Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam

[Yanal]

Nicely quoted Muezzin,PS have you ever imagined someone being famous on this forum but we don't know him until an article about him shows up.

 

[nocturnal]

We haven't allowed ourselves to be destroyed, we have allowed ourselves to be victims of western subversion and conspiracy. This is what spawned the present reality..

 

[Dawud_uk]

How it goes along with...

the difference is they are doing it in the lands of the muslims, the muslims are not doing it in the west.

but yes in our own lands the shariah is implemented whether people like it or not, it is a fine line but the difference is there.

 

[Pomak]

the difference is they are doing it in the lands of the muslims, the muslims are not doing it in the west.

but yes in our own lands the shariah is implemented whether people like it or not, it is a fine line but the difference is there.

In which land is shariah implemented?

 

[Dawud_uk]

In which land is shariah implemented?

the tribal territories, swat and southern somalia so far, but dont worry, we've got much bigger ambitions than this.

 

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Tony Blair
"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said

.

Holy moley. If Tony Blair were a member of LI, and this was part of one of his posts, it would probably be his only post to earn a rep from me.

I don't believe a word that comes out of that kaffirs mouth!

 

[Pomak]

the tribal territories, swat and southern somalia so far, but dont worry, we've got much bigger ambitions than this.

Tell me on the list of priorities of shariah where about is "right to life"

a. towards the top
b. around the middle
c. at the bottom
d. i don't know

 

[Dawud_uk]

Tell me on the list of priorities of shariah where about is "right to life"

a. towards the top
b. around the middle
c. at the bottom
d. i don't know

i see where you are going with this, if you wish for me to respond in the manner of the kuffar, with their bill of rights and universial declarations then i will not as such paper is only fit for toilet paper.

but from a point of view of the shariah, protecting the lives of muslims and dhimmis is one of the primary responsibilities so near the top, but higher than this is the promotion of Allah swt's word by what ever means are necessary, whether by word of deed.

 

[Pomak]

i see where you are going with this, if you wish for me to respond in the manner of the kuffar, with their bill of rights and universial declarations then i will not as such paper is only fit for toilet paper.

but from a point of view of the shariah, protecting the lives of muslims and dhimmis is one of the primary responsibilities so near the top, but higher than this is the promotion of Allah swt's word by what ever means are necessary, whether by word of deed.

Yes freedom of worship is number one. Actually speaking of freedom of worship, tell me if i went to "southern Somalia" or pathan areas of Pakistan, what would happen if say i turned up in suit and tie, or perhaps i felt like celebrating Persian New year, ect. (aka do anything where there is a scholarly difference of opinion)

Now you also said "promotion of Allah swt's word", please explain further, keeping in mind phrases such as "guided by the light, not blinded by the light", "correct with the possibility of being wrong and wrong with the possibility of being right" and lastly Allahu alam.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Yes freedom of worship is number one. Actually speaking of freedom of worship, tell me if i went to "southern Somalia" or pathan areas of Pakistan, what would happen if say i turned up in suit and tie, or perhaps i felt like celebrating Persian New year, ect. (aka do anything where there is a scholarly difference of opinion)

Now you also said "promotion of Allah swt's word", please explain further, keeping in mind phrases such as "guided by the light, not blinded by the light", "correct with the possibility of being wrong and wrong with the possibility of being right" and lastly Allahu alam.

RE suit and tie, i have no idea, i know plenty of pathans and somalis who wear suit and tie, i dont see it as a big issue, if the local amir asked people not to wear them as he felt it was going to far towards immitation of the kuffar then i would have no issue with that either.

re persian new year, this is not allowed, the only two such allowed celebration are the two eids as i am sure you aware and there is no valid opinion otherwise, though there is of-course scholars who say it is allowed but you can find scholars saying wine is allowed or eating haram food ok as long as not over 5% of the total and other such rubish.

what i meant by making Allah's word highest is that the law, the code of government, the way of life should be by the shariah, and that ruling by other than this is kufr and fighting for it and preserving it is more important than saving lives, even of believers.

 

[Foxhole]

i am totally against tony blair and those like him who wish to impose their way of life upon everyone else, by violence if necessary.

Like the Taliban, for example?

 

[Dawud_uk]

Like the Taliban, for example?

yeah delt with that point already, if youre going to come late to the discussion at least have the curtasy to read the previous posts

 

[Foxhole]

yeah delt with that point already, if youre going to come late to the discussion at least have the curtasy to read the previous posts

I read up to the post I responded to. Does forum etiquette require a responder to read the entire thread before replying to an earlier post? If so, sorry.

I have a question for you. You have stated that you believe that militants have the right to impose Sharia by force in "Muslim lands".

Can you define what constitutes a "Muslim land"? I ask because I wish to know if there are any circumstances (change in population demographics, e.g.) under which the UK or US could be considered a "Muslim land", and hence trigger the conditions for the imposition of Sharia by force.

 

[Pomak]

RE suit and tie, i have no idea, i know plenty of pathans and somalis who wear suit and tie, i dont see it as a big issue, if the local amir asked people not to wear them as he felt it was going to far towards immitation of the kuffar then i would have no issue with that either.

re persian new year, this is not allowed, the only two such allowed celebration are the two eids as i am sure you aware and there is no valid opinion otherwise, though there is of-course scholars who say it is allowed but you can find scholars saying wine is allowed or eating haram food ok as long as not over 5% of the total and other such rubish.

what i meant by making Allah's word highest is that the law, the code of government, the way of life should be by the shariah, and that ruling by other than this is kufr and fighting for it and preserving it is more important than saving lives, even of believers.

Like i said, considering that those advocating that "x y or z has shariah", seem to be stuck in a "our way or the highway" type of mentality i highly doubt that what is implemented in tribal lands of Pakistan is shariah.

Just because you package something as "shariah" doesn't make it so, case and point is General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation.

 

[Dawud_uk]

I read up to the post I responded to. Does forum etiquette require a responder to read the entire thread before replying to an earlier post? If so, sorry.

I have a question for you. You have stated that you believe that militants have the right to impose Sharia by force in "Muslim lands".

Can you define what constitutes a "Muslim land"? I ask because I wish to know if there are any circumstances (change in population demographics, e.g.) under which the UK or US could be considered a "Muslim land", and hence trigger the conditions for the imposition of Sharia by force.

hi foxhole,

the muslim lands are those where the rule of Allah has been implemented in the past or somewhere the rule of Allah is being implemented right there and then, it doesnt mean somewhere where there is a muslim majority.

so there have been muslim lands without a muslim majority, such as yemen or egypt just after the coming of islam, and places with a muslim majority which are not considered muslim lands. it is the muslim rule and law which makes it a muslim land, not the people themselves.

so we will never give up on palestine, never. it can be put on the back burner for a bit, whilst we deal with problems elsewhere, but sooner or later we are coming back to take palestine when we are in a position of strength.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Like i said, considering that those advocating that "x y or z has shariah", seem to be stuck in a "our way or the highway" type of mentality i highly doubt that what is implemented in tribal lands of Pakistan is shariah.

Just because you package something as "shariah" doesn't make it so, case and point is General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation.

i agree RE zia ul haq, he was a taghoot same as the other sham muslim leaders, a little better than the rest but still fell short of implementing the shariah, only ended up with some aspects of it, leaving others.

ok, you say you doubt they have the shariah in the tribal territories, i agree they will falldown in some areas but the point is they are trying their best to implement the law of Allah, they have made an intention and if you disagree with some aspect of the shariah they use then go to a amir there and make a complaint, bring forth your proofs.

 

[Foxhole]

hi foxhole,

the muslim lands are those where the rule of Allah has been implemented in the past or somewhere the rule of Allah is being implemented right there and then, it doesnt mean somewhere where there is a muslim majority.

so there have been muslim lands without a muslim majority, such as yemen or egypt just after the coming of islam, and places with a muslim majority which are not considered muslim lands. it is the muslim rule and law which makes it a muslim land, not the people themselves.

so we will never give up on palestine, never. it can be put on the back burner for a bit, whilst we deal with problems elsewhere, but sooner or later we are coming back to take palestine when we are in a position of strength.

OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)

 

[nocturnal]

OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)

I don't think that would be the case. What you're talking about was a different epoch altogether where the emphasis was on mercantalism and opening up trade routes with conquests, which were ostensibly religious in nature.

The reality today is quite different, Muslims do not seek to do what the US and it's allies have done throughout the post-war period, which is to exert hegemony to devastating levels. We want to emancipate ourselves and be governed by a progressive leadership whose reference point is Islam. It is possible and it can be done, but we must first establish ourselves as a proud, dignified and independent nation not subject to directives from neo-imperialist powers.

 

[Pomak]

OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)

1. khalifate doesn't exist.
2. the tax is on conquered peoples.

btw please define secular democracy. If you are American you will know the reaction of large parts of the US when Obama said "America isn't a Christian country"

i agree RE zia ul haq, he was a taghoot same as the other sham muslim leaders, a little better than the rest but still fell short of implementing the shariah, only ended up with some aspects of it, leaving others.

Under his laws a woman can be raped and be punished for it. (a bit like what happens in KSA). That isn't "part implementation" thats called injustice. And last time i looked it up Shariah can't be unjust.

I have quoted a 16th century Ottomani shariah verdict on DV. Show me anything that comes close to that, that has come from any of these "part implemented shariah" countries.

I would argue that if the US repackaged its legal system as "shariah" (without any changes) it would come closer to "real" shariah than the swat valley or parts of Somalia.

One last thing, do you know the attitude of Shariah on the subject of muslim killing muslim?(highly relevant if were talking about Somalia or Pakistan)

 

[Dawud_uk]

OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)

hi foxhole,

i live in the uk, and do advocate islamic law for this country. i also know it will probably never happen in my lifetime but eventually yes, through keeping growing not just the numbers but the faith of the believers i think it will happen eventually.

only those countries who fight the believers are forced into a treaty of jiziyah or conquered with islamic law then becomming the law of the land, non islamic governments are fine for your non muslim lands, that is your business so long as the believers are not oppressed there by you or you go waging wars against muslims.