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

[Serinity]

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

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

But I see it like a chain-reaction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allah :swt: knows best.

 

[jabeady]

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

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

 

[jabeady]

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

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

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

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

 

[kritikvernunft]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

Hope you're doing well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

(Peace be upon you)

@islamirama

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

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

So, again, I agree to disagree with you.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

From the cited article:

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

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

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kritikvernunft]

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

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

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

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

they don't want to return to Syria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Search]

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

(Peace be upon you)

I feel like giving your post a standing ovation.

*Claps*

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

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

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

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

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

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

 

[Search]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kritikvernunft]

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

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

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

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

 

[Search]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[islamirama]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an article exposing his tall tales of "extremism" and being "enlightened"
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...act-and-fiction-life-counter-terror-celebrity

and here's an article exposing his "islamic" character:
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/04/10/maajid-nawaz-filmed-harassing-a-stripper-in-east-london-nightclub/

 

[Abz2000]

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

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

:threadclo

 

[cooterhein]

With the National State being a false pagan belief

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

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