Muslims urged to vote to keep out extremist parties

[Whatsthepoint]

Hmmm no Bukhari or Muslim for the first hadiths - Need to know which pagans they actually were and what they did - the context of the hadith - like who were the foreign delegates and why give gifts to them.

It seems to me it refers to pagan in general, but that the english translation.

 

[Zafran]

Eh, no, all this was a product of my procrastination, I'm gonna actually learn now.
I've grown to like Zafran though, his replies are quick and consice.:thumbs_up

thanks same to you about your replies eace:

 

[Zafran]

It seems to me it refers to pagan in general, but that the english translation.

There must have been a reason for it

 

[Whatsthepoint]

There must have been a reason for it

Well, perhaps he just wasn't that fond of pagans and multiculturalism...
Anyway I'm going to bed.

 

[Zafran]

Well, perhaps he just wasn't that fond of pagans and multiculturalism...
Anyway I'm going to bed.

actually it was due to the threat the pagan posed to the muslim community.

Furthermore once again your picking and choosing - you also need to see how the non muslims of Jerusalem and Egypt were treated they were allowed to practice there religion - so clearly this isnt against multiculturalism as the muslim world as been multicultured for over 1000 years and still is today

 

[Woodrow]

ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS AND LI POSTERS

THIS AISLE IS BECOMING QUITE CLUTTERED WITH SPILLS. PLEASE RETURN TO AISLE 7 AND ASK ABOUT MUSLIM VOTERS, SHOULD THEY OR SHOULDN'T THEY?


Any further spills in this aisle will result in a store closure as the thread is becoming too hzardous for kittens, babies and other peaceable creatures.

 

[Sampharo]

What happened here?! I leave this for a nap and come back with seven pages already?

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

Ok, ok let's get back on topic. Hey Woodrow, I checked with my professors and they say it is absolutely fine to vote for the better candidate who will be a better option for Muslims or at least a lesser evil. They said unless you join his party support efforts and with intention vote for him because you "like" him, it is ok.

I found this post online also to support:

"
The process of voting in non-Muslim democratic countries is not based on religious ideologies neither are elections won and lost on the basis of religion. As such, a candidate that stands up in an election does not promise to implement the laws of Islam or any other religion for that matter.

Normally a candidate promises the public better services and facilities. These services may also be connected to a particular religion, like promising Muslims financial assistance for the construction of Masjids, and so on.

Therefore, to vote a particular candidate or party in non-Muslim countries will be permissible and not considered a sin or Kufr. When one votes for a party, it does not necessarily mean that one agrees completely with their beliefs and ideologies, rather the intention is that the candidate (or party) will be of help to the whole community.

In light of the above, it becomes clear that to vote in itself is not something that is impermissible. However, the following should be kept in mind.

Voting in a way is giving a testimony in favour of the person/party whom one is voting. The way false testimony is a major sin, to vote in favour of a candidate that one knows is not worthy will also be unlawful and a major sin.

Allah Most High says:

“Allah commands you to render back your trusts to those whom they are due.” (Surah al-Nisa, 58)

He also says:

“When you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned.” (al-An’am, 152)

And:

“And shun the word that is false.” (al-Hajj, 30)

Bearing false testimony has been considered one of the major sins. Imam Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) included bearing false testimony in his famous book al-Kaba’ir, and then related the following Hadith:

“Shall I not inform you of the greatest sins (akbar al-kaba’ir): Associating partners with Allah (shirk), disobedience to parents, bearing false witness and speaking falsehood.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

When one is giving his vote, he is actually giving testimony on the fact that the candidate (or party) is trustworthy in his beliefs and actions, and better than the other candidates.

In a situation where there is no worthy candidate (as in non-Muslim countries, where at least the ideologies and beliefs of the relevant parties are contrary to the teachings of Islam), then the vote should be given to the one who is the better and more trustworthy than the other candidates.

Therefore, to give a vote on the purely basis of personal connections, family relationship, and the like (when one is aware that the one given the vote is not worthy) will be considered impermissible.

Vote should be given to the candidate that one believes will give people their rights, prevent oppression, and so on.

At times, voting becomes necessary. Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:

“If people see an oppressor and don’t prevent him, then it is very likely that Allah will include all of them in the punishment.” (Sunan Tirmidhi & Sunan Abu Dawud)

Therefore, if you see open oppression and transgression, and despite having the capability of preventing this oppression by giving your vote, you don’t do so, then in the light of this Hadith you will be sinful.

In another Hadith it is stated:

“If a believer is being humiliated in front of a individual, and he despite having the capability of preventing this humiliation, abstains from doing so, Allah will him humiliate him (on the day of resurrection) in the presence of all the creation.” (Jam al-Fawa’id, 2/51)

In conclusion, voting is not something that is impermissible. If it is thought that a particular candidate or party will be of benefit to the general public in their day-to-day affairs, then the vote should be given to him. And by voting a particular party, it will not be considered that one agrees with all their ideologies and beliefs.

And Allah knows best



Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

 

[Dawud_uk]

this is actually a very serious issue for the muslims, and people broadly fall into three camps.

1. there is nothing wrong with voting.
2. voting and democracy are not allowed but the reasons of necessity and preventing a greater evil is allowed.
3. is totally not allowed, some going as far as to declare it to be kufr.

as with all things in islam, it is upon those who disagree with a matter to bring their proof to show it is not allowed.

so when i first came into the deen, and understood very little (i still only understand a little) i thought voting was fine, to confuse things most imams (who are not always learned) said was ok and encouraged people to vote for this party or that party depending on what promises had been made to local muslim leaders or as i found out later who had paid bribes to certain committee members.

later i began to understand the place of shariah, to be educated a little on Allah's law and the means and purpose of it then democracy seems a little silly so i left it alone.

but still to declare something haram or kufr needs some strong daleel from the ulema, so at least point i refrained from saying that even though in the uk there was a big debate at the time as the respect party was getting big.

the problem is there have been very few instances simular to this in islamic history, it was unthinkable for them to rule by other than the shariah of Allah, even if the amir was a fasiq, still the ruling system would be shariah.

so what is like secular democracy?

most scholars i have listened to have said communism is haram, indeed is kufr. why and why are the objections to communism like the objections to secular democracy?

because it involves ruling by other than Allah has revealled. which Allah swt declares to be kufr, and associating a partner with Allah in his exclusive right to legislate (surah Yusuf)

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the
disbelievers." [Surah Maa`idah 5:44]

indeed one of the names of Allah is al-Hakam, as he is the one who rules and gives legislation to mankind.

So if this is an exclusive right and attribute of Allah then to give this right to other than Allah is an act of idolitry just as the jews and christians following their priests and rabbis is a form of idolitry as they forbid the halal and enjoin the haram upon the people as per when Allah said in the Quran,

Adiyy ibn Haatim (a former Christian before his Islam) reports that he heard the Prophet (saws) read: They took their scholars and monks as lords othher than Allah... Surah At-tauba: 31 He said to the Prophet (saws): We never used to worship them. The Prophet (sas) said: "Did they not forbid that which Allah allowed and you likewise forbid it and they allowed that which Allah forbade and you likewise allowed it? He said: Yes. The Prophet (sas) said: "That is your worship of them."

So now we should see and understand that voting for secular democratic parties is a form of kufr and shirk, indeed probably the biggest shirk in todays world and one which has infected the muslim ummah since the collapse of the last remnents of the islamic state.

still some ulema argue that although it forbidden to vote, if it saves muslims lives by ending a war etc then is allowed, as necessity overrules prohibition.

but even this argument has weaknesses as the necessity is something personal, someone holding a gun to your head and people cannot find an example of the ulema in the past applying this to a whole community.

the only example that has been found works against the argument, as it is when some of the muslims were captured by the romans in the time of umar ibn al-khattab and the roman leader offered one of the sahabah marriage to his daughter, freeing of all the other prisoners and sharing in his rulership with him if he left islam, to which he refused.

so if it was understood from the manhaj of the salaf that a statement of kufr was allowed to save another muslims live, then the sahabah would acted this way but they refused, and from my what ulema and students of knowledge have taught me this proves that even the argument of necessity is no defence for taking part in democracy, though because such people are doing so with the correct intention, understanding democracy to be kufr they have not committed kufr themselves.

i used to have some good articles on this matter on my old pc before it died on me but i will try to find something from the ulema on this issue rather than posting from our own desires and understandings not what the ulema have informed us from the Quran and sunnah.

 

[Uthman]

Brother Dawud and Sampharo have both provided what appear to be opposing views, but both are backed up with dalaa'il. It also appears that there is no 'Ijmaa from the scholars on the issue so it doesn't seem as though we are any closer to reaching a conclusion. We do have a fair few of our scholars urging us to vote for these European elections though.

i used to have some good articles on this matter on my old pc before it died on me but i will try to find something from the ulema on this issue rather than posting from our own desires and understandings not what the ulema have informed us from the Quran and sunnah.

It should be possible to retrieve the memory from inside the CPU...

But please do try find something from what the 'Ulema have said. JazakAllah Khayr.

 

[Sampharo]

Allow me to bring this debate to a clearer phase for the benefit of the readers here to make an educated decision rather than just exchange arguments.

Dawud, You said a few things that need clarification. Perhaps you wish to disagree, but considering yourself saying you know little about Islam I hope you will accept, or if you don't accept then I would urge you for references:

most scholars i have listened to have said communism is haram, indeed is kufr. why and why are the objections to communism like the objections to secular democracy?

because it involves ruling by other than Allah has revealled. which Allah swt declares to be kufr, and associating a partner with Allah in his exclusive right to legislate (surah Yusuf)

As for communism, according to the Abdullah Ibn Baz (well known, but just in case he is the head of Islamic sciences department and Mufti of Saudi Arabia), communism is kufr not because it is ruling by other than Islam, for that is not specifically kufr to start with, but because communism specifically bans Islam, its application requires the closure of mosques and forbiddence from any religious activity, and following it by necessity requires its members to becoming an athiest. Even though it has adjusted the announced doctrine in Arab countries, it stayed true to them at home and considered its application to be gradual. Here is an online link for the four page statement: http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/ar/ih...s_of_the_complex_doctrinal_islamic_makkah.pdf

Democratic process, as in voting, especially when it is separate from Western democracy as a government system does not have any doctrine against practicing religion, and even though secular governments use democracy as a governing system and has secular code of law, it does not mean that if you voice your opinion or cast a vote for an administrator you are by necessity adopting democracy as a personal philosophy and "abondoned" Islam.

As for Surat Yusuf, I need secondary sources regarding this, because direct quotation from the Quran needs that. I would like to see you publish the interpretation of that Yusuf Surat verses from Ibn Kathir or Qurtubi mean, and include the opinion of some of the greater Imams, like any of the four math-habs or Ibn Taymeyya or Al-Thahabi or Al-Albani. That way we can know the different opinions regarding these verses.

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers." [Surah Maa`idah 5:44]

Why only a quarter of the verse?! The full verse reads: "Verily, it is We who bestowed from on high the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On `its strength did the prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God's writ had been entrusted to their care; and they [all] bore witness to its truth. Therefore, [O children of Israel,] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for a trifling gain: for they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth/disbelievers !"

According to Ibn Kathir AND Al-Qurtubi, this verse and its statement of "deniers of the truth" is specifically regarding the jews. As per Ibn Kathir, the jews came to the prophet with an adulterer who was married, and they were saying: "if the prophet says to punish by lashing, we say yes and look like good followers of that prophet, but if he says to stone him, we will say no and not do it". And when they came the prophet said bring out your torat, and when they did, he said you need to stone him, as not only in Islam but also in your torat, to which the men lied and said it is not in the torat. WHen they were asked to open the torat to where it is the man covered the verse with his hand, and the prophet -pbuh- who couldn't read or write was guided to push his hand and point right to it.

Al-Qurtubi says to the letter: قوله تعالى {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون} و{الظالمون} و{الفاسقون} نزلت كلها في الكفار؛ ثبت ذلك في صحيح مسلم من حديث البراء، وقد تقدم. وعلى هذا المعظم. فأما المسلم فلا يكفر وإن ارتكب كبيرة.
Translation: The verse "they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth/disbelievers" and "unjust" and "faseqoon" all came down in the mushrekien only, and it was proven as well in Sahih Muslim, as for muslims who do that they are not kufar even if they commit a great sin"

Additionally, this shows NECESSARILY that there needs to be God's judgement and Shariah already applied in order to make denying it an act of great sin. As per the condition in the UK has no Islamic shariah, and no Islamic candidate, there is no act of hiding anything or choosing to judge by something other than God's will. That is the basis by which many scholars also have found that even if this verse applies great sin or disbelief on the ones who do it, it is necessary that it happens against a possible Islamic option. That does not exist in secular Western countries.

indeed one of the names of Allah is al-Hakam, as he is the one who rules and gives legislation to mankind.

So if this is an exclusive right and attribute of Allah then to give this right to other than Allah is an act of idolitry just as the jews and christians following their priests and rabbis is a form of idolitry as they forbid the halal and enjoin the haram upon the people as per when Allah said in the Quran,

Adiyy ibn Haatim (a former Christian before his Islam) reports that he heard the Prophet (saws) read: They took their scholars and monks as lords othher than Allah... Surah At-tauba: 31 He said to the Prophet (saws): We never used to worship them. The Prophet (sas) said: "Did they not forbid that which Allah allowed and you likewise forbid it and they allowed that which Allah forbade and you likewise allowed it? He said: Yes. The Prophet (sas) said: "That is your worship of them."

Fail to see the relation with this topic.

So now we should see and understand that voting for secular democratic parties is a form of kufr and shirk, indeed probably the biggest shirk in todays world and one which has infected the muslim ummah since the collapse of the last remnents of the islamic state.

still some ulema argue that although it forbidden to vote, if it saves muslims lives by ending a war etc then is allowed, as necessity overrules prohibition.

Did not see that especially as the correct interpretation was presented from the original books.

Finally, I would like to bring "due weight" into the picture. The scholars who agree that voting in secular countries to choose an administrator who is better for the muslims is absolutely permissible are: Islamic Sciences Department of Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in Egypt, The Islamic council of Malaysia as well as the one in Indonesia, and the Dar Al-Iftaa of ENgland, not to mention the one in the US as well as almost all official academies and universities. The only scholars that I heard of who said it's haraam are either those in the villages of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, or the advisors of Jamaa Islamiyya in Egypt before the elections, saying that to vote for anyone other than their own candidae is shirk because there is an Islamic candidate. Regardless of that being an obvious ruse, even if considered, there are no Islamic candidates in the UK elections, and ignoring a procedural process under claim that it violates one's belief in God has been told by well learned scholars to be mostly a political move to quell people's objections to rebelling fighters who claim to be looking towards applying Shariah.

So the golden question is: Who is the source of your fatwa that says casting a vote even for an administrative position is outright kufr? You may of course to choose individual names, but to cut short the response of who these people are, it would be preferable if you could from the beginning mention official institutions and councils please.

 

[doorster]

...

 

[Uthman]

If brother Dawud can bring an opposing view of some 'Ulema with daleel then this will be worth considering. Otherwise, the evidences provided by brother Sampharo seem to be most correct.

 

[Sampharo]

Jazakom Allaho Khairan. All the source opinions of course are those of the great scholars and teachers we study from. Glad it was of help, and I too benefit from every debate.

 

[Uthman]

UK Muslims, the BNP, and EU Elections

By Euro-Muslims Editorial Desk

Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?

On June 4, European Muslims in 27 countries can take an action on obstacles challenging their integration process and play a role in countering the extreme right wing's danger in Europe through making well-versed choices on the European Parliamentary elections.

Seventy two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be representing the British electoral region in the European Parliament for the upcoming five years (2009-2014).

Leading Muslim Scholars, coming from diverse backgrounds and schools of thoughts, have urged British Muslims to "vote in the European elections, as xenophobic, extremist right wing parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European Parliament," in a statement that was issued on May 28.

Although the scholars' statement did not refer literally to the British National Party (BNP) as one of the leading "Islamophobic, racist, and fascist parties in the UK," another statement that was issued by "Unite against Fascism and MCB" has made it clear.

It is worth mentioning that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have urged British citizens not to vote for far-right BNP as a reaction to the rising anger over MPs' expenses in a joint statement that they declared on May 24, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops. They also mentioned that "the BNP fostered fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or ethnic background." In the context of IslamOnline.net (IOL) European Muslims Page's coverage to IOL, we have invited the BNP's press office and the MCB to a Live Debate on IOL seeking a healthy bilateral debate. Albeit the BNP couldn't make it to the Live Debate, they sent IOL an official rebuttal of the MCB/ British Muslims' accusations claimed above. On the other hand, Inayat Bunglawala, MCB's spokesman and an advisor on policy and research at ENGAGE, was the guest of an online session, entitled Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?, He replied to many IOL audience's questions on the far-right parties in Europe and the impact of their presence in the European Parliament on the integration process of Muslims in Europe.

We are presenting the BNP's statement here below and you can read Bunglawala's full Live Session by clicking here.​

The BNP's Statement​

The British National Party bears no animosity towards individual members of the Muslim faith. There are probably many issues that we as Nationalists agree with the Muslim peoples of the world. For example, we have consistently condemned the west's attacks on Muslim counties such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not believe that our country should be trying to force Muslim countries to adopt western systems of democracy by force of arms. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed by the British and American governments. We believe that in this country, Islam should take issue with the main party's bloody policies in the Middle East, which the British National Party had nothing to do with. We see these wars as merely attempts to secure the Middle East oil and protect Israeli Interests.​

We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.​

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.​

However we do recognize that British born Muslim extremists have been further radicalized due to British foreign policy in the Middle East and uncontrolled immigration from counties sending radicalized Muslim clerics to preach hate on our land.​

Regards,​

John Walker​

BNP Press Office

Source:IslamOnline​

​

 

[Whatsthepoint]

UK Muslims, the BNP, and EU Elections

By Euro-Muslims Editorial Desk

Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?

On June 4, European Muslims in 27 countries can take an action on obstacles challenging their integration process and play a role in countering the extreme right wing's danger in Europe through making well-versed choices on the European Parliamentary elections.

Seventy two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be representing the British electoral region in the European Parliament for the upcoming five years (2009-2014).

Leading Muslim Scholars, coming from diverse backgrounds and schools of thoughts, have urged British Muslims to "vote in the European elections, as xenophobic, extremist right wing parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European Parliament," in a statement that was issued on May 28.

Although the scholars' statement did not refer literally to the British National Party (BNP) as one of the leading "Islamophobic, racist, and fascist parties in the UK," another statement that was issued by "Unite against Fascism and MCB" has made it clear.

It is worth mentioning that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have urged British citizens not to vote for far-right BNP as a reaction to the rising anger over MPs' expenses in a joint statement that they declared on May 24, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops. They also mentioned that "the BNP fostered fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or ethnic background." In the context of IslamOnline.net (IOL) European Muslims Page's coverage to IOL, we have invited the BNP's press office and the MCB to a Live Debate on IOL seeking a healthy bilateral debate. Albeit the BNP couldn't make it to the Live Debate, they sent IOL an official rebuttal of the MCB/ British Muslims' accusations claimed above. On the other hand, Inayat Bunglawala, MCB's spokesman and an advisor on policy and research at ENGAGE, was the guest of an online session, entitled Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?, He replied to many IOL audience's questions on the far-right parties in Europe and the impact of their presence in the European Parliament on the integration process of Muslims in Europe.

We are presenting the BNP's statement here below and you can read Bunglawala's full Live Session by clicking here.​

The BNP's Statement​

The British National Party bears no animosity towards individual members of the Muslim faith. There are probably many issues that we as Nationalists agree with the Muslim peoples of the world. For example, we have consistently condemned the west's attacks on Muslim counties such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not believe that our country should be trying to force Muslim countries to adopt western systems of democracy by force of arms. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed by the British and American governments. We believe that in this country, Islam should take issue with the main party's bloody policies in the Middle East, which the British National Party had nothing to do with. We see these wars as merely attempts to secure the Middle East oil and protect Israeli Interests.​

We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.​

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.​

However we do recognize that British born Muslim extremists have been further radicalized due to British foreign policy in the Middle East and uncontrolled immigration from counties sending radicalized Muslim clerics to preach hate on our land.​

Regards,​

John Walker​

BNP Press Office

Source:IslamOnline​

​

What exacrly do you find objectionable in their statement, Uthmān?
PS: now i have to copy your name, everytime i wan't to use it!:skeleton:

 

[Banu_Hashim]

So, has everyone posted off their vote ?

 

[Uthman]

What exacrly do you find objectionable in their statement, Uthmān?

I don't have a problem with most of what is written in the statement although I don't know how much of it is true. I do find the following part questionable:

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.
​

I think it's disingenuous to say that they merely wish to put the Christian population first. In the past, they have demonstrated their opposition to Islam and Muslims quite clearly and I think this is the reason why the Muslim Council of Britain oppose them.

PS: now i have to copy your name, everytime i wan't to use it!:skeleton:

Sorry!

I don't mind if you call me Osman. I'll let you do that as a token of our friendship. :thumbs_up

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't have a problem with most of what is written in the statement although I don't know how much of it is true. I do find the following part questionable:

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.
​

I think it's disingenuous to say that they merely wish to put the Christian population first. In the past, they have demonstrated their opposition to Islam and Muslims quite clearly and I think this is the reason why the Muslim Council of Britain oppose them.

Sorry!

I don't mind if you call me Osman. I'll let you do that as a token of our friendship. :thumbs_up

I agree. What is your view of the UKIP?
When I change my name to unpronouncable gibberish, you'll have the same privilige, friend!
I'm rather touched now!

 

[Uthman]

What is your view of the UKIP?

I haven't exactly studied their policies in detail but I don't have any particular objections from a Muslim point of view. I don't know whether independence from the European union is the best way forward for the UK. Obviously, that would cut off the open-door immigration policy that is currently in place which could be a good thing. Because of their immigration stance, they are probably a good alternative to people who can't bring themselves to vote BNP. Anyway, if you're asking me as a Muslim then I don't specifically object to them since I don't see them as an anti-Muslim party.

When I change my name to unpronouncable gibberish, you'll have the same privilige, friend!

I just prefer the original arabic spelling as opposed the the Turkish version.

But in case you're interested, some nicknames given to me by Non-Muslim friends include Ozzy, Ozzinator and Osmosis.

 

[aamirsaab]

We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.

1) The BNP are blatantly anti-Islamic: ''we don't want islam to become a dominating religion within our land'' ---> Horsecrap; you cannot stop that (unless you partake in the fun-for-all-ages that is genocide). Then they go on and mince words in the following sentence by using the all to familiar table-turner: what if christians took over an Islamic country. Well pal:
[A] That's a different argument; your first point was about a dominant religion, your connecting argument was about taking over a country...
If you meant taking over a country with your first point (and simply forgot to write that...yeah right): the UK is a democracy and would allow for that eventuality. Don't blame muzzies for using the system. Additionally, most muslim countries are Theistic and thus WOULDN'T allow for the eventuality of another theological regime other than the present one. In which case the argument falls to pieces.

2) England is NOT a Christian country. It is a secular democracy. The BNP are making an apples vs orange argument.

3) The bolded bit; why would they mention this? Other than to stir up trouble. Muslims are killed in the UK for practicing their faith....BNP obviously being the two-faced clowns they are don't tell you that.

So me personally have a big problem with the BNP: they are two-faced (several years back they hated jews and sided with certain muslims, present day it is the direct opposte ---> bandwaggon jump much?) and racist; you can see it in their actions and their statements.

Edit: Cannot be asked to do full statement pwnge. This excerpt is enough for now.