative."

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

If a person is an extremist and now he's not, his best bet is to become a model Muslim and engage the Muslim community from within. Moreover, "counter-extremism" (though that is not what these lectures is called within the Muslim community) is already being done in part by U.K. Muslim scholars who had been warning people against joining Daesh when early reports showed beheading of journalists, the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and the like. Moreover, according to M15, the more religious-minded a Muslim is, the less likely he/she is to be radicalized. CIA, FBI, MI5 all agree that religion plays a fringe role in radicalization; rather, issues of identity, isolation, angst, political anger plays the main role in radicalization. And I can say this is true also from my own experience; for example, when I was on another Muslim site, a U.K. national and 16-year old teenager basically said that his life was utterly crappy and he didn't feel like he had any meaning or purpose and he asked the Muslims on the site if he should join Daesh as he as was also feeling suicidal. Since this is a site that was at that time run with some Daesh fanboys, some of these Internet Daesh enthusiast openly encouraged him to leave the U.K. and join Daesh. I, however, and many others encouraged him not to do so.

The primary arguments against extremism lays in Quran and Sunnah itself. However, if you really want to know what arguments can be used against extremists or terrorists, I'd say that your best bet is to read this 512-page treatise that is also a fatwa (ruling) called Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings that really reads like a book.

The lives of apostates, gays, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc. are already protected when Muslims agree to live in non-Muslim lands. Shariah (Islamic law) can only be implemented on Muslims living in a Muslim land that is run by a legitimate Muslim khalifa (leader) accepted by the Muslim ummah (nation); the last Khalifat (Caliphate) that existed in the Muslim world was the Ottoman Caliphate. For example, read the fatwa (ruling) How to React When People Disrespect Islam. In the fatwa (ruling), the following is said clearly and the part about which you will care most is, "In the absence of Muslim political & juridical authorities, one cannot impose penalties on those who insult Islam. As citizens of Western countries, Muslims should be especially aware of free-speech laws and their implications." However, as should be obvious, Muslims who choose not to follow the fatwa (ruling) are doing so under the color of their own perception and regard for their own views over the views of traditional scholars.

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

I think even on IB, you are seeing this as a Muslim board; I can honestly say that besides two members who I had seen actively defend Daesh when I'd come onto IB, I have not seen any promotion of any radicalized ideology ever. Not only that, not only me, but other Muslim members had been actively debating these two members in the Paris Attacks thread. Also, while I don't live in the U.K., I can honestly say that mainstream Muslims of any place in the globe do have a grassroots desire to end radicalization and extremism. However, the fact of the matter is that the people who should be paying attention to this desire are the extremists and radicalized individuals, but they don't because they believe mainstream Muslims are not all that "Muslim" and they are the only right Muslims in the world. Once anyone has had a maggot enter the head that they're the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, it is hard to convince them that they're being tribal and ignorant; I think the cure to such individuals' (a) hard-hardheadedness and (b) hard-heartedness lays in (1) counseling and (2) acquisition of knowledge and (3) finally prayers that God opens their heart to guidance.

[Serinity]

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



The reason Quilliam Foundation doesn't have grassroots support from U.K. Muslims as a whole (a) because the founders weren't ever engaged with the mainstream Muslim community, (b) seen as misrepresenting Islam and Muslims, and (c) were seen as creating a deliberately hostile environment for mainstream Muslims and fear-mongering about extremism. Moreover, the founders of the Quilliam Foundation were defects of Hizb ul-Tahrir group, which had not enjoyed popular support from U.K. Muslims because the organization was seen as cliquish and its membership in U.K. was never high. Also, the political extremism which Maajid Nawaz laid claim and said to have defected from, even when considered true (though his story has been debunked in Muslim community), can only said to represent himself and not the mainstream community. Also, I have heard Maajid Nawaz on Fox News, and I can honestly say that much of what he says is no doubt an appeasement of baseless fears that Islam is there to terrorize non-Muslims, which is why I myself have never liked him. I can honestly say from my observation and discussion in different Muslim sites over the years of which U.K. members had been over-represented in the Internet community, that U.K. Muslims have not liked Maajid Nawaz for the reason that he seems to have acquired monies from the government for what he calls counter-extremism but is seen as a counter-productive disaster within the Muslim community in the U.K.


The U.K. government recently had established the PREVENT strategy in implementation of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in 2015 and enforced it on schools in an attempt to prevent children and teenagers from being drawn into terrorism. However, the Muslim community felt the disproportionate impact of the bill with their school children, and it was also not an effective gauge of radicalization. For further understanding, please read "The mental trauma caused by Prevent on Muslim children." Also, the government had failed to engage the Muslim community in trying to understand what would or would not constitute radicalization in a young adult.


If a person is an extremist and now he's not, his best bet is to become a model Muslim and engage the Muslim community from within. Moreover, "counter-extremism" (though that is not what these lectures is called within the Muslim community) is already being done in part by U.K. Muslim scholars who had been warning people against joining Daesh when early reports showed beheading of journalists, the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and the like. Moreover, according to M15, the more religious-minded a Muslim is, the less likely he/she is to be radicalized. CIA, FBI, MI5 all agree that religion plays a fringe role in radicalization; rather, issues of identity, isolation, angst, political anger plays the main role in radicalization. And I can say this is true also from my own experience; for example, when I was on another Muslim site, a U.K. national and 16-year old teenager basically said that his life was utterly crappy and he didn't feel like he had any meaning or purpose and he asked the Muslims on the site if he should join Daesh as he as was also feeling suicidal. Since this is a site that was at that time run with some Daesh fanboys, some of these Internet Daesh enthusiast openly encouraged him to leave the U.K. and join Daesh. I, however, and many others encouraged him not to do so.

The primary arguments against extremism lays in Quran and Sunnah itself. However, if you really want to know what arguments can be used against extremists or terrorists, I'd say that your best bet is to read this 512-page treatise that is also a fatwa (ruling) called Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings that really reads like a book.

The lives of apostates, gays, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc. are already protected when Muslims agree to live in non-Muslim lands. Shariah (Islamic law) can only be implemented on Muslims living in a Muslim land that is run by a legitimate Muslim khalifa (leader) accepted by the Muslim ummah (nation); the last Khalifat (Caliphate) that existed in the Muslim world was the Ottoman Caliphate. For example, read the fatwa (ruling) How to React When People Disrespect Islam. In the fatwa (ruling), the following is said clearly and the part about which you will care most is, "In the absence of Muslim political & juridical authorities, one cannot impose penalties on those who insult Islam. As citizens of Western countries, Muslims should be especially aware of free-speech laws and their implications." However, as should be obvious, Muslims who choose not to follow the fatwa (ruling) are doing so under the color of their own perception and regard for their own views over the views of traditional scholars.


I think even on IB, you are seeing this as a Muslim board; I can honestly say that besides two members who I had seen actively defend Daesh when I'd come onto IB, I have not seen any promotion of any radicalized ideology ever. Not only that, not only me, but other Muslim members had been actively debating these two members in the Paris Attacks thread. Also, while I don't live in the U.K., I can honestly say that mainstream Muslims of any place in the globe do have a grassroots desire to end radicalization and extremism. However, the fact of the matter is that the people who should be paying attention to this desire are the extremists and radicalized individuals, but they don't because they believe mainstream Muslims are not all that "Muslim" and they are the only right Muslims in the world. Once anyone has had a maggot enter the head that they're the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, it is hard to convince them that they're being tribal and ignorant; I think the cure to such individuals' (a) hard-hardheadedness and (b) hard-heartedness lays in (1) counseling and (2) acquisition of knowledge and (3) finally prayers that God opens their heart to guidance.

Honest question: How did the Islamic State in the past expand territory? What about hostile disbelievers who impede expansion?

What if the West set down laws that explicitly goes against Islamic Law? Is it permissible to stay there and to what extent?

Where is the line of oppression? I.e. when does it become obligatory to do Hijrah? And in doing so what indicates that?

I read a hadith saying that The Prophet :saw: Will disown any Muslim who settles amongst the disbelievers. What does the Prophet :saw: mean?

And how does an Islamic State expand?

[Search]

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

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

I think these questions are for another thread, as otherwise we'd be derailing this thread.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Honest question: How did the Islamic State in the past expand territory? What about hostile disbelievers who impede expansion?

What if the West set down laws that explicitly goes against Islamic Law? Is it permissible to stay there and to what extent?

Where is the line of oppression? I.e. when does it become obligatory to do Hijrah? And in doing so what indicates that?

And how does an Islamic State expand?

[Abz2000]

I just clicked on "read post" under "this person is on your ignore list" and was amused by the new method being used lol, immediately reminded me of the following verse:


وَقَالَت طَّآئِفَةٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُواْ بِالَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُواْ آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ

{72003:072*Khan:

And a party of the people of the Scripture say: "Believe in the morning in that which is revealed to the believers (Muslims), and reject it at the end of the day, so that they may turn back.

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَا تَسْمَعُوا لِهَذَا الْقُرْآنِ وَالْغَوْا فِيهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَغْلِبُونَ
And this:

{26*041:026*Khan:

And those who disbelieve say: "Listen not to this Qur'an, and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome."

فَلَنُذِيقَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَسْوَأَ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

{27*041:027*Khan:
But surely, We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe torment, and certainly, We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.


What's more interesting however is when they claim to be Muslim whilst telling Muslims how it shouldn't be done when there's no legitimate khilafah, whilst ignoring the causes that are sabotaging genuine efforts to establish genuine khilaafah upon which the Muslims would unite and throw off the shackles of colonialism, puppet regimes, injustice and humiliation - and the same naysayers - rather than working to establish genuine khilaafah are focusing their efforts on inducing complacency under injustice and kufr.

Where's the positivity in such a sly approach when you look at the situation with wider lenses and think clearly?

It is more fitting that such "we are peacemakers" claimants focus their efforts on telling the criminals in their own leadership and their puppetmasters that they have no authority to legislate, penalise, or wage war, unless and until they make a genuine effort to comply with the laws of God and establish khilaafah upon the path of prophethood in submission to God, and refrain from staging false flag attacks and corrupt regimes, and refrain from sabotaging genuine efforts at establishing genuine khilaafah, because the people who do leave and go out and work in Allah's way without harassing you may decide that it's futile until they've dealt with the saboteurs and puppeteers or at least retaliated in coin with Allah's assistance and/or succeeded in drawing the wrath of Allah upon the unjust kuffar corrupters.

[noraina]

Assalamu alaykum,

Just wanted to say, I understand there is a problem with Islamic extremism among the Muslim youth (just saying, I've never met any Muslim teenager with extreme views personally) but I don't like the way the UK government is placing all of the blame and responsibility on us, singling us out as a community which needs straightening out.

I'm a Muslim teenager, for me the more I learnt about Islam the more I realised how terrorism or even extremism has no place in it - so the most effective strategy would be to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam from authentic sources, both these groups no little about this religion.

I've grown up in Britain, I've never doubted how British I am. And I'm a practising Muslim. Most of the time, I don't see any conflict between the two - although I obey Allah swt first and foremost. So far, and I'm grateful for this, I haven't had to break any state laws to practise my religion. But my identity as a Muslim comes first - humans aren't infallible, even the rulers of a state *gasp* can be wrong, Allah swt has laws for all times and places which, if practised properly, would make a perfect functional society where everyone received their due rights.

But I do sometimes feel singled out or scrutinised by others. I cannot leave the house without being stared at or shouted out. Just last week me and my friend were walking outside and this man told us to get lost from the UK or jump off a cliff. I can't count the numers of times I've been told I don't belong here, I'm not welcome here...and that used to really upset me when I was younger. And government policies which single us out aren't going to help either. It's just not nice. Young Muslims are growing up in an environment where we're viewed with a lot of suspicion.

And using this point, I don't hate England or its people. The same way Islamic extremists just represent a tiny (if very loud) proportion of Muslims, I am confident those Islamophobes I come across are also a small (but vocal) proportion of British people.

[Search]

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

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

we have to know extremism according to what Qur'an and the Sunnah deems extremism.

I agree with that. However, I wanted to revisit your post to clarify some things which I found troubling God-willing.

Sodomy is condemned in Islam, so I don't see why we'd ever protect their rights.

Any type of premarital intercourse is haram (forbidden) in Islam. The reason we'd protect the rights of gays and lesbians is because they're sinners but we're sinners too and we do not have a right to judge their sins. In Islam, we're all considered to be sinning differently (degrees might be different in less or more). Please see my former post "Hate the sin, not the sinner" with proof of how this is an Islamic attitude. Even within a state that follows the shariah (Islamic law), the Muslim presumed to be engaging in homosexuality through sodomy, would require four witnesses to testify that they have seen the offence, or else, a clear and confirmed confession given out of free will from the perpetrators. And if the accuser fails to produce apart from himself other three witnesses to this offense, then that person will be given 80 lashes because he accused an innocent person and the person will never have their testimony accepted in a shari (Islamic legal) court ever thereafter.

Apostates are killed after trial, if they don't return in a state controlled by Shariah.

First and foremost, in a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), there is no separation of religion and state as is seen in secular countries of today. Rather, it is a theocratic state, and therefore any person defecting as an apostate is also seen as committing treason. However, what's notable about this is that historically people of many different religions for many different reasons have apostatized such as unexpected death of a child, war, famine, pestilence. Therefore, what we have to understand is that apostasy in this context is not in reference to individuals who might have apostatized out of emotional reasons and do not present a clear and active threat to the state. Rather, apostates in the context of a shari (Islamic legal) state references specifically those who have been saying/participating in activities that denote his/her apostasy in a way that explicitly brings him to the attention of the state. Despite this, an apostate's apostasy may be excused, which is why this needs clear verification first and foremost. Things which excuse apostasy are "ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes" even according to IslamQA site. The site says, "The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose." Also, as you said, an apostate is asked to repent (which most sane persons under threat of death would do so, even if only to make an outward show of faith and be prevented from being put to death). The apostate is therefore offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that (which I doubt a person who likes his/her skin would), he is to be put to death after a proper trial.

As for protecting offenders and those who do propaganda against Islam, with satire etc. I'd assume it to be kufr if one knows what he is doing. Protecting someone who ridicules your religion? Never.

In a state ruled by shariah (Islamic law), this matter would likely not arise because there would be clear types of speech that would be known to be illegal. However, in Western lands, specific types of speech are protected under the umbrella of "free speech" and as people who inhabit non-Muslim lands presumed to be under a contract to obey the laws of the nation under which one is residing, one is obliged to obey the law and not do anything that would constitute danger for others or himself/herself. Please read the fatwa (ruling): "How to React When People Disrespect Islam."

Also, personally, I stand on this issue in this way: If a two-year toddler who visits my home and pees on my bed, should I get angry? No. Why? Because this two-year toddler is ignorant. In that same way, I regard as Islam haters and insults to Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him). I see them as ignorant and prejudiced, and I do not get angry.

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) told us not to get angry three times and told us that the stronger person is not one who is strong by virtue of physical strength but by virtue of emotional restraint.

Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother. But to a higher level.

If you don't protect those who insult your religion or who belittle you, how will you show them what is "Islamic character"? Contrary to media depictions, "Islamic character" doesn't comprise of becoming angry and insulted but showing peace and mercy. I personally believe that the best way to kill is kill with kindness. There are many instances of non-Muslim haters in the West who clearly and explicitly hated on and insulted Islam and Muslims, and many of them have converted and shared their stories of coming to Islam and having taken their shahada (testimony of faith).

A convert woman in the aftermath of 9/11 was hit by a non-Muslim man to the point where she was seriously injured and she thought about what she wanted to do when he was arrested. She thought and thought about this matter until she realized that the Islamic character of Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) did not allow her the opportunity to be retaliatory and so she asked for this man instead to be allowed to learn about Islam from a cultural center as part of his sentence and not be jailed. That man became a Muslim. Why? Because she was merciful.

you are basically asking us to go against our religion by protecting people who transgress the limits of Allah?

If he's asking you to go against Islam, you must of course reject his words. If, however, you find that what he's saying is within the parameters of Islam and endorsed by Islam, you are to humble yourself enough to accept what he's saying.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Scimitar]

There are some Catholics and perhaps some Orthodox Christians who would agree that I am indeed a heretic,

When your own camp considers you as such, what kudos can you possibly hope to garner here? Do consider, how you've repeatedly butchered the intended meaning of members posts and interpolated your own wayward and deviant opinions derived from your politically incorrect and fundamentally inflexible mind...

...what you will quickly realise is that the members of this board, are humouring you.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

1.*Ya Sin.
2.*By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom,
3.*Thou art indeed one of the messengers,
4.*On a Straight Way.
5.*It is a Revelation sent down by (Him), the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.
6.*In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah..
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).

13.*Set forth to them, by way of a parable, the (story of) the Companions of the City. Behold!, there came messengers to it.
14.*When We (first) sent to them two messengers they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."
15.*The (people) said: "Ye are only men like ourselves; and ((Allah)) Most Gracious sends no sort of revelation: ye do nothing but lie."
16.*They said: "Our Lord doth know that we have been sent on a mission to you:
17.*"And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message."
18.*The (people) said: "for us, we augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you. And a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us."
19.*They said: "Your evil omens are with yourselves: (deem ye this an evil omen). If ye are admonished? Nay, but ye are a people transgressing all bounds!"
20.*Then there came running, from the farthest part of the City, a man, saying, "O my people! Obey the messengers,
21.*"Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves), and who have themselves received Guidance.
22.*"It would not be reasonable in me if I did not serve Him Who created me, and to Whom ye shall (all) be brought back.
23.*"Shall I take (other) gods besides Him? If ((Allah)) Most Gracious should intend some adversity for me, of no use whatever will be their intercession for me, nor can they deliver me.
24.*"I would indeed, if I were to do so, be in manifest Error.
25.*"For me, I have faith in the Lord of you (all): listen, then, to me!"
26.*It was said: "Enter thou the Garden." He said: "Ah me! Would that my People knew (what I know)!
27.*"For that my Lord has granted me Forgiveness and has enrolled me among those held in honour!"
28.*And We sent not down against his People, after him, any hosts from heaven, nor was it needful for Us so to do.
29.*It was no more than a single mighty Blast, and behold! they were (like ashes) quenched and silent.
30.*Ah! Alas for (My) Servants! There comes not an apostle to them but they mock him!
31.*See they not how many generations before them we destroyed? Not to them will they return:
32.*But each one of them all - will be brought before Us (for judgment).



When the wolf cries out: "he's an extremist" (actually meaning, he's a Muslim, i.e, someone who obeys God, stands up for justice according to God's measuring yard, and is prepared to retaliate equally to injustice if it become's necessary to check injustuce), and another cries out, no no, don't worry, he's just one of the bad apples amongst us, because we're just like you in our projected matrix of liberalism.....another can see the discussion being skewed and false stereotypes being projected and repeated.
what's it gonna be next?
"He's a Muslim"
"Oh no no, he's not a Muslim, he's a'ight, he's just defending the right of the Muslims to obey God in other lands, that's not illegal.
well, i guess that not everyone lives in or next to burma.....or noticed obama's relationships and financial incentives cemented after the atrocities commited there. But hey, believe it if you want, they don't believe in karma, they believe in obama!

[Serinity]

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

:sl: (Peace be upon you)



I agree with that. However, I wanted to revisit your post to clarify some things which I found troubling God-willing.


Any type of premarital intercourse is haram (forbidden) in Islam. The reason we'd protect the rights of gays and lesbians is because they're sinners but we're sinners too and we do not have a right to judge their sins. In Islam, we're all considered to be sinning differently (degrees might be different in less or more). Please see my former post "Hate the sin, not the sinner" with proof of how this is an Islamic attitude. Even within a state that follows the shariah (Islamic law), the Muslim presumed to be engaging in homosexuality through sodomy, would require four witnesses to testify that they have seen the offence, or else, a clear and confirmed confession given out of free will from the perpetrators. And if the accuser fails to produce apart from himself other three witnesses to this offense, then that person will be given 80 lashes because he accused an innocent person and the person will never have their testimony accepted in a shari (Islamic legal) court ever thereafter.


First and foremost, in a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), there is no separation of religion and state as is seen in secular countries of today. Rather, it is a theocratic state, and therefore any person defecting as an apostate is also seen as committing treason. However, what's notable about this is that historically people of many different religions for many different reasons have apostatized such as unexpected death of a child, war, famine, pestilence. Therefore, what we have to understand is that apostasy in this context is not in reference to individuals who might have apostatized out of emotional reasons and do not present a clear and active threat to the state. Rather, apostates in the context of a shari (Islamic legal) state references specifically those who have been saying/participating in activities that denote his/her apostasy in a way that explicitly brings him to the attention of the state. Despite this, an apostate's apostasy may be excused, which is why this needs clear verification first and foremost. Things which excuse apostasy are "ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes" even according to IslamQA site. The site says, "The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose." Also, as you said, an apostate is asked to repent (which most sane persons under threat of death would do so, even if only to make an outward show of faith and be prevented from being put to death). The apostate is therefore offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that (which I doubt a person who likes his/her skin would), he is to be put to death after a proper trial.


In a state ruled by shariah (Islamic law), this matter would likely not arise because there would be clear types of speech that would be known to be illegal. However, in Western lands, specific types of speech are protected under the umbrella of "free speech" and as people who inhabit non-Muslim lands presumed to be under a contract to obey the laws of the nation under which one is residing, one is obliged to obey the law and not do anything that would constitute danger for others or himself/herself. Please read the fatwa (ruling): "How to React When People Disrespect Islam."

Also, personally, I stand on this issue in this way: If a two-year toddler who visits my home and pees on my bed, should I get angry? No. Why? Because this two-year toddler is ignorant. In that same way, I regard as Islam haters and insults to Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him). I see them as ignorant and prejudiced, and I do not get angry.

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) told us not to get angry three times and told us that the stronger person is not one who is strong by virtue of physical strength but by virtue of emotional restraint.



If you don't protect those who insult your religion or who belittle you, how will you show them what is "Islamic character"? Contrary to media depictions, "Islamic character" doesn't comprise of becoming angry and insulted but showing peace and mercy. I personally believe that the best way to kill is kill with kindness. There are many instances of non-Muslim haters in the West who clearly and explicitly hated on and insulted Islam and Muslims, and many of them have converted and shared their stories of coming to Islam and having taken their shahada (testimony of faith).

A convert woman in the aftermath of 9/11 was hit by a non-Muslim man to the point where she was seriously injured and she thought about what she wanted to do when he was arrested. She thought and thought about this matter until she realized that the Islamic character of Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) did not allow her the opportunity to be retaliatory and so she asked for this man instead to be allowed to learn about Islam from a cultural center as part of his sentence and not be jailed. That man became a Muslim. Why? Because she was merciful.



If he's asking you to go against Islam, you must of course reject his words. If, however, you find that what he's saying is within the parameters of Islam and endorsed by Islam, you are to humble yourself enough to accept what he's saying.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Where is the proof that we have to abide by their laws when it contradicts Shariah?

When I said protecting someone for being gay or doing satire with Islam, I meant as in protecting their right to do so - that I won't.

since we live in a land ruled by kufr laws, what do we do about the cartoonists? Killing them is out of the question, so what do we do? I find it hypocritical and disgusting how they use this freedom of speech excuse to further their hatred of Islam. I know playing into their games by being angry is just me playing into their games.

I understand that they have a right (AFAIK) to criticize Islam, but when they offend? I do get that just because one feels offended doesn't give them the right to use violence. But I don't see how it is acceptable for them to ridicule?

So I see it like this:

Since we live in the West, we are not allowed to be vigilant. So when ignorants come, do we just say peace? So in the absense of Muslim ruled country, the dynamic of what is permissible and impermissible changes?

So if one insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

If in a shariah state, someone insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

I am well aware of the character of the Prophet :saw: becoming more kind and gentle when people pettled him :saw:. So we do that in absense of shariah law?

I know we are not supposed to hunt down people for the sins they do - that is pathetic and shows one's low self-reflection and self-awareness.

But say people who openly say they are gay, in an Islamic State, would we implement punishment on them? If they were non muslims, would we? Now, afaik, we can not implement punishments on disbelievers, only believers, but to what an extent does it stretch? Isn't it our Job to rid evil?

And if the disbelievers openly promote something unIslamic, shouldn't we in an Islamic state denounce that? we can't simply have them corrupt the society.

What about if they wear indecent clothing? Aren't they corrupting society by doing so? Can we implement Law on them to dress Islamically? and if not, can we at least have them cover their awrah?

If a gay community in an Islamic State openly promotes sodomy, wouldn't be our obligation to stop that? To rid evil?

To what extent can we implement shariah Law? I am aware that some rules only apply on the Islamic State, when it is established. But say living in Shariah vs Kafir country.

Is there any change in the dynamic?

[Abz2000]

Double post

[Scimitar]

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,...

...Is there any change in the dynamic?

Shariah law exists in the United Kindgom, in a limited capacity. Near where I live there is a shariah court which deals with "births, deaths and marriages" for Muslims.

The tabloids got a wind of this and went paranoid lol, thinking shariah law is going to replace the law of the land :D this unfounded and baseless paranoia is unjustified and I am reminded of Khalid ib Waleed's (RA) last words on his death bed.

The eyes of the cowards, really do not sleep.

Scimi

[Serinity]

Shariah law exists in the United Kindgom, in a limited capacity. Near where I live there is a shariah court which deals with "births, deaths and marriages" for Muslims.

The tabloids got a wind of this and went paranoid lol, thinking shariah law is going to replace the law of the land :D this unfounded and baseless paranoia is unjustified and I am reminded of Khalid ib Waleed's (RA) last words on his death bed.

The eyes of the cowards, really do not sleep.

Scimi

Nice to know that. Way to make Marriages, deaths/burials/janazahs and births easier.

So when a Muslim dies in UK, what do we do of him?

[Search]

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

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Where is the proof that we have to abide by their laws when it contradicts Shariah?

I am not a scholar. That said, I believe scholars use the ayat (verse) 4:59, "O, you who have believed, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and obey those in authority..."

Even within a shariah (Islamic law)-ruled state, no one is allowed to practice vigilantism, otherwise what is the function of the state?

Also, the shariah (Islamic law) does not give anyone permission whether in a shariah (Islamic law)-ruled state or not to practice vigilantism.

When I said protecting someone for being gay or doing satire with Islam, I meant as in protecting their right to do so - that I won't.

since we live in a land ruled by kufr laws, what do we do about the cartoonists? Killing them is out of the question, so what do we do? I find it hypocritical and disgusting how they use this freedom of speech excuse to further their hatred of Islam.

Let them do what they want. Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.”

How does what they do affect Islam? The more hatred comes out of their mouths and their limbs, the more people become curious about Islam, and the more people convert to Islam. You do know that conversion rates to Islam have been growing despite the Islamophobic rhetoric in the public? In fact, in article about Muslims having doubled in the U.S. since 9/11, Dales Jones, data analyst and mapping specialist for the Religion Census, said, "Persecution is sometimes good for a religious group — in the sense of being able to attract more followers, for some reason. Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement."

Also, in the same article, "Dr. Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agreed that any negative sentiments against Islam has only built up resiliance in the Muslim community. 'You get stronger with resistance,' he said. 'If everything is just peachy keen, it's hard to grow. I think the anti-Muslim atmosphere in certain segments of the public square have actually made Muslims more religious.'"

I understand that they have a right (AFAIK) to criticize Islam, but when they offend? I do get that just because one feels offended doesn't give them the right to use violence.

Yes, ethically, they should not try to offend. However, legally, they have a right to do whatever they want.

So I see it like this:

Since we live in the West, we are not allowed to be vigilant. So when ignorants come, do we just say peace? So in the absense of Muslim ruled country, the dynamic of what is permissible and impermissible changes?

Yes, just say, "peace," as recommended in the Quran (25:63). I may not be understanding your question correctly.

However, I will try to answer what I think you are asking.

In a Khilafat (Caliphate), shariah (Islamic law) would be practiced. In Khilafat, some things would be illegal already and therefore breaking the law would a prosecutable offense and a person may or may not be punished accordingly depending on whether one is caught or not and what the outcome of the trial is and whether or not a guilty verdict is given.

However, in the absence of shariah (Islamic law)in a non-Muslim land, there is no state-implemented understanding of shariah (Islamic law). Therefore, on an individual level you can adhere to the limits of shariah (Islamic law); however, you will not be Islamically allowed the right to impose any penalty as such a right belongs unique to the Khilafat (Caliphate) as a nation-state, which penalty in a Khilafat (Caliphate) would be subject to the judgment of a qadi (judge).

So if one insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

If in a shariah state, someone insults the Prophet :saw: what do I do?

I am well aware of the character of the Prophet :saw: becoming more kind and gentle when people pettled him :saw:. So we do that in absense of shariah law?

Control yourself would be the way to approach the situation. Muslims are currently analogously from my POV in the Meccan period of the life of Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) as there is no Khilafat with which Muslims can seek to redress their grievances. So, Muslims must be patient until we can with Allah's heavenly support have in Mahdi alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) and Second Coming of Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) and see the evils in the world addressed.

I know we are not supposed to hunt down people for the sins they do - that is pathetic and shows one's low self-reflection and self-awareness.

But say people who openly say they are gay, in an Islamic State, would we implement punishment on them?

A person can be gay and not act on his same-sex attraction in which his/her being gay is irrelevant.

Unless there are four witnesses and a trial in which a judge renders a guilty verdict or a voluntary confession, there would be no way to tell who is gay and who is not. Suspicion is never enough in shariah (Islamic law).

Even, for example, you strongly believe that a person is gay and this person confesses to you that he's gay and commits sodomy, unless this person confesses to a legal authority in a Khilafat like a qadi (judge) that he committed the sin of sodomy, he'd STILL not be punished because his confession to you doesn't count. If you still decide to accuse him, you would need to bring three other witnesses to testify that he committed sodomy and all of you would have to testify that all of you saw penetration happening in the anal orifice, otherwise you knowing this fact STILL doesn't amount to any punishment. And if that is the case that you were unable to produce three other witnesses and you testified that you did see penetration, the criteria isn't met to enable any punishment. And since you were the person who accused this person (even if this accusation is 100% true), you would be the one punished with 80 lashes for accusing an "innocent" person.

In the Quran, we have been warned against being suspicious lest we wrong someone inadvertently.

If they were non muslims, would we? Now, afaik, we can not implement punishments on disbelievers, only believers, but to what an extent does it stretch?

No. Because non-Muslims get to practice their own religion or no religion within the shariah-based land in a Khilafat (Caliphate) and they will have the opportunity to do with the person as befits their religion or no religion.

If a gay community in an Islamic State openly promotes sodomy, wouldn't be our obligation to stop that? To rid evil?

As Muslims, we must always speak out against anything that harms the individual on a spiritual level. I doubt there would be an openly gay community in a Khilafat (Caliphate) as promoting any such activity would probably constitute a fitna (i.e. strife, sedition), and probably the Khilafat (Caliphate) would deal with it accordingly.

To what extent can we implement shariah Law? I am aware that some rules only apply on the State. But say living in Shariah vs Kafir country.

Is there any change in the dynamic?

You are to adhere to shariah (Islamic law) on an individual level, which I have said before and will repeat again, here means keeping your salat (prayer), fasting, zakat (charity), behaving modestly, dealing honestly with finances, etc. However, as I have stated before, any rights that belongs exclusively to the Khilafat (Caliphate) such as punishing transgressors would not belong to you whether you are in a Muslim or a non-Muslim land.

God-willing, you now understand better the matter. Also, I ask you to seek clarification on such matters from Islamic scholars, as they will God-willing explain to you such things in detail in perhaps a much better manner than I can as a layperson myself.

Best wishes,

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Search]

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

I'd once written this for another post; however, I'm re-posting on this thread because I think it's important in the context of our discussion on homosexuality and freedom and laws (though I have modified the end of that post to suit this thread).

Logic and freedom are indeed high values; that said, I think we need to think deeply to understand the nature of these values and also how they play out or function in reality. One of the best movies that I think feeds into the understanding of the limitation of logic is The Next Three Days in which the character John Brennan has all the evidence to know that his wife is a murderer but believes that she is not. And of course, we know at the end that he was correct in believing in her innocence even when his own logic and physical evidence would dictate that she was a murderer. Logic without intuition or internal compass is nothing.

Freedom as a word has been and always is thrown around a lot, but to be honest, I don't think most people have delved deeply into what freedom means because if they did I am confident they would recognize we're not really free. If a person was truly free, he would not be weighted by gravity, but the law of gravity doesn't change because the person would want to be free. If a person was truly free, legal jurisprudence of the country would not dictate that person's arrest occur should that person fail to stop at a red traffic light. If a person was truly free, the person would not feel hostage to negative emotions and simple be. If a person was truly free, the person would not ever taste death. So, to be honest, from my basic understanding, human beings are not free. Freedom, I have found, after my former atheism/agnosticism, is in finally acknowledging that I am not free. Rousseau said, "Man was born free but everywhere he is in chains." This, I have found, is basic truth, and I even accept that we have laws because we need to legitimize certain restraints in society in order to function without chaos or anarchy.

Next, we go to the question of homosexuality. Homosexuality is the act of sex between two consenting adults, true. However, you are looking at purely from a worldly and legal perspective. And I can understand that because the physical world is the tangible, the one which we live. However, Islam and other major world religions believe in two worlds, the Seen and Unseen. The worldly perspective therefore feels short of encompassing the spiritual realities of our existence. Spiritually, the acts specific to homosexuality, within the realm of Islam, are seen as increasing black dots on a person's heart, increasing a person's spiritual void and blindness. Therefore, even though from a purely worldly perspective, the act is seen as simply a sex act between two consenting adults; in spiritual perspective, the act is seen as spiritually increasing darkness in two individuals' lives and if more people engage in the acts, then that is a causal link increasing spiritual darkness on earth. Therefore, Islam disapproves of sexual acts within both homosexuality and lesbianism.

That said, if a person identified himself/herself as having same-sex sexual attraction but does/did not act on that attraction, there is limitless divine pleasure that can be attained. My sheikh (Islamic teacher) had said that leaving one forbidden act is dearer to Allah (God) than to do 500 praiseworthy acts, because depriving ourselves in any manner is difficult and therefore this comes under the realm of jihad (struggle) against the self. And what this person receives is everlasting pleasure in Paradise. The truth is this world is temporal, and this is the belief of major world religions. Therefore, while deprivation in the world is considered an act of restriction on freedom, in the spiritual perspective, this restriction is actually freedom from being debased and held hostage to a desire. Freedom is in Paradise, wherein we're told there is no gravity, no law, no negative emotion, no death.

That said, I will say welcome to all the people in the world who are trying their best with whatever struggles they are facing. I cannot pretend to understand everyone's struggles and some person's unique challenges like same-sex attraction, and yet I hope that our common thread of humanity enables us to see one another as human beings and move forward together as friends and helpers with a common vision of peace. Most importantly, I hope that we truly "see" and respect one another as a creation of God.

[Search]

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

Ramadan ended not that long ago, from the beginning of this past Ramadan to right now, how many people in the UK were killed by Islamophobes?

Prevention is better than cure.

[Search]

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

I hope that does include the minority within the minority- Ahmadi Muslims in Scotland, gay Muslims who maybe....aren't supposed to....hold on to their religion while also pursuing a gay relationship, but let's hope for enough justice that nobody goes and kills these people. Justice for apostates as well, including the ones who speak out in a very public manner after they've left Islam.

Ahmadi Muslims are considered non-Muslim in traditional Islam; while I understand the incident to which you're referring which I imagine sparked this outrage, I'd appreciate if this outrage is not directed at mainstream Muslims who really have not advocated for any violence against Ahmadi Muslims.

Why would you think gay Muslims are not allowed to hold onto their Islam while pursuing a gay relationship? Let me just say this very clearly for all the straight people on this thread (and I'm saying this as a straight person myself!) that God isn't the monopoly of the straight, and straight persons shouldn't like God only belongs to them. As long as a person believes in the tenets of Islam, they can commit a billion and one acts of sodomy/lesbianism, but as long as they repented (even if they keep repeating the same sin), we believe as Muslims that God would forgive them. Being gay is not contagious nor is it a disease. Everyone has different struggles, and just because someone is struggling differently, doesn't mean that they're considered out of the folds of Islam.

And justice for everyone else too. But these people ^^^ are part of that.

Well, how about being just to U.K. Muslims who are now being singled out here in your thread? Is justice reserved only for them and not for U.K. Muslims on IB?

[Serinity]

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

:sl: (Peace be upon you)



I am not a scholar. That said, I believe scholars use the ayat (verse) 4:59, "O, you who have believed, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and obey those in authority..."

Even within a shariah (Islamic law)-ruled state, no one is allowed to practice vigilantism, otherwise what is the function of the state?

Also, the shariah (Islamic law) does not give anyone permission whether in a shariah (Islamic law)-ruled state or not to practice vigilantism.



Let them do what they want. Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.”

How does what they do affect Islam? The more hatred comes out of their mouths and their limbs, the more people become curious about Islam, and the more people convert to Islam. You do know that conversion rates to Islam have been growing despite the Islamophobic rhetoric in the public? In fact, in article about Muslims having doubled in the U.S. since 9/11, Dales Jones, data analyst and mapping specialist for the Religion Census, said, "Persecution is sometimes good for a religious group — in the sense of being able to attract more followers, for some reason. Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement."

Also, in the same article, "Dr. Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agreed that any negative sentiments against Islam has only built up resiliance in the Muslim community. 'You get stronger with resistance,' he said. 'If everything is just peachy keen, it's hard to grow. I think the anti-Muslim atmosphere in certain segments of the public square have actually made Muslims more religious.'"



Yes, ethically, they should not try to offend. However, legally, they have a right to do whatever they want.



Yes, just say, "peace," as recommended in the Quran (25:63). I may not be understanding your question correctly.

However, I will try to answer what I think you are asking.

In a Khilafat (Caliphate), shariah (Islamic law) would be practiced. In Khilafat, some things would be illegal already and therefore breaking the law would a prosecutable offense and a person may or may not be punished accordingly depending on whether one is caught or not and what the outcome of the trial is and whether or not a guilty verdict is given.

However, in the absence of shariah (Islamic law)in a non-Muslim land, there is no state-implemented understanding of shariah (Islamic law). Therefore, on an individual level you can adhere to the limits of shariah (Islamic law); however, you will not be Islamically allowed the right to impose any penalty as such a right belongs unique to the Khilafat (Caliphate) as a nation-state, which penalty in a Khilafat (Caliphate) would be subject to the judgment of a qadi (judge).



Control yourself would be the way to approach the situation. Muslims are currently analogously from my POV in the Meccan period of the life of Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) as there is no Khilafat with which Muslims can seek to redress their grievances. So, Muslims must be patient until we can with Allah's heavenly support have in Mahdi alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) and Second Coming of Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) and see the evils in the world addressed.



A person can be gay and not act on his same-sex attraction in which his/her being gay is irrelevant.

Unless there are four witnesses and a trial in which a judge renders a guilty verdict or a voluntary confession, there would be no way to tell who is gay and who is not. Suspicion is never enough in shariah (Islamic law).

Even, for example, you strongly believe that a person is gay and this person confesses to you that he's gay and commits sodomy, unless this person confesses to a legal authority in a Khilafat like a qadi (judge) that he committed the sin of sodomy, he'd STILL not be punished because his confession to you doesn't count. If you still decide to accuse him, you would need to bring three other witnesses to testify that he committed sodomy and all of you would have to testify that all of you saw penetration happening in the anal orifice, otherwise you knowing this fact STILL doesn't amount to any punishment. And if that is the case that you were unable to produce three other witnesses and you testified that you did see penetration, the criteria isn't met to enable any punishment. And since you were the person who accused this person (even if this accusation is 100% true), you would be the one punished with 80 lashes for accusing an "innocent" person.

In the Quran, we have been warned against being suspicious lest we wrong someone inadvertently.


No. Because non-Muslims get to practice their own religion or no religion within the shariah-based land in a Khilafat (Caliphate) and they will have the opportunity to do with the person as befits their religion or no religion.



As Muslims, we must always speak out against anything that harms the individual on a spiritual level. I doubt there would be an openly gay community in a Khilafat (Caliphate) as promoting any such activity would probably constitute a fitna (i.e. strife, sedition), and probably the Khilafat (Caliphate) would deal with it accordingly.



You are to adhere to shariah (Islamic law) on an individual level, which I have said before and will repeat again, here means keeping your salat (prayer), fasting, zakat (charity), behaving modestly, dealing honestly with finances, etc. However, as I have stated before, any rights that belongs exclusively to the Khilafat (Caliphate) such as punishing transgressors would not belong to you whether you are in a Muslim or a non-Muslim land.

God-willing, you now understand better the matter. Also, I ask you to seek clarification on such matters from Islamic scholars, as they will God-willing explain to you such things in detail in perhaps a much better manner than I can as a layperson myself.

Best wishes,

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

Shouldn't it be the job of a Khalifat to ban all channels that leads to fitna? Lock down all companies that promote fitna? I'd say that'd be a good thing, to get rid of all the companies that contribute to fitnah.

There must be a limit to what disbelievers can do and there must be a limit to whether we can implement shariah on disbelievers. For the goodness of the public, shouldn't we ban everything that may lead to fitnah?

Who cares if some disbeliever believes something is ok, doesn't make it ok. If he decided to have a religion where spreading illicit sexual material, shouldn't we ban him for that? Surely we should.

we can't just tolerate people having their own way of life. Heck, they could say "my religion says murder is ok". Making up their own rules, shouldn't we ban such and the religion itself?

If a gay admits to an Islamic Qadi, 4 times that he has committed sodomy, he will be guilty of sodomy, and killed.
I do consider Sodomy a disease, a corruption.

[Search]

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

I'd probably say it's more similar to a strategy where you hire ex-hackers in order to do a really good job of building a firewall. Or using an ex-thief as a consultant on how to properly secure things. There are some real-world examples of very comparable situations where this is a widely accepted strategy.

I think think Zafran may have used a poor analogy. I think the more apt comparison would be to say if Hillary Clinton came to tell you about how to keep your emails safe in a server or if Donald Trump came to you praising Mexicans. I'd think any normal person would get a good chuckle or two out of the act and find the entire act a huge irony and consider the person in question a phony. Why? Because once a person has lost his/her credibility on the subject, that person forfeits in the eyes of the public to speak on the given subject. Same thing is applicable to Maajid Nawaz. He was already considered out-of-the-mainstream group due to joining Hibz-ul-Tahrir and then he founds the organization Quilliam to speak on "Islamic" extremism when all his actions were never considered mainstream. The idea of such a person making inroads into Muslim community, U.K. or not, is rather implausible because he's not coming from the position of an "insider" despite what he may want to believe.

[Search]

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

God-willing, we can address your questions some time in some other thread. Also, some of your questions require in-depth analysis of shariah (Islamic law), which I'm not equipped to undertake as I'm not an Islamic juristic expert and therefore I'd recommend you to take such questions to a person who is an Islamic juristic expert.

As to sodomy being a disease, if you are categorizing the sexual feelings that lead to the act falling under the umbrella of spiritual disease, I'd agree with you. However, if you're suggesting otherwise, I'd disagree with you. If you're saying it's a corruption of fitrah (natural state), then I'd agree with you. However, if you mean something else, you'd have to clarify.

Shouldn't it be the job of a Khalifat to ban all channels that leads to fitna? Lock down all companies that promote fitna? I'd say that'd be a good thing, to get rid of all the companies that contribute to fitnah.

There must be a limit to what disbelievers can do and there must be a limit to whether we can implement shariah on disbelievers. For the goodness of the public, shouldn't we ban everything that may lead to fitnah?

Who cares if some disbeliever believes something is ok, doesn't make it ok. If he decided to have a religion where spreading illicit sexual material, shouldn't we ban him for that? Surely we should.

I do consider Sodomy a disease, a corruption.

[Serinity]

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

God-willing, we can address your questions some time in some other thread. Also, some of your questions require in-depth analysis of shariah (Islamic law), which I'm not equipped to undertake as I'm not an Islamic juristic expert and therefore I'd recommend you to take such questions to a person who is an Islamic juristic expert.

As to sodomy being a disease, if you are categorizing the sexual feelings that lead to the act falling under the umbrella of spiritual disease, I'd agree with you. However, if you're suggesting otherwise, I'd disagree with you. If you're saying it's a corruption of fitrah (natural state), then I'd agree with you. However, if you mean something else, you'd have to clarify.

:salam:

In terms of gays, etc. I don't think it is Islamic to protect their rights to be gay. That is like encouraging haram. Btw, is simply confessing to the Caliphate that one has corrupt homsexual desires, enough for execution?

What if one wanted to seek counselling?

[Abz2000]

8.*Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
9.*Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

From Quran, Ch 60, Al Mumtahina

[Search]

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

Brother, I know you're a teenager, and you're eager to learn about Islam. However, I must repeat again and kindly ask you to ask these questions in another thread.

We're as Muslims protecting anyone's rights from being violated. After everything I've explained to you already, you should know by now that gays (no matter how many times they confess to you about their sexual activities) cannot be considered "guilty" in Islamic law until there is a guilty verdict passed. Since there is no way for this guilty verdict to occur in non-Muslim countries since this is not a prosecutable offense in courts, you are to treat them as you would any other person. Moreover, in Islam, there is husn-dhann (thinking good thoughts) that is required of a Muslim as part of Islamic etiquette. Therefore, if you're unsure about a person, you're not to be suspicious of a person or talk about this person (backbiting) because that might otherwise constitute slander. That's not encouraging haram (forbidden). Are you telling a gay person that his/her being gay is acceptable in Islam - no, right? Then, you are not encouraging haram (forbidden). A person can seek counseling or whatever he/she thinks might help him/her in leading a righteous life.

Now, I must insist, brother, that you please create another thread in which to ask questions or if you do not want to do that then at least exercise self-restraint in not derailing this thread further.

Thank you for your consideration.

:salam:

In terms of gays, etc. I don't think it is Islamic to protect their rights to be gay. That is like encouraging haram. Btw, is simply confessing to the Caliphate that one has corrupt homsexual desires, enough for execution?

What if one wanted to seek counselling?

[Abz2000]

I wonder if "thinking good thoughts" entails embedding microchips in people's brains and broadcasting pornography into their thoughts and dreams.....and providing them and their children with false medical ct scan reports and children crying from headaches every time you take your motorbike over a speed hump, and the british embassy refusing to conduct an honest scan or provide a passport for the person to migrate to a country where Islam is implemented, and telling the person they must have left britain permanently to the british ruled puppet state, and lacking a valid answer when the person says: "with the understanding that i wouldn't be harrassed any more"........ then refusing to provide a human being to go through the incompletable forms, and providing a business card with an international number which nobody answers or leaves on hold whilst billing you whilst your brain continues to hemorrhage blood and your children scream from headaches and wake up screaming from nightmares.......

Or maybe they're a bit superstitious and augur evil omens from God's messages and try to take precautions from them whilst telling people that there's no God???

It appears to me that some people are very eager to practice selective orwellian doublethink....




....maybe it helps them to avoid directly facing a topic in which they find themselves guilty so they can pretend to be looking for a solution to a problem whilst using skewed non-parallels and thereby confusing the topic further and making themselves out to be "the good guys" and when the actual topic which they are pretending to be talking about is mentioned in a way that proves them guilty, they can pretend they're oblivious.........



Let me tell you a little secret:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.*[14]b

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?*
18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’*19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?*
20Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.*21And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.*22And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.
23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.*
24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.*
26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.*
28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.*

30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’*
31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.*32Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?*
34Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.*
35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.*
36Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.*
38Look, your house is left to you desolate.*

39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

[Scimitar]

Nice to know that. Way to make Marriages, deaths/burials/janazahs and births easier.

So when a Muslim dies in UK, what do we do of him?

bury him according to our Customs in Islam.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

bury him according to our Customs in Islam.

Scimi

:) obviously.

I just remembered what Sato san's nephew replied near the end when Sato tried to greet him after mr Miyagi broke the tree.

[Search]

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

The only violence that's happening here is when Muslims ignore every applicable law against violence and they go and murder people. That's where the violence comes in, and don't you dare make any excuses for that.

Explaining is not the same thing as excusing. For example, in the court of law, a defense attorney is allowed to bring in mental health issues and/or any other relevant factor like playing violent video games or having a biological disease to explain why the client committed murder, and the defense attorney bringing that up does not constitute justifying the murder.

You shouldn't ever kill people. You in general, nobody should ever kill anybody. Even if it's in self defense, you should plan ahead and use non-lethal force to defend yourself, and let's be honest, in the UK it's not that easy to get a gun so it's not very realistic in any event. Basically, there are laws against violence, there are laws against murder, and they should not be broken. Period. End of story.

Agreed.

Has it ever occurred to you that Muslims are doing some things that earn them just a bit of hate? If I did hate Islam- which I don't, you said it not me- do you honestly think I would hate it because of how good and perfect it is, and for its impeccable record of peace, and for all the good things that Muslims have done? Do you honestly think that non Muslims assess Islam in this manner and then decide this is a thing that's worthy of hate?

Non-Muslims, let's be fair, assess Islam rather uncritically from biased Islamophobic sources 99.99% of the time. Everyday, as a "small slice of life" from Yahoo! Comments Section, I cannot tell you how many times I read idiotic comments from non-Muslims such as that women are forced by men to wear hijab (veil), that Muslim men beat their wives everyday, that the "nice" Muslims are the ones who don't know Islam and the "bad" Muslims are the "real" Muslims, that Muslims want to kill all infidels, quoting of verses of Quran and hadith (prophetic traditions) out of context and so on and so forth. So, sorry, stop making unbelievable excuses for the cultivated ignorance of non-Muslims! They should go to Islamic sources for their information, not non-Muslim Orientalist or Islamophobic sources and then claim they know Islam.

I think these non-Muslims, at least from the U.S., are the same who will tell me how "Christian" they are on the Internet and in the next breath talk about how they don't feel sad if Muslims die or how they'd like to nuke Muslim lands. Yes, cringe-worthy. All that talk about being neighborly and loving goes out of the window when it is inconvenient and about being anonymous!

No, no, no. Check this out. Muslims kill non Muslims for breaking the laws of a religion that they don't belong to. That is unacceptable. And it's something that Islam, as a religion, is responsible for.

WRONG. Islam cannot be held responsible for what some Muslims do.

In the United States, statistically, 1/5 women will be raped. Do you want me to hold entire male gender or male biology for what some males do? Because with that association, you become a potential rapist too.

I hold Islam responsible for these attacks and so many others, and I'm saying that doesn't mean I hate Islam, it just means I hold the perpetrators responsible and not the victims.

Islamist extremism comes from Islam, and from the imposition of Islamic law on people who are clearly saying No Thank You.

Islamist extremism doesn't come from Islam, because that would mean that mainstream Islam condones or endorses extremism when that is patently FALSE.

Seriously though, it comes from Islam. We're not talking about a secular movement, we're not talking about economic theory. This isn't Marx and Engels. We're talking about religious text. The people who lead these movements and give form to their core ideologies tend to be people with plenty of advanced education in Quranic study, some are basically scholars in their own right, and that is the skill set that goes into these sorts of things.

Yes, let's talk about texts, shall we? Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon, was found calmly reading once again Catcher in the Rye before he was apprehended by law enforcement as he'd been famously quite obsessed by the book and had even wanted to change his name to that of the main protagonist in the book. John Hinckley, the man who attempted to kill Ronald Reagan, also was in possession of the book. Lee Harvey Oswald, the person who assassinated John F. Kennedy, is alleged to have been quite, quite fond of the book. Catcher in the Rye had sold 65 million copies and yet why did these specific people kill and others did not kill who'd read the same book? (I have read that book too, and yet here I am, not killing anyone. Hmm.)

Charles Ng and Leonard Lake had read The Collector and killed 11 people in the 1980s. Christoper Wilder, a serial killer, had The Collector in his possession when he commited suicide in 1984. Robert Berdella, another serial killer, had been an avid reader and fan of the book The Collector. This was a best-selling book and again presumably read by many thousands of persons - yet why did these people kill - and not others?

Similarly, people can read the Quran and from approximately 2 billion Muslims who might have presumably some exposure to the Quran - why do some kill and not others? The same can be said about the Bible. The same can be said about the Tanakh.

Again, I disagree with you. Some persons throughout history might have advanced knowledge of Quran and Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) and might have contributed to or participated in heinous actions; however, this is not the norm, especially in modern-day context. In fact, this is what M15 found as reported in The Guardian: “Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could . . . be regarded as religious novices.” The MI5 analysts noted the disproportionate number of converts and the high propensity for “drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes.” The newspaper claimed they concluded, “A well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.” So, no, you're WRONG, again.

Moreover, Robert Pape, a professor in the University of Chicago, one of America's leading terrorism experts, who unlike you, studied every single case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, 315 cases in total, said the following in the book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism: "The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. ... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

Oh, well done, two groups that came into existence relatively recently. There's a couple of things completely wrong with your line of reasoning, though. If al-Quaeda and Daesh really just boil down to the logical reaction toward an aggressive Western Satan, why in the world is Daesh going after the Yazidis so hard? What sort of connection does a Yazidi person have to the West, and when was it exactly that they invaded a country? While I'm waiting for your explanation, I'll go ahead and offer up the idea that Quranic texts and Islamic ideology are the very obvious and only reason for why they're doing what they're doing, and you could go on and on with several dozen other examples. I will go on to point out that it's not at all uncommon in the UK for some very odd statements to come out of the Muslim community. For example, if you look around just a little bit, you'll probably be able to find a London-born Muslim of North African origin who talks about drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and talks in a critical fashion about UK and US foreign policy in terms of their military "abusing our land" and "killing our civilians, our women and children." If religion had no role to play in this, it would be extremely odd to hear a Londoner of North African origin talking about the ME and South Asia in possessive terms like this. But there clearly is a very strong religious aspect, and it really doesn't just boil down to an aggrieved people upset at being attacked. Of course there is a strong religious component, even when foreign policy also has something to do with it.

Daesh went hard after Yazidis because Yazidis are considered "devil worshipers" because they worship the Peacock Angel. The Peacock Angel is presumed as Satan. Daesh have persecuted Yazidis because they are generally intolerant of any religious group other than their own, but this is more so applicable to Yazidis who are not afforded even the benefit of the doubt due to their beliefs.

Her reasoning is actually sound. However, you're conflating the two. Just because Daesh are going hard after West does not mean that Daesh cannot also choose to go after other persons for other reasons.

No, you're right in the fact that religion does have a role to play in the pain that a Muslim from North Africa origin born and bred in London will feel for Muslims; this concept is known as the ummah (brotherhood), wherein the pain of another is felt by another. However, this feeling is not unique to Muslims, because I have seen the same in news media articles about how Christians feel they are being persecuted even in the U.S. and feel the pain of persecution of Christians in other parts of the globe.

Again, sorry, WRONG: Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.

I will also point out that these groups are not doing very much that's terribly new. No matter how much the Saudis insist otherwise, Daesh is basically the second coming of Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab. He imposed jizya, he killed other Muslims that he didn't consider sufficiently observant, he targeted whole sects of Muslims, he executed people in exactly the same ways that Daesh is. And he did all this without being opposed by forces outside the region, and the Saudi state is what eventually came of it. As of right now, over half of the suicide bombers in Syria and Iraq are people who have Saudi citizenship. So how about that.

I agree.

Now, the roots of al-Qaeda begin in Afghanistan and the fight against the Soviets, but 1983 was a bit of a turning point in that jihad had never previously included the possibility of being a suicide bomber, or of killing innocent civilians not at all involved in the field of battle among several other things. These are innovations, and it requires ignoring many parts of the Quran that otherwise clearly forbid such things.

100% CORRECT.

However, the rationale for normalizing these innovations is religious in nature and not at all secular. Arguments for the normalizing of suicide bombing and the murder of innocents do not hinge on US foreign policy or on the way in which wars are being fought, they hinge on a rather bad method of analyzing religious text and it is and always has been an argument from Islamic history and from Islamic teaching. The US did not bomb al-Qaeda into those conclusions, Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study.

WRONG. Normalization of suicide bombing and murder of innocents rests clearly on U.S. foreign policy because of the misapplication of the concept of Qisas - "eye for eye" philosophy which holds that Al-Qaeda is allowed to retaliate in kind and so is Daesh for dead Muslims elsewhere in the globe. Does this concept exist? On an individual level within a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), yes. On a national or global level, never. That's why I said it is a misapplication of the concept. Now, why do I say it hinges on U.S. foreign policy? Because if we as a country had kept our noses out of the business of M.E., then we wouldn't be handing justifications to Daesh or Al-Qaeda to exist or expand but we have. We as a country have cared more about Israel than U.S., which is why we're in this sad status of quo and impasse. Moreover, sorry to say, but did you have amnesia? Last I checked, we armed both Al-Qaeda and Daesh when it suited our purposes to do so. We are a bit like the anti-hero Victor in Mary Shelly's book who created "Frankenstein" and then cried wolf - we're both villain and hero, and I'm sorry, being an American doesn't give you the right or the excuse to ignore this inconvenient truth.

And finally, please see above as I have already pointed out how and why I eschew your line "Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study" with a facepalm. In addition to seeing why the above is untrue from what I've posted above, I'd add: In Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, a book that presents the findings of a six-year, 50,000-interview Gallup survey of Muslim populations in 35 countries, found that "those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conclude, I have this to say: I don't follow Islam because I believe Allah (God) to be a wrathful being demanding vengeance and the blood and death of non-believers. In fact, what you'd find is that I start every post of mine with ":bism:" which in Arabic literally reads in transliteration "Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem" and means "In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful." I don't exclude non-believers from this mercy because the fact that we're both drinking water and breathing air free of cost to us from God means that we're both falling under the umbrella of this mercy even though you see yourself as a Christian and I see myself as Muslim.

You have asked what U.K. Muslims are doing to combat extremism or terrorism: First, I resent the fact that Muslims are being put, oh, look under a microscope and under trial for being Muslims (albeit in the U.K.). However, the fact that you're asking this question shows you're not acquainted with how Muslims have been trying to handle the situation. Well-credentialed and well-respected Islamic scholar Shaykh Afifi Al Akiti, a lecturer in University of Oxford on Islamic Studies, who days after 7/7 published a fatwa (ruling) denouncing terrorism in the name of Islam calling for the protection of all noncombatants at all times and describing suicide bombings as an innovation with no basis in shariah (Islamic law). Secondly, these types of things not getting press from the larger media is not the same as Muslims doing nothing; Muslims are doing what they can in their capacity, and that's much more than what I can say for non-believers in most recent cases of harassment that Muslims - specifically Muslim women due to wearing hijab or niqab - face in the U.K. In fact, in a survey for the Daily Telegraph, published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 88% of British Muslims were opposed to the bombings, and 91% of British Muslims feel loyalty to U.K.

You should ask yourself why Fox News, for example, doesn't cover the fact that Daesh has been unanimously condemned by both Islamic scholars and the overwhelming majority lay Muslims over the globe. In fact, Pew Research Study places the number of Muslims to be extremist to, after doing basic math, to .00625%. We can further pare those numbers when we consider that most "extremists" will never join a terrorist organization or kill people in spite of their extremist views. A case in point is Abz2000 on IB. So, what gives? Could it be that sensationalist news sells and having a popular villain in Muslims brings in television ratings?

You should ask yourself why U.K. non-Muslims feel so threatened by Muslims. You have not addressed this nor have I seen this brought up anywhere in the posts so far that I've had a chance to read on this thread. However, U.K. is both a historically classist and xenophobic society. This might be harder for you to grasp as whites were immigrants to the land of the United States and never the natives, but the same is not true for white nationals in U.K. A strong South Asian presence has existed in the U.K. since the British Raj, and this is also currently the predominant "Muslim face" in U.K. This has factored greatly into how Muslims are "otherized" in U.K. and also modern-day fear-mongering of Islam and Muslims. In fact, the equivalent of U.S. N-word in the U.K. is the racial slur "Paki" which is used to describe anyone presumed to either be of South Asian descent or Muslim. (This slur existed in 1960s when there had been no overt "Muslim threat" against which to defend.)

I'd additionally point out you cited Sam Harris as an authority from which you are understanding Islam, and he is not an expert on Islam. Moreover, he appeared in 2014 on a Talk Show calling Islam as having a "mother load of bad ideas." However, having been an atheist myself, I can tell you that in an atheist's opinion all religions will equally fall under that umbrella. Sam Harris might be a neuroscientist; so, no one can say he's not intelligent. However, like you, he really likes Maajid Nawaz, and like Fox News, seems to consider Maajid Nawaz some kind of legitimate authority on Islam and "Islamic" extremism. However, that is not the case as I've already established. And most importantly, Sam Harris is very notoriously an Islamophobe as he called for profiling of anyone who even looks like Muslim in 2012. Imagine if he'd said the same thing about Jewish people. Or imagine if I'd said let's profile anyone who even looks Jewish, and I'd in real life be rightfully accused of anti-Semitism. However, (lucky him!) he doesn't even believe there is any "Islamophobia" to which we can attribute his affront. However, contrary to what Sam Harris may believe, there was nothing particularly "rational" about his expressions of antipathy towards Islam and Muslims; we have atheists on this board who do not behave like Sam Harris like our IB's Pygoscelis, essentially atheists who are able to have discussions about atheism and Islam without resorting to a discourse expressing intolerance towards Muslims for being Muslims.

Also, the fact that you are here and I am here, and we are having this dialogue on a Muslim platform is itself proof enough that neither Muslims nor Islam endorses or condones terrorism or extremism or even a selective and distorted reading of Quran or Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) to favor either. The fact is you yourself said that you know an apostate atheist Syrian with a Muslim wife, and the fact from what you've relayed is that his wife has not tried to kill her husband or you ("the enemy" if right-wingers are to be believed in regards to what Muslims truly "believe"). All that said, Muslims are human beings, people like you and your family, and their demonization and demonization of Islam is a disservice to our dignity and our honor as being individuals deserving to be judged for our unique strengths and not collectively for a presumed and herein debunked weakness.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Okay, first, if we're talking specifically about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons those were not terribly offensive and they did not initially reach a very wide audience.

In your opinion you say the cartoons were not offensive.

What happened was this, and you can feel free to use the Internet to check this out. There were some Muslims who were able to discover the cartoons in their extremely limited circulation, and they were so offended that they decided it was necessary to disseminate them far more widely in the Middle East and North Africa.

Yet in your next sentence you acknowledge the cartoons did offend Muslims, so why are you defending the rights of people to offend others?

Oh, and by the way, they altered some of the cartoons so that they would be much more offensive than they initially were. It was Muslims who spread that to the angriest Muslims in the world,

Do Muslims control Google? Because Goole are full of these offensive cartoons today, they even have links to what they call offensive cartoons and animal cartoons, they have learned nothing from the Charlie Hebdo affair.

I cannot understand why you would not be supporting the need for kindness rather than cruel offensive cartoons. You recognise how cruel cartoons would be if they were made against your wife and mother, so why can't you have the same empathy for our Muslim brothers and sisters here.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[Scimitar]

Bro Eric, Cooterhein, is one of those compromised political Christians :D you know? the very same that believe being gay is completely fine in his religion. When it is clearly not.

His charlie hebdo narrative is straight outta hasbara handbook too - The best way to curb his ignorance is to let him get consumed bu it completely to the point of integral collapse :D he can't hold it together.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

Then there's the other lame trick:
oh the people are seeing the unbiased eternal truth plainly and seeing injustice and falsehood plainly and might accept Islam, let's send in the "christian" asset and the "muslim" asset to push them back into their brand name camps to flounder in confusion again.........
....almost like the "heated debates" i used to see back in england (that dying and about to be buried place north-west of france with a woman who calls herself a queen on a scarlet throne with seven heads that's being tested by God and "doesn't exist" )

basic human psychology is one of my in-built programs.

[Serinity]

The reason we'd protect the rights of gays and lesbians is because they're sinners but we're sinners too and we do not have a right to judge their sins. In Islam, we're all considered to be sinning differently (degrees might be different in less or more). Please see my former post "Hate the sin, not the sinner" with proof of how this is an Islamic attitude.

I have a question to this. Please do read this, cuz I am having a doubt atm. So what about when Umar :ra: said:


“People were judged by the revelation [which shows the ruling about what they did] during the lifetime of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) but now there is no longer any revelation.Now we judge you by the deeds that you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allaah will judge him for that; meanwhile, we will not trust or believe the one who appears to us with an evil deed, even if he claims that his intentions were good.”

[Sahih Al-Bukhaari]

Judging by the apparent. This seems to contradict what you say. :/

I quote from your post:

'Abd Allah was would be frequently so drunk that he had to be brought staggering through the streets to be sentenced by Prophet

(peace and blessings be upon him) for public drunkenness and this act was a common occurrence. Once when 'Abd Allah had departed from one of the frequent instances of having been sentenced as recorded in hadith (prophetic tradition), one of the Companions declared in reference to 'Abd Allah, "O Allah curse him. How often he is summoned for this!" Prophet

(peace and blessings be upon him) became upset and said, "Do not curse him, for I swear by Allah, if you only knew just how very much indeed he loves Allah and His Messenger" (Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6282)).

This right there is the attitude of hate the sin but not the sinner, for Prophet

(peace and blessings be upon him) himself testified as to this man's devotion to God and Messenger of God despite this man's indulge in sin and also had a loving and cordial relationship with the man who was a known and public sinner.

This confuses me, so on one hand:

1. do not judge a sinner cuz you are also a sinner, and he may be better than you and have a better heart (The Prophet's :saw: words when he said:

" Do not curse him, for I swear by Allah, if you only knew just how very much indeed he loves Allah and His Messenger " )

And the Qur'an:

In Quran (verse 11 of Sura Hujarat), God says, “O you who believe, let not (one) people laugh at (another) people perchance they may be better than they, nor let women (laugh) at (other) women, perchance they may be better than they; and do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames; evil is a bad name after faith, and whoever does not turn, these it is that are the unjust.”

^^ this seems to be for the believers only. but what about what Umar said?
2. you judge the sinner as Umar :ra: said we now judge you by what you do publicly. Judge whether a man is good or depending on his bad deeds. The one who sins publicly is judged as someone not to be trusted.

This seems to be (apparently) be polar opposites, how can both be sahih?

I am geniunely confused, that is why I ask.

On one hand, we can judge by the apparent, yet on the other we can't and must not judge people and say "they are not good people" as in the case with Abdullah.

The fact that we also have to think good of people. but this seems to contradict The hadith of what Umar :ra: said. Cuz as I understand it, with what Umar :ra: said, in the case of Abdullah in the hadith you quoted, we'd have to judge Abdullah for being drunk. And not think good of him? I.e. Judge him by the public sin he did (drinking)?

Is it really Islamic to be like:

I saw a guy drinking publicly, he must be a bad guy. I saw a guy say bad things about Muslims, he must be a bad guy (with complete disregard in the Era we live in, in terms of propaganda, and the fact that the guy may be brainwashed?)

So what is it?! This seems to contradict thinking good of people. Not hating the sinner, but the sin, and not judging.

With the hadith about Umar :ra: it sounds like we can't say that a drunk Muslim can possibly Love Allah more than us, who don't drink! But this contradicts one Sahih hadeeth AND a Quranic Ayat!

So what is it?

Edit: I think I will make a thread. SORRY. I forgot!

[ardianto]

(Moved to new thread)

[Serinity]

:sl:

If you saw a man who often drunk you must be would see him as drunkard, don't You?. This is what "someone judged by the deeds that he practices publicly" means. But it's better if you don't judge him too far, like "he is really a bad guy", because probably he actually had good side in his heart that you didn't know, probably tomorrow he would stop drinking and turn into good guy.

We don't know what is in someone heart, we don't know what will happen to someone tomorrow.

I see. So it isn't like complete malignment etc. Right? we have to think good of people, otherwise it'll reflect on us as being judgmental and stuff.

may Allah :swt: forgive me for any wrong I might have said. Ameen.

[ardianto]

I see. So it isn't like complete malignment etc. Right? we have to think good of people, otherwise it'll reflect on us as being judgmental and stuff.

may Allah :swt: forgive me for any wrong I might have said. Ameen.

My post has been moved to your new thread.

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ttiquette.html

Lets continue this topic there. :)

[Abz2000]

Re: What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

The correct way is to establish Islam in the law books and in the hearts of the future generations.

[cooterhein]

The correct way is to establish Islam in the law books and in the hearts of the future generations.

Very nice. Now in the interest of getting a real answer- what sort of Muslim would be able to talk you out of that plan, and what would he have to do in order to accomplish that?

[Abz2000]

The answer i provided (which you quoted above) is the real answer, the people of the united kingdom of great britain have ensnared themselves by commiting enormous injustice and God has already passed a sentence of retribution, it is best that all repent, submit to God, regain their dignity as human beings, and walk the noble path which God has shown, and are thereby saved from punishment and humiliation in this world and in eternity.

My job is to call to salvation, and not to call to hell.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Speech that incites violence (accompanied by words like imminent present danger) may be prosecuted by law,

We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Because there are too many cartoonists to be intimidated, or killed, by the comparatively small number of violent Muslims?

Hey, it's possible.

[Serinity]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

These images can be really provocating. How would it feel to be likened to the Nazi regime, or drawing parables of one's party to the Nazi regime?

Any sane, decent man can see the intentions behind such deregatory pictures. They are only there to incite oppression. And I do feel this whole "Freedom of speech" feels like oppression.

Imagine your mother or father, or a Prophet, say Musa :as: , be defamed, and then be told "shut it, freedom of speech" This whole freedom of speech can be used for evil, imo.

But as a Muslim we should not act on emotions. But I certainly find it natural, and one should feel offended when one's Prophet :saw: is defamed.

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

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

Because there are too many cartoonists to be intimidated, or killed, by the comparatively small number of violent Muslims?

Hey, it's possible.

I really don't get it, we have sexual discrimination laws, anti racism laws, so why do we still allow these cartoons? We know they offend and can incite violence.

I am against violence of all kinds, and I also am against deliberately provoking people.

The thread asks, What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists? So we can make these cartoons illegal. It's not rocket science.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Abz2000]

To see actual semites being accused of anti-semitism by khazars and ashkenazis is also insulting (of the intelligence of the people of the planet).

But then, it does point out how frustrated and stupid the enemies of Allah actually are in the face of rational argument.

[cooterhein]

The answer i provided (which you quoted above) is the real answer, the people of the united kingdom of great britain have ensnared themselves by commiting enormous injustice and God has already passed a sentence of retribution, it is best that all repent, submit to God, regain their dignity as human beings, and walk the noble path which God has shown, and are thereby saved from punishment and humiliation in this world and in eternity.

This type of rhetoric is the problem that needs solving, it is not the solution.

My job is to call to salvation, and not to call to hell.

You honestly think a Christian is backing the call to hell, just because it's not the right kind of Muslim....I can see I'm not the one who's going to talk you out of this, but I do see what's happening on a couple of other threads with you and I hope some Muslims can talk some common sense into you.

Always remember, you're not law enforcement. You do not enforce Islamic law. Ever. Not even a little bit.

[Abz2000]

This type of rhetoric is the problem that needs solving, it is not the solution.


You honestly think a Christian is backing the call to hell, just because it's not the right kind of Muslim....I can see I'm not the one who's going to talk you out of this, but I do see what's happening on a couple of other threads with you and I hope some Muslims can talk some common sense into you.

Always remember, you're not law enforcement. You do not enforce Islamic law. Ever. Not even a little bit.

You'll remember what i told you one day, and you will wish you had listened rather than argued.


Chapter Name:Al-Araf Verse No:7:79

9فَتَوَلَّى عَنْهُمْ وَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَقَدْ أَبْلَغْتُكُمْ رِسَالَةَ رَبِّي وَنَصَحْتُ لَكُمْ وَلَكِن لاَّ تُحِبُّونَ النَّاصِحِينَ {79*

007:079*Shakir:
Then he turned away from them and said: O my people I did certainly deliver to you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice, but you do not love those who give good advice.

007:079*Sherali:
Then Salih turned away from them and said, 'O my people, I delivered the Message of my Lord unto you and offered you sincere counsel, but you love not sincere counsellors.

007:079*Yusufali:
So Salih left them, saying: "O my people! I did indeed convey to you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel, but ye love not good counsellors!"

[Futuwwa]

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

I haven't listened to what the UK government is saying, so take this for what it's worth. I know, though, that generally speaking, these kinds of government or government-backed initiatives tend to come off as signaling that the only good Muslim is one who will kiss the bum of Western secular humanism and unquestioningly reject any Islamic idea even slightly contrary to it.

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

As someone who has seen the radicalization process firsthand, even if only anecdotally, I might know. Radicalization ultimately comes from a feeling of alienation, from the perception that the world is against us, and out to get us. They have seen the Islamic world get ruthlessly dominated by foreign powers for a hundred years and counting. They have seen how Muslim blood is cheaply spilled, while the spilling of Western blood in retaliation is met with outrage. They see the media portray Muslims in a demonizing way. They experience discrimination and bigotry firsthand, and see how such bigotry against them is being practiced with impunity, while simultaneously seeing how acts of bigotry by Muslims against others gets cracked down on, signaling to them that they're an underclass whom it is uniquely acceptable to hate on. They are bombarded from the mainstream about proclamations about how their values are incompatible with Western society, framed in such a way as to portrary them as a foreign element allowed in society on sufferance and with a duty to conform, rather than equal citizens enjoying freedom of conscience. I'm not saying these perceptions are true, and I'm not interested in that discussion. I'm just saying, that's what things look like to a significant number of Muslims living as minorities in the UK and elsewhere in the West. These kind of things, seen and experienced over the years, pile up, and slowly and steadily build up the conviction that the world is out to get us. That conflict is inevitable, and it's the infidels' fault that we can't have nice things.

What would the primary argument against extremism be, then? Well, to show that there is a significant amount of real, genuine desire for coexistence on the opposite side. That things don't have to be the way they are. That we can make coexistence happen if we try. That yes, there are indeed people out there who are bigoted against Muslims, but have become so largely by having reached the same conclusion as you have, but from the other side, making them mirror images of you.

Standing up for apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and Salman Rushdie isn't something that I can see as a relevant priority. On the contrary, the notion that Muslims need to conform to Western-approved opinions on such matters is highly counterproductive.

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

That's not a question that can properly be answered in a simple and straightforward way. There is proper grassroots desire for real coexistence. As for extremism, the situation is complicated by the fact that while few may actually condone or support extremism, there are many more who share the grievances of the extremists. They are likely to resent the notion that extremism, in itself, is the issue that matters, and that by implication, all would be well if only Muslims would roll over and suffer their oppression and their grievances in silence.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Like I said, and like you quoted, there is a discussion to be had about speech that incites. But it's a bit more nuanced than the idea that all such speech should be banned everywhere; rather, the language used in the inciting speech scenario specifies that in order to be truly inciting, it must be somehow directed "at the person of the hearer." I would argue that speech which mocks Islam should not be in the same class of speech as child pornography, in that it should not be barred from existing in its entirety. After all, the main reason kiddie porn is treated that way is because it is so harmful to the child or children in question. Islam is not harmed by the speech we're talking about, Mohammed is not harmed in any comparable manner. It's only a real issue when it's put in front of a Muslim in some form or fashion. If there simply is offensive speech out there, somewhere, in the world, you don't get to complain about it simply because it exists and you're able to find it. If someone finds a way to put it in front of you, that's a different situation, but you're not going to be able to dictate that such speech should not be able to exist at all. So....I believe that answers your specific question in a fair amount of detail. Basically, it's not truly inciting you unless someone is finding a way to put it in front of you. Being directed "at the person of the hearer" is the legal phrase that's going to mean the most in this analysis.

I will go on to point out that in the US, Canada, and the UK, the cartoons that were the centerpiece of this controversy never made it onto people's television screens in any of these countries, and they were not reprinted in any of their newspapers. This was done by choice, due to it being a sensitive situation, and also in part because it is one thing to be able to google something and go out of your way to be offended, it is quite another to have something show up on page 3 of your newspaper, or appear on your TV screen while you're watching the news. The West in general, and the English speaking countries especially- although I'm not totally sure about Australia, I am sure about the other three though- made a point of not inciting their Muslim populations. Yes the material continues to exist, but the news and entertainment of the Anglosphere did not put in in front of you in an inciting manner. It's not just a question of whether something exists, it also matters exactly what is done with it.

This is a crucial distinction from both a practical standpoint and very much from a legal standpoint, and it invites a comparison with the course of action that Egypt chose to take. They didn't just reprint the cartoons, the cartoons were made to be more offensive than they were in the first place and then Egyptian newspapers put them in front of everybody. So now all of a sudden, Coptic Christians in North Africa are at serious risk of violence for something that was done by Danish cartoonists a thousand miles away. And not from terrorists and extremists, mind you, but from regular mainstream Muslims, especially the ones who are devout and take their religion very seriously. Oddly enough, it was Egypt that incited its people with this material and the West that did not. And across the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, there were Muslims who very much went out of their way to ensure that the angriest Muslims in the world were able to see it. That is the key to inciting people, you put it in front of them.

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

I really don't get it, we have sexual discrimination laws, anti racism laws, so why do we still allow these cartoons? We know they offend and can incite violence.

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it is enforced specifically to protect the speaker against the offended.

Everything said by anyone is going to offend somebody, somewhere, some time. This includes preaching Christianity. Some of these offended people carry weapons, and aren't shy about using them. Is that going to stop you from witnessing (assuming that you do)?

It is an arguably regrettable necessity of free speech that you defend the speech you hate. See if you can rent the true-story movie "Skokie." If you can't or don't, it's the true story of how Jewish Holocaust survivors living in a Chicago suburb defended the free-speech rights of the American Nazi party.

I am against violence of all kinds, and I also am against deliberately provoking people.

Generally, so am I, but there are places I don't go in this town without a gun.

The thread asks, What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists? So we can make these cartoons illegal. It's not rocket science.

Where do you draw the line? If we make cartoons depicting Mohammed and Allah illegal, why not Include Jesus, Buddha, Baal and Zoroaster? Personally, I would be *really* offended if you didn't think the Flying Spaghetti Monster was important enough to be included.

What about Satan? There are plenty of Satanists around, and you should *really* be afraid of pissing off those folks!

BTW, if you do what the extremists want you to do, will that make them play nice, or will it encourage to keep it up? How far are you willing to go to appease them?

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

[Abz2000]

Futuwwa, you mentioned a lot of things that actually strike a chord in me lol. I wonder, is it just that you're a lot wiser or was i misreading you back when i was in England.....

[Futuwwa]

Futuwwa, you mentioned a lot of things that actually strike a chord in me lol. I wonder, is it just that you're a lot wiser or was i misreading you back when i was in England.....

Before you get your hopes up, let it be said that I still don't buy any of your conspiracy theories.

[Futuwwa]

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

Would he be a relative of Neville Chamberlain?

"Appeasement" is a meaningless buzzword. There is no objective measure to determine what constitutes appeasement. One man's redress of grievances is another man's act of appeasement.

[cooterhein]

I haven't listened to what the UK government is saying, so take this for what it's worth. I know, though, that generally speaking, these kinds of government or government-backed initiatives tend to come off as signaling that the only good Muslim is one who will kiss the bum of Western secular humanism and unquestioningly reject any Islamic idea even slightly contrary to it.

Thank you very much for this, I'm not the biggest fan of secular humanism myself. To me, it seems more synonymous with French society than with English or American society- secular in the sense of treating all religion with equal hostility, rather than with equal friendliness and fairness.

What about the term secular liberalism? If you ask me, there's an important distinction with that terminology, but I'm not sure if it strikes you the same way.

As someone who has seen the radicalization process firsthand, even if only anecdotally, I might know.

Wonderful!

Radicalization ultimately comes from a feeling of alienation, from the perception that the world is against us, and out to get us. They have seen the Islamic world get ruthlessly dominated by foreign powers for a hundred years and counting. They have seen how Muslim blood is cheaply spilled, while the spilling of Western blood in retaliation is met with outrage. They see the media portray Muslims in a demonizing way. They experience discrimination and bigotry firsthand, and see how such bigotry against them is being practiced with impunity, while simultaneously seeing how acts of bigotry by Muslims against others gets cracked down on, signaling to them that they're an underclass whom it is uniquely acceptable to hate on. They are bombarded from the mainstream about proclamations about how their values are incompatible with Western society, framed in such a way as to portrary them as a foreign element allowed in society on sufferance and with a duty to conform, rather than equal citizens enjoying freedom of conscience.

Okay, first....in light of how Choudary was just arrested, at what point is mainstream Islam going to realize that efforts to establish an Islamic state and impose Shariah in public spaces (the key here is public spaces) is just not a winning strategy? Change your strategy, and you will do much better in this world. You've probably noticed by now, the West has zero sympathy for people who want Shariah law enforced in public spaces in the UK. Abz2000 could die today and a couple billion people would be pretty okay with it, just because he wishes Shariah upon Great Britain and upon the rest of the world as well. Maybe that's actually not compatible with Western society.

I'm not saying these perceptions are true, and I'm not interested in that discussion. I'm just saying, that's what things look like to a significant number of Muslims living as minorities in the UK and elsewhere in the West. These kind of things, seen and experienced over the years, pile up, and slowly and steadily build up the conviction that the world is out to get us. That conflict is inevitable, and it's the infidels' fault that we can't have nice things.

I didn't know Muslims were so interested in having nice things. I thought that having control was a higher priority, specifically having religious control and having the ability to punish those who break Islamic law.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you did a survey of all British Muslims. Option one- Britain will give you all sorts of really nice things, but in exchange one Muslim country that currently enforces Shariah law on the general public will adopt secular laws and immediately stop punishing people for breaking Islamic law. Let's say, Pakistan. Or maybe they can pick a different one. And option two- Great Britain will adopt and enforce Shariah law on all its citizens, but all the Muslims presently living in the country have to surrender all the nice things that they currently have and pay really hefty taxes for a period of 10 years. Or maybe it's 5, I'm just making things up. After that, everything will go back to normal, except Shariah law will be what governs everyone.

Broadly speaking, which way do you think that would go? Do you think it would be an incredibly close vote, or would there be a clear winner where these priorities are concerned?

What would the primary argument against extremism be, then? Well, to show that there is a significant amount of real, genuine desire for coexistence on the opposite side. That things don't have to be the way they are. That we can make coexistence happen if we try. That yes, there are indeed people out there who are bigoted against Muslims, but have become so largely by having reached the same conclusion as you have, but from the other side, making them mirror images of you.

Now that's a very good point. It brings to mind the question of nationalism, and of national identity- is there a way to redefine British national identity in a way that's a bit different from how it is now, that both sides can reach a fundamental agreement on?

Standing up for apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and Salman Rushdie isn't something that I can see as a relevant priority. On the contrary, the notion that Muslims need to conform to Western-approved opinions on such matters is highly counterproductive.

You might find that you really need to conform to some Western-approved opinions in order to be seen as compatible with Western society. As a Christian, I have some definite opinions on these matters as well, and I don't particularly like it when people break divine law. But I don't hurt or kill anyone as if I were God's law enforcement officer. We at least need to reach an understanding on what laws get enforced, and who gets to enforce them.

Here, let me re-frame this just a little bit. Speaking for mainstream Muslims in Great Britain, let's talk about extra-judicial violence. In general, can you commit to that as a relevant priority? Are you willing to make sure you don't make any exceptions on this when it comes to apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and so forth?

Or do you think that consistent patterns of extra-judicial violence that's solely motivated by religion....is somehow not a priority? And how would you explain that to me.

That's not a question that can properly be answered in a simple and straightforward way. There is proper grassroots desire for real coexistence.

Do you think we can capitalize on that real desire while decoupling it from the desire to force people to submit to Islamic law? Can we reach an understanding on the inherent contradiction between "no compulsion in religion" and "Islamic law enforced in every public space and on anyone who happens to be there"?

As for extremism, the situation is complicated by the fact that while few may actually condone or support extremism, there are many more who share the grievances of the extremists.

Just a bit more than the grievances, also some key ideology. There is plenty of non-violent extremism in the mainstream, in that there are identical beliefs absent the networking and the violence.

They are likely to resent the notion that extremism, in itself, is the issue that matters, and that by implication, all would be well if only Muslims would roll over and suffer their oppression and their grievances in silence.

Freedom of speech is alive and well in the UK. Look at Choudary, he was able to stay out of prison for 20 years and his speech was very loud and very harmful that whole time. There doesn't seem to be any actual threat of Muslims being incarcerated en masse, at least not so far. The main thing we're looking for is some contributions that are realistic and just a bit more helpful than they have been up to this point. That is not the same thing as telling you to roll over and suffer in silence, just be smart and make the adjustments that you obviously need to make. But this needs to come from an actual Muslim, who's accepted as a proper Muslim by the mainstream, and he needs to do more than just tell non Muslims what to do. We are looking for some action on the Islamic side here as well.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it is enforced specifically to protect the speaker against the offended.

Why would you want the right to offend others with impunity? Surely it is better to be kind.

It is an arguably regrettable necessity of free speech that you defend the speech you hate.

Why should I want to defend offensive speech? Am I missing some kind of atheist logic here?

but there are places I don't go in this town without a gun.

I am so pleased I live in the UK.

BTW, if you do what the extremists want you to do, will that make them play nice, or will it encourage to keep it up? How far are you willing to go to appease them?

It is far better to try and be kind to all people.

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

As I recall, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't too keen on war either, it was only Pearl Harbour that forced him to get involved a couple of years later. Now you can't keep America from invading countries, according to some figures they could be responsible for as many as thirty million deaths since WW2.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[jabeady]

Would he be a relative of Neville Chamberlain?

Oops!

"Appeasement" is a meaningless buzzword. There is no objective measure to determine what constitutes appeasement. One man's redress of grievances is another man's act of appeasement.

We're not talking about a redress of grievances, we're talking about murder.

Wiki:
"The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals."

[cooterhein]

You'll remember what i told you one day, and you will wish you had listened rather than argued.


Chapter Name:Al-Araf Verse No:7:79

9فَتَوَلَّى عَنْهُمْ وَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَقَدْ أَبْلَغْتُكُمْ رِسَالَةَ رَبِّي وَنَصَحْتُ لَكُمْ وَلَكِن لاَّ تُحِبُّونَ النَّاصِحِينَ {79*

007:079*Shakir:
Then he turned away from them and said: O my people I did certainly deliver to you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice, but you do not love those who give good advice.

007:079*Sherali:
Then Salih turned away from them and said, 'O my people, I delivered the Message of my Lord unto you and offered you sincere counsel, but you love not sincere counsellors.

007:079*Yusufali:
So Salih left them, saying: "O my people! I did indeed convey to you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel, but ye love not good counsellors!"

You truly understand very little, and I hope you will gradually learn to look back on this point as a time when you were under-informed and incredibly vulnerable to some of the most dangerous people in the world. I hope you can live through this time in your life without becoming a terrorist, and that you survive to learn from these mistakes later in life.

[cooterhein]

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



Prevention is better than cure.

Islamophobic terror networks are never going to be an actual thing. There are some things that don't need to be prevented because they're never going to happen.

[Futuwwa]

"This is why we can't have nice things" is a saying. cooterhein, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. I thought it was common knowledge on the internetz. You understood it wrongly, and thus your reply is to a large extent past the point.

[Search]

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

Islamophobic terror networks are never going to be an actual thing. There are some things that don't need to be prevented because they're never going to happen.

You do realize that Nazi Germany didn't happen over just a day, right? Things build up over time. They don't happen overnight. History is a very wise teacher; we must heeds its lessons, if for no other reason than that we shouldn't be doomed to repeat it.

Also, keep on reading; I have written very long posts in answers to your questions.

[cooterhein]

There was a lot going on in this particular post, but I think we can boil it down to just this.

Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before. There was already a mass exodus of Christians leaving Iraq if they were able to get out, and unlike their Muslim countrymen, they probably won't ever be able to return. Syria used to be 10% Christian, but in the coming years that's going to drop like a rock and it will never come back up. Christians in the region see all of this coming, they feel powerless, and even more than their Muslim neighbors, they feel like they are going to lose their lives or their homeland or both. It's not because of conflict between them and their Muslim neighbors either, it's really all because of foreign incursions.

Those people seem like great candidates for a terror group. Stand up and fight for their way of life, right? Violent resistance that allows them to stay and live in the land, forcing the Western war machine out. And please don't tell me a minority group can't form a terror network, because they are formed almost exclusively by minority groups that seek to take more power for themselves than they would ever be able to do with their numbers alone.

So. While noting that there are (and to a greater extent, were) a fair number of Christians in these same lands that are being invaded, and also noting that they are likely to lose even more than their Muslim neighbors, where are the Christian terrorists? Can you name any Christian terror groups that are fighting against the Western policies that are so damaging to them? Can you name a single terror group in the region that is specifically Christian, or even a non-religious one, or for that matter a terror group that is open to membership outside of Islam?

Foreign policy is the main culprit, you say. Because of the way it affects all people in these countries, you're sure to get a fair amount of terrorism, you say. Not out of a calculus of "bad foreign policy plus Muslims," let's leave Islam out of it, it's mainly about the foreign policy and it just happens to be Muslims that are being unfairly targeted. So you say.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

It really is quite interesting, just to see several types of religious groups all experiencing these really awful things together, but then the only type of terrorist organization that you'll Ever see in Any of these countries is of the Islamic variety. If the main culprit is affecting everyone in pretty much the same way- and in the long term, it's generally harder on religious minorities than anyone else- why is Islam the only religion of the violent non-state actors in the region? How is it that the MAIN CULPRIT was able to be so precisely discriminatory in its terror-inciting effects?

How do you explain that? There's more than enough Christians in the region to do something at least a little bit like terrorism. It's almost like a science experiment, and the results just won't stop coming up Muslim. Every. Single. Time.

[Zafran]

There was a lot going on in this particular post, but I think we can boil it down to just this.

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before. There was already a mass exodus of Christians leaving Iraq if they were able to get out, and unlike their Muslim countrymen, they probably won't ever be able to return. Syria used to be 10% Christian, but in the coming years that's going to drop like a rock and it will never come back up. Christians in the region see all of this coming, they feel powerless, and even more than their Muslim neighbors, they feel like they are going to lose their lives or their homeland or both. It's not because of conflict between them and their Muslim neighbors either, it's really all because of foreign incursions.

Those people seem like great candidates for a terror group. Stand up and fight for their way of life, right? Violent resistance that allows them to stay and live in the land, forcing the Western war machine out. And please don't tell me a minority group can't form a terror network, because they are formed almost exclusively by minority groups that seek to take more power for themselves than they would ever be able to do with their numbers alone.

So. While noting that there are (and to a greater extent, were) a fair number of Christians in these same lands that are being invaded, and also noting that they are likely to lose even more than their Muslim neighbors, where are the Christian terrorists? Can you name any Christian terror groups that are fighting against the Western policies that are so damaging to them? Can you name a single terror group in the region that is specifically Christian, or even a non-religious one, or for that matter a terror group that is open to membership outside of Islam?

Foreign policy is the main culprit, you say. Because of the way it affects all people in these countries, you're sure to get a fair amount of terrorism, you say. Not out of a calculus of "bad foreign policy plus Muslims," let's leave Islam out of it, it's mainly about the foreign policy and it just happens to be Muslims that are being unfairly targeted. So you say.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

It really is quite interesting, just see several types of religious groups all experiencing these really awful things together, but then the only type of terrorist organization that you'll ever see in any of these countries is of the Islamic variety. If the main culprit is affecting everyone in pretty much the same way- and in the long term, it's generally harder on religious minorities than anyone else- why is Islam the only religion of the violent non-state actors in the region? How is it that the MAIN CULPRIT was able to be so precisely discriminatory in its terror-inciting effects?

How do you explain that?

There are and have been plenty of terrorists groups like Maronite Chrstian militia in Lebanon, The Lords resistence army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura - The Bosinian genocide. Bush calling the Iraq war a "crusade" (not good PR for Christianity especially in Iraq) etc etc.

You also like to case study Iraq - you do know that under Saddam Hussein the Christians were well off (much better then the shia) same thing with Assad in Syria - the destruction of there regimes is and has been bad for them - who created that situation again??

Non religious terror groups like the FSA that western powers directly support - they have been found executing Kids and eating there victims heart.

All terrorists groups operate similar be they the IRA or Al qeada or the Lords resistance army.

[cooterhein]

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



You do realize that Nazi Germany didn't happen over just a day, right? Things build up over time. They don't happen overnight. History is a very wise teacher; we must heeds its lessons, if for no other reason than that we shouldn't be doomed to repeat it.

Also, keep on reading; I have written very long posts in answers to your questions.

Okay then. Speaking of history, this isn't the first time that Muslims have gradually come into a previously not-at-all Islamic country and formed a substantial religious minority. There's been lots of violence in the past, plenty of partitions and civil wars. It's happened between Muslims and every conceivable religious groups. Muslims have fought with Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims have fought with several different kinds of Christians, Muslims fight other Muslims, other Muslims fight more Muslims, Muslims fight with a different type of Christian, Muslims fight and Muslims fight some more. There's always a violent struggle, and it always seems to be the fault of everyone but the Muslims.

Any chance that you're going to learn from some of your own history? You're not exactly negotiating from a position of strength, you know. I'm not entirely sure if that's really being understood. Violent uprisings by large numbers of Muslims will absolutely not lead to any of the things you want, it will only lead to large numbers of dead Muslims, along with much less of what you want. Violence is off the table, because the West has a bit of a global monopoly on violence. So what's your fallback?

[cooterhein]

There are and have been plenty of terrorists groups like Maronite Chrstian militia in Lebanon, The Lords resistence army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura - The Bosinian genocide. Bush calling the Iraq war a "crusade" (not good PR for Christianity especially in Iraq) etc etc.

You also like to case study Iraq - you do know that under Saddam Hussein the Christians were well off (much better then the shia) same thing with Assad in Syria - the destruction of there regimes is and has been bad for them - who created that situation again??

Non religious terror groups like the FSA that western powers directly support - they have been found executing Kids and eating there victims heart.

All terrorists groups operate similar be they the IRA or Al qeada or the Lords resistance army.

You got anything for Syria and Iraq? Who are the Christian terrorists in either of those countries?

[Zafran]

Okay then. Speaking of history, this isn't the first time that Muslims have gradually come into a previously not-at-all Islamic country and formed a substantial religious minority. There's been lots of violence in the past, plenty of partitions and civil wars. It's happened between Muslims and every conceivable religious groups. Muslims have fought with Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims have fought with several different kinds of Christians, Muslims fight other Muslims, other Muslims fight more Muslims, Muslims fight with a different type of Christian, Muslims fight and Muslims fight some more. There's always a violent struggle, and it always seems to be the fault of everyone but the Muslims.

Any chance that you're going to learn from some of your own history? You're not exactly negotiating from a position of strength, you know. I'm not entirely sure if that's really being understood. Violent uprisings by large numbers of Muslims will absolutely not lead to any of the things you want, it will only lead to large numbers of dead Muslims, along with much less of what you want. Violence is off the table, because the West has a bit of a global monopoly on violence. So what's your fallback?

So have Christians, secularists, Communists, Hindus and Buddhists? Last time i checked Saddam Hussein and Assad were secular and the FSA??

Your black and white approach to history in the mid east shows that you share very similar views with Anjum Chuodery - He just thinks all non muslims are bad end of - you think the same thing about Muslims.

[Zafran]

You got anything for Syria and Iraq? Who are the Christian terrorists in either of those countries?

why were the Uganda Lord resistance army any better then Isis? was the IRA any better then al qeada?? what about the Marointe Christians any better then siph Sahaba?? or the Buddists monks in Myanmar or the Israeli settlers???

[cooterhein]

why were the Uganda Lord resistance army any better then Isis? was the IRA any better then al qeada?? what about the Marointe Christians any better then siph Sahaba?? or the Buddists monks in Myanmar or the Israeli settlers???

I'm talking about a particular region in which there is a fair amount of religious diversity, everyone is being adversely affected by US foreign policy, and the only terrorists that you can see in the region are Muslims. Why aren't the Christians in Syria and Iraq becoming terrorists? Why is it happening to such a large extent with their Muslim neighbors, but absolutely not at all among the Christian minority?

That is the question I'm asking you. I know what it is I'm asking about, you're not going to distract me from that.

Plus, I was initially asking someone else about it, and now you're butting in without any actual answers and trying to change the subject. Answer clearly or get out.

[Search]

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

@Cooterhain

Your black and white approach to history in the mid east shows that you share very similar views with Anjum Chuodery - He just thinks all non muslims are bad end of - you think the same thing about Muslims.

Bingo!

@cooterhein, I consider myself a generally a fair person, and I remember calling you out as an Islamophobic person in one thread, and you wondered if I was being precise with that term. And I told you I was. Generally, if I am calling a person (or in this case, you) out, I'm doing so because I am in the habit of calling a spade a spade.

I don't have time for nonsense. If reading my long posts, all you took away from that is that foreign policy is the main culprit as simply propped with what I've said, then I have entirely failed in what I've written or you are AGAIN being disingenuous. Did you read any of the facts and figures and what MI5 and terrorism analysts and other research is saying or did you entirely skip over that? It is not only me saying that because I'm a "Muslim"; it is facts and figures and studies that is supporting entirely what I've said.

And frankly if you're not ready or unable to accept that, at that point, I'd say, "peace" because I'd rather not waste my time. Also, you should say from the beginning that you want me or other Muslims to say what you want to hear; otherwise, there's no point in having a discussion.

So, peace.

[Zafran]

I'm talking about a particular region in which there is a fair amount of religious diversity, everyone is being adversely affected by US foreign policy, and the only terrorists that you can see in the region are Muslims. Why aren't the Christians in Syria and Iraq becoming terrorists? Why is it happening to such a large extent with their Muslim neighbors, but absolutely not at all among the Christian minority?

That is the question I'm asking you. I know what it is I'm asking about, you're not going to distract me from that.

Its funny because you seem to think that some people join shia militias and the sunni terrorists groups so therefore all the Muslims are becoming terrorists in Iraq and Syria - Its like me asking you Why are Christians in Ireland Terrorists when only some Christians joined the IRA against the UK - the same applies to Christians Serbian genocide against Bosnia or the lords resistence army in Uganda.

Lets just forget about the Iraqi Government and the countless innocent muslims in Iraq and syria because according to you all of them are responding to US Aggression wih terrorism. As I said its not black and white - Just like trump doesn't represent all of the US neither do terrorists groups.

However if a country did destroy the infrastructure , the police and the health care of the US then I can guarantee you that all the crazy gun toting right wingers would have a field day with killing Muslims and anybody they disagreed with.

[Zafran]

I'm talking about a particular region in which there is a fair amount of religious diversity, everyone is being adversely affected by US foreign policy, and the only terrorists that you can see in the region are Muslims. Why aren't the Christians in Syria and Iraq becoming terrorists? Why is it happening to such a large extent with their Muslim neighbors, but absolutely not at all among the Christian minority?

That is the question I'm asking you. I know what it is I'm asking about, you're not going to distract me from that.

Plus, I was initially asking someone else about it, and now you're butting in without any actual answers and trying to change the subject. Answer clearly or get out.

Not realy your getting answers, you just dont like the responses because some of us dont view the world in black white and can see a strawman from a mile away. Your like the millionth person on this forum trying the same boring dull arguments.

[Search]

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

This is an open discussion platform; naturally, others answer and interject just as a person does in normal everyday conversation when everyone's involved in a discussion. No need to be rude or an a-hole. How about if you don't like what you hear that you feel free to leave the discussion as well?

And let me just say I don't appreciate your tone with our brother @Zafran. Also, I believe the only reason you're asking this is because you haven't been exposed to formal logic. First and foremost, every area and territory in Middle East has its own history. The reason that Christians weren't becoming terrorists because they were supporting Assad and his armed forces; also, if you take the definition of terrorism that would include Assad and his armed forces, then Christians were supporting state-sponsored terrorism and if any of them were part of the armed forces, then they were part of terrorizing Muslims in the region. Also, I don't know what version of Iraqi history you've been reading, but there was armed resistance and retaliation against Iraqi Muslims as well, maybe not your definition of terrorism since only apparently Muslims can commit terrorism.

Plus, I was initially asking someone else about it, and now you're butting in without any actual answers and trying to change the subject. Answer clearly or get out.

[cooterhein]

Not realy your getting answers, you just dont like the responses because some of us dont view the world in black white and can see a strawman from a mile away. Your like the millionth person on this forum trying the same boring dull arguments.

Okay, here's the situation. Person A is asking a specific question of Person B, pertaining to a particular place where there is some diversity. Person C interjects to answer the question that wasn't directed at him, and this is okay in the abstract, it's a normal part of open forums of discussion.

However, when the nature of that interjection is "I don't want to talk about your question, I need to direct your attention to here here here and over here, I want you to answer for all of these different (and they really are quite different) things," my answer is

No.

I won't answer all of those things, I'm trying to do something else right now. Interjections should help someone besides just you, they should not derail.

By the way, did you notice how I described what just happened? That really is what just happened. And it's odd that you would bring up the strawman accusation, you might not know what a strawman actually is. The reason I raise that possibility is because you began this response with a strawman. You just don't like the responses, and this is your mental reasoning as I see fit to describe it. That is an actual strawman.

Asking why a diverse group of people responds in very different ways to their similar circumstances is not the same thing as a strawman argument. It's a legitimate question that arises from things that are obviously happening. I didn't characterize any particular position or thought process on the part of the person I was talking to, I requested one. There's a difference.

[cooterhein]

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

This is an open discussion platform; naturally, others answer and interject just as a person does in normal everyday conversation when everyone's involved in a discussion. No need to be rude or an a-hole. How about if you don't like what you hear that you feel free to leave the discussion as well?

Leaving this thread would be a little more realistic if I wasn't the OP on this thread. To a certain extent, the OP of any thread can be expected to be the most consistently engaged and the most interested in ensuring that questions are actually being answered. To your larger point though, I should be nice and that is well taken.

And let me just say I don't appreciate your tone with our brother @Zafran.

Okay. I'm sure he doesn't like the tone either, and there is a certain part of me that wants to see that he checks himself because of it. But on the whole, I'm sure you're right and I should try to be less combative.

Also, I believe the only reason you're asking this is because you haven't been exposed to formal logic. First and foremost, every area and territory in Middle East has its own history. The reason that Christians weren't becoming terrorists because they were supporting Assad and his armed forces; also, if you take the definition of terrorism that would include Assad and his armed forces, then Christians were supporting state-sponsored terrorism and if any of them were part of the armed forces, then they were part of terrorizing Muslims in the region.

Thank you for this, I appreciate that you are making an effort and staying on topic. For what it's worth, my understanding of the situation is that "terrorism" as a word by itself is generally understood to involve violent non-state actors, with somewhat separate categories of less-direct responsibility for the state funding of terrorism, and then there is another category of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (which comes back to direct responsibility) which, as far as I'm aware, involves the intentional and/or indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants, and there's also a bit of a sub-category that involves false flag operations by a state under the guise of not belonging to that state and again we're talking about killing civilian non-combatants, and that may include the possibility of a state's military killing its own civilians.

Basically, I'm anticipating that you will come at this with a rather broad definition of state terrorism that involves any state but mostly the US poking its nose where it doesn't belong, and if you don't like what the US military is doing then it's terrorism. But I'm reminding you that the more broadly accepted definition of state terror is far more limited than that, and it's primarily limited to the killing of civilian non-combatants. At present, it seems to me that the US has relatively little in the way of boots on the ground, it's mostly special forces that are embedded with the Kurdish Peshmerga, and the main opportunities for invoking charges of state terror would have to do with the overwhelming air support and with drone strikes. On the whole though, the US currently has far less of a ground presence than it did just a short while ago and it could easily be argued that with Iran and Russia both in the neighborhood, the US is acting in a way that prevents them from engaging in state sponsored terror as much as they otherwise would, provided that we're on the same page with the emphasis on the targeting of civilian non-combatants.

Also, I don't know what version of Iraqi history you've been reading, but there was armed resistance and retaliation against Iraqi Muslims as well, maybe not your definition of terrorism since only apparently Muslims can commit terrorism.

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

I will go on to say one other thing with regard to terror in a broader context. I do acknowledge that there are non-Muslim terror groups, there are even a couple that have a separatist Christian motivation and a couple that involve cults somewhat related to Christianity. And then there's a few that are not particularly religious in nature, and a few that involve Eastern religions. If I could bring this back to your point about US foreign policy though, there is something that I'd like to point out.

Consider for a moment all the different ways in which a terrorist organization could direct its violent tendencies. One thing they could certainly do is spread hatred for the US and for the West, they could promote armed struggle against the US military and even against US civilians or anything that's broadly West-affiliated. One thing they could care about more than anything else is the armed presence of the US military in various countries all around the world, especially if it's acting as a destabilizing force.

Now let me ask you something. As you think about which terrorist groups choose that as their main reason for existing, how many of those groups are Islamic? Think back for a second on those non-Muslim terror groups, and I did just acknowledge that they exist in quite a few places throughout the world. How many of those non-Muslim terror groups are committed to a broad, long-term fight against the US military? You probably know the names of most of these non-Muslim groups, go ahead and tick them off real quick then let me know if any of them are super committed to fighting back the US military wherever it happens to be. The IRA, in its various forms and incarnations- did it ever make a point of fighting the US military, and of removing its presence and/or influence from a certain part of the world? Yes of course they're terrorists, and that whole situation might just reignite in the current environment, but let's ask if This Particular terror group has adopted hatred of the US and its military presence as any one of its various reasons for existing and operating. Then let's repeat this for any other non-Muslim terror group and find out how many of them hate the US military, in keeping with your working hypothesis- namely, that the US military and US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT

Yes indeed, you sure did say the MAIN CULPRIT

in causing terrorism to happen. Let's just do a quick comparison, okay? I can obviously name all sorts of Islamic terror organizations that hate the US military and who cite US foreign policy as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they are trying to do. But how often is that true of non-Muslim terror groups?

Now, before you say the US military is only guilty of incursions on Muslim countries, I'll remind you once again that there tends to be a fair amount of religious diversity in those Muslim-majority countries. The US has done quite a bit of destabilizing, and with all these different regions taken together, there has certainly been ample opportunity for non-Muslims to form terror groups and name the US as their main enemy and prime target, all while saying the destabilizing chaos of its terrible foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing. Now, to your knowledge, is that something that's ever happened when we're speaking of non-Muslim terror groups?

Go ahead and run those numbers, and please let me know what you find out. I'm curious to see if I've really discovered a trend that is fairly common among Muslim terror networks while also being not-at-all common in non-Muslim terror networks. I'm feeling good about it so far, but I would like to know what you think.

[jabeady]

However if a country did destroy the infrastructure , the police and the health care of the US then I can guarantee you that all the crazy gun toting right wingers would have a field day with killing Muslims and anybody they disagreed with.

Nah. Never happen. Oh, a few would, to be sure, but the vast majority are just blowhards, farting through their mouths. Believe me, I know; I hang out with a lot of them.

[Zafran]

Okay, here's the situation. Person A is asking a specific question of Person B, pertaining to a particular place where there is some diversity. Person C interjects to answer the question that wasn't directed at him, and this is okay in the abstract, it's a normal part of open forums of discussion.

However, when the nature of that interjection is "I don't want to talk about your question, I need to direct your attention to here here here and over here, I want you to answer for all of these different (and they really are quite different) things," my answer is

No.

I won't answer all of those things, I'm trying to do something else right now. Interjections should help someone besides just you, they should not derail.

By the way, did you notice how I described what just happened? That really is what just happened. And it's odd that you would bring up the straw man accusation, you might not know what a straw man actually is. The reason I raise that possibility is because you began this response with a straw man. You just don't like the responses, and this is your mental reasoning as I see fit to describe it. That is an actual straw man.

Asking why a diverse group of people responds in very different ways to their similar circumstances is not the same thing as a straw man argument. It's a legitimate question that arises from things that are obviously happening. I didn't characterize any particular position or thought process on the part of the person I was talking to, I requested one. There's a difference.

You were building a straw man - I broke it down - Now you want someone to play the game - Your upset that I didnt play the game. - You want people to answer in a specific way - the answer you agree with. Thats not a discussion its just you validating your own conclusion.

As I said on this forum we've seen this straw man time, time again. Of course If you want @Search to take the strawman down as well be my guest.

The whole terrorism is Islamic but when other religious people do exactly the same thing (which I gave examples of Uganda, IRA and Bosinia- nah thats different. Yeah good game.

Open forum anyone can reply dont like it take it with mods.

[Zafran]

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

Like this - But lets forget the diversity of Lebanon and Meronite christian terrorists or the Bosnia genocide which was another religiously diverse place. Lets just forget about those "well funded terrorists". You never know they might have a lot in common with Isis but of course thats not the conclusion "Its only Islam".

Indeed why did the Bosnian not become terrorists or the Ugandan Muslims but the Christians did?

[Serinity]

And so history repeats. Who is going to be the next Hitler? Trump?

In shaa' Allah no holocaust. But I do know this:

Donald Trump is trying to be like "Muslims are the bad guys, we need to bring war on them." I.e. Demonize a whole people. Islam is far from demonism. But this is the tactic:

In order to bring a population to do war on a another nation, you use propaganda and try to demonize and make people think that that nation is the fault.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[kritikvernunft]

Donald Trump is trying to be like "Muslims are the bad guys, we need to bring war on them." I.e. Demonize a whole people. Islam is far from demonism. But this is the tactic ...

This is sooo uninteresting!

Our beloved Donald Trump will build a wall between the USA and Mexico and send the bill to Mexico. I want to see him doing that. It is too interesting not to watch it. I want to see the reaction of the Mexicans, and by extension all the Hispanics. Our beloved Donald Trump has said so many things about so many people. Why is it necessary for you to propel the Muslims to the forefront in this matter? Can't you let other people take the main role for a change? The idea is that we watch how our beloved Donald Trump quarrels with the Hispanics, without anybody producing any kind of unnecessary interferences. Seriously, I want everybody to stay out of his hot conflict with the Hispanics. Be a little bit modest and humble, and just accept NOT to be center of attention for a change. Why does everything in the world necessarily have to be about conflict with the Muslims?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

You got anything for Syria and Iraq? Who are the Christian terrorists in either of those countries?

George Bush asked God to bless America as he bombed Iraq, and Tony Blair was his sidekick, they caused far more death than IS, and they have to be the main reason Iraq is destabilised. Two million refugees fled Iraq, many going to Syria, that has to be a major cause of upheaval in Syria.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Freedom of speech is alive and well in the UK. Look at Choudary, he was able to stay out of prison for 20 years and his speech was very loud and very harmful that whole time.

And look at the free speech of George Bush and Tony Blair, they managed to incite America and Britain to invade Iraq. I believe theirs was the worse crime, because they talked with authority and power. Please tell me what is the difference between the speeches of Bush, Blair and Choudary.

I can understand why free speech is important to Bush and Blair, they don't want to be held accountable for their freedom of speech.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Abz2000]

Allahu Akbar

[kritikvernunft]

Look at Choudary, he was able to stay out of prison for 20 years and his speech was very loud and very harmful that whole time.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech. His speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.

Choudary cannot be punished under American (pagan) provisions. Of course, British paganism is different from the American incarnation of man-made legal inventions. Still, there are good reasons why prosecuting speech that just advocates illegal action at some indefinite future time, as in Choudary's case, is a bad idea. It will quickly make the entire system inconsistent. Imprisoning people or otherwise using force against people for expressing opinions that you do not like, is also a slippery slope. In terms of the Qisas -- an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth -- it would endanger the security of large demographics on both side of the conflict.

[Abz2000]

They should make brother anjem the governor of britain and put that *$#% teresa may in prison for false imprisonment, and the queen? Off with her head as the saying goes.

[cooterhein]

Please tell me what is the difference between the speeches of Bush, Blair and Choudary.

Bush and Blair started a war under false pretenses as heads of state, and Choudary, in the capacity of a non-state dissident, carefully thought about whether he should back Daesh, decided that he would, and several English-born Muslims wound up traveling to Syria in order to fight with Daesh. Some of the communication that's been gleaned from their various interactions confirms that Choudary was directly responsible for their decision to do so. On the strength of this evidence, a direct link from Choudary's speech to their lawless action winds up being just the thing we needed to put him away. And by the way, it's recently come to light that Choudary had been in contact with Daesh well before he came out in support of them, through email and a couple of times through Skype, along with one of his main guys. The other guy who was also arrested.

Oh, right, one other difference between Choudary vs. Frick and Frack. Choudary explicitly, thoughtfully, and intentionally supported a well known terrorist organization, whereas Bush and Blair destabilized a region that allowed terrorism to flourish, they did so unintentionally and while wasting a lot of money and lives, and then they fought the terror problem that they basically created.

Why, do you think Choudary should still be walking about as a free man? Or would you suggest that you're not comfortable with his imprisonment unless Bush and Blair are arrested first? If it's that, I'm pretty sure you know that's not how it works. Choudary is guilty, he goes away because of Choudary. Not because Bush/Blair, not "only if them first," Choudary goes away because of Choudary.

[cooterhein]

They should make brother anjem the governor of britain and put that *$#% teresa may in prison for false imprisonment, and the queen? Off with her head as the saying goes.

When you do this sort of thing, it vaguely reminds me of when Vladimir Putin says silly things. Like when he's admiring something that he likes and says "Heh, this is great, I could kill someone with this." Or when he jokes about poisoning someone for political reasons. It's a bit unsettling, because it matches his persona in a way that's sort of funny, but at the same time we know he's a shady guy who has definitely killed people himself and he's had people killed. Joking about it is dark anyway, but a little more spooky when we all know he's more than capable of actually doing it.

It's kind of like that with you. Of course I know you're joking, you're talking about dismembering a well known world leader just for effect. But we also know you're a bit of a loose cannon, there's a non-zero chance that you'll be fully radicalized one day, and you might actually enjoy hurting and/or killing people for partly religious reasons that are also informed by a twisted political and social agenda that really is quite toxic.

That's all. Carry on.

[cooterhein]

And so history repeats. Who is going to be the next Hitler? Trump?

In shaa' Allah no holocaust. But I do know this:

Donald Trump is trying to be like "Muslims are the bad guys, we need to bring war on them." I.e. Demonize a whole people. Islam is far from demonism. But this is the tactic:

In order to bring a population to do war on a another nation, you use propaganda and try to demonize and make people think that that nation is the fault.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

God bless America. :D

But yeah, Trump is really awful.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



George Bush asked God to bless America as he bombed Iraq, and Tony Blair was his sidekick, they caused far more death than IS, and they have to be the main reason Iraq is destabilised. Two million refugees fled Iraq, many going to Syria, that has to be a major cause of upheaval in Syria.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Yeah, that's right. Is there a particular conclusion that this leads you to? Am I right in assuming it links up with Choudary at some point?

[kritikvernunft]

But yeah, Trump is really awful.

The only criticism that I could ever have on our beloved Donald Trump is: Hey, you were going to do the wall with Mexico first!

[Abz2000]

When you do this sort of thing, it vaguely reminds me of when Vladimir Putin says silly things. Like when he's admiring something that he likes and says "Heh, this is great, I could kill someone with this." Or when he jokes about poisoning someone for political reasons. It's a bit unsettling, because it matches his persona in a way that's sort of funny, but at the same time we know he's a shady guy who has definitely killed people himself and he's had people killed. Joking about it is dark anyway, but a little more spooky when we all know he's more than capable of actually doing it.

It's kind of like that with you. Of course I know you're joking, you're talking about dismembering a well known world leader just for effect. But we also know you're a bit of a loose cannon, there's a non-zero chance that you'll be fully radicalized one day, and you might actually enjoy hurting and/or killing people for partly religious reasons that are also informed by a twisted political and social agenda that really is quite toxic.

That's all. Carry on.

It's amazing how you think i'm capable of nothing, and capable of everything, at the same time.....
.....a bit like the jews and christians, one crying: impostor, the other crying: master of the universe.
why not be truthful with yourselves for a change????

Btw, i am serious when i say that the queen of england merits the death penalty for her crimes against humanity, it is better for her that she repents to God and walks the straight path, that way she may receive grace. What she and hillary did to gaddafi was sick.

And "radical".... i prefer to adhere to God and not radicalize from Him, the only ones who assume that people who sincerely try to adhere to God and speak the truth plainly and stand for justice are "radicals" are either unfamiliar with the definition of the term, or have mistakenly/falsely imagined up in their minds something other than God as supreme authority and imagine muttaqeen individuals to be radicalised from such an idol. (A bit like the process of galvanization - better to galvanize with God).


The freemasons amongst the humans and jinns are the radicals. Start with royal alpha lodge.

[cooterhein]

It's amazing how you think i'm capable of nothing, and capable of everything, at the same time.....
.....a bit like the jews and christians, one crying: impostor, the other crying: master of the universe.
why not be truthful with yourselves for a change????

Quite frankly, I think the truth that you need to know is you might get yourself killed at a very young age. What is the truth that I need to know about myself?

Btw, i am serious when i say that the queen of england merits the death penalty for her crimes against humanity, it is better for her that she repents to God and walks the straight path, that way she may receive grace. What she and hillary did to gaddafi was sick.

Well, Gaddafi was trying to introduce the gold dinar to North Africa and the Middle East, it would have been terrible for the strength of the USD, the Euro, and the GBP, the whole basket of currencies really. So yeah, that is a terrible reason to do what they did.

And "radical".... i prefer to adhere to God and not radicalize from Him, the only ones who assume that people who sincerely try to adhere to God and speak the truth plainly and stand for justice are "radicals" are either unfamiliar with the definition of the term, or have mistakenly/falsely imagined up in their minds something other than God as supreme authority and imagine muttaqeen individuals to be radicalised from such an idol. (A bit like the process of galvanization - better to galvanize with God).

Offensive jihad (and a few other innovations that are likely to come with that) is what makes your thing radical. I thought you would have known that.

The freemasons amongst the humans and jinns are the radicals. Start with royal alpha lodge.

Ah, those Masons. They did have a role in the radical Enlightenment, didn't they? I happen to know some Masons, they're cops. They're not radical, which is not to say Masonic lodges at other times and in other places haven't pushed a radical agenda. They certainly have. And I can't help but think that something comparable in the Islamic world would be a most welcome agent of change.

There's different kinds of radical, you know. It means a couple different things, although not at the exact same time. One meaning, is just that you're advocating fundamental and far-reaching change. It could be any kind of change, I want to see mainstream Islam experience a certain type of radical change and you want to see the UK and the rest of Europe experience a more forceful and violent kind of change. On the other hand, radical can also mean something a little bit different. It could just mean you have potentially violent tendencies in the course of going after what you want, and that's really the one I was getting at. Exhibit A, off with her head, I was actually quite serious about that. Exhibit B- with any kind of luck, it will be the very next thing you say, or perhaps the thing right after that.

[Abz2000]

Quite frankly, I think the truth that you need to know is you might get yourself killed at a very young age. What is the truth that I need to know about myself?

:) are you making a veiled threat? If i am worthy of death, i must be judged justly and killed, if i have done wrong in ignorance when the people around me lived in ignorance, and have thereafter seen the error of my crimes and repented and tried to walk upon the truthful, just and straight path, i can hope that i may have received God's grace and should continue in the hope of receiving and remaining in God's grace.

God has more right to be feared than tyrant lying unjust monarchs and tyrant lying unjust kings with the beast for an hour.

Well, Gaddafi was trying to introduce the gold dinar to North Africa and the Middle East, it would have been terrible for the strength of the USD, the Euro, and the GBP, the whole basket of currencies really. So yeah, that is a terrible reason to do what they did.

It is telling how you remained neutral on the mention of the gold dinar which is real and valid currency, but then went on to mention it's negative effects on the basket of unjust fake and faithless currencies, it appears you were trying to be crafty by providing a reasoning for something unreasonable, whilst knowing it is impossible to justify.
repent to God and be just.

Offensive jihad (and a few other innovations that are likely to come with that) is what makes your thing radical. I thought you would have known that.

Jihad (struggle/+ striving in the way of the creator and master of the heavens and the earth is the best of actions, in the self, in the family, in the community, in the planet, in the universe.

Ah, those Masons. They did have a role in the radical Enlightenment, didn't they? I happen to know some Masons, they're cops. They're not radical, which is not to say Masonic lodges at other times and in other places haven't pushed a radical agenda. They certainly have. And I can't help but think that something comparable in the Islamic world would be a most welcome agent of change.

The freemasons used falsehood, hypocrisy and infiltration in opposition to God, in order to lead astray nd debase whole nations whose honour and finances have been looted unjustly, such despicability is worthy of condemnation.

There's different kinds of radical, you know. It means a couple different things, although not at the exact same time. One meaning, is just that you're advocating fundamental and far-reaching change. It could be any kind of change, I want to see mainstream Islam experience a certain type of radical change and you want to see the UK and the rest of Europe experience a more forceful and violent kind of change. On the other hand, radical can also mean something a little bit different. It could just mean you have potentially violent tendencies in the course of going after what you want, and that's really the one I was getting at. Exhibit A, off with her head, I was actually quite serious about that. Exhibit B- with any kind of luck, it will be the very next thing you say, or perhaps the thing right after that.

Everybody has peaceful and violent tendencies, it is necessary to expend those tendencies in establishing and upholding truth and justice, and it is clear that God who created and sustains the universe and revealed the Quran and sent Muhammad (pbuh) with the truth is the best guide and dictator of what it true and just.

Exhibit B, tell your leaders that Allah will not be overcome by falsehood and injustice, and it is better that we all turn to God in humility and submission before it's too late.

[kritikvernunft]

Well, Gaddafi was trying to introduce the gold dinar to North Africa and the Middle East, it would have been terrible for the strength of the USD, the Euro, and the GBP, the whole basket of currencies really. So yeah, that is a terrible reason to do what they did.

The power of the National State is based on its ability to make you accept their money as payment, and on their ability to figure out what you are doing (to spy on you). With cryptocurrencies, more specifically with bitcoin, we are gradually but surely succeeding where Gaddafi failed. As soon as the next State currency collapses, it will never regain the trust that it has lost. We will have to focus on convincing people never to re-trust it, after they have lost their money in such State currency reset. With the tor and i2p networks, we are gradually but surely preventing the National State from getting any information that we do not want it to have. The only player that matters in this field is the NSA, and they cannot handle our latest elliptic curve cryptography. At the same time, it is utterly impossible for the National State to keep its own critical information secret. It simply has the wrong design for that. This asymmetry will eventually destroy it.

[Futuwwa]

We're not talking about a redress of grievances, we're talking about murder.

Wiki:
"The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals."

Redress of grievances means to get justice for the injustices you think you are suffering from. If it also has a specific, narrow meaning in British politics, nice, but that's not what was being referred do.

What we're talking about is Abz's suggestion that public blasphemy should be illegal. You said that making it so would be an act of appeasement. If you actually think "appeasement" is in any way a meaningful term beyond being a propaganda buzzword, then please tell us:

1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "appeasement" or "not appeasement"?
2. For what real-world purpose does it actually matter whether the action in question is appeasement or not?

[jabeady]

1. 1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "appeasement" or "not appeasement"?
2. For what real-world purpose does it actually matter whether the action in question is appeasement or not?

1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "blasphemy" or "not blasphemy "?
2. "And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

[Serinity]

1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "blasphemy" or "not blasphemy "?
2. "And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

Anything that Islam deems blasphemy is blasphemy, whatever Islam doesn't is not blasphemy.

[jabeady]

Anything that Islam deems blasphemy is blasphemy, whatever Islam doesn't is not blasphemy.

So, if some imam somewhere calls something blasphemy, all Muslims agree that it's blasphemy? I've been here long enough to see for myself that that's not how it works.

[Serinity]

So, if some imam somewhere calls something blasphemy, all Muslims agree that it's blasphemy? I've been here long enough to see for myself that that's not how it works.

No, that is not what I meant. IF some Imam said something is blasphemy, he'd have to bring evidence from The Qur'an and the Sunnah.

What an Imam may say, be either be:

According to Islam.
Contrary to Islam.

Not everything an Imam says represents Islam. What I meant was, anything Islam considers blasphemy. I.e. Whatever Allah :swt: in the Qur'an said is blasphemy. In other words, what is or is not blasphemy is derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

we may agree or disagree on what an Imam says. Imams aren't infallible, they make mistakes.

I sense you are trolling.

[Futuwwa]

1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "blasphemy" or "not blasphemy "?
2. "And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

That doesn't answer the question. The onus is still on you to prove that "appeasement" is a meaningful term, and that banning blasphemy would constitute "appeasement". If you cannot answer #1, then your answer to #2 is irrelevant.

I'll give a few more concrete examples.

-Gay marriage is legalized because gay activists demand it.
-The corporate tax rate is lowered in response to grumblings from the business community that it's too high and they may outsource if it remains as it is.
-The Belfast Agreement of 1998 is made after decades of ethnic conflict, instituting the right for the population of Northern Ireland to freely choose the sovereign status of the area, as well as enacts measures to mitigate marginalization of Irish Catholics.
-Jews are granted full and equal citizenship, and all laws singling them out for discrimination of any kind are repealed
-A prominent Muslim organization in a Western country decides to ditch any and all Islamic tenets that in any way are perceived by the majority culture as incompatible with it

Which of these are instances of appeasement, and which are not? Why?

[cooterhein]

:) are you making a veiled threat?

Nope. Just pointing out that your ideological choices could potentially put you in high risk situations.

God has more right to be feared than tyrant lying unjust monarchs and tyrant lying unjust kings with the beast for an hour.

You speak on behalf of God, I take it? You plan on enforcing His law?

It is telling how you remained neutral on the mention of the gold dinar which is real and valid currency, but then went on to mention it's negative effects on the basket of unjust fake and faithless currencies, it appears you were trying to be crafty by providing a reasoning for something unreasonable, whilst knowing it is impossible to justify.
repent to God and be just.

All I did was make a sober evaluation of US foreign policy vis a vis Gaddafi. As evaluations go, it's incredibly self critical. You must be assuming that an American will be an American apologist, automatically and always. I didn't say anything that would indicate I was doing this, so maybe you're just working off your expectations.

Jihad (struggle/+ striving in the way of the creator and master of the heavens and the earth is the best of actions, in the self, in the family, in the community, in the planet, in the universe.

So for you, it's basically a struggle to force everyone to obey Islamic law, whether they want to or not. And then you'll tell me there's no compulsion in religion, despite the obvious contradictions pertaining to the main things that are most important to you.

Tell you what, why don't you just strive on your own behalf and I'll do my own striving in a different way without any interference from you?

The freemasons used falsehood, hypocrisy and infiltration in opposition to God, in order to lead astray nd debase whole nations whose honour and finances have been looted unjustly, such despicability is worthy of condemnation.

You may not know this, but there's been a split among the Masons- those in the Anglosphere and those on the continent. Whatever scary stories you've heard about the Masons, you should double check and see if the scary stories originate from England or the US, or if it originates from France, Germany, etc. English Masonry is far more open to religion, high ranking Masons and bishops in the Church of England have a long history of cooperation in public and in private. Masons on the Continent have always had a very different relationship with religion, with the government, and especially with the Masons on the other side of the Channel. After all, the French Masons backed Napoleon, which presented a credible and existential threat to all of England. There's two different main families of lodges, each calling the other irregular. They're very different from each other, and considering how you find yourself in the Anglosphere, it's worth knowing that English Masonry is kinder and gentler, and far less scary and creepy. I'm willing to bet most of the scary stories you've heard are attached to the Grand Orient de France.

Seriously though, have you ever had an experience where non Muslims talk about something that's specific to Shia Islam and they criticize all Muslims as if that describes all of them? It's exactly like that. You need to get a little more familiar with the divisions and distinctions within Masonry, because when you learn your way around a little, you'll quickly find that all or nearly all of your criticism winds up going in the direction of a particular group and not toward some others.

Everybody has peaceful and violent tendencies, it is necessary to expend those tendencies in establishing and upholding truth and justice, and it is clear that God who created and sustains the universe and revealed the Quran and sent Muhammad (pbuh) with the truth is the best guide and dictator of what it true and just.

Did he clearly say that all Muslims for all time should change all the legal codes they can in order for everyone to be forced to abide by Islamic law? If so, where?

Exhibit B, tell your leaders that Allah will not be overcome by falsehood and injustice, and it is better that we all turn to God in humility and submission before it's too late.

Now that sounds like a veiled threat. My leaders will never force their citizens to abide by Islamic law. Never going to happen. You may disagree, you may even say you're willing to die for this cause, but if I do have a chance to tell my leaders anything I'll say it's worth fighting wars in order to push back against this. Religious law, divine law if that's what you want to call it, is strictly optional. You don't get to make it mandatory, you don't get to make it compulsory. Freedom is important, that means you are free to practice your religion and it also means anyone else is free to practice a different religion. It even means you are free to leave your religion, if it comes to that, and you shouldn't come to any harm if you choose to do so.

[cooterhein]

-A prominent Muslim organization in a Western country decides to ditch any and all Islamic tenets that in any way are perceived by the majority culture as incompatible with it

Quick point of clarification. One of the go-to strategies of those who want you to ditch certain things, is that they'll make distinctions between some things that are truly Islamic in nature and others that are Islam-adjacent, but are really political in nature.

Do you think it's valid for some of these things to be called political concessions rather than strictly religious? Or would you argue that all of this is completely and entirely a series of religious issues- Islam, as it were, qua Islam?

[cooterhein]

we may agree or disagree on what an Imam says. Imams aren't infallible, they make mistakes.

I sense you are trolling.

That's not a troll, that's an atheist.

[jabeady]

That doesn't answer the question. The onus is still on you to prove that "appeasement" is a meaningful term, and that banning blasphemy would constitute "appeasement". If you cannot answer #1, then your answer to #2 is irrelevant.

First, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything, especially since I doubt that you will credit anything I say. Second, if you are going to attempt to control the conversation, I'm out of here.

That said, the idea that Appeasement as a concept doesn't exist is ridiculous. It's nothing more than giving in to extortion or blackmail, in the usually vain hope that the extortionist or blackmailer will be satisfied. To say that that concept has had no meaning throughout history, for both peoples and individuals, is either unbelievably naive or simply dishonest, depending on your motivation.

Would banning Blasphemy be appeasement? Again, that depends on the motive. It is appeasement if it is done solely as a reaction to a threat or attack, in the probably vain hope that the attacker will cease with the threats and/or attacks and make no future demands. Whether it would be either legal, practical or moral is another conversation.

-Gay marriage is legalized because gay activists demand it.
-The corporate tax rate is lowered in response to grumblings from the business community that it's too high and they may outsource if it remains as it is.
-The Belfast Agreement of 1998 is made after decades of ethnic conflict, instituting the right for the population of Northern Ireland to freely choose the sovereign status of the area, as well as enacts measures to mitigate marginalization of Irish Catholics.
-Jews are granted full and equal citizenship, and all laws singling them out for discrimination of any kind are repealed
-A prominent Muslim organization in a Western country decides to ditch any and all Islamic tenets that in any way are perceived by the majority culture as incompatible with it

Which of these are instances of appeasement, and which are not? Why?

I suspect that the last is the only one you're truly interested in, and you neglected to state the conditions under which the decision is made. If it is made solely in an attempt to "fit in," then it is not appeasement, it is retreat.

I'm an American, so this next is restricted to the US as I see it. It is also restricted to laboratory conditions, recognizing that the US Constitution is a human construct, and both human constructs and humans themselves are flawed.

The only obligation this hypothetical Muslim organization has to American society is to avoid advocating criminal activity. Criminal activity is anything that is already defined as such at the time the activity would be committed (Section IX, US Constitution).

There are a multitude of societies within the United States, and many of them have objections to different parts of American law and customs. For the most part, these objections can be and are accommodated. If, for example, conscription was reinstated (fat chance!) a Muslim who didn't want to fight other Muslims (which would be a religious objection) could either join the military as a medic or perform some other national service as a civilian (as a school teacher in a disadvantaged area, etc).

As I said above, humans are flawed. Yes, there are Americans who dislike Muslims to varying degrees; yes, police and citizens overreact; I don't deny it. I don't like it but I don't deny it. America can't be improved if it's faults aren't admitted. The American system, from the Constitution down to local city ordinances, all provide for self-improvement.

Social attitudes can be another question and various groups have been proscribed throughout our history. There was a time when no self-respecting businessman would hire the Irish; there were places where Whites and Blacks couldn't intermarry; native Americans were considered savages; no Roman Catholic, woman or non-White could hope to be president. It's an ugly picture.

Now it's the Muslims' turn. Fortunately, we seem to have learned at least a little from our past, and far more Americans are favorably disposed toward Islam than not. If the current polls in the presidential election can be believed, xenophobia will be defeated in a landslide. This particular picture is a bit brighter.

That's more than enough for an Internet forum. I'm going to go outside and play.

[Scimitar]

Jabeadey, you should listen to Shaikh Hamza Yusuf Hansen, I think you will appreciate his insights as Muslim scholar as well as Kentucky Colonel.



Scimi

[Mustafa16]

Here's what id define as western powers going too far in stopping "extremism" I'd say being forced into saying that gays have a right to engage in homosexual relationships, that transgendered people have a right to pretend to be the other gender, being forced to deny that the western and Zionist powers are war criminals, to be forced to deny the ijma of scholars on religious rulings such as those for apostasy and music, etc. to be going too far.....as for implementing shariah in non muslim lands, this is nonsense, if you killed an apostate in America or Britain you would go to jail......you can only carry out punishments with the ruling of a judge in a state ruled by the shariah, and if not, you are living in the jungle.....but for western powers to tell us to abandon the shariah, yet preach freedom of speech and "will of the people" (democracy) is hypocritical......if the majority of muslims want shariah, why not let them have it? but for muslims living in the west, you can not just go out and kill people for committing apostasy when the de facto laws are different....

[cooterhein]

There are and have been plenty of terrorists groups like Maronite Chrstian militia in Lebanon, The Lords resistence army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura - The Bosinian genocide. Bush calling the Iraq war a "crusade" (not good PR for Christianity especially in Iraq) etc etc.

...

All terrorists groups operate similar be they the IRA or Al qeada or the Lords resistance army.

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

[Mustafa16]

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

nobody said it was just the Americans....it was non muslims, especially westerners, in general.

[cooterhein]

Here's what id define as western powers going too far in stopping "extremism" I'd say being forced into saying that gays have a right to engage in homosexual relationships,

You don't have to deny divine law when it comes to moral assessments. You just can't enforce it. Of course they're breaking Islamic law, and this is some seriously sinful behavior by any reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible as well. But I'm not someone who enforces the law, and you're not law enforcement either. So don't attempt to enforce Islamic law or any other kind of law. Unless you become a cop, then go ahead and enforce the regular law. But still, you definitely shouldn't attempt to enforce Islamic law.

that transgendered people have a right to pretend to be the other gender,

Again, you don't have to call it halal, you just have to understand that Islamic law is not going to be enforced. You're not going to compel anyone to follow the laws of your religion. And you are certainly not going to enforce that law, although you may certainly believe in it and order your life by it.

being forced to deny that the western and Zionist powers are war criminals,

I don't think anyone is forcing you to do that.

to be forced to deny the ijma of scholars on religious rulings such as those for apostasy and music, etc.

You are free to believe that apostasy is a serious matter that should not be done, you are free to believe that music is haram. But if you are in a public space, the only people who get to enforce any kind of law are actual law enforcement. You are not law enforcement, and you will not enforce any laws.

Suppose I'm playing music in a public space, in compliance with local ordinance. You hear it, you come up to me and politely inform me that you are able to hear the music from where you're at and you briefly educate me about Islamic law and its restrictions.

Then I politely thank you for informing me, but I also point out that we're in a public space and I'd like to know if you are law enforcement. Are you in a position where you are able to enforce Islamic law? Is that your job? Is that something you can do?

If you're smart, you'll find somewhere else to be and something else to do, because you are certainly not law enforcement. That is not going to be happening.

to be going too far.....as for implementing shariah in non muslim lands, this is nonsense, if you killed an apostate in America or Britain you would go to jail......you can only carry out punishments with the ruling of a judge in a state ruled by the shariah, and if not, you are living in the jungle.....

There's a whole lot of Muslims living in secular areas that go full on jungle with their violence. And you know what's the most disturbing part of it to me? I mentioned part of this earlier in the thread, about the Desi Muslim who drove 200 miles from England to Scotland so he could kill an extremely peaceful Ahmadi. Well....that's not the worst part. It's the reaction that happened afterward. To be clear, of course there are fringe groups that don't speak for all Muslims or even most Sunni Muslims, like Sipah-e-Sahaba. That's clearly not mainstream Islam. But it's just as clear that the head of religious events at Glasgow Central Mosque is under investigation for links to them, and a week after the Ahmadi in Scotland was killed, the Sunni imam of Scotland's largest mosque addressed his social media audience on the WhatsApp platform and spoke in support of the KILLER. The guy who stabbed an innocent man over 30 times, then sat on him and laughed- yes he was arrested, yes he was killed by the state, and the imam of Scotland's Largest Mosque said he was "disturbed" and "upset" at his execution.

Then he said "rahmatullahi alaih" after mentioning his name- which as I'm sure you know is a religious blessing typically given to a devout Muslim who you respect and admire.

That's not fringe, that's a fair representation of the Sunni mainstream in Scotland. It's not at all okay, but that is what's happening.

but for western powers to tell us to abandon the shariah, yet preach freedom of speech and "will of the people" (democracy) is hypocritical......

You don't have to abandon the Shariah in your own personal life. You just can't enforce it. This is completely consistent with the idea that there is no compulsion in religion. Let's return to the public place where I am playing music within the bounds of the law. You may ask me to keep the music away from where you can hear it, but I will politely decline. And you will not compel me otherwise. Now, it would be undeniable hypocrisy if you told me that there is no compulsion in religion but you're going to compel me to obey your, um, religious law. No compulsion in your religion except where you compel me to obey your religious rules, okay buddy. Why don't you keep moving.

if the majority of muslims want shariah, why not let them have it?

Because compulsion in religion is wrong, and the religious freedom of the minority must be protected. No, your religious freedom does not extend to being able to force non-Muslims to abide by Islamic law or else get punished. You don't get to do that. That's compulsion and it's a violation of basic human rights, whether you're in the majority or minority. That's why you can't do that.

but for muslims living in the west, you can not just go out and kill people for committing apostasy when the de facto laws are different....

They shouldn't, but they do, it has happened recently, and the reaction from the most important mainstream Sunni imams and scholars that have anything to do with it has not been entirely encouraging. Their reaction has been mixed at best. And that's just the ones in the UK, of course the mullahs and imams in Pakistan and Bangladesh are actively encouraging their followers to carry out extra-judicial violence against Ahmadis, call them martyrs when they do, talk about how they carried out "the will of the people." That's a direct quote from Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman in Pakistan, after the murder of a "blasphemer" and then the murderer had 30,000 people at his funeral. That's the main reason why Muslims from these countries do it all the time, it's this combination of certain religious elites in certain Muslim countries that actively encourage it, that's what leads to the broad public support, and now they're leaving these countries and doing it other places too.

Would you attend the funeral of a Muslim who straight up murdered a blasphemer? I mean, if you didn't know the person at all. Would you reflect on the beauty of your religion while celebrating the life of someone that you know nothing about, except that he killed someone that he believed to be an enemy of Islam? I assume not. But what exactly do you think of these 30,000 people in Pakistan who would, and did?

See, that's what we really want you to give up. Not you personally, but any of those 30,000 people who might wind up coming to live in the West for one reason or another....whatever it is that makes you celebrate the life of a killer, That is what some Muslims need to give up. And by some Muslims I mean a lot of Muslims.

[Mustafa16]

You don't have to deny divine law when it comes to moral assessments. You just can't enforce it. Of course they're breaking Islamic law, and this is some seriously sinful behavior by any reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible as well. But I'm not someone who enforces the law, and you're not law enforcement either. So don't attempt to enforce Islamic law or any other kind of law. Unless you become a cop, then go ahead and enforce the regular law. But still, you definitely shouldn't attempt to enforce Islamic law.

Again, you don't have to call it halal, you just have to understand that Islamic law is not going to be enforced. You're not going to compel anyone to follow the laws of your religion. And you are certainly not going to enforce that law, although you may certainly believe in it and order your life by it.

I don't think anyone is forcing you to do that.

You are free to believe that apostasy is a serious matter that should not be done, you are free to believe that music is haram. But if you are in a public space, the only people who get to enforce any kind of law are actual law enforcement. You are not law enforcement, and you will not enforce any laws.

Suppose I'm playing music in a public space, in compliance with local ordinance. You hear it, you come up to me and politely inform me that you are able to hear the music from where you're at and you briefly educate me about Islamic law and its restrictions.

Then I politely thank you for informing me, but I also point out that we're in a public space and I'd like to know if you are law enforcement. Are you in a position where you are able to enforce Islamic law? Is that your job? Is that something you can do?

If you're smart, you'll find somewhere else to be and something else to do, because you are certainly not law enforcement. That is not going to be happening.

There's a whole lot of Muslims living in secular areas that go full on jungle with their violence. And you know what's the most disturbing part of it to me? I mentioned part of this earlier in the thread, about the Desi Muslim who drove 200 miles from England to Scotland so he could kill an extremely peaceful Ahmadi. Well....that's not the worst part. It's the reaction that happened afterward. To be clear, of course there are fringe groups that don't speak for all Muslims or even most Sunni Muslims, like Sipah-e-Sahaba. That's clearly not mainstream Islam. But it's just as clear that the head of religious events at Glasgow Central Mosque is under investigation for links to them, and a week after the Ahmadi in Scotland was killed, the Sunni imam of Scotland's largest mosque addressed his social media audience on the WhatsApp platform and spoke in support of the KILLER. The guy who stabbed an innocent man over 30 times, then sat on him and laughed- yes he was arrested, yes he was killed by the state, and the imam of Scotland's Largest Mosque said he was "disturbed" and "upset" at his execution.

Then he said "rahmatullahi alaih" after mentioning his name- which as I'm sure you know is a religious blessing typically given to a devout Muslim who you respect and admire.

That's not fringe, that's a fair representation of the Sunni mainstream in Scotland. It's not at all okay, but that is what's happening.

You don't have to abandon the Shariah in your own personal life. You just can't enforce it. This is completely consistent with the idea that there is no compulsion in religion. Let's return to the public place where I am playing music within the bounds of the law. You may ask me to keep the music away from where you can hear it, but I will politely decline. And you will not compel me otherwise. Now, it would be undeniable hypocrisy if you told me that there is no compulsion in religion but you're going to compel me to obey your, um, religious law. No compulsion in your religion except where you compel me to obey your religious rules, okay buddy. Why don't you keep moving.

Because compulsion in religion is wrong, and the religious freedom of the minority must be protected. No, your religious freedom does not extend to being able to force non-Muslims to abide by Islamic law or else get punished. You don't get to do that. That's compulsion and it's a violation of basic human rights, whether you're in the majority or minority. That's why you can't do that.

They shouldn't, but they do, it has happened recently, and the reaction from the most important mainstream Sunni imams and scholars that have anything to do with it has not been entirely encouraging. Their reaction has been mixed at best.

no one is forcing non muslims to believe in islam under a shariah law society.....they are free to practice their own religion...now you may be asking, what about the jizya? well, the jizya is meant to be a light tax, and in exchange for paying jizya, non muslims do not have to pay zakat, which muslims have to pay

[cooterhein]

nobody said it was just the Americans....it was non muslims, especially westerners, in general.

Search said this. Can you see where I've been disagreeing with that conclusion?

"Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism."

[cooterhein]

no one is forcing non muslims to believe in islam under a shariah law society.....they are free to practice their own religion...

Non Muslims are very much forced to abide by Islamic law while in public spaces, and they are punished if they don't. That is compulsion in a public space, and just because you want to ignore what is being forced on non Muslims in a public space, just because you'd prefer to talk about the private freedoms that they are confined to in their home, that doesn't change the fact of what happens all the time in public spaces. That is exactly where I demand that I be free to practice my religion. Here I stand, In A Public Place, come and get me.

now you may be asking, what about the jizya? well, the jizya is meant to be a light tax, and in exchange for paying jizya, non muslims do not have to pay zakat, which muslims have to pay

I don't spend too much time thinking about the jizya, I mostly focus on what I'm free to do In Public as a Christian while remaining free from compulsion to obey Islamic law.

Let me ask you something. If you get your way in terms of how laws in public spaces work- if you imagine for a moment that you actually are law enforcement- what Islamic laws would you force me to obey in a public space? Remember, it's a public space, and you're in charge.

Also, I'm going to ask you why I should be okay with these restrictions, and I'll hope that you'll make an effort to explain the situation to my satisfaction.

[jabeady]

Here's what id define as western powers going too far in stopping "extremism" I'd say being forced into saying that gays have a right to engage in homosexual relationships, that transgendered people have a right to pretend to be the other gender, being forced to deny that the western and Zionist powers are war criminals, to be forced to deny the ijma of scholars on religious rulings such as those for apostasy and music, etc. to be going too far.....as for implementing shariah in non muslim lands, this is nonsense, if you killed an apostate in America or Britain you would go to jail......you can only carry out punishments with the ruling of a judge in a state ruled by the shariah, and if not, you are living in the jungle.....but for western powers to tell us to abandon the shariah, yet preach freedom of speech and "will of the people" (democracy) is hypocritical......if the majority of muslims want shariah, why not let them have it? but for muslims living in the west, you can not just go out and kill people for committing apostasy when the de facto laws are different....

If you want to live by Shariah in the US, go ahead and do it. I've not only seen it done, I've indirectly participated in it. Just recognize that in criminal matters, State and national laws will preempt Shariah. No one is forcing you to say that gays and trannies have rights, or that Western governments haven't committed war crimes. You're perfectly free to disagree with these practices and laws. You're even free to attempt to change them. You'll probably fail, but you won't be punished for trying.

But no, you cannot just go out and kill people for apostasy, or for any other reason for that matter. Neither will you be cutting anyone's hand off. Sorry to spoil your fun.

[Mustafa16]

Non Muslims are very much forced to abide by Islamic law while in public spaces, and they are punished if they don't. That is compulsion in a public space, and just because you want to ignore what is being forced on non Muslims in a public space, just because you'd prefer to talk about the private freedoms that they are confined to in their home, that doesn't change the fact of what happens all the time in public spaces. That is exactly where I demand that I be free to practice my religion. Here I stand, In A Public Place, come and get me.

I don't spend too much time thinking about the jizya, I mostly focus on what I'm free to do In Public as a Christian while remaining free from compulsion to obey Islamic law.

Let me ask you something. If you get your way in terms of how laws in public spaces work- if you imagine for a moment that you actually are law enforcement- what Islamic laws would you force me to obey in a public space? Remember, it's a public space, and you're in charge.

Also, I'm going to ask you why I should be okay with these restrictions, and I'll hope that you'll make an effort to explain the situation to my satisfaction.

The non Muslims in Prophet Muhammad's time had their own communities and their own laws.....same applies in a sharia state.

[jabeady]

The non Muslims in Prophet Muhammad's time had their own communities and their own laws.....same applies in a sharia state.

Like the Islamic State?

[Zafran]

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

Search answerd .....

WRONG. Normalization of suicide bombing and murder of innocents rests clearly on U.S. foreign policy because of the misapplication of the concept of Qisas - "eye for eye" philosophy which holds that Al-Qaeda is allowed to retaliate in kind and so is Daesh for dead Muslims elsewhere in the globe. Does this concept exist? On an individual level within a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), yes. On a national or global level, never. That's why I said it is a misapplication of the concept. Now, why do I say it hinges on U.S. foreign policy? Because if we as a country had kept our noses out of the business of M.E., then we wouldn't be handing justifications to Daesh or Al-Qaeda to exist or expand but we have. We as a country have cared more about Israel than U.S., which is why we're in this sad status of quo and impasse. Moreover, sorry to say, but did you have amnesia? Last I checked, we armed both Al-Qaeda and Daesh when it suited our purposes to do so. We are a bit like the anti-hero Victor in Mary Shelly's book who created "Frankenstein" and then cried wolf - we're both villain and hero, and I'm sorry, being an American doesn't give you the right or the excuse to ignore this inconvenient truth.

And finally, please see above as I have already pointed out how and why I eschew your line "Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study" with a facepalm. In addition to seeing why the above is untrue from what I've posted above, I'd add: In Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, a book that presents the findings of a six-year, 50,000-interview Gallup survey of Muslim populations in 35 countries, found that "those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conclude, I have this to say: I don't follow Islam because I believe Allah (God) to be a wrathful being demanding vengeance and the blood and death of non-believers. In fact, what you'd find is that I start every post of mine with "" which in Arabic literally reads in transliteration "Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem" and means "In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful." I don't exclude non-believers from this mercy because the fact that we're both drinking water and breathing air free of cost to us from God means that we're both falling under the umbrella of this mercy even though you see yourself as a Christian and I see myself as Muslim.

You have asked what U.K. Muslims are doing to combat extremism or terrorism: First, I resent the fact that Muslims are being put, oh, look under a microscope and under trial for being Muslims (albeit in the U.K.). However, the fact that you're asking this question shows you're not acquainted with how Muslims have been trying to handle the situation. Well-credentialed and well-respected Islamic scholar Shaykh Afifi Al Akiti, a lecturer in University of Oxford on Islamic Studies, who days after 7/7 published a fatwa (ruling) denouncing terrorism in the name of Islam calling for the protection of all noncombatants at all times and describing suicide bombings as an innovation with no basis in shariah (Islamic law). Secondly, these types of things not getting press from the larger media is not the same as Muslims doing nothing; Muslims are doing what they can in their capacity, and that's much more than what I can say for non-believers in most recent cases of harassment that Muslims - specifically Muslim women due to wearing hijab or niqab - face in the U.K. In fact, in a survey for the Daily Telegraph, published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 88% of British Muslims were opposed to the bombings, and 91% of British Muslims feel loyalty to U.K.

You should ask yourself why Fox News, for example, doesn't cover the fact that Daesh has been unanimously condemned by both Islamic scholars and the overwhelming majority lay Muslims over the globe. In fact, Pew Research Study places the number of Muslims to be extremist to, after doing basic math, to .00625%. We can further pare those numbers when we consider that most "extremists" will never join a terrorist organization or kill people in spite of their extremist views. A case in point is Abz2000 on IB. So, what gives? Could it be that sensationalist news sells and having a popular villain in Muslims brings in television ratings?

You should ask yourself why U.K. non-Muslims feel so threatened by Muslims. You have not addressed this nor have I seen this brought up anywhere in the posts so far that I've had a chance to read on this thread. However, U.K. is both a historically classist and xenophobic society. This might be harder for you to grasp as whites were immigrants to the land of the United States and never the natives, but the same is not true for white nationals in U.K. A strong South Asian presence has existed in the U.K. since the British Raj, and this is also currently the predominant "Muslim face" in U.K. This has factored greatly into how Muslims are "otherized" in U.K. and also modern-day fear-mongering of Islam and Muslims. In fact, the equivalent of U.S. N-word in the U.K. is the racial slur "Paki" which is used to describe anyone presumed to either be of South Asian descent or Muslim. (This slur existed in 1960s when there had been no overt "Muslim threat" against which to defend.)

I'd additionally point out you cited Sam Harris as an authority from which you are understanding Islam, and he is not an expert on Islam. Moreover, he appeared in 2014 on a Talk Show calling Islam as having a "mother load of bad ideas." However, having been an atheist myself, I can tell you that in an atheist's opinion all religions will equally fall under that umbrella. Sam Harris might be a neuroscientist; so, no one can say he's not intelligent. However, like you, he really likes Maajid Nawaz, and like Fox News, seems to consider Maajid Nawaz some kind of legitimate authority on Islam and "Islamic" extremism. However, that is not the case as I've already established. And most importantly, Sam Harris is very notoriously an Islamophobe as he called for profiling of anyone who even looks like Muslim in 2012. Imagine if he'd said the same thing about Jewish people. Or imagine if I'd said let's profile anyone who even looks Jewish, and I'd in real life be rightfully accused of anti-Semitism. However, (lucky him!) he doesn't even believe there is any "Islamophobia" to which we can attribute his affront. However, contrary to what Sam Harris may believe, there was nothing particularly "rational" about his expressions of antipathy towards Islam and Muslims; we have atheists on this board who do not behave like Sam Harris like our IB's Pygoscelis, essentially atheists who are able to have discussions about atheism and Islam without resorting to a discourse expressing intolerance towards Muslims for being Muslims.

Also, the fact that you are here and I am here, and we are having this dialogue on a Muslim platform is itself proof enough that neither Muslims nor Islam endorses or condones terrorism or extremism or even a selective and distorted reading of Quran or Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) to favor either. The fact is you yourself said that you know an apostate atheist Syrian with a Muslim wife, and the fact from what you've relayed is that his wife has not tried to kill her husband or you ("the enemy" if right-wingers are to be believed in regards to what Muslims truly "believe"). All that said, Muslims are human beings, people like you and your family, and their demonization and demonization of Islam is a disservice to our dignity and our honor as being individuals deserving to be judged for our unique strengths and not collectively for a presumed and herein debunked weakness.

Taking one and two verses out of the entire post and building a straw man is not going to get you anywhere. If you actually read what she says and respond to her then you might be taken seriously rather mine quote one or two posts when she explained in detail frankly with a lot of facts.

[Search]

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

@cooterhein @Zafran

Yes indeed, you sure did say the MAIN CULPRIT

Indeed, sir, I sure did. My objection is not to saying that I did. My MAIN objection to your posts lays in you making it "sound" and "appear" as if I'm saying so as a circular reasoning. I did not say X is true because I said so. That is an example of circular reasoning.

Instead, I said X is true because on evidence, Y and Z. That would fall under a logical proposition. And I made two logical propositions, (a) one refuting your position that Islam is the reason for terrorism and extremism and (b) that foreign policy is instead the driver behind both. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE, and the EVIDENCE IS AS FOLLOWS AGAIN: The reasons can be numbered as follows: (1) MI5 report confirms that terrorism and extremism is not happening because of Islam (please see my original post to get link to original article that appeared in The Guardian), (2) that U.S. terrorism analyst Robert Page's book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism in examining 315 cases in total said that there is little connection between Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism, and also because (3) Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think shows that "Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population." Earlier, I also told you earlier that CIA and FBI agree that there is little connection between Islam and terrorism as I'd even said previously in one of my earliest posts in this thread.

And you STILL continue to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.

Well, here's INFORMATION that EXPANDS on previously presented information with MORE EVIDENCE:

In a book edited by Matthew M. Morgan called The Impact of 9/11 on Religion and Philosophy: The Day that Changed Everything?, the following information is presented: "National Strategy of Combating Terrorism stated that terrorists 'exploit' and 'distort' Islam while 'peaceful Muslims' and 'responsible Islamic leaders' represent its truest forms." In the same book, a terrorism expert studying the phenomena presents the theory called "Ziggurat of Zealotry" that specifically states motivations to radicalize can occur in any secular or religious ideology and that is how terrorism is being studied in modern-day context. In the same book, an analyst in the unit of CIA called "The Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program" said that the unit did not see religion as the key driver of radicalization or recruitment of terrorist groups because religious indoctrination happened after absorption into the terrorist organization. In fact, I went onto CIA's site and it specifically again said that Islam is not the focus of this program but movements and organizations that claim the religion are. FBI on their site regarding radicalization process said that there are three main stages of the radicalization model, which is grievance which includes alienation, feelings of discrimination, discontent, perceived persecution, etc. and then diffusing this grievance into fracture of the ummah (nation) and then hanging out with others of a similar mindset which can occur whether in person or alone on the Internet.

So, AGAIN, I have offered evidence and turning one's back on evidence shows prejudice, NOT intelligence.

Most importantly, I said specifically, "Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism." Why do I further say this? Good question. Apart from the aforesaid EVIDENCE that it is not Islam driving the modern-day terrorism and extremism, I say this because of FURTHER EVIDENCE:

(1) In the book Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger in America, the author quotes. "In WorldPublicOpinion.org polling conducted in 2008 and 2009 found that 8 out of 9 Muslim-majority countries endorsed the view that 'in our government's relation with the United States,' the United States 'abuses its power to make us do what the United States wants.'" THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.

(2) In Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, we have an "ex-extremist," a reformed man, who'd been part of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, as a mufti (Islamic scholar), and he had worked prior with Osama Bin Laden as an extremist, who explained in an interview with the Al-Jazeera why the West is experiencing attacks, and his exact words are: "Now, to answer your question, one must explain these events and not justify them. We should explain such actions rather than justify them and explain the context which prompts these events in some countries but not others. Many Muslim youth and particularly youth who are members of these groups like the Islamic State, or Al Qaeda or others, they think the West is heavily involved in all the crises which afflict the Muslim world. The West is the one who planted Israel in the middle of the Islamic world, armed Israel and supports Israel politically and the West turns a blind eye to the crimes which are committed against the Palestinians. Although I do not agree with what happened and I feel pained by the killing of any innocent person whether in France or America or any other place it seems others don't feel the same pain when it comes to our issues." He goes on to explain many other things, but I quote what he said further: "Westerners want to oversimplify things and say that the strikes on France and America were random and just blind terrorism. But these groups think they are acting for a reason. Why didn't they attack China for example? So it's not a matter of disbelief versus faith and infidels versus Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned the Chinese are further in disbelief than the Jews and Christians who are considered people following books from God. Otherwise why else would they have hit France and not hit the Vatican? The Vatican represents Western Christianity." (Feel free to watch the YouTube video to which I've linked you.) THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.

(3) Now, let's turn to the bane of our existence in modern-day: terrorism and extremism. WikiLeaks shows the following: "The United States paid large numbers of Iraqis to defect from the Sunni insurgency and instead fight against al-Qaeda, on the promise of receiving regular employment through integration into the Iraqi military. As Jamail argues, the failure of the Maliki government to honor this promise saw huge numbers of US-trained, US-armed and US-financed—but now unemployed—Sunni militants return to the insurgency, eventually swelling the ranks of the former al- Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, which in 2014 became known as ISIS, or the “Islamic State.” THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY, PRECISELY OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

(4) Now, for 9/11 that seemed to set in motion events from which the world is still reeling: In the book, Til Death Do Us Part, is said, "In 1979, about the same time as Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs." Among this was was Osama Bin Laden. In the book U.S. Conflicts in the 21st Century: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and the War on Terror, the following is said: "Between 1987 and 1993, another $4 billion of U.S. aid was allocated to Afghanistan, although the CIA's Operation Cyclone was gradually phased out after the Soviets exited Afghanistan in 1989. It is estimated that American funding helped train at least 80,000 Afghan rebels between 1973 and 1993. [....] Operation Cyclone was just a relatively small part of American strategy to roll back Soviet influence in Asia and the Middle East during the 1980s. However, the impact that it had on Afghanistan--over the long term--was certainly more pervasive. It helped fund and prolong the Afghan civil war, which ranged from 1989 until 1996, and aided the rise of the Taliban to power in 1996." Also, Osama Bin Laden thought that the West could be forced to give up their imperialistic policies and neo-colonialism with 9/11 Attacks and also predicted and wanted that the issue of Palestine-Israel be highlighted in a manner that United States learns to stop supporting Israel. ALL OF THE AFORESAID IS FOREIGN POLICY!

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before.

First and foremost, I 110% disagree with what you say here, and it shows your lack of understanding what's happening in Syria that you'd ask why Christians aren't turning into terrorists. The dictator Bashar Al-Assad has had support from Christians in Syria from the beginning despite his harsh policies against his Sunni Muslim-majority population and even when he started his genocide against Sunni Muslims. If you want to know why Christians have been supporting Assad and his forces, the answer is in what Andrew Tabler of Washington Institute said because Assad gives Christians “very good business contracts, positions in government and the Syrian military." You just implied in two of your most lengthy posts that Christians are not participating in terrorism against Muslims when they are. In fact, the term "state sponsors of terrorism" is a term that United States Department of State applies to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism" and Syria and Bashar Al-Assad and his military is on that list. So, there goes your theories that Christians are not participating in terrorism in Syria because according to the United States such Christians would qualify in fact as actors involved in blacklisted category of state-sponsored terrorism. Referencing Christians, Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of State for population, refugees and migration, testified on Capitol Hill in December 2015 that “a higher percentage of them support Assad and feel safer with him there.” And also, Russia (which would be considered part of the West) is in fact supporting Bashar Al-Assad and in fact a Syrian archbishop had been appealing to the U.S. to also back the regime and not rebel groups. Secondly, Christians are not attacking the West because they do not have historical anger against the West that conversely exists in Muslim world due to the Palestine-Israel issue. In fact, the West has Christian origins and roots, which is why they have extremely and generally supported Zionism even at the expense of human right violations in that part of the world because Christians believe that Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) will not return back to the earth until the Jews have their own nation. I have repeatedly told you in the past that all anger in the Middle East can be traced to Israel-Palestine, yet you keep turning a deaf ear, which is DISINGENUOUS.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. You are saying that Christians are all innocent of forming terror groups? Under Assad, his military by the definition of our own American government is considered part of state-sponsored terrorism and this Syrian military comprises of many Christians. Do you know how many Christian armed resistance groups have been formed in Syria by now? I know of at least four, though I think there are probably more. We're talking about a war-torn country here and war is not a picnic. There is one Christian group that is fighting with the Free Syrian Army against Assad and his forces, which depending on what they have done or can be proven, would qualify them as terrorists according to the definition of U.S. disbarring immigration to the U.S. And also, Christian forces are forming armed resistance against Daesh which would still qualify them as participants in terrorism and have an automatic bar from immigrating into the U.S. The same would be true for the all-women Christian group that is fighting against Daesh. The same is also true for a Christian group known as "self-sacrificers." Also, Christians have tried to secure funding for armed resistance from the U.S., but the U.S. refused, which is why in some right-wing articles like this one I'd read Obama was blamed for not caring about Christians and instead arming Muslim rebel groups. And in case you want to know how or why I'm saying the above about these four Christian armed factions in Syria, let me tell you I went to law school, the best in my state within the U.S., and though I specialized in family law, I am also quite familiar with immigration law and the definition of terrorism therein (and these Christian groups regardless of their motives would easily qualify).

Thank you for this, I appreciate that you are making an effort and staying on topic. For what it's worth, my understanding of the situation is that "terrorism" as a word by itself is generally understood to involve violent non-state actors, with somewhat separate categories of less-direct responsibility for the state funding of terrorism, and then there is another category of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (which comes back to direct responsibility) which, as far as I'm aware, involves the intentional and/or indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants, and there's also a bit of a sub-category that involves false flag operations by a state under the guise of not belonging to that state and again we're talking about killing civilian non-combatants, and that may include the possibility of a state's military killing its own civilians.

Good question. Ben Franklin in the struggle against the British Empire said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." History has been written by victors, otherwise Ben Franklin and others who participated in armed struggle against the British would have been considered traitors. The definition of "terrorism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is listed first as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" and then secondly also as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Obviously, United States or Russia or U.K. as strong countries in the globe and especially with U.S. being #1 leader in the world will not allow any formal international declaration that we're being "terrorists" or are participating in "terrorism" with the use the use of the drone program or in using any other types of force or proxy wars or in supporting dictatorships in the Muslim world. So, it really depends on who is describing what as terrorism and for what reason. According to Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek, authors of On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, the West, however, is in fact said to be the biggest terrorist and for reasons that are entirely well-presented in this well-researched book. I highly recommend you to read this book. Also, please read the article "Western Christians support terrorism: Shock polls prove danger in our midst" that says the following:

"Support for state sanctioned terror is shared by millions of Christians in America, more than a third of whom still expressed support for the destruction of Iraq by George W Bush - even when the scale of the disaster with hundreds of thousands of dead was well known. Significant minorities continue to support the US war in Southeast Asia that caused the deaths of millions of civilians. And in case there was any doubt that only a conservative minority support such atrocities, polls show support for a well-known liberal mass killer currently stands at 51 percent. That’s more than half the country giving backing to a leader who uses a “Kill List” to strike at alleged enemies in countries as far apart as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Syria – none of whom have had a day in court or even, in most cases, any legal evidence produced of guilt of any crime. Many were just innocent bystanders in a crazed system of assassination from the skies, for which the paid drone operators are rewarded with envelopes telling them how many people they have helped kill while on duty. (Meanwhile most ordinary Israelis - our allies - support the execution of civilians and half support ethnic cleansing.) Ah, I hear you say, you can’t compare support for “their” terrorism – that of Islamic State or al-Qaeda on the streets of Paris and Brussels or beaches of Tunisia – with Western actions over the years designed to defend us from mortal enemies. But such an argument does not stack up. The mass killing of civilians is illegal under the Geneva Conventions and all laws of war, as we are reminded by human rights group reporting on civilians deaths in Yemen or Syria every week. So there is no get-out clause for state terrorism. If you support killing people without trial, or justify collateral damage of innocent civilians, morally speaking, you are the same as those who support Islamic State. The only difference is Western wars have killed a hell of a lot more people than either of the most famous terrorist brands. Decapitation by shell or drone is still beheading."

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

Depends on what definition of "terrorism" you're using and for what reason and how that "terrorism" ensued after being placed in its proper context from history and other sociopolitical forces shaping the region's contemporary situation and dialogue on the situation.

For example, let's use the example of Egypt. We, the U.S., supported Mubarak the dictator in Egypt and yet our support of Mubarak meant that Muslims were living under the thumb of the dictator but Coptic Christians were happily supporting Mubarak from the beginning. In fact, in Muslim world, time and again what has been seen is that Christians usually end up supporting support secular dictatorships in return for protection from the secular dictatorship and for access to power. So, as a domino effect, our support for Mubarak's dictatorship in Egypt was benefiting Christians in that region and not Muslims, though I'm sure we as a country did not do so specifically to benefit Christians or any other minority but to ensure we had a puppet willing to listen to what we say in regards to Israel-Palestine issue. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted to change the secular dictatorship's existence and did do just that before the military coup that ended the struggle. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states consider Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. General Sisi who came into power declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. However, U.S. hasn't put Muslim Brotherhood yet on the terrorist list, though Republicans in the Congress have introduced a bill to do so.

I will go on to say one other thing with regard to terror in a broader context. I do acknowledge that there are non-Muslim terror groups, there are even a couple that have a separatist Christian motivation and a couple that involve cults somewhat related to Christianity. And then there's a few that are not particularly religious in nature, and a few that involve Eastern religions. If I could bring this back to your point about US foreign policy though, there is something that I'd like to point out.

Good, as I would rather have not have gone through the trouble of pointing them all out one-by-one because the biggest "Christian" hypocrisy that I see in the West, especially the U.S., is an entire lack of knowledge on this subject and making out terrorism to be something that is only "Muslim."

Consider for a moment all the different ways in which a terrorist organization could direct its violent tendencies. One thing they could certainly do is spread hatred for the US and for the West, they could promote armed struggle against the US military and even against US civilians or anything that's broadly West-affiliated. One thing they could care about more than anything else is the armed presence of the US military in various countries all around the world, especially if it's acting as a destabilizing force.

If you put marbles in your hand and roll them out onto the floor or carpet, what are the chances that they are all going to fall in the same way? Minuscule. In fact, I'd bet 0.00%. That's because every region has its own history, culture, belief, foreign policy, government, and its own reasons for not tangling or tangling with the West. You cannot take one region in whatever globe and believe they'd all react the same way. However, extremists and terrorists in the Muslim world has a specific reason for reacting the way it does - and I have told you time and again in different threads - the reason can be traced to WWII and Israel-Palestine conflict. However, it's more complicated than that as well because the way that Ottoman Caliphate was "drawn and quartered" (pun intended!) meant that arbitrary borders were set up and done so in a way that was meant to keep the Muslim world under the thumb of the victorious Allies whereas the Christians in those newly-mapped nations mostly benefited from this arrangement and thereby the setup from the get-go meant that Muslims would be mostly infighting against Muslims.

Now let me ask you something. As you think about which terrorist groups choose that as their main reason for existing, how many of those groups are Islamic? Think back for a second on those non-Muslim terror groups, and I did just acknowledge that they exist in quite a few places throughout the world. How many of those non-Muslim terror groups are committed to a broad, long-term fight against the US military? You probably know the names of most of these non-Muslim groups, go ahead and tick them off real quick then let me know if any of them are super committed to fighting back the US military wherever it happens to be. The IRA, in its various forms and incarnations- did it ever make a point of fighting the US military, and of removing its presence and/or influence from a certain part of the world? Yes of course they're terrorists, and that whole situation might just reignite in the current environment, but let's ask if This Particular terror group has adopted hatred of the US and its military presence as any one of its various reasons for existing and operating. Then let's repeat this for any other non-Muslim terror group and find out how many of them hate the US military, in keeping with your working hypothesis- namely, that the US military and US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT

Now, let me ask you a question: A purple man beats up a green man. You're essentially asking me the green man is angry but why is the pink man not angry? The pink man is a red herring. Your argument is nonsense.

in causing terrorism to happen. Let's just do a quick comparison, okay? I can obviously name all sorts of Islamic terror organizations that hate the US military and who cite US foreign policy as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they are trying to do. But how often is that true of non-Muslim terror groups?

See what I've said right above this quote.

Now, before you say the US military is only guilty of incursions on Muslim countries, I'll remind you once again that there tends to be a fair amount of religious diversity in those Muslim-majority countries. The US has done quite a bit of destabilizing, and with all these different regions taken together, there has certainly been ample opportunity for non-Muslims to form terror groups and name the US as their main enemy and prime target, all while saying the destabilizing chaos of its terrible foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing. Now, to your knowledge, is that something that's ever happened when we're speaking of non-Muslim terror groups?

Religious diversity doesn't mean anything in the context of most conflicts in the Muslim world because U.S. tends to back up USUALLY Christians in those countries. Not always, but mostly, yes. Also, again, do Christians have an Israel-Palestine issue? NO. See above for the rest of the argument.

Go ahead and run those numbers, and please let me know what you find out. I'm curious to see if I've really discovered a trend that is fairly common among Muslim terror networks while also being not-at-all common in non-Muslim terror networks. I'm feeling good about it so far, but I would like to know what you think.

Well, how nice. First, you want monopoly on the definition of terrorism and then you want the monopoly to define Christian terrorism and then you also want me to tell you why and how Christians as a minority within Muslim-majority nations might not have acted as badly when you well know that FOREIGN POLICY has impacted Muslims in Muslim-majority nations adversely in a way that OUR FOREIGN POLICY has not Christians in those countries. I call BS. Let's just take Egypt for a small example. And I call out STRAW MAN because we've been talking earlier in the posts about my argument about why Islam is not the reason for terrorism and extremism and FOREIGN POLICY IS and then we go from that to talking about how Christians have not acted in the same way which I find untrue based in Syria itself. Even if true, however, still IRRELEVANT. IT STILL DOESN'T DISPROVE MY POINT - Foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.

[Search]

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

If you want to live by Shariah in the US, go ahead and do it. I've not only seen it done, I've indirectly participated in it. Just recognize that in criminal matters, State and national laws will preempt Shariah. No one is forcing you to say that gays and trannies have rights, or that Western governments haven't committed war crimes. You're perfectly free to disagree with these practices and laws. You're even free to attempt to change them. You'll probably fail, but you won't be punished for trying.

But no, you cannot just go out and kill people for apostasy, or for any other reason for that matter. Neither will you be cutting anyone's hand off. Sorry to spoil your fun.

@Mustafa16 is autistic. Therefore, you will have to be clear in your communications with him. In shariah (Islamic law), no one is allowed to practice vigilantism; this is a misconception that I've seen spread on the Internet but is a clearly refuted method to enforce the law by Islamic scholars as enforcing the law is only the duty of the state.

Like the Islamic State?

Mustafa16 hates Daesh. He's not talking about Daesh but a proper and legitimate Caliphate in which shariah (Islamic law) would be followed in a merciful and just way with the will of the people.

[Search]

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

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

Last time I checked, you can't DEBUNK facts. Get your facts straight, otherwise this conversation is an exercise in you blowing hot air. Might make you feel better but does absolutely nothing for me except to confirm in myself my opinion that you're prejudiced as hell.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

You're being DISINGENUOUS. If you're going to waste other people's time, you might not as well bother debating. Not only that, your above post is premised on a NON-SEQUITUR.

Essentially, you're saying A is not doing anything to B. But C is doing something to B. Therefore, B is not at fault for C doing something to B as A could have done something also to B.

What? Nonsense, that's what.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

Let me just say that it's not my job to convince that Muslims are "innocent until proven guilty" because that is a tenet of both the Christian faith and an absolute given even in the American justice system even if you absolutely believe that they're "guilty until proven innocent." It's your job IF you consider yourself a fair and objective person to not just talk self-righteously about Jesus and having the Holy Ghost indwelt but actually be Christ-like in how you tackle the topics objectively and fairly, which you haven't done from the beginning. I remember another member telling that you haven't come here to learn, but I'd also add that you haven't come here to learn but also want to confirm therein your own biases and prejudices, which when confronted with EVIDENCE is still retained.

I don't essentially care that you think Islam and Muslims are bad; because from the Repub side, you're just one of many (and you'll always be welcome to join the club! at least from my end with my true blessing), because I consider cultivated ignorance of EVIDENCE neither new nor interesting.

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

Read The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to U.S. Empire. I have talked to a self-confessed Daesh member and Daesh fanboys on the Internet on another site, and let me tell you that no matter what they said or didn't say and whatever of agreements or disagreements they even had among themselves, ALL of them blamed foreign policies of the West. So, even if you don't perceive this as being the MAIN CULPRIT, ultimately your perception is entirely irrelevant because your perception is not what is driving their actions or their justification. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" comes to mind. Your denial ABSOLUTELY doesn't harm the terrorists or extremists; however, it will continue to harm the West because unfortunately for us there are more people going to be like you that don't see the "forest for the trees" and then you'll wonder how to stop terrorists or extremists and why this cycle of violent attacks doesn't end. Let me tell you something; the cycle can't stop with drones even if we entirely managed to wipe the terrorists because new terrorist organizations would emerge taking their place with the same or similar motivations because you haven't accepted their main motivation at all for what's happening and continuing to happen. "The sun doesn't set on the British Empire" went an old saying but the sun did set because they were ill-prepared to deal with EVIDENCE of what's happening right under their noses.

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Please do me a favor and take a course in formal logic. Because you've just provided a non-sequitur AGAIN.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

No, conversely, you haven't done anything but ignored EVIDENCE. Continue on your roll, however. I'm disinclined to waste any more time with you - wishing you a happy time talking to and agreeing with yourself!

PEACE.

[kritikvernunft]

On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism.

If the government pays enough money for doing that, I wonder why anybody would not repeat these things? Sucking the State dry of its money, is pretty much a goal in itself. Therefore, repeating State ideology against payment, is an excellent way of making money, as long as you do not make a secret out of getting paid for that.

If they pay, I will also do that.

So, please pay, and I will also repeat.

[jabeady]

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


@Mustafa16 is autistic. Therefore, you will have to be clear in your communications with him.

Thank you for the information.

Mustafa16, you have my apologies. Please disregard my post.

[Mustafa16]

Thank you for the information.

Mustafa16, you have my apologies. Please disregard my post.

it's fine..... :)

[Serinity]

Mustafa16 hates Daesh. He's not talking about Daesh but a proper and legitimate Caliphate in which shariah (Islamic law) would be followed in a merciful and just way with the will of the people.

What do you mean by "with the will of the people" Islamic Law is only according to the Quran and Sunnah not the will of the people.. Or I may have read wrong, to which I apologize.

[Search]

:bism:

:sl:

What do you mean by "with the will of the people" Islamic Law is only according to the Quran and Sunnah not the will of the people.. Or I may have read wrong, to which I apologize.

There are academic approaches written about implementation of shariah (Islamic law) by Islamic scholars and Muslim academics. This approach takes into will, the position, and situation of the people under which shariah is to be implemented.

Just so you know, Islam was revealed onto the heart of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) for 23 years, and for 13 years the message's focus was only on the existence of One God. Shariah as we know it today didn't exist all at once, rather specific ayats (verses) would come to the heart of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes in his dreams, during meditation, or in specific situations. So, Allah revealed His Revelation that we call the Quran in a gradual fashion.

This gradualism approach is one that has been advocated as the prophetic methodology and this approach is about matching the situation of the people in preparation of having them accept shariah willingly over a period of time; this is what is meant by "will of people." In Muslim-majority countries that have a secular government, if the Muslims there want to bring in shariah, this is the method of rapprochement and success as it follows the prophetic method.

That said, I do believe we're talking in the hypothetical; because the end-time prophecies do not support the belief that there will be shariah as it is meant to be established in a prophetic methodology implemented in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes because the head is considered the tail today and the tail considered the head and there is mass confusion about both, and therefore the time in which we'll have shariah as it was meant to be practiced is when Allah sends heavenly support through Mahdi alayhis salaam and Jesus alayhis salaam returns to the earth as ummati (individual from the nation) of Prophet :saws: and himself becomes a Caliph ruling over the earth for 40 years as hadiths (prophetic traditions) show and at that time the strongest believers will have already fought the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and been victorious and so they wouldn't need this gradualism approach.

:wa:

[Serinity]

:bism:

:sl:



There are academic approaches written about implementation of shariah (Islamic law) by Islamic scholars and Muslim academics. This approach takes into will, the position, and situation of the people under which shariah is to be implemented.

Just so you know, Islam was revealed onto the heart of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) for 23 years, and for 13 years the message's focus was only on the existence of One God. Shariah as we know it today didn't exist all at once, rather specific ayats (verses) would come to the heart of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes in his dreams, during meditation, or in specific situations. So, Allah revealed His Revelation that we call the Quran in a gradual fashion.

This gradualism approach is one that has been advocated as the prophetic methodology and this approach is about matching the situation of the people in preparation of having them accept shariah willingly over a period of time; this is what is meant by "will of people." In Muslim-majority countries that have a secular government, if the Muslims there want to bring in shariah, this is the method of rapprochement and success as it follows the prophetic method.

That said, I do believe we're talking in the hypothetical; because the end-time prophecies do not support the belief that there will be shariah as it is meant to be established in a prophetic methodology implemented in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes because the head is considered the tail today and the tail considered the head and there is mass confusion about both, and therefore the time in which we'll have shariah as it was meant to be practiced is when Allah sends heavenly support through Mahdi alayhis salaam and Jesus alayhis salaam returns to the earth as ummati (individual from the nation) of Prophet :saws: and himself becomes a Caliph ruling over the earth for 40 years as hadiths (prophetic traditions) show and at that time the strongest believers will have already fought the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and been victorious and so they wouldn't need this gradualism approach.

:wa:

Wa alaikum salam,

Sorry for the noobish question, but I have a question about the Gradualism approach. How come the strongest believers at the time of Ad-dajjal did not need the gradualism approach, but the Prophet :saw: did?

[Scimitar]

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day. July saw the most anti-islamic abuse on the site for five months as Europe was hit by the Nice terror attack and the murder of a Priest. Researchers at the think-tank Demos collected the data and with police predicting a terror attack for the UK they say this kind of abuse is likely to escalate. Catrin Nye has this exclusive report - which contains some very strong language.

Filmed by Joshua Baker



Scimi

[Abz2000]

The people had to wean themselves off of jahiliyyah, now there are some people born into fully practicing families, and others are able to learn fast, research material is easily accessible, and the strong fitnahs people are exposed to force them to quickly find a path to Allah with determination, the quicker we study the facts and adhere to Allah, the more healthy our psyches and communities become.

[Mustafa16]

Wa alaikum salam,

Sorry for the noobish question, but I have a question about the Gradualism approach. How come the strongest believers at the time of Ad-dajjal did not need the gradualism approach, but the Prophet :saw: did?

I guess Prophet Muhammad (saw) needed to win people's hearts through dawah, and persuade them slowly to join islam, whereas there is already some sort of foundation at the time of the dajjal.

[Serinity]

I guess Prophet Muhammad (saw) needed to win people's hearts through dawah, and persuade them slowly to join islam, whereas there is already some sort of foundation at the time of the dajjal.

I see! Makes sense. :jzk:

Obv, if you just load people with a ton of load from the get go you'll crush them. Say, if you put 150kg of weight on someone benching only 20kg. lol.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Search]

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

@Zafran @cooterhein

Please see:
Post #160 on pg. 8 of this thread.

Thank you.

[cooterhein]

Indeed, sir, I sure did. My objection is not to saying that I did. My MAIN objection to your posts lays in you making it "sound" and "appear" as if I'm saying so as a circular reasoning. I did not say X is true because I said so. That is an example of circular reasoning.

After reading a very long post from you, it's become clear that your argument now reduces to "I'm calling your argument a red herring." Looks like I may have to restate it a few times in order for it to make sense to you.

Instead, I said X is true because on evidence, Y and Z. That would fall under a logical proposition. And I made two logical propositions, (a) one refuting your position that Islam is the reason for terrorism and extremism and

Islam is not the only reason for terrorism, but when Muslims are terrorists their main goal is to overthrow an existing government and set up a new one that enforces Shariah law. That is pretty much always the end game, so long as we're talking about Muslim terrorists. Of course there are other terrorists, they're not Muslim and their goals are more varied. Sometimes they want theocracy, sometimes they don't. But when it's Muslim terrorists, they want to enforce Shariah, which is of course decidedly Islamic.

Do you disagree?

(b) that foreign policy is instead the driver behind both.

Point of clarification. Are you suggesting that US foreign policy is Only the main drive MAIN DRIVER of Islamic terrorism, or are you making a blanket statement about all terrorism and all extremism in general? If you are trying to make a blanket statement about all terrorism (which is not entirely Islamic in nature), that's the clarification that needs to be made- US foreign policy frequently is not what drives people to terrorism and extremism, specifically when it's not Islamic terror and extremism. If we're on the same page here, it means we're not talking about terror in general, but a specifically Islamic terror. The kind that wants to establish Shariah law and see that it is the only law that's enforced. That kind of terrorism.

Most importantly, I said specifically, "Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism."

When you put it that way, it really makes it seem like a blanket statement about all terrorism and extremism. I do acknowledge that US foreign policy is frequently stated as a primary motivator by Islamic terrorists, just not by anybody else. Is there any chance that you'd be willing to alter this statement so it reflects that fact?

First and foremost, I 110% disagree with what you say here, and it shows your lack of understanding what's happening in Syria that you'd ask why Christians aren't turning into terrorists. The dictator Bashar Al-Assad has had support from Christians in Syria from the beginning despite his harsh policies against his Sunni Muslim-majority population and even when he started his genocide against Sunni Muslims.

You do know Assad is the head of state in Syria, right? Syrian Christians, given a myriad of choices in terms of alignment, are not seeking to overthrow the government. By your own assessment, they are backing the government that they have, even though it's unstable and corrupt and not very good at all.

Okay, look. If you have a room full of people and you're trying to determine who's a terrorist and who's not, ask them if they are actively supporting the violent overthrow of a government. If any of them say they're not seeking the violent overthrow of the government, but are instead backing the government and showing some loyalty to it, that would most likely be the furthest thing from a terrorist that you are going to find in Syria.

If you want to know why Christians have been supporting Assad and his forces, the answer is in what Andrew Tabler of Washington Institute said because Assad gives Christians

“very good business contracts, positions in government and the Syrian military." You just implied in two of your most lengthy posts that Christians are not participating in terrorism against Muslims when they are.

Christians are not seeking the violent overthrown of either the Syrian or Iraqi governments. Is that an acceptable distinction? Of course they're fighting against Muslims though, Daesh is right there. Everyone's fighting against them.

In fact, the term "state sponsors of terrorism" is a term that United States Department of State applies to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism" and Syria and Bashar Al-Assad and his military is on that list.

That's a rather odd argument by extension. The Muslims who rule Syria have indeed done much to support terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism carried out by people who seek to overthrow governments and establish Shariah law. So because Christians in Syria are Not seeking to overthrow any government, and they are trying to stabilize the admittedly terrible government that they have, those Christians must be....supporting Islamic terrorism along with the Syrian government? Come on, you know that's a weak argument. When you support a government because you have no other real choice, that doesn't mean you support everything they do. It really doesn't, and it seems like you may be making the same mistake when you talk to Americans who are often quite critical of the US government and the US military.

So, there goes your theories that Christians are not participating in terrorism in Syria because according to the United States such Christians would qualify in fact as actors involved in blacklisted category of state-sponsored terrorism. Referencing Christians, Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of State for population, refugees and migration, testified on Capitol Hill in December 2015 that “a higher percentage of them support Assad and feel safer with him there.”

Again. Seeking the violent overthrow of your government is pretty likely to be terrorism. This is the exact opposite of that.

Do you consider Assad to be a terrorist? I consider him to be a bad leader, and a head of state who has supported terrorism in the past. Which is very wrong. And Turkey has been dead set on ending the Assad regime for quite some time, and I'm sure their reasons are well founded. But do you consider Assad to be an actual terrorist?

Secondly, Christians are not attacking the West because they do not have historical anger against the West that conversely exists in Muslim world

Oooookay, this is it right here. Non Muslims, if they happen to be terrorists, do not have anger against the West. Muslims, if they happen to be terrorists (who always share the primary end goal of overthrowing a government and establishing a new one that enforces Shariah law on everyone), do have anger toward the West. Which means US foreign policy does not act as a universal driver of terrorism, but a very specific driver of terrorism specifically when Muslims are the terrorists. In other words, US foreign policy cannot be identified as the MAIN CULPRIT behind all terrorism, but only some terrorism.

Can we agree on this?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. You are saying that Christians are all innocent of forming terror groups?

I'm not aware of any armed Christian militants in Syria that seek to overthrow the government, enact a whole different legal code, or otherwise change the way in which their society is run. Even when you're describing what you're doing, you're talking about people who are backing the government. That is the opposite of terrorism on a fundamental level. And by the way, where are the Syrian Christians that are seeking to establish a Christian theocracy? They don't exist (in Syria), and you won't even find any that are particularly set on having a secular society. They're basically backing the status quo, because even though it's not that good for them, it's one of the only non-terror options in the region and it's also their best chance at staying alive.

Under Assad, his military by the definition of our own American government is considered part of state-sponsored terrorism and this Syrian military comprises of many Christians. Do you know how many Christian armed resistance groups have been formed in Syria by now? I know of at least four, though I think there are probably more.

Are any of them seeking the violent overthrow of an established government, and if so, what sort of Christian government do they seek to put in its place?

There is one Christian group that is fighting with the Free Syrian Army against Assad and his forces, which depending on what they have done or can be proven, would qualify them as terrorists according to the definition of U.S. disbarring immigration to the U.S.

Okay, that is a good point, and it's the only one you've made so far. That's the Christian Free Syrian Army Brigade, and they most likely do qualify as terrorists. Their stated goals appear to be the overthrow of Assad, followed by peace and harmony between them and Muslims in a land free of sectarianism and division. And you know you can believe them when they say that, because they're holding large weapons and wearing masks when they say it. ;D

The emoji means I don't take their claims all that seriously, or necessarily believe their goals are realistic.

They don't seem to have anything to say about expelling US forces from their lands, though. I don't believe they've named the US or any other Western power as a particular enemy of theirs. That course of action seems to be the exclusive property of Islamic terrorism, fighting the Great Satan and all that.

Good question. Ben Franklin in the struggle against the British Empire said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." History has been written by victors, otherwise Ben Franklin and others who participated in armed struggle against the British would have been considered traitors.

Seeking the independence of colonies from across an ocean is quite a bit different from seeking to overthrow the English government from within England proper. If Syria had any colonies that were entirely separate from Syria itself, then maybe we could form a more direct comparison here.

History has been written by the victors though, and the amount of history that's been written by English-speaking authors absolutely dwarfs the history that's been written by Arabic-speaking authors. That's not entirely tied to winning and losing wars though, Islam placed a special burden on itself by declaring the printing press to be haram all the way up until the early 20th century. Special exceptions were made for the mass production of the Koran, but even when it came to that, the vast majority of Korans were printed on Italian printing presses up until that point. (Egypt is a bit of an exception, Napoleon was able to introduce the printing press in the 19th century and so Egypt got a bit of a jump on everyone else).

Anyway. That got a bit discursive. Where were we?

The definition of "terrorism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is listed first as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" and then secondly also as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Targeting non-combatant civilians, especially in a manner designed to force civilians to go along with something, is another key part of that evaluation. What the US did in Japan, as the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, probably qualifies in that regard. The Dresden firebombing is another good example. Chemical weapons as they were used in Vietnam could easily be described as measures taken to intentionally target civilians. Again, you're probably assuming that any person from the US will defend and justify every single thing the US military has ever done. But that's not true.

Obviously, United States or Russia or U.K. as strong countries in the globe and especially with U.S. being #1 leader in the world will not allow any formal international declaration that we're being "terrorists" or are participating in "terrorism"

Well that's true.

with the use the use of the drone program or in using any other types of force or proxy wars or in supporting dictatorships in the Muslim world.

The drone program is a bit of a gray area, at least where state terrorism is concerned. The program's lack of oversight and transparency is of grave concern, collateral damage and the times when the wrong target is hit due to one mistake or another is also a bad thing. But there are many bad things that are not terrorism- most bad things are not terrorism, actually- and as I'm aware, the drone program does not intentionally target civilian non-combatants. The total lack of oversight in target selection and lack of due process is of great concern, as is the inaccuracy when it does happen. However....

So, it really depends on who is describing what as terrorism and for what reason.

....terrorism is a word that has a reasonably well defined meaning, not always the most precise or universally agreed upon, but there are definite limits to what you can do with it. I'm not sure if you're willing to acknowledge those limits, because I see who you are and I have a pretty good idea of your reasons for describing it, but there are some limits and I can see that you regularly exceed them.

Depends on what definition of "terrorism" you're using and for what reason and how that "terrorism" ensued after being placed in its proper context from history and other sociopolitical forces shaping the region's contemporary situation and dialogue on the situation.

And I suppose you decide on the proper context? Respectfully, I don't trust you with that at all.

Good, as I would rather have not have gone through the trouble of pointing them all out one-by-one because the biggest "Christian" hypocrisy that I see in the West, especially the U.S., is an entire lack of knowledge on this subject and making out terrorism to be something that is only "Muslim."

Muslims are not the only terrorists, but there are certain things that are typically only true of Islamic terrorism. It is not a brand of extremism like any other, there are some distinctive qualities that distinguish Islamic terrorism from other kinds of terrorism.

And at this point in your response, I hope you're not backtracking and changing any of your previous responses.

If you put marbles in your hand and roll them out onto the floor or carpet, what are the chances that they are all going to fall in the same way?

Suppose you have a bunch of marbles in your hand, some are designated as Muslim and some as non Muslim. Now suppose you roll them on the carpet, and all the Muslim marbles roll much further than the non Muslim marbles. You start to notice that the Muslim designation of a marble literally always means that it rolls in a way that's different from the non Muslim marbles. You might start to think that Islam is a religion that makes a reliable difference in how these terrorists roll, excuse me in how the marbles roll.

Now suppose someone comes up to you and says some of those marbles just happen to be Muslim, it doesn't really make a difference in how they behave as marbles. In fact, I'm going to repeatedly tell you that US foreign policy is the main reason why any marble of any kind does anything.

So then why do the Islamic marbles consistently have one reaction to US foreign policy, while the other marbles don't? You've already told me- it has to do with a very-slightly-modified Islamic belief in a global religious ruling authority, and that is the thing that makes all the Muslim marbles behave in the same way vis a vis the US while none of the other terrorist marbles do the same sort of thing.

Minuscule. In fact, I'd bet 0.00%. That's because every region has its own history, culture, belief, foreign policy, government, and its own reasons for not tangling or tangling with the West. You cannot take one region in whatever globe and believe they'd all react the same way. However, extremists and terrorists in the Muslim world has a specific reason for reacting the way it does -

Yes of course, Islamic extremists and terrorists do have a specific reason for reacting the way they do, and that is Islam. More specifically Shariah, which I am always told is not just a legal code, it is a way of life that permeates every aspect of society and every single thing about a person. If a Muslim happens to be a terrorist, and especially a terrorist with an end game of Shariah law everywhere in the world, then guess what would be a main thing about the terrorist that is permeated by his Shariah. That's right, his terrorism. If a Muslim happens to be a terrorist who is fighting for religious reasons and in service of his religious ideology, Islam is a pretty good bet if you're looking for any specific reason for any specific thing he does.

and I have told you time and again in different threads - the reason can be traced to WWII and Israel-Palestine conflict.

So in other words, you're specifying US foreign policy that only a Muslim would care about in this way. And the reason why Muslims care about it in this particular manner is clearly Islam.

Those are other words, and they're no less accurate to the situation.

However, it's more complicated than that as well because the way that Ottoman Caliphate was "drawn and quartered" (pun intended!) meant that arbitrary borders were set up and done so in a way that was meant to keep the Muslim world under the thumb of the victorious Allies whereas the Christians in those newly-mapped nations mostly benefited from this arrangement and thereby the setup from the get-go meant that Muslims would be mostly infighting against Muslims.

Yes, it's good to be on the winning side. Not as good to be on the losing side. Turkey is a part of NATO though, and up until just recently was the strongest ally of the US in the region. There has been a bit of a pivot toward Russia of late however.

Now, let me ask you a question: A purple man beats up a green man. You're essentially asking me the green man is angry but why is the pink man not angry? The pink man is a red herring. Your argument is nonsense.

If I'm understanding your analogy, the purple man is the US and Israel, collectively, and they beat up a green man, which is Palestinian Muslims. And you want to know why the pink man is not angry? Because he's not a Muslim, silly. Islam is the main reason why you are so angry about Israel and Palestine, do you agree with that statement?

Religious diversity doesn't mean anything in the context of most conflicts in the Muslim world because U.S. tends to back up USUALLY Christians in those countries. Not always, but mostly, yes.

We must have forgotten to do that in Iraq, because it took about 5 years of war in Iraq before the Christian diaspora from this country qualified as the largest Christian diaspora from a single country and a single conflict in the history of Christianity. That's a long history, and that's a lot of people.

Also, again, do Christians have an Israel-Palestine issue? NO. See above for the rest of the argument.

Sure we have that issue, it's called the Israel-Palestine issue. Oh, wait, you mean that's your issue and not our issue, which you determine on the basis of....religion. Oh.

So because you're a Muslim, that's your issue. Muslims have certain issues that strictly depend on them being Muslims, and because that's your religion, it's your issue. I see.

Now we need to ask ourselves if there are any Islam-specific issues that have a lot to do with terrorism, when Muslims happen to be terrorists. And of course there are, you were just talking about one of them.

By the way, when a terror group is Muslim, what do you suppose their goal is for laws and governance in the land once they've overthrown the government and established a new one? You know how I would summarize that answer, and we both have a pretty good idea of how the terrorists themselves would describe it, but I'm curious to see how you would describe it. Read the question carefully, then describe what sort of legal system and government would likely be established if the Islamic terrorists win.

[cooterhein]

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day. July saw the most anti-islamic abuse on the site for five months as Europe was hit by the Nice terror attack and the murder of a Priest. Researchers at the think-tank Demos collected the data and with police predicting a terror attack for the UK they say this kind of abuse is likely to escalate. Catrin Nye has this exclusive report - which contains some very strong language.

Scimi

Aaaaand how many people have been killed so far by all these Islamophobes? How many trucks have gone through crowds mowing down Muslims, how many priests (sorry, imams or mullahs) have been executed by someone who shouted something Islamophobic right before doing so?

The answer is "not that many," so maybe it would help if you worry less about something that might become a real problem (but probably won't) and worry more about the thing that's already a problem.

[Search]

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

@cooterhein

Lol, I don't know why you have used non-sequitur again and can't tell if it's because you can't see them honestly or if you're pretending ignorance or what. At this point, however, I don't really care because the facts and data and research and study is on my side, you know, that pesky thing called EVIDENCE. If you're too prejudiced to accept it, it doesn't really matter because you've still failed to challenge the EVIDENCE.

Secondly, I'm glad that you brought up the question of the Israel-Palestine issue. I have been an atheist longer at this point than I have been a Muslim, which means for you that you are entirely wrong about my concern for the issue. For example, in college, when I was an atheist, I was one one of the only persons in my communication class talking about how we as a government shouldn't be interfering in Middle Eastern affairs even to bring "democracy" and I had little incentive to argue for that except that as a cultural relativist and anthropology major I strongly believed that all peoples must be allowed to decide what type of government they should have and why. Secondly, the Israel-Palestine issue is a humanitarian crisis, about which we learned in my Honors program class in which we extensively studied human rights and their violations as described in Amnesty International. So, no, you're wrong about both accounts. Apparently, you don't have to be a "Muslim" to care about Palestine; you only have to be a decent human being. Feel the burn yet? Because it's there. Ooh, I'm feeling good about that one. ;) Finally, no, I'm not "angry" in the sense you mean, because I have full faith in God that justice will be done, not today maybe, not tomorrow, but on Judgment Day, yes. Then, I'll see you there when we'll be raised again because remember you'll be raised with the people you love, and if you love oppressors or oppression, then they are your "allies" on Judgment Day and good luck with that.

Secondly, I have refuted you with EVIDENCE. Your opinion cannot refute EVIDENCE. Does that make sense to you yet? I'm guessing after all this time - NOT. Again, I told you time and again that your prejudice doesn't nullify EVIDENCE and in fact you turning away from EVIDENCE is clearly a sign of your prejudice. We can disagree about many things but we cannot disagree with EVIDENCE.

At this point, you're just being repetitive.

And anyway, for those wondering if I have refuted his arguments or not with EVIDENCE, please read post #160 on pg. 8.

So, at this point, if @Zafran has anything to add, he can. I'm outta this thread. ;)

Peace.

[cooterhein]

Last time I checked, you can't DEBUNK facts.

Last time I checked, you can't answer a straightforward question.

You're being DISINGENUOUS. If you're going to waste other people's time, you might not as well bother debating. Not only that, your above post is premised on a NON-SEQUITUR.

It's really not. And like I said, this is the exact place where you were supposed to answer a question and you just refused.

Essentially, you're saying A is not doing anything to B. But C is doing something to B. Therefore, B is not at fault for C doing something to B as A could have done something also to B.

What? Nonsense, that's what.

That summary is complete nonsense, but it is the product of your thinking and not mine.

you haven't come here to learn but also want to confirm therein your own biases and prejudices, which when confronted with EVIDENCE is still retained.

It's easier for me to learn things when I can get people to answer questions when I ask them.

I don't essentially care that you think Islam and Muslims are bad; because from the Repub side, you're just one of many (and you'll always be welcome to join the club! at least from my end with my true blessing), because I consider cultivated ignorance of EVIDENCE neither new nor interesting.

Not all Muslims are bad, there's some bad among all of us and some good. Ahmadi Muslims seem to be very consistently good; seriously, they're pretty awesome. Of course I don't agree with their beliefs, and I don't agree that their founder is really a prophet, but I do think they're very good people and I would expect for my kind of people to be treated very well by their kind of people.

Just one example.

I have talked to a self-confessed Daesh member and Daesh fanboys on the Internet on another site, and let me tell you that no matter what they said or didn't say and whatever of agreements or disagreements they even had among themselves, ALL of them blamed foreign policies of the West.

I'm sure all of them very much did blame the foreign policies of the West. And I'm also very sure that their reasons for doing so had nothing to do with their country of origin, or the stability of the government in their homeland, or the question of whether the US has done anything that personally and immediately affects them.

They ALL said that because they're Muslims. That's the reason.

Look at it this way. The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the two countries were bitter enemies and there was much racism involved, really a lot. Within a single generation, Japan was one of the most important allies of the US and would grow to be one of its biggest trading partners.

Did the Japanese have reason to hate America? Of course we gave them one- we actually gave them two really, really good reasons. But it didn't engender a permanent, inter-generational hatred for America.

That's what Islam does. If you're a Muslim, and you're a terrorist, you're also committed to an eternal and permanent hatred of the US and of the West. The permanence and intensity of this hatred is there because they're Muslims. Other people don't do this, even though many other people have very good reasons to hate the US with a bitter passion. And they do, for awhile, but then they usually stop. Islam has perfected the universality and permanence of American hatred, and you Can't. Teach. That.

Please do me a favor and take a course in formal logic. Because you've just provided a non-sequitur AGAIN.

I have taken a course in formal logic, and that's how I know it wasn't a non-sequitur.

I identified a causal link between Islam and a particular outcome, then I said Islam was the cause of that. It's pretty simple. That's not a non sequitur.

Continue on your roll, however.

Will do.

I'm disinclined to waste any more time with you

Okay by me. Take care.

[Search]

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

I identified a causal link between Islam and a particular outcome, then I said Islam was the cause of that. It's pretty simple. That's not a non sequitur.

I can't resist - it's actually too good.

You've said you've identified a causal link, right? Okay, I hope you stick by this position and you also said you took a formal course in logic, right? Can you name the fallacy that you've committed. Name it. Right now. Can't? Okay, I'll help you. If you're saying A leads to B, it means essentially A always leads to B. What that means is all I have to disprove your argument here is one singular instance in which A didn't lead to B. And your entire argument is DESTROYED. You've said in your own words you've identified a causal link, right? So, all I have to do is show you a story like Ibtihaj Muhammad fencing, that is, an instance of "not particular outcome" (i.e. terrorism) to disprove your position and DESTROY your argument. You're either lying about taking a logic course or you've forgotten logic.

PEACE. Glad to help ya!

[cooterhein]

@Mustafa16 is autistic. Therefore, you will have to be clear in your communications with him. In shariah (Islamic law), no one is allowed to practice vigilantism;

Technically yes.

this is a misconception that I've seen spread on the Internet but is a clearly refuted method to enforce the law by Islamic scholars as enforcing the law is only the duty of the state.

But it's not so clearly refuted. Vigilante "justice" is sometimes praised, not just by Islamic scholars who are under Shariah law but by Islamic scholars in Scotland, for example. It all depends on exactly what was done in order to break Islamic law, and if a scholar or imam or the head of a mosque is sufficiently offended by the blasphemer (or whatever) then the act of vigilante justice might, sometimes, get some praise. And if the violent man is not killed by authorities on the spot, then whatever punishment he receives from the state might take some criticism.

Yes it is officially disallowed in the way that you describe, and of course every single non Muslim in the West is going to make that abundantly clear every chance they get. But Muslims, some of whom are in positions of trust and authority, are not 100% consistent in the application of this rule, and that is where the confusion comes from.

What, you think the US or the UK is somehow responsible for helping Muslims understand that they can enforce Shariah law? No no no, that wasn't us. That would be certain Muslims who create this confusion. You do acknowledge that there is some confusion on this point, right? And I hope you know who caused there to be some confusion. They practice a religion, and it's Islam.

He's not talking about Daesh but a proper and legitimate Caliphate in which shariah (Islamic law) would be followed in a merciful and just way with the will of the people.

Anywhere that shariah is enforced, that's a great place for it to stop being enforced. Religious law must always be optional, and we should be judged according to that law after death and at no other time before then. Until that point, while we're alive, religious practice and adherence should be optional for everyone and the laws that govern our public spaces should be secular in nature, promoting the equal treatment of all people and of all religions.

But of course that's not the official teaching of Islam.

[cooterhein]

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



I can't resist - it's actually too good.

You've said you've identified a causal link, right? Okay, I hope you stick by this position and you also said you took a formal course in logic, right? Can you name the fallacy that you've committed. Name it. Right now. Can't? Okay, I'll help you. If you're saying A leads to B, it means essentially A always leads to B. What that means is all I have to disprove your argument here is one singular instance in which A didn't lead to B. And your entire argument is DESTROYED. You've said in your own words you've identified a causal link, right? So, all I have to do is show you a story like Ibtihaj Muhammad fencing, that is, an instance of "not particular outcome" (i.e. terrorism) to disprove your position and DESTROY your argument. You're either lying about taking a logic course or you've forgotten logic.

PEACE. Glad to help ya!

Sigh. Islam plus terrorism inevitably leads to an eternal hatred of the US. Terrorism minus Islam reliably leads to that not being the case, and Islam minus terrorism also pretty often leads to that not being the case. Therefore Islam is a necessary but not sufficient component of the outcome that we can't seem to stop talking about, even though you said you were done but in all honesty I kind of knew you weren't.

[cooterhein]

The non Muslims in Prophet Muhammad's time had their own communities and their own laws.....same applies in a sharia state.

My sister currently resides in Saudi Arabia. She enjoys being in public without a head covering, and she enjoys driving. She's a very good driver, been doing it for a long time. She also enjoys inviting non-Christians to explore Christianity and consider becoming a Christian.

In what part of Saudi Arabia is she able to do any of those things?

[Search]

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

Technically yes.

It's not a "technically yes." It is a yes. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.

But it's not so clearly refuted.

I'm a "traditional" Muslim and I can honestly say it's refuted. But being a non-Muslim listening to Sam Harris and not being in the know-how, I wouldn't expect you to think so.

Vigilante "justice" is sometimes praised, not just by Islamic scholars who are under Shariah law but by Islamic scholars in Scotland, for example. It all depends on exactly what was done in order to break Islamic law, and if a scholar or imam or the head of a mosque is sufficiently offended by the blasphemer (or whatever) then the act of vigilante justice might, sometimes, get some praise. And if the violent man is not killed by authorities on the spot, then whatever punishment he receives from the state might take some criticism.

As an analogy, I saw many Christians praising the Orlando shooting on the Internet. So, what's your point? Let me just rewrite this sentence, "It all depends on exactly what was done in order to break a Biblical commandment, and if a priest or pastor is sufficiently offended by the homosexual (or whatever) the vigilante justice might, sometimes, get some praise." Example Roger Jimenez and Steven L. Anderson.

PREJUDICED you are, thank you for proving my point.

Yes it is officially disallowed in the way that you describe, and of course every single non Muslim in the West is going to make that abundantly clear every chance they get. But Muslims, some of whom are in positions of trust and authority, are not 100% consistent in the application of this rule, and that is where the confusion comes from.

A person doesn't inherit Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any religion or atheism. If a person wants to kill someone, he/she will.

What, you think the US or the UK is somehow responsible for helping Muslims understand that they can enforce Shariah law? No no no, that wasn't us.

Actually, it was. Terrorism and extremism happens because the 24/7 news streaming has allowed society to feel unsafe and perpetrated this clash of civilizations idea because most of the press that Islam and Muslims gets is currently negative in most parts of the world. So, feeling attacked and persecuted or isolated or alienated, Muslims who lack religious literacy in Islam, as MI6 and FBI studies show, do turn to vigilantism.

That would be certain Muslims who create this confusion. You do acknowledge that there is some confusion on this point, right? And I hope you know who caused there to be some confusion. They practice a religion, and it's Islam.

Okay. Let me rewrite about abortion being likened to murder and the Planned Parenthood shooting. "That would be certain Christians who create this confusion. You do acknowledge that there is some confusion on this point, right? And I hope you know who caused there to be some confusion. They practice a religion, and it's Christianity." You're welcome.

Anywhere that shariah is enforced, that's a great place for it to stop being enforced.

No, what other countries or do not do is not your business, and you shouldn't poke your nose in other people's business. Didn't your mother teach you that when you were growing up?

Religious law must always be optional, and we should be judged according to that law after death and at no other time before then. Until that point, while we're alive, religious practice and adherence should be optional for everyone and the laws that govern our public spaces should be secular in nature, promoting the equal treatment of all people and of all religions.

Religious law cannot be option for Muslims; and that is because you don't know shariah. Shariah is only part penalty, but the bulk of shariah focuses on meeting everyday needs of a Muslim person such as going to work, praying, dressing modestly, how to behave in intermixed gathering, diet, and so and on and so forth. However, the penalty part can only be enforced by a legitimate Caliphate in a nation-state and not a person believing or even seeing that someone has broken the shariah. This is not an "optional" part for the vigilante to consider.

But of course that's not the official teaching of Islam.

But of course you being a Christian know what the official teaching of Islam is. If you were a student talking about Islam and your proficiency was judged by Islamic scholars, they'd probably give you a "D." How about you learn Islam from Islamic sources? I'll even give you guidance on where to find your Islamic course - Seekershub.org. The course is going to be starting in October 3 or thereabouts; you should think about taking some. Who knows? You might even find some more ammunition against Islam and Muslims, right? So, go on, take some.

PEACE.

[Zafran]

Sigh. Islam plus terrorism inevitably leads to an eternal hatred of the US

Not true Russia, China, serbia are a great example of hatred for the US - they also create state terrorism to keep US influences out of the region.

Your definition of "terrorism" i dont agree with at all.

Terrorism minus Islam reliably leads to that not being the case

[Zafran]

My sister currently resides in Saudi Arabia. She enjoys being in public without a head covering, and she enjoys driving. She's a very good driver, been doing it for a long time. She also enjoys inviting non-Christians to explore Christianity and consider becoming a Christian.

In what part of Saudi Arabia is she able to do any of those things?

strawman again he was talking about Muhammad pbuh not the state made in the 20th century. Very crafty there.

[kritikvernunft]

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day.

The very first reaction to a new idea is either hostility or else indifference. You can easily see that for a religious idea, the reaction preferred by the proponents of the idea is obviously hostility. It is their hostility that will lead these opponents to investigate the idea. From there on, a number of them will try to become experts at the idea, in order to better express their hostility. However, there is very little difference between clergy and anti-clergy. Both have to be extremely well trained in the religious idea, in order to do their jobs. For the anti-clergy, defeating the religious idea increasingly becomes unattractive, because they have invested so much time and energy in investigating it. Soon, their real enemies, worthy of the worst insults, are no longer the proponents of the religious idea, but its less trained opponents. That explains why the nature of an anti-Islamic forum is to be a place where anti-Islamists more knowledgeable of Islam incessantly insult anti-Islamists deemed ignorant of Islam. Eventually, they stand to lose more from the disappearance of Islam than the Muslims themselves. The typical career path of an anti-Islamist are erstwhile pagan women who becomes scriptural experts in Islam -- the very minimum is to be able to recite the Quran from memory -- who end up swapping sides, and marrying a Muslim husband, whom they incessantly taunt and put down, for the lack of knowledge of the Islamic scriptures that they perceive in him.

[cooterhein]

* links are green and underlined

Greetings @cooterhein

I think that your perspective is a simplistic view of reality. It seems that it’s based on an evangelical Christian-American worldview – with Islam as the enemy (black and white problem).

These issues are actually more complex than what you’re making them out to be and I think you’ve been given some pretty good answers by our Members here.

I’ll try and add something to think about as well.

You see, there was a time when I labelled as crazy conspiracy theorist anyone who talked about active, continuous, and intrusive government surveillance. Then Edward Snowden came along.

Similarly, it was difficult to believe that anyone in the US Government could plot false flag terrorist attacks similar to those on 9/11. I thought that no one in the government would even think of doing something like this. That’s unthinkable. Then I was made aware of “Operation Northwoods”. Related declassified documents http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

The revelations made by Edward Snowden were illegal according to the Obama Administration. The US Government denied such activities existed until the leaks in 2013.

The Kennedy Administration documents relating to Operation Northwoods were declassified in 1997.

Please remember that the above examples – although public now – are related to secret government plans and activities. Both are related to governmental entities engaging in unethical behavior to further an agenda.

Under normal circumstances, information on contemporary covert operations aren’t revealed until years later – if at all.

For the sake of brevity, I am not going to provide complete information of the above in this post and request our respected readers to visit the provided links above if not already acquainted with this information.

That said, I am going to show you another example of how the US Government engaged in specific and directed unethical activities to further an agenda – how it directly fostered what you have termed as “Islamic terror”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on 3/23/2002 @ The Washington Post

From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.

Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."

The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise. A number of government agencies are discussing what can be done to counter these trends.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits.

AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books.

"Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.

"I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force.

AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.

Officials said private humanitarian groups paid for continued reprintings during the Taliban years. Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers.

"The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.

An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.

The military content was included to "stimulate resistance against invasion," explained Yaquib Roshan of Nebraska's Afghanistan center. "Even in January, the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it."

During the Taliban era, censors purged human images from the books. One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing.

Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.

"We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."

After the United States launched a military campaign last year, the United Nations' education agency, UNICEF, began preparing to reopen Afghanistan's schools, using new books developed with 70 Afghan educators and 24 private aid groups. In early January, UNICEF began printing new texts for many subjects but arranged to supply copies of the old, unrevised U.S. books for other subjects, including Islamic instruction.

Within days, the Afghan interim government announced that it would use the old AID-produced texts for its core school curriculum. UNICEF's new texts could be used only as supplements.

Earlier this year, the United States tapped into its $296 million aid package for rebuilding Afghanistan to reprint the old books, but decided to purge the violent references.

About 18 of the 200 titles the United States is republishing are primarily Islamic instructional books, which agency officials refer to as "civics" courses. Some books teach how to live according to the Koran, Brown said, and "how to be a good Muslim."

UNICEF is left with 500,000 copies of the old "militarized" books, a $200,000 investment that it has decided to destroy, according to U.N. officials.

On Feb. 4, Brown arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said.

"We turned it from a wartime curriculum to a peacetime curriculum," he said.

Illustrations of land mines and knives, found in a math primer bought last week in Pakistan, resemble drawings found in old schoolbooks furnished to Afghans by AID.First lady Laura Bush told Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, on Jan. 29 that AID would provide $6.5 million for new textbooks and for training teachers.

Thanks very much for this information, I wasn't fully aware of how long the Afghan textbook situation went on for or the controversy of that funding. I would be curious to know more specifics as to which parts of the education most influenced the later development of al Qaeda's religious teaching, especially where jihad is concerned. I'm sure there were some other things that fed into that too, right?

Anyway, Afghanistan is terribly important especially in the origins of modern terror, and I do hope there can be some course correction in that country. It doesn't look like the US is able to make that happen though, so I'm wondering what it will take and who can do it.

[cooterhein]

strawman again he was talking about Muhammad pbuh not the state made in the 20th century. Very crafty there.

To the best of what I am understanding here, he was actually saying that in comparison to Mohammed, way back when, shariah states later than that and up to the present day supposedly retain the practice of local laws that are more accommodating for non Muslims. It's funny how the same comment required two entirely different clarifications, though.

[cooterhein]

It's not a "technically yes." It is a yes. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.

Says the official spokesperson of all Muslims, you? Islam doesn't have a pope, so it's incredibly difficult to say anything about all Muslims in a way that's entirely unqualified.

As an analogy, I saw many Christians praising the Orlando shooting on the Internet. So, what's your point?

The Internet can be relied on for stupid hurtful comments on any given thing, seems to be your point. My point was that fairly important Muslims in leadership roles can sometimes be relied on for the same things, but that's a larger controversy because of what their roles are.

Let me just rewrite this sentence

No, that won't be necessary.

Example Roger Jimenez and Steven L. Anderson.

Roger Jimenez, you mean this guy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d575ae421b6e

Actually, it was. Terrorism and extremism happens because the 24/7 news streaming has allowed society to feel unsafe and perpetrated this clash of civilizations idea

That is an unpleasant thing, but it doesn't specifically teach anyone that Shariah should be compulsory for everyone or that democracy and modernity are antithetical to Islam. I would very much like to say that Islam does not teach that, but there's all these Muslims who say that's exactly what Islam teaches. Including on this forum. In fact, there's an active thread as of right now that asks if Gulenism is a deviant sect. According to Huzaifah ibn Adam, and I seriously did not know this, Gulenism is deviant for these reasons, and I quote,

"1) Modernist views.
2) Belief in democracy.
3) Believing Jews and Christians can go to Jannah.

Someone who has done some research into the Gulen movement can list many more points, I'm sure.
In any case, the movement is a deviant one."
And you can find that page here. http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/...ant-sects.html

If it were up to me, I would say go ahead and be a Gulenist, you can opt out of some of those beliefs if you like but much of that should be compatible with Islam. For me personally, I think that Islam should be seen as compatible with democracy and modernity, and I think it's insane to believe that a billion and a half Muslims are compelled to be against those things, or else be deviant.

I don't want to call those beliefs deviant, but who does? You tell me.

Okay. Let me rewrite

No, not going to let you do that.

about abortion being likened to murder and the Planned Parenthood shooting.

Yes, those were Christians, every time an abortion clinic has been attacked. It was the violent enforcement of their religious beliefs that led to their actions, and there is even a group called the Army of God that focuses primarily on abortion-related acts of terror. I do condemn this vigilante behavior and suggest that those on the Right in the US who make abortion a large issue (which is pretty much all of them) should not forget that these things are happening, these acts of violence have their political and religious beliefs as their origin, and they should make a more consistent point of condemning such actions. That goes for conservative pastors and for politicians, and increasingly sometimes both at the same time.

What I don't do is blame the victim, or blame society at large for making these people feel lonely and marginalized. As if that's the same thing as telling them to kill the wrongdoers and punish the sinners. No it's not the same thing.

No, what other countries or do not do is not your business, and you shouldn't poke your nose in other people's business. Didn't your mother teach you that when you were growing up?

Not exactly, no. You know I'm an American, right? My country's sphere of influence goes everywhere, this is kind of what we do.

Religious law cannot be optional for Muslims;

Actually it can. You can simply choose to order your life by it, or not. No punishment or penalty either way. That's it.

However, the penalty part can only be enforced by a legitimate Caliphate in a nation-state

I can't help but observe that there are not one, but two different non-legitimate Caliphates in different parts of the world, self-described Caliphates that have not succeeded in overthrowing and replacing a government and they do not control anything like a proper nation-state. Granted, they're not Supposed to be enforcing Shariah law, but what exactly are they doing with their legal systems, such as they are?

and not a person believing or even seeing that someone has broken the shariah. This is not an "optional" part for the vigilante to consider.

I actually am glad to see you saying this, I just wish it was equally clear to more people. I also wish you could be against the enforcement of Shariah law in the abstract, without qualifications like "well first you have to have a legitimate caliphate in charge of a nation-state, do you think you can get that set up? Because then you'll be good." Because, you see, when you put it out there like that people are going to try and set up a legitimate caliphate within a nation-state. But that is just a terrible idea, both in the process of doing so and in its long term effect, and you should be against all of that as well.

[Serinity]

if you want to know who causes terror and stuff, look at the humans. Some terrorists just use religion, in this case Islam, as "front" for their ambitions.

No doubt, all Muslims wants shariah. But are we going to blame Shariah/Islam, for what some extremists do? No. Most of those extremists have been rarely practicing, or haven't read the Quran or sat with a teacher, TO my knowledge.

Best thing is to settle it with dialogue between scholars and go back to the Quran, and back to where The extremists gets their views from. Most likely they read a verse out of context, and use that, kill non muslims who are noncombatants and calls it "Jihad".

Rather, we should face the extremists with facts from the Quran and The Sunnah, and go back to the verses where they justified extremism or terrorism.

we will not be able to "persuade" even this word "persuade" holds negative connotations imo. we should go back to the Quran and see what Allah says to us.

Those extremists are our brothers who has transgressed against us, lets help them by sincerely going back to the Quran and learn together with the extremists.

I doubt mere arguements about right and wrong will persuade them, nor will "trust".

And I doubt us working with kuffar to bring back extremists will work either, nor will trying to "sugarcoat" Islam.
This is already working towards a dead end imo.

we should learn Quran with a good sincere scholar, and we should learn about Jihad. Offensive Jihad, and Defensive Jihad. Etc.

While they may be on the other end of extremism, we may fall to the other end of extremism/neglect.

In other words - modernists or deviants are 1 kind of extremism. If we should help them out of extremism, we should help ourselves too! For I doubt they are the only ones. we may be too!
Allahu alam tho.

[kritikvernunft]

... I think that Islam should be seen as compatible with democracy and modernity ...

What is democracy? What is modernity? And why would these things be goals in themselves?

Without precise definition, these terms are meaningless. In fact, they are pretty much always used in a meaningless way.
They are meaningless on purpose. If you like something, call it democratic, and if you don't, also give it a meaningless name, but then with negative connotations, such as: dictatorial.

That is the danger that you run, when you refuse to sail under the flag of morality(=scriptures) or the flag of provability (=math) or at least the flag of falsifiability (=science). In that case, you will always be sailing under the flag of ideology (=arbitrary conjectures). Every statement pronounced under the flag of ideology will ultimately turn out to be inconsistent and even contradictory.

In other words, you will not be able, not even to save yourself from drowning, to avoid pronouncing contradictions and inconsistencies when refining the concepts of democracy or modernity. Hence, these terms are fundamentally dumb and imbecile. They carry with them the seeds of stupidity.

[M.I.A.]

My sister currently resides in Saudi Arabia. She enjoys being in public without a head covering, and she enjoys driving. She's a very good driver, been doing it for a long time. She also enjoys inviting non-Christians to explore Christianity and consider becoming a Christian.

In what part of Saudi Arabia is she able to do any of those things?

I think this is the ultimate argument really.

replace Christian with muslim in your post and you have the perspective of most people in the thread.

bearing this in mind Imo.. I can give you a totally unrelated answer.

if a person wanders the land unaccompanied by religion.. how does he judge the people he meets?

who needs convincing to be nice..

or why are they not nice?

to be fair, she is THE spokesperson for Christians.. she shouldn't have to convert anyone.

her being where she is, is a test of the people and herself.. although a persons intentions may or may not make a difference..

the wider audience will have its say either way.

the worst part of your post is if the same attitudes you assume are present, were present in western civilisations.

you can only do what is put in front of you.


erroneous beliefs do not endure apparently.. although you could be mistaken since Jews and christians still make up a sizeable population all over the world.

but life is the same everywhere.

all praise is due to Allah swt alone and without partner.

:/

leaving religion at a side, she will come to her own conclusions no matter where she goes.

any discrimination she faces can be mirrored on any number of points in any number of countries..

social standing, wealth, race, religion, sex, political views..

whatever.

the media never really tells me anything good about Africa although missionaries are a bit before my time.

what is the goal here?

[M.I.A.]

knowledge is not power, application of knowledge is power.

..in the difference between the two, there is an understanding of something.

...no point talking a good game.

your mother, your mother, your mother..

and then your father..

strange days.

[cooterhein]

I think this is the ultimate argument really.
replace Christian with muslim in your post and you have the perspective of most people in the thread.
bearing this in mind Imo.. I can give you a totally unrelated answer.
if a person wanders the land unaccompanied by religion.. how does he judge the people he meets?
who needs convincing to be nice..
or why are they not nice?

to be fair, she is THE spokesperson for Christians.. she shouldn't have to convert anyone.

The main reason she's inclined to do so is because Jesus said to and it's a rather large part of Christian faith and practice.

her being where she is, is a test of the people and herself.. although a persons intentions may or may not make a difference..
the wider audience will have its say either way.

the worst part of your post is if the same attitudes you assume are present, were present in western civilisations.

Okay, let's compare. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for anyone to be a citizen of KSA and have permanent residence there, unless that person is Muslim. It is illegal for anyone to try and persuade a Saudi citizen to leave Islam. If any Saudi citizen does decide to leave Islam, that is illegal and potentially punishable by death.

Now let's look at the United States. There is no religious test for citizenship, and that idea is fundamentally rejected from our very foundation. If a Muslim (US citizen or not) wants to persuade a Christian to leave their religion, that is entirely permissible. And if a Christian does decide to leave the religion they were raised in and join Islam, the worst thing that may happen is their family doesn't like it. From a legal standpoint, nothing happens. It's not a story.

you can only do what is put in front of you.
erroneous beliefs do not endure apparently.. although you could be mistaken since Jews and christians still make up a sizeable population all over the world.

Those aren't erroneous beliefs. So maybe there is something to that.

leaving religion at a side, she will come to her own conclusions no matter where she goes.
any discrimination she faces can be mirrored on any number of points in any number of countries..

No. It can't. As the most obvious example, KSA continues to be the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Some things about Islam are very unique, and not in a good way.

the media never really tells me anything good about Africa although missionaries are a bit before my time.

what is the goal here?

I'm not sure if I understand the question. What is the goal of missionaries? If that's the question, the goal is to invite people to become Christians and then help establish a permanent religious community (of the Christian variety) where there didn't used to be one. Sometimes missionaries also make a point of doing humanitarian work of some kind, sometimes missionaries are also doctors or they also teach people English or they are also teachers or pilots, they aren't necessarily full time pastors as their main occupation although sometimes they are. Some missionaries also make a point of training converts to be pastors and then train pastors to train pastors which all works toward the goal of establishing a permanent religious community. An excellent example of that can be seen here. http://www.entrust4.org/about/our-ministries/africa
Dr. Chitlango is a guy that I know, and the missionaries who helped him convert to Christianity ten years before the fall of Communism in Mozambique are people that I have known for quite a long time (they were, anyway, they died within the past few years) but they spent their last handful of years in the US attending church with me, following over 50 years of being missionaries in Africa- mostly in Mozambique and South Africa. They mostly focused on developing seminary programs and training people at all levels of running a seminary. Now Dr. Chitlango is the main guy running the show.

If that's not what you were asking, I must ask for clarification.

By the way, this is exactly the sort of thing that Christians would like to do in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (and China and a few other places too) without any sort of onerous government interference. Maybe one day, right?

[Abz2000]

Islam is clear on it's position of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood and a Muslim doesn't pretend to be neutral between the above mentioned conditions whereas the American government does pretend that everyone is free to do what they like - to the extent of displaying a huge idol of a woman which imaginarily confirms that everyone except those who live within the borders are free, whereas the religion (way of life practiced by the community) imposed upon the people is worship of any individual (backed and controlled by a group) that assumes presidency. This fact became stark during the branch davidian massacre.

Anyways, America was never a democracy and was claimed to be a republic when the freemasons running the show in America staged a theatrical coup in cohesion with the freemasons running the monarchy in England, (just as with india) there was no "independence".
it is only much later that certain people decided that the republican system despite it's liberalist constitution was still too conservative and rigid for their liking and with the force of the print media and monopoly on mass consent in their hands began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now, with "republicans" and "democrats" sparring on a fake stage whilst the false "conservatives" push manipulate indignance into bigotry "patriotism" and war, and use the false "liberals" to change any law the aristocrats become uncomfortable with in the name of the people lol.

Anyways, did you know that:

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

By*Global Post |*November 27, 2015

.....Almost twice as many people have died in attacks by right-wing groups in America than have died in attacks by "Muslim extremists". Of the 26 attacks since 9/11 that the group defined as terror, 19 were carried out by non-Muslims. Yet there are no white Americans languishing inside the prison camp at*Guantanamo Bay. And there are no drones dropping bombs on gatherings of*military-age males*in the country’s*lawless border regions.......

[cooterhein]

Islam is clear on it's position of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood and a Muslim doesn't pretend to be neutral between the above mentioned conditions whereas the American government does pretend that everyone is free to do what they like - to the extent of displaying a huge idol of a woman which imaginarily confirms that everyone except those who live within the borders are free,

Hey now, that was a gift. From France. In the spirit of a certain French-origin philosophy, mainly pertaining to liberty equality and fraternity. So why would France, who gave us this set of ideas, build a statue that says America is the only country that has this figured out?

Or maybe it's not really saying that.

Anyways, America was never a democracy and was claimed to be a republic

It's really both.

it is only much later that certain people decided that the republican system despite it's liberalist constitution was still too conservative and rigid for their liking and with the force of the print media and monopoly on mass consent in their hands began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now, with "republicans" and "democrats" sparring on a fake stage whilst the false "conservatives" push manipulate indignance into bigotry "patriotism" and war, and use the false "liberals" to change any law the aristocrats become uncomfortable with in the name of the people lol.

Some of that is kind of accurate.

Anyways, did you know that:

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

I'm well aware of the fact that white Americans are the largest people-group in the United States, so what's really going to matter is proportions. Are white Americans disproportionately likely to pose a terror threat? I don't know, and I don't really expect you to greet this question with a straight answer. You should, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

[Abz2000]

Hey now, that was a gift. From France. In the spirit of a certain French-origin philosophy, mainly pertaining to liberty equality and fraternity. So why would France, who gave us this set of ideas, build a statue that says America is the only country that has this figured out?

Or maybe it's not really saying that.

Lol France was the first country in which a freemasonic coup in the guise of "enlightenment" (freedom to be force enslaved by satanic vice) took governmental control after the templars were disbanded and lynched for "satanism, heresy, ritual idol worship, blackmail and extortion" after the freemasons regrouped in scotland and also took over england, founded the "bank of england" in 1694, and immediately turned scotland and england into "the kingdom of great britain" (1707), userers also funded both sides of the napoleonic war between england and france, then rothschild took over the assets on the london stock exchange after totally shorting it and also bought the entire british government bond market. The rothschild banking agents are the founders of what is now called mi5 (you know the one with the big eye of "providence" on it's seal?). Putting up a masonic leader to posture against you when the people begin to snarl is nothing unfamiliar with the masons, the east india company's residual nehru gandhi family nurtured and trained by the templar founded "inner temple" in london and grand lodges of india were put up during the final stages of "revolution" in india and still rule there from time to time.


“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769-1821

In order to grasp the magnitude of the evil works of the socio-paths, one must take into account all historical, economical, political, financial, and social events of our past. It is often difficult to get past the bias of the information provided by each individual division, but it is impossible to ignore the constant denominator negatively influencing and undermining the integrity of all, the INTERNATIONAL BANKERS.
Curt, Pittsburg.

It's really both.

The founders of America told the people something very different to what they agreed to write into the constitution:


Benjamin Franklin

“two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”


John Adams

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.


Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.


Benjamin Franklin

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.

Fraser Tyler

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.* It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.* From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”


We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.John Adams
(The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

Read Morehttp://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry

(What do you think he would have said of unrepentant adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, and bestialites that revel and riot on america's streets with the consent of their government?)




Benjamin Franklin

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary


It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.

Patrick Henry

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

Thomas Jefferson

Read Morehttp://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

Some of that is kind of accurate.

Ya know dat.

Anyways, did you know that:

I'm well aware of the fact that white Americans are the largest people-group in the United States, so what's really going to matter is proportions. Are white Americans disproportionately likely to pose a terror threat? I don't know, and I don't really expect you to greet this question with a straight answer. You should, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

I sure will :)
The men behind the PNAC document (which set america's blueprint for the century) RAND, blackwater "xe", are the people who do will do the most damage to America and carry out most of the false flag events and set up most of the violent incidents to distract and manipulate the public, and are nearly all -if not totally all- white fake christians, practicing atheists, and high level freemasons and members of other secret societies which are founded upon masonry running up to and beyond the satanic builders (masons) and divers of Prophet Solomon (pbuh)'s time. - all of whom are non-Muslims and are haters of what God has revealed, and devotees of perversion.
A Muslim however does not make a distinction based on skin colour, that was the newspaper article writer who's probably never been to Makkah and seen for him/her self the diversity in skin colour, possibly the most diverse at one place at the same time on the planet.
but yes, the people behind PNAC and others who work alongside them are diaproportionately the most dangerous people and disproportionate cause most of the irrational violence on the planet today.

[kritikvernunft]

This fact became stark during the branch davidian massacre.

Where is their Virtual Association discussing these events? My reaction would be to collect evidence as well as followers, and make all of that the only agenda of a Virtual Association, which would have no other goal than to deal with this. It is very possible to make it pretty much impossible for National States to attack or shut down Virtual Associations, prevent communications or prevent it from collecting funds from its members. National States are powerless against technologies such as the tor network and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. All that the members need to do, is to route ALL their communications about Virtual-Association matters through thoroughly encrypted channels. Members should not know any information about each other that could possibly identify them. The entire tor and I2P networks already function like that today. That kind of information asymmetry is undefeatable. It is clear and obvious to anybody today that the final offensive against the National States will be orchestrated from there.

... began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now ...

The starting point was merely an ideological conjecture already. Therefore, it does not matter really what it has degenerated into. As long as you refuse to believe in its legitimacy, no matter what form it came from, or what form it transformed into, you can be saved! ;-)

[Abz2000]

Where is their Virtual Association discussing these events? My reaction would be to collect evidence as well as followers, and make all of that the only agenda of a Virtual Association, which would have no other goal than to deal with this. It is very possible to make it pretty much impossible for National States to attack or shut down Virtual Associations, prevent communications or prevent it from collecting funds from its members. National States are powerless against technologies such as the tor network and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. All that the members need to do, is to route ALL their communications about Virtual-Association matters through thoroughly encrypted channels. Members should not know any information about each other that could possibly identify them. The entire tor and I2P networks already function like that today. That kind of information asymmetry is undefeatable. It is clear and obvious to anybody today that the final offensive against the National States will be orchestrated from there.

Lol, why is your conversation almost always encrypted?
if it was plain and straightforward i could try to make sense of it, otherwise i'd be trying to interpret the shapes and possibly causing damage......one thing you should be aware of though is the fact that computers can decrypt most conversations based on patterns, whether theiy're heiroglyphs or babel, unless every single word is encrypted separately and has a separate key, and google's other robots can trawl through most - if not all - servers on the web, whether deep or shallow, robots.txt is a joke. Digital currency as i said earlier is a banking industry scam that wouldn't take seconds for certain groups to crash, reboot, and hack before defence systems were up and running.
Even if you buy a brand new phone and sim, tape up cameras, all it takes is for you to type a few conversations and "hello world" will set it's algorythms to detect writing pattens, touch typing speed, etc and pull up your profile.

But it is more fitting that we fear and heed Allah:


7.*Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among them, - Nor between five but He makes the sixth,- nor between fewer nor more, but He is in their midst, wheresoever they be: In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Quran 58:7

39.*On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to his sin.
40.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
41.*(For) the criminals will be known by their marks: and they will be seized by their forelocks and their feet.
42.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
43.*This is the Hell which the Sinners deny:
44.*In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!
45.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
46.*But for such as fear the time when they will stand before (the Judgment Seat of) their Lord, there will be two Gardens
47.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
From Quran Chapter 55

The starting point was merely an ideological conjecture already. Therefore, it does not matter really what it has degenerated into. As long as you refuse to believe in its legitimacy, no matter what form it came from, or what form it transformed into, you can be saved! ;-)

That's if a specific idea is merely an ideological conjecture and not real.
Allah is real and you know it, so be aware that truth overcomes falsehood since truth is solid whereas falsehood illusory magic.

[cooterhein]

Lol France was the first country in which a freemasonic coup....after the freemasons regrouped in scotland and also took over england, founded the "bank of england" in 1694....userers also funded both sides of the napoleonic war between england and france....The rothschild banking agents are the founders of what is now called mi5...put up during the final stages of "revolution" in india and still rule there from time to time.

Getting back to the original point, you acknowledge that my initial objection to your characterization of the Statue of Liberty was well founded. Let's just get this where it needs to go.

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769-1821

That's a reasonable point, Napoleon was a smart guy. Did you know that he introduced the printing press to Egypt? Left four of them behind, as he fled by night from a country that didn't want him as a ruler. It allowed Egypt to get a bit of a jump on the rest of the ummah, which continued to say "The printing press is haram! And we'd rather have our Korans printed in Italy" for another hundred years, plus a little. Because, you know, Islam. And now the printing press is fine, it's great, it is acceptable, because Islam.

The founders of America told the people something very different to what they agreed to write into the constitution:

I'm actually quite familiar with the founders of America. But go ahead, do some quote mining.

Benjamin Franklin

“two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Let me start by saying I like this quote. Really, I like it a lot, I enjoy it and it does good things for me. The thing is, Ben Franklin did not say this or write this.

First, it can't be found in anything he wrote. It just can't. Second, the word "lunch" did not start to be used in the English language until the 1820's, which was decades after his death. Third, the tone and construction of the entire thing is stylistically off, it belongs in the 20th century and the last part of it is very likely not quite as old as the Internet, which is the place where this is widely attributed to Ben Franklin but not through any proper citation.

This is some proper citation.

"A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990.

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which must not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights," Los Angeles Times 12 January 1992.

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard, "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty" 1994.

Good news though, the other quotes were accurately attributed, although you could have been more specific in your citations.

Next up, I asked you to evaluate the proportionality of terror attacks since 9/11. You said

I sure will :)

And I'll believe it when I see it.

The men behind the PNAC document (which set america's blueprint for the century) RAND, blackwater "xe", are the people who do will do the most damage to America and carry out most of the false flag events and set up most of the violent incidents to distract and manipulate the public, and are nearly all -if not totally all- white fake christians, practicing atheists, and high level freemasons and members of other secret societies which are founded upon masonry running up to and beyond the satanic builders (masons) and divers of Prophet Solomon (pbuh)'s time. - all of whom are non-Muslims and are haters of what God has revealed, and devotees of perversion.
A Muslim however does not make a distinction based on skin colour, that was the newspaper article writer who's probably never been to Makkah and seen for him/her self the diversity in skin colour, possibly the most diverse at one place at the same time on the planet.
but yes, the people behind PNAC and others who work alongside them are diaproportionately the most dangerous people and disproportionate cause most of the irrational violence on the planet today.

And I did not see it. That wasn't it. Here, let me help you with that.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/e...y-attacks.html

There have been 28 separate terror attacks in the United States since 9/11. Here, they are helpfully categorized by jihadist attacks and Far Right attacks. Guess which one did more? You're right, it was the Far Right, 18 attacks by them and 10 by the jihadists! Well done. But guess who killed more people? Oh, that's too bad, it was the jihadists and the margin is nearly 2-1. That Orlando shooting really shows up in these figures, it was the most deadly US mass shooting of all time after all with 49 dead. The deadliest attack by the Far Right was the Charleston shooting at the AME church where Dylann Roof shot 9 people last year, and he was recently beat up in prison on the birthday of President Obama. George Zimmerman was beat up on that day as well, making it an official Top 5 Day for black people in America. https://onsizzle.com/i/tweet-dylan-r...on-teh-1807513

Getting back to the main point though, two additional attacks by jihadists were more deadly than that one, specifically Fort Hood in 09 and San Bernardino last year, at 13 and 14 respectively.

So what can we say about proportionality? Well, jihadist attacks are more deadly by far despite there being fewer of them, so you're out of luck there. It would be even worse if we took 9/11 into account, which we're not because...just because, apparently. Even so, jihadists are more deadly than the far right by a fair margin. But there were fewer attacks, which- congratulations- is the best possible way in which these numbers can be interpreted in your favor! Well done. 10 attacks out of 28, that is 35.7% but let's just call it 35, okay? Now what we're going to do is compare 35% to the percentage of the US that is Muslim. And that figure, according to figures from the beginning of this year, is 1%. Granted, it's been growing and is projected to increase substantially over the next little while here, but currently that stands at 1%.

Now we must ask ourselves, is 35% noticeably greater than 1%? And it turns out, yes it is. It really very much is. Well done jihadists, you are a disproportionately massive terror threat to the US, even when we bury the fact that you've killed more people than the Far Right, even when we ignore 9/11 for no apparent reason, it's still pretty clear. Even when the figures are adjusted so they are as favorable to you as they could possibly be, this is the basic outcome that you really can't ignore.

And there's just one more thing.

"Apply cold water to that burned area."
-Ben Franklin

[Zafran]

The US is much more deadly then entire Jihadists forces combined. Just look what they did to Iraq. They want Iran next.

[Abz2000]

^ i won't waste server spece requoting, but the statue of liberty is an ilegal graven image even by the standards of the time and the book upon which they swore the oath of office, it is an idol which is worshipped and through which the image of false "liberty" is propagated.

The quote attributed to ben frank is so widespread that i didn't know that it was a false association - i took it at face value and quoted it as i am human, you did however neglect to acknowledge the rest which clearly illustrate that "democracy" was not the pronciple upon which the masonic constitution and declaration was founded - although those too were amiguous at best.


You saw the false flag of 9/11 at the start of the century and then the following illegal wars, the subsequent false flags including boston where even a friend of the accused was shot dead at point blank range in his home by the fbi during conversation a few days before he was about to leave america - the land of the slaves of falsehood, the washington sniper where your politicians unwilling to sign off on illegal acts and others who played in falsehood and knew too much were shot dead was another proven sham and they still unjustly killed the man whom they falsely accused, and the backlash from the illegal wars is on the doing of your kaafir leaders.
And finally, without getting all apologetic for the lawful retaliations carried out by Muslims who haven't yet fully exercised their God given right to equal retaliation for crimes commited by the kuffar globally, i will clearly state that the sword of Allah has not yet reached the necks of the enemies of Allah as it should proportionate to the crimes commited. Sincere repentance to Allah for previous crimes may be forgiven if accepted by Allah, - if there is no repentance but continuation of crimes, know that the punishment of Allah is just and severe.

[cooterhein]

And finally, without getting all apologetic for the lawful retaliations carried out by Muslims who haven't yet fully exercised their God given right to equal retaliation for crimes commited by the kuffar globally, i will clearly state that the sword of Allah has not yet reached the necks of the enemies of Allah as it should proportionate to the crimes commited. Sincere repentance to Allah for previous crimes may be forgiven if accepted by Allah, - if there is no repentance but continuation of crimes, know that the punishment of Allah is just and severe.

Just so we can be absolutely clear, who specifically is going to bring the sword of Allah to the necks of their enemies? Are you talking about groups like al Qaeda, Daesh, Boko Haram, or any other group that aligns or affiliates with such groups? Or are you talking about something completely different? Please be absolutely clear, this is important.

[kritikvernunft]

Lol, why is your conversation almost always encrypted? if it was plain and straightforward i could try to make sense of it ...

Well, the vocabulary in use in the field sound inaccessible, but it isn't really. It is just a question of getting used to it. All I am trying to say, is that it is worth trying to do that.

...one thing you should be aware of though is the fact that computers can decrypt most conversations based on patterns ...

Well, cryptography is very real and it may not be perfect, but it seems to work.
Cryptography rests on claiming the existence of "intractable" problems.
But indeed, "intractable" does not mean "unsolvable".
But then again, what is the alternative to using intractable problems to prevent adversaries from reading secret information?
Maybe just let them read it ... ? Dunno about that one either! ;-)

Digital currency as i said earlier is a banking industry scam that wouldn't take seconds for certain groups to crash, reboot, and hack before defence systems were up and running.

Well, the bitcoin blockchain has now been up for seven years, representing over 10 billion dollars in bitcoin. So, the idea that they would crash it in "seconds" is a bit of stretch ...
The security of bitcoin rests on intractable problems. So, that brings us back to square one.
What is your alternative? To use ordinary, interest/riba-infested banks and let the government control your financial transactions? Sorry, but that is a non-starter ...

[Abz2000]

Just so we can be absolutely clear, who specifically is going to bring the sword of Allah to the necks of their enemies? Are you talking about groups like al Qaeda, Daesh, Boko Haram, or any other group that aligns or affiliates with such groups? Or are you talking about something completely different? Please be absolutely clear, this is important.

The sword of Allah works in submission and obedience to the Creator and Master of the heavens and the earth Who sent Muhammad pbuh with the truth, no kaafir who rejects the authority of Allah and bases his/her way of life on falsehood can steal it's blessing or wield it.
Don't try to deceptively wear the sheepskin like 'esau is reported to have done with jacob because this time around, attempted theft via falsehood will become a curse.
repent.

[Search]

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

Your data is directly and explicitly contradicted by Professor Arie Perliger's study at the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center who showed that there were 337 incidents of right-wing violence each year in the decade after 9/11 causing a total of 254 fatalities. This study was done in 2012. Your data, however, is the more updated one with 5 additional instances of right-wing violence with 19 fatalities. Therefore, I'd say that ring-wing violence in the updated version would amount to 342 incidents of ring-wing violence and 273 fatalities.

Not only that, your data specifically only showed far right fatalities in comparison to Muslim attacks which of course fails to include other types of attacks like the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook shooting and other types of shooting that have since occurred in the U.S.

However, even allowing for only the above (minus other attacks like Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook because they are not right-wing attacks), I'd say that when calculated percentage-wise, that amounts to 2.92%. Let's, however, round that up to 3%.

Now, taking your own words amended correctly with the above study: "And that figure, according to [Muslim population] figures from the beginning of this year, is 1%. Granted, it's been growing and is projected to increase substantially over the next little while here, but currently that stands at 1%. Now we must ask ourselves, is 3 noticeably greater than 1%?"

In your own words reversed back at you: "Even when the figures are adjusted so they are as favorable to you as they could possibly be, this is the basic outcome that you really can't ignore."

The reason I mention this is that if you take into account all of the shootings and mass murders that have happened, you'll find overwhelmingly mass murders to have been committed consistently by white men and also generally the more deadly to be committed by also white men of whatever religious or no religious affiliation. Also, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June in 2015, "law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face."

Finally, you are essentially fear-mongering about "deadliest" in terms of proportion of population while not taking into account the fact that that the Orlando club shooting is the only incident and real reason that drives the number up in your fatality data whereas the Orlando's shooter's motives while being terrorism is also clearly also about his own need for revenge as a closeted homosexual on the homosexual community, which would make his motives not only or even solely "jihadist" in nature but also related to emotional and mental health issues that are faced on a day-to-day basis by homosexuals subscribing to any religion or no religion in a culturally still homophobic largely white self-identified as "Christian" America and also the lack of acceptance in Muslim communities specific to the issue of homosexuality and also the rejection and fear of disease that occur in homosexual communities. Moreover, your fear-mongering is AGAIN, and I repeat, a SIGN of your prejudice. So, kindly, stop it.

Also, I think I'm going to start reporting your posts; you are welcome here to learn about Islam, but you are not welcome here to spread your prejudice.

Also, I'd like to point out that if we take into account 9/11, which I know you have not done, but you did keep mentioning it, and it seemed were keen to take the tragedy into account. So, I'd like to tell you that there were 19 hijackers as reported by FBI in total. However, for those 2,996 American deaths (of whom 60 were Muslims) on September 11, we have killed 4 million people with the War on Terror. Is that fair? Are you satisfied? Because it is not "Christian" or "American" blood, it shouldn't matter, right? Because "might is right" as the saying goes.

Even from your "Evangelical" perspective, you should at least, however, be able to see that is 4 million people with whom you are now never able to share the "good news" of the gospel. I should also like to mention that so far you have not shown any evidence of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is not specifically that you're any worse than than anyone else similarly prejudiced in some way but that your prejudice time and again negates your claim. Perhaps all the time that you've spent on IB would be better spent on improving yourself to better be able to make such a claim.

And there's just one more thing.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

And I did not see it. That wasn't it. Here, let me help you with that.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/e...y-attacks.html

There have been 28 separate terror attacks in the United States since 9/11. Here, they are helpfully categorized by jihadist attacks and Far Right attacks. Guess which one did more? You're right, it was the Far Right, 18 attacks by them and 10 by the jihadists! Well done. But guess who killed more people? Oh, that's too bad, it was the jihadists and the margin is nearly 2-1. That Orlando shooting really shows up in these figures, it was the most deadly US mass shooting of all time after all with 49 dead. The deadliest attack by the Far Right was the Charleston shooting at the AME church where Dylann Roof shot 9 people last year, and he was recently beat up in prison on the birthday of President Obama. George Zimmerman was beat up on that day as well, making it an official Top 5 Day for black people in America. https://onsizzle.com/i/tweet-dylan-r...on-teh-1807513

Getting back to the main point though, two additional attacks by jihadists were more deadly than that one, specifically Fort Hood in 09 and San Bernardino last year, at 13 and 14 respectively.

So what can we say about proportionality? Well, jihadist attacks are more deadly by far despite there being fewer of them, so you're out of luck there. It would be even worse if we took 9/11 into account, which we're not because...just because, apparently. Even so, jihadists are more deadly than the far right by a fair margin. But there were fewer attacks, which- congratulations- is the best possible way in which these numbers can be interpreted in your favor! Well done. 10 attacks out of 28, that is 35.7% but let's just call it 35, okay? Now what we're going to do is compare 35% to the percentage of the US that is Muslim. And that figure, according to figures from the beginning of this year, is 1%. Granted, it's been growing and is projected to increase substantially over the next little while here, but currently that stands at 1%.

Now we must ask ourselves, is 35% noticeably greater than 1%? And it turns out, yes it is. It really very much is. Well done jihadists, you are a disproportionately massive terror threat to the US, even when we bury the fact that you've killed more people than the Far Right, even when we ignore 9/11 for no apparent reason, it's still pretty clear. Even when the figures are adjusted so they are as favorable to you as they could possibly be, this is the basic outcome that you really can't ignore.

And there's just one more thing.

"Apply cold water to that burned area."
-Ben Franklin

[Abz2000]

Well, the vocabulary in use in the field sound inaccessible, but it isn't really. It is just a question of getting used to it. All I am trying to say, is that it is worth trying to do that.

If you are precise as to what "that" means, i could respond.

Well, cryptography is very real and it may not be perfect, but it seems to work.
Cryptography rests on claiming the existence of "intractable" problems.
But indeed, "intractable" does not mean "unsolvable".
But then again, what is the alternative to using intractable problems to prevent adversaries from reading secret information?
Maybe just let them read it ... ? Dunno about that one either! ;-)

In Islam, we just state the truth that Allah has enjoined upon mankind so that whoever wills can accept it and achieve success in this world (if together) and in eternity for sure, and be saved from the coming wrath of Allah upon the unjust who reject the truth that Allah has guided to. In terms of military maneuvers, we use what is available to us as long as it doesn't involve injustice.

Well, the bitcoin blockchain has now been up for seven years, representing over 10 billion dollars in bitcoin. So, the idea that they would crash it in "seconds" is a bit of stretch ...
The security of bitcoin rests on intractable problems. So, that brings us back to square one.
What is your alternative? To use ordinary, interest/riba-infested banks and let the government control your financial transactions? Sorry, but that is a non-starter ...

The real currency is just that - it's primary and it's not an alternative, it is physical rare metal coinage and bullion, but due to the unlawful manipulations of prices taking place in the market which are also compounded by the creation of non-physical and often non-existant metals and "futures" way above what's practically minable within the time it would take to withdraw given a panic sell-off, we would have to wait until:
1) everybody on the planet submits to the law of Allah after the impending global collapse of the kaafir economic system.
2) the believers separate their economies from the false economies of the disbelievers and only accept physical metals or grain if trading with kuffaar.

[kritikvernunft]

In terms of military maneuvers ...

If you had the right information and prevented the adversary from getting the right information, you would be able to do with a very small knife that what would otherwise require a gun. Therefore, to an important extent, guns reflect stupidity. The bigger the weapons that the combatants use, the dumber they look. Seriously, I do not need any armoured vehicles. I just need to know where exactly yours is; and I need to prevent you from knowing where exactly I am; then, it is game over already. All the big weapons that you can see around you, reflect the stupidity of the ones using it, and the gullibility and lack of insight of the ones impressed by them.

The real currency is just that - it's primary and it's not an alternative, it is physical rare metal coinage and bullion ...

Yes, I totally agree that rare metals and bullion are valid currency.
However, in all practical terms. how do you cross a border with 1 million dollars in gold in your pockets?
It is trivially easy for me to send you 1 million dollars from where I am. Can you do the same with your gold?
So, I have 1 milion dollars in gold. I sell them for bitcoins. I send the bitcoins to you. Now, you sell your bitcoins for 1 million dollars in gold.
In other words, I physically moved 1 million dollars in gold without ever crossing a customs office.
How else did you intend to do the same?

... the believers separate their economies from the false economies of the disbelievers ...

That is not difficult to achieve. Just don't buy/sell anything that is haram. Where is the difficulty in achieving this? You can do that right now, if you want.

... only accept physical metals or grain if trading with kuffaar ...

Yes, but you may have to triangulate over virtual currencies, because otherwise, it will be way too easy to attack your money transports.

You are creating a very serious security problem by moving gold physically. National States have long-standing hobby to attack anybody who hoards or transports bullion: EXECUTIVE ORDER 6102, April 5th 1933



I think that you may underestimate the adversary, and that you may not be entirely aware of what you are up against. In the anti-Statist, libertarian constellation, we staunchly believe, and know for a fact that we will defeat the National States. However, we also know that we will not be able to achieve that with methods that are too simplistic or too easy to defeat. Your gold movements are sitting ducks for the National States. You will be overly burdening your defense mechanisms, just with the protection of gold stores and gold transport. In my impression, your approach is simply too costly.

[cooterhein]

The sword of Allah works in submission and obedience to the Creator and Master of the heavens and the earth Who sent Muhammad pbuh with the truth, no kaafir who rejects the authority of Allah and bases his/her way of life on falsehood can steal it's blessing or wield it.
Don't try to deceptively wear the sheepskin like 'esau is reported to have done with jacob because this time around, attempted theft via falsehood will become a curse.
repent.

I asked you to be absolutely clear, but now I'm wondering if you're just showing off your cryptography skills.

And you know something? It's just now occurring to me that with your other friend there, he's really giving you the hard sell on Bitcoin. Buy Bitcoin! It is halal, it's very halal and so friendly to terrorists and to the black market (prostitution, drugs, weapons, anything). Buy some Bitcoin today! He's basically a huckster who's trying to get you to buy something.

Edit- by the way, just so you know, you are the best possible motivator for Islamophobia. You invoke Islam and Allah, you make these violent threats, and you don't say exactly who you're speaking on behalf of. It clearly has something to do with Islam, you clearly see yourself as a warrior of Allah, but you won't specify a terror group or even narrow it down to something like a terror group. You're unwittingly doing this in the name of Islam as an entire religion, and in the name of all who believe in Allah. Seriously guy, I asked you to narrow it down and this is what you give me. You are the exact reason why non-Muslims wind up thinking Islam in general is a threat.

Now you're probably going to come right back and say "True Islam! Sword of Allah. Kill you Satanic infidel, you don't really know what a terrorist is!" Okay, whatever, what I do know is that you're doing your absolute best to represent all of Islam even when I make a point of asking you to threaten on behalf of something a little more specific than that.

This is a problem for you. Less threatening Muslims should really talk to you about it.

[kritikvernunft]

Buy Bitcoin! It is halal, it's very halal ...

I have never made that claim. I leave it up to the ulema to assess that.
I have made the claim, however, that the interest/riba-infested banks are haram. But then again, you can find so many fatwas confirming that, that you do not have to take my word for it.

...and so friendly to terrorists and to the black market (prostitution, drugs, weapons, anything) ...

Everything that has both halal and haram uses, is fundamentally halal. It is just a question of not using it in a haram way.

Buy some Bitcoin today! He's basically a huckster who's trying to get you to buy something.

But not from me. I have never asked anybody to buy anything from me. Furthermore, I do not sell my bitcoins. I receive them, then I spend some small part of them for my living expenses, and then I hoard the remainder. So, you cannot buy bitcoins from me, because I already have bitcoin-to-fiat exchange methods for my living expenses that work really well. In other words, you would have to offer a substantially better method for me to be interested in trading with you. How would a bitcoin novice be able to immediately design such better method, just like that, out of the fricking blue? That would be utterly unthinkable ...

Seriously, unless you earn your income in bitcoin like I do, it is quite hard to get hold of bitcoins. There are always more people who need them than people who have them. That is the reason why their value keeps going up and up and up! ;-)

[cooterhein]

Seriously, unless you earn your income in bitcoin like I do, it is quite hard to get hold of bitcoins. There are always more people who need them than people who have them. That is the reason why their value keeps going up and up and up! ;-)

So you're a miner? You've got your computers crunching numbers and getting it that way? I've heard that it's become progressively more difficult to keep up with the technology race in this game, the problems get harder and in order to stay profitable you need more and more expensive equipment. It's gotten to the point where people need to team up, pool their resources and form a strategy together so they can all go in on a single system that's better than what any of them would be able to maintain individually, and then they split the profits. Pooled mining, I'm sure you're familiar with it. That's been going on for awhile, has your strategy evolved to that point yet?

Assuming you're farming, of course.

[kritikvernunft]

So you're a miner? You've got your computers crunching numbers and getting it that way? I've heard that it's become progressively more difficult to keep up with the technology race in this game, the problems get harder and in order to stay profitable you need more and more expensive equipment. It's gotten to the point where people need to team up, pool their resources and form a strategy together so they can all go in on a single system that's better than what any of them would be able to maintain individually, and then they split the profits. Pooled mining, I'm sure you're familiar with it. That's been going on for awhile, has your strategy evolved to that point yet? Assuming you're farming, of course.

I haven't done mining, actually. The secret is to use a cheap supply of electricity. You need almost no bandwidth, regardless of how much hashing power you deploy. So, it would probably be a money maker to put a farm in a desert with lots of solar panels, and with just a very narrow satellite connection.

Pooling resources is just a way to remove the variability in your income. There are quite a few pools that you can join, indeed. Since there is no point in mining more bitcoin than the cost of electricity that they represent, the market value of mined coins is equal to some kind of measure of electricity costs, it being understood that the cheapest electricity resources will be used first, until the cost of mining is the value of a coin. The solution for mining is clearly cheap solar (or similar). Concerning the equipment, you will have to use custom logic designs that specialize in sha256 hashing. If other people use better designs, you will consume too much electricity for the hashing rate produced.

But then again, I don't mine. I create/maintain software, and deal with software security issues, and I collect payment in bitcoins for that. So, that's how I get the coins. It is easier for me to do, since that's what I've done for decades, than to try to mine them. If you want to mine, you would need to focus on that problem quite a bit. Before you are into money, you will have to deal with serious headaches ... ;-)

[kritikvernunft]

So you're a miner?

You see, the miners do a very important job. They collectively deploy a gigantic, distributed, but still concealed amount of hashing power to enforce a unique version of the ledger. We also hide the location of the mining equipment by using the tor network. Nobody knows where they are. That is what protects the bitcoin ledger from attack, especially from governments. The anti-Statist libertarian bitcoin constellation has a multiple of the hashing power of all National States combined. That is what allows us to successfully enforce our views against them. National States cannot overrule us. That is the greatest success that we have achieved, ever. We are gradually but surely taking over banking from the National States, without any traces of contamination by riba/interest. Seriously, we are clearly winning.

[M.I.A.]

The main reason she's inclined to do so is because Jesus said to and it's a rather large part of Christian faith and practice.

Okay, let's compare. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for anyone to be a citizen of KSA and have permanent residence there, unless that person is Muslim. It is illegal for anyone to try and persuade a Saudi citizen to leave Islam. If any Saudi citizen does decide to leave Islam, that is illegal and potentially punishable by death.

Now let's look at the United States. There is no religious test for citizenship, and that idea is fundamentally rejected from our very foundation. If a Muslim (US citizen or not) wants to persuade a Christian to leave their religion, that is entirely permissible. And if a Christian does decide to leave the religion they were raised in and join Islam, the worst thing that may happen is their family doesn't like it. From a legal standpoint, nothing happens. It's not a story.

Those aren't erroneous beliefs. So maybe there is something to that.

No. It can't. As the most obvious example, KSA continues to be the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Some things about Islam are very unique, and not in a good way.

I'm not sure if I understand the question. What is the goal of missionaries? If that's the question, the goal is to invite people to become Christians and then help establish a permanent religious community (of the Christian variety) where there didn't used to be one. Sometimes missionaries also make a point of doing humanitarian work of some kind, sometimes missionaries are also doctors or they also teach people English or they are also teachers or pilots, they aren't necessarily full time pastors as their main occupation although sometimes they are. Some missionaries also make a point of training converts to be pastors and then train pastors to train pastors which all works toward the goal of establishing a permanent religious community. An excellent example of that can be seen here. http://www.entrust4.org/about/our-ministries/africa
Dr. Chitlango is a guy that I know, and the missionaries who helped him convert to Christianity ten years before the fall of Communism in Mozambique are people that I have known for quite a long time (they were, anyway, they died within the past few years) but they spent their last handful of years in the US attending church with me, following over 50 years of being missionaries in Africa- mostly in Mozambique and South Africa. They mostly focused on developing seminary programs and training people at all levels of running a seminary. Now Dr. Chitlango is the main guy running the show.

If that's not what you were asking, I must ask for clarification.

By the way, this is exactly the sort of thing that Christians would like to do in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (and China and a few other places too) without any sort of onerous government interference. Maybe one day, right?

I think you should Google pics "Mary mother of Jesus (AS)"

most people should be wary of the message they promote.

...I was rather hoping she turned out to be a caped crusader :/

we wait for the day when there is understanding of true monotheism and when righteousness has its own reward..

regardless of the banners flown.

as it is, trying to see both sides of the coin at the same time is trending.

I have googled seminary...

...well, as long as they are not terrorist training camps.

although again, I have no idea what the goal is?

they might as well be driving instructors for all its worth.

go watch kung fu panda or something.

[cooterhein]

You see, the miners do a very important job. They collectively deploy a gigantic, distributed, but still concealed amount of hashing power to enforce a unique version of the ledger. We also hide the location of the mining equipment by using the tor network. Nobody knows where they are. That is what protects the bitcoin ledger from attack, especially from governments. The anti-Statist libertarian bitcoin constellation has a multiple of the hashing power of all National States combined. That is what allows us to successfully enforce our views against them. National States cannot overrule us. That is the greatest success that we have achieved, ever. We are gradually but surely taking over banking from the National States, without any traces of contamination by riba/interest. Seriously, we are clearly winning.

Okay, that's cool, I understand that there's some things that aren't for public knowledge. What I have observed, though, is that there's plenty of miners who are very forthcoming with the fact that they belong to some kind of pool and that there's a certain number of estimated TB that they currently need in order to be successful.

What I'm actually curious to know is approximately how much money one person needs to spend on equipment, facilities, and electricity in order to be in the game and make some consistent progress on a regular basis. (Just as far as one person's expenses as part of a pool). Per month, at an estimate, what does it add up to when you factor in ongoing operating costs and the estimated amount you're likely to need (on average) in order to replace equipment and/or upgrade it? Of course you're spending money in order to make money, and I'm sure that everyone started off spending a little in order to make a little more, but what kind of point has it gotten to? Approximately how much do miners need to invest at this point in order to continue making money?

I hope this isn't a terribly intrusive question, I'm just looking for a round-number per-month estimate. I could probably find out somewhere else, but you're right here so why not.

[cooterhein]

[QUOTE]

Your data is directly and explicitly contradicted by Professor Arie Perliger's study at the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center who showed that there were 337 incidents of right-wing violence each year in the decade after 9/11 causing a total of 254 fatalities. This study was done in 2012. Your data, however, is the more updated one with 5 additional instances of right-wing violence with 19 fatalities. Therefore, I'd say that ring-wing violence in the updated version would amount to 342 incidents of ring-wing violence and 273 fatalities.

I don't agree that it directly contradicts that, although there's clearly a different metric and methodology that's being used. For starters, my source appears to focus more strictly on deadly attacks, while yours appears to deal with violent attacks in general, even if innocent people were hurt rather than killed, even if the violent actor was killed before accomplishing all or part of his goal. That doesn't mean yours is wrong, it's just a different methodology (and less up to date) so it wouldn't be advisable to cross-pollinate the data as if the studies were the exact same thing but with slightly different parameters on the dates covered- that's not really the situation. This is the methodology from the source that I found. http://securitydata.newamerica.net/e...thodology.html
And here is a different dataset indicating who has been charged with plotting terrorism, whether it was carried out or not. http://securitydata.newamerica.net/e.../analysis.html
Please note that this pertains to indictments, rather than deadly attacks, and the number of indicted persons in this dataset is much higher, we're looking at over 500 people now in the same time frame. And this time, the number of people indicted for extremist activities are heavily jihadist by a 2 to 1 margin. So to your point, despite engaging in fewer deadly attacks (although these attacks are more deadly on average), there are way more jihadist extremists getting indicted before they are necessarily able to bring off a deadly attack. This is worth pointing out, because to a certain extent it would seem that Far Right extremists are able to to whatever they want and with very little attention from national security, relatively speaking. It's also worth pointing out because I'm agreeing with something that you've said and treating it as useful information that should be acted on in basically the way that you describe.

Not only that, your data specifically only showed far right fatalities in comparison to Muslim attacks which of course fails to include other types of attacks like the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook shooting and other types of shooting that have since occurred in the U.S.

That is an acceptable comparison, for anyone who's interested in a direct, apples to apples comparison of jihadist terror to Far Right terror. Again, to your point though, you're quite right to say that US law enforcement and US national security is spending very nearly all of their time effort and energy on stopping every jihadist threat possible, and these are the attacks that have come to pass despite that. By comparison, and by the assessment of law enforcement itself, the Far Right is not getting much attention at all and they are (comparatively) able to do just about anything they want, and this is the outcome. Just so we're clear, I'm looking at these jihadist numbers as the best possible outcome that we could have possibly gotten, given the vast resources and energy that have been expended in preventing them. When I look at the Far Right attacks, I see near limitless potential for improving on this outcome if national security can devote some of their attention and resources to preventing it (or even properly understanding it and how it's developing), which they are currently not doing to any large extent.

However, even allowing for only the above (minus other attacks like Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook because they are not right-wing attacks), I'd say that when calculated percentage-wise, that amounts to 2.92%. Let's, however, round that up to 3%.

It would really help if you could make an apples-to-apples comparison and stay within a single study and a single methodology. Of course it makes sense to compare the death toll of one ideology to that of another ideology, that's just how this is done. It's roughly the same reason why you don't compare ideology-motivated killings to death by natural causes. You compare ideologies to each other in order to see which ideology is more deadly, and after that you take proportionality and existing prevention strategies into account.

Now, taking your own words amended correctly with the above study: "....is 3 noticeably greater than 1%?"

You have to torture the numbers quite a bit in order to get yourself to 3%, but yes actually 3% is significantly larger than 1%. You really enjoy taking my words and replacing some of them, don't you? Argument by Mad Libs, I suppose.

In your own words reversed back at you:

That's more than a little snarky by you, and you've been doing quite a bit of this. Be advised, when you present your argument in this way I read the rest of it carefully (if at all) less than half the time.

The reason I mention this is that if you take into account all of the shootings and mass murders that have happened,

There's absolutely no reason to do that. I'm examining an ideology, so of course I'm going to compare it to other ideology-based murders. Ideology should account for zero killings, or something very close to it. We need to treat that as a reasonable and realistic goal. It really doesn't work that way with many of the ways in which people die.

This really is about ideology, and not about race.

Finally, you are essentially fear-mongering about "deadliest" in terms of proportion of population while not taking into account the fact that that the Orlando club shooting is the only incident and real reason that drives the number up in your fatality data

It is the largest figure, but there are two others (which I mentioned) that were more deadly than the Dylann Roof shooting at the church in Charleston. I pointed that out. It does skew the average, but you're looking at a high median for the jihadists anyway.

whereas the Orlando's shooter's motives while being terrorism is also

Yes he did clearly pledge himself to ISIS, And along with that terrorist acts especially by self-starters (or the lone wolf, if you call it that) are almost always "also something else." It's rarely just one thing, but when it's clearly an act of terror done in the name of a terror group, that puts it in a categorical home. You can say other things about the people who are in that categorical home, but they don't leave the home. They stay right there.

Moreover, your fear-mongering is AGAIN, and I repeat, a SIGN of your prejudice. So, kindly, stop it.

I acknowledge your concern. I wish you showed a little more concern for your fellow Muslim forum member who just recently made some threats toward me involving the sword of Allah and the rise of a legitimate caliphate that will punish all the wrongdoers. And then there's the other guy who talks about stealing vast sums of money from the evil heathen national state, loves the idea of stabbing the national state in the back and really seriously wants to do it, and brags about how easy it would be for him to do it. Unless there's been some communication that I'm not able to see, you seem to have a bit of a hair-trigger with me while completely ignoring people around you who are walking the line just this side of language that would be of interest to Homeland Security.

Also, I think I'm going to start reporting your posts; you are welcome here to learn about Islam, but you are not welcome here to spread your prejudice.

When I started this thread, I was asking Muslims to give me an idea of what they would want to do in order to stop extremism within their own religion. I didn't get much from anyone, and I got even less from you. You clearly don't have an interest in assisting me with the original purpose of this thread, and when you said you were done with it and wouldn't post on it anymore, that was the right idea.

You mad? Fine. Go.

Also, I'd like to point out that if we take into account 9/11, which I know you have not done, but you did keep mentioning it, and it seemed were keen to take the tragedy into account. So, I'd like to tell you that there were 19 hijackers as reported by FBI in total. However, for those 2,996 American deaths (of whom 60 were Muslims) on September 11, we have killed 4 million people with the War on Terror. Is that fair? Are you satisfied? Because it is not "Christian" or "American" blood, it shouldn't matter, right? Because "might is right" as the saying goes.

When al Qaeda no longer exists, that will be enough. It's not about how many people get killed, there's no particular goal where that is concerned, the goal is the cessation of al Qaeda's existence. If al Qaeda transitions from being a terror organization to a more traditional political group, that would probably do that trick too. One way or another, al Qaeda with its present form and operation must no longer exist, and that may take another 10 to 20 years depending on a lot of things that may happen.

Even from your "Evangelical" perspective, you should at least, however, be able to see that is 4 million people with whom you are now never able to share the "good news" of the gospel.

That's being offset by all these externally displaced refugees, who have been forced to leave a country in which no one ever would have been able to share the Gospel with them (because it was illegal, boo these laws) and now they're coming to Europe, Canada, and to a lesser extent the United States, where they have a realistic chance of hearing the Gospel in a place where this isn't illegal.

When I'm looking at these laws in Islamic countries that prohibit any attempt to persuade someone to leave Islam, I don't just tuck tail and say "If you say so." I say "You really shouldn't have those kinds of laws, there is a workaround for that and you're not going to enjoy it."

I know you're going to hate that part of my response, and I'll remind you again that when you said you were done conversing on this thread, that was the right decision. You should have stuck with that.

I should also like to mention that so far you have not shown any evidence of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is not specifically that you're any worse than than anyone else similarly prejudiced in some way but that your prejudice time and again negates your claim. Perhaps all the time that you've spent on IB would be better spent on improving yourself to better be able to make such a claim.

Thanks, that is a well thought out response.

And there's just one more thing.

Again, it would be a good idea for you if it really was the last thing. Let's see if this is a good place to end it. You know what? That's pretty good. Nice quote. You can let that be the last word, if you're willing to just let it lie this time.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

[Abz2000]

[QUOTE=cooterhein;2922505]

I don't agree that it directly contradicts that, although there's clearly a different metric..........

Still arguing over shallow trifles oh evangelist christian atheist supporter?
Have you done a scan through your posts and seen how nasty and depressing they all sound? And how you manage to turn every positive thread into a destructive bickering contest?
by their fruits you shall know them......

Anyways, wake up, repent, it's getting late in the game.

[Search]

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

@cooterhain

There is a lot of meaningless things in your post which I'm not going to bother responding because I have proved my point, even if you do not concede the point. And I have debunked your nonsense time and again.

First and foremost, since you're an extremist of the conservative type, different name, same game, and I have used snark to give you a big dose of your own medicine and reality checks.

Secondly, if you see reports in which you felt threatened or felt was disturbing, it is your job to report those posts, not mine; and I have in the past both warned and reported @Abz2000 whenever I've seen such posts. So, I mostly do not pay attention to Abz2000 posts but when I do see something, I do report him as I had once said on IB more than once. And I have also conserved with @kritikvernunftand I do not know if he's converted yet; he's not yet directly answered that question. So, you cannot say he's a Muslim until he himself says so; your conjecturing I think matters not to him and certainly not to me and certainly doesn't apply to him just because you have an opinion on him.

Thirdly, in addition to being everything else that I've surmised of your position, I am so tempted to call you out as a clear-cut liar on this one quote of yours:

When I started this thread, I was asking Muslims to give me an idea of what they would want to do in order to stop extremism within their own religion. I didn't get much from anyone, and I got even less from you. You clearly don't have an interest in assisting me with the original purpose of this thread, and when you said you were done with it and wouldn't post on it anymore, that was the right idea.

I direct you to post #49 in which I clearly answered your question 1 week ago. Like I've told you before in better couched words, stop being a tool. Also, I don't know what image you've had before of Muslim women in your head, but I'm a strong woman who doesn't back down from her convictions. I did want to leave responding to your thread because I could see I wasn't getting anywhere with you except in circles; that said, I reserve the right to change my mind, and I did when I saw you being a tool and a Islamophobic alarmist again in this thread.

"Mad"? No, on the contrary, I'm not mad, I'm just shaking my head at your hardheadedness. If you can dish it out, learn to take it as well. No, it's not that I just hate your response; it's that I absolutely abhor prejudice in all its forms. I pity you for your stubbornness because let me tell you something - you are the typical fundie Christian person whom no one takes seriously even in America because your prejudice is only exceeded by your cultivated ignorance and tribal worldview for which you are able to despise extremists like Daesh sympathizers from your lofty position perched as a self-righteous tool but are not able to see that they are simply the mirror of your mentality (even if you never go out and kill any human beings) just like Abz2000.

Yes, that is a well-thought out response, sir. You know why? Because you don't know the vibes you're giving off in most posts. In all the time I've been on IB, people usually participate on other threads; all the threads you've created have had negative undertones and most of your posts have the same negative tone. In fact, I have not once seen you share a joke or actually venture out into other threads that are about connecting with Muslims because let's face it: You're not interested in connecting with Muslims, but you are interested in berating Muslims and feeling superior as an Evangelical and putting down Islam. Let me tell you that as an atheist I found self-righteous Bible-thumping "Christians" quite insane and I put "Christians" in quote because they are not Christ-like. Therefore, stop fooling yourself with belief in having the Holy Ghost indwelt because actions speak louder than words and your words are problematic but your actions are representative and defining your character as more so (at least so far of what I've seen on IB).

Again, it would be a good idea for you if it really was the last thing. Let's see if this is a good place to end it. You know what? That's pretty good. Nice quote. You can let that be the last word, if you're willing to just let it lie this time.

I disagree. A good place to end it would be if you're actually willing to engage with Muslims rather than pushing your agenda and you and I and all of us can come out as brothers and sisters in humanity willing to embrace one another as people who share the same blood as descendants of Prophet Adam alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) and willing to work together for the shared vision of peace. However, let's face it: you're simply not interested.

And I quote again:

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

There is no such thing as "last word." Only God has the right to the first and last word to us as human beings. And "we listen and we obey."

[kritikvernunft]

...miners who are very forthcoming with the fact that they belong to some kind of pool and that there's a certain number of estimated TB that they currently need in order to be successful...

You can have a small or a large farm. If your farm is twice as large, it will roughly make twice as much money.
Your profitability depends on how much you are paying per KwH for electricity, under the assumption that you use efficient equipment.

What I'm actually curious to know is approximately how much money one person needs to spend on equipment, facilities, and electricity in order to be in the game and make some consistent progress on a regular basis.

You could even start mining on your mobile phone.
You just won't make that much money, because it usually only has 4 general-purpose CPUs, which are also much more inefficient in mining than custom logic.
But then again, as I said, I only somehow know how it works on paper. Then, you've got the people who really do it in the real world. There is a massive difference, of course, when you really start doing it. The real world always throws up obstacles that you will not see just on paper.
Still, there is no minimum farm size.
Every KwH will yield a margin. So, you will need enough KwH to yield enough margins as to your taste/needs.

...in order to replace equipment and/or upgrade it?...

The low-hanging fruit in improving equipment is gone now.
So, you will not easily find new designs that are for example twice as efficient than the existing ones.
So, nowadays upgrading is done much slower as before.
Just find a very cheap source of electricity, and your margins will be really good.
Everybody agrees that solar panels in a hot desert are the way to go.

Approximately how much do miners need to invest at this point in order to continue making money?

The miners who had to leave, are usually the ones who invested in inefficient equipment early on.
With efficient equipment, every miner who has access to cheap enough electricity, will make money, but possibly not as much as before, because other miners may have found cheaper sources of electricity than their own.

Don't mine in at typical retail rates for electricity. That is way too expensive.

However, there are countries, where the electricity rate at night is only half of the day time rate. It could be insanely cheap to mine with that kind of electricity at night. The bitcoin network is 24/7. So, even though your part of the globe may be asleep at night, on the other side of the globe, it is daytime, and they are doing transactions. So, they need the miners and their overruling hash rate to confirm the transactions, enforce irreversibility, and protect the ledger (=blockchain) from tampering, forking, and other attempts at creating multiple versions of history.

This is the evolution of the estimated collective hashrate that protects the blockchain from theft and forgeries:




and which is currently standing at 1.7 million TH/second.

To give you an idea of the economics, this mining equipment firm offers 4.73 TH/second for around 600 dollars, yielding around 0.4 coins per month, i.e. around 235 dollars/month in margin at the current BTC/USD exchange rate. You will still need to pay your electricity bill from these 235 dollars. So, your source of electricity must be cheaper than 235 dollars on a monthly basis for you to make a profit. Your best bet is a set of solar panels put up in an area that receives a lot of sunlight, because that would spare you from paying an electricity bill; but then you would still have to hunt for cheap solar panels.

[muslim brother]

There are certain people and a certain organization in the UK that (from what I've been told here) don't have grassroots support from UK Muslims on the whole. They do have support from the UK government, but it's not getting much traction from the broader Muslim community, specifically most of the people on this forum.

So. Without naming names or engaging in ad hominem attacks on people that I went out of my way Not to name, I have a couple of questions about where you are at.

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

ok we have quilliam foundation

there is also rashad ali whom i know..http://www.strategicdialogue.org/about/staff/

sara khan..inspire

and myself..

to answer the question..3..we do our best ,but need to do more..i consider myself mainstream..dont like the term moderate

[cooterhein]

ok we have quilliam foundation

there is also rashad ali whom i know..http://www.strategicdialogue.org/about/staff/

sara khan..inspire

and myself..

to answer the question..3..we do our best ,but need to do more..i consider myself mainstream..dont like the term moderate

Hi there! Thanks for responding, I thought this thread was dead and buried but I'm glad you found it. Thanks for including those links in your sig, it's very helpful.

I'm especially glad for your input because it would seem- from my limited Internet experience on this particular Internet forum- that mainstream Muslims in the UK (if the near-totality of this forums' membership is any indication) are not especially fond of the organizations or people that you're mentioning here. Most of these people don't seem to like talking about it, and they wish these people would just go away and stop what they're doing. It's been rather difficult for me to talk to anyone about this in a particularly useful way.

Now, this is where I'm coming from with this. The people and organizations you've named, you included, are trying to do something that's important and difficult. The general goal is admirable. (This is about as far as I usually get before people stop me and say I'm wrong about everything). But with that as a starting point, it would also seem that there are some things that could be improved, some things that could be done better, and some other things that are being done reasonably well and they should be carried over into future endeavors. I have been following Quilliam in some detail, Inspire in a bit less detail....the names you mention are vaguely familiar but I need to do a lot of following up on them....but from what I've seen and from what I can tell, it seems like everyone who's working on this knows they're not perfect, they're working hard on refining and improving what they do, and they're well aware of the fact that they need to be more effective, they're very open to hearing better ideas than what they currently have.

That is my impression, in general terms. I'd be interested in getting some of the more specific details, though. What are some things coming out of the anti-extremist efforts in the UK that are encouraging to you? What are some of the specifically bad ideas that need improvement? And how do you feel about the connection and engagement that's being achieved with mainstream Islam in the UK?

My general impression at this time is that mainstream Islam does not like or trust any of these counter-extremist groups or individuals, I often hear things about how they're government stooges doing the bidding of a government that's not pro-Islam, I hear that Islamism isn't an actual thing. I hear people skipping right over the idea that these people have good intentions and are trying to do something that benefits everyone, and instead they just have a laser focus on how they're harming a community and causing distrust. But of course I'm working with a tiny sample size and non-representative experience, and if there's anything else to see I'd like to know about it.

What's your general impression been? And does that match with your experience on this particular forum?

[muslim brother]

http://www.islamicboard.com/family-s...ml#post2933455

i will give my analysis and opinions on the whole terrorism and organisations issue here
i feel if the discussion comes from me

and i will say,a position of authority..


the discussion may be different.
hope you dont mind.

[MuslimLawyer]

I have found that the most productive form of preventing extremism, is to talk to potential extremists, at a younger age.

I give talks at local schools and colleges. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. However, when I have approached 'Faith' schools, they are not interested as my 'Islamic education' is not enough. I find it amusing and disappointing in equal measure.