Police raids target 'terror plot' in UK

  • Thread starter Thread starter Showkat
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 106
  • Views Views 15K
IbnAbdulHakim said:
the british muslim soldier didnt HAVE to fight in the army did he? he chose to do that. If the law was enforced on him that would be different. He would be forced under oppression and we could forgive that!
Click to expand...

"We" could forgive that? What gives you the right to pass any kind of judgement on anyone? Particulary with what was planned for this individual. This man is a British citizen, and is serving his country. I actually find it disgusting that you are attempting to justify someone's murder using religion. As I said earlier, if Muslims want to make an Islamic theocracy and put these sorts of laws on the book, fine. Go for it. Just don't expect the rest of the world to accept the sort of barbaric worldview you seem to be supporting. It isn't my intention to offend you, but I am offended by people who justify murder or beheadings by pointing to God. That God isn't familiar to me.
 
Keltoi said:
No, I don't. If you immigrate to a non-Muslim country you accept the laws of that country. Doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, it is a social contract. Doesn't mean you can't be Muslim, as I suspect the first generation of Muslim immigrants would never have considered such a thing justifiable. In any event, it is against British law to murder people. They're old fashioned that way.
Click to expand...

even sheikh omar bakri agrees with you on this,

vast, vast majority of scholars would agree that even if the kuffar break their covenant with us we still must stick to our side lest the muslims be seen as treacherous.

but that doesnt mean we cannot condemn the actions of such a man who fights against islam, hence why although his blood is halal for the mujahadeen it is not necessarily right for those accused of plotting this act to do it if they truly did intend this.

Abu Abdullah
 
Dawud_uk said:
even sheikh omar bakri agrees with you on this,

vast, vast majority of scholars would agree that even if the kuffar break their covenant with us we still must stick to our side lest the muslims be seen as treacherous.

but that doesnt mean we cannot condemn the actions of such a man who fights against islam, hence why although his blood is halal for the mujahadeen it is not necessarily right for those accused of plotting this act to do it if they truly did intend this.

Abu Abdullah
Click to expand...

Condemn to your heart's content. That isn't the problem. Although I doubt this guy believed he was "fighting against Islam".
 
Malaikah said:
Keltoi, you totally missed the point that execution must be done by the Islamic state.

Obviously it doesn't apply in Britain!
Click to expand...

exactly,

if amir al mumimeen had sent a mujahid to kill this man it would be different but that is not what is being discussed.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
 
Keltoi said:
Condemn to your heart's content. That isn't the problem. Although I doubt this guy believed he was "fighting against Islam".
Click to expand...

his belief doesnt matter, his actions speak for themselves.

his wife should be told to leave him, his family and friends should boycott him until he leaves the army and he repents.

Abu Abdullah
 
Dawud_uk said:
his belief doesnt matter, his actions speak for themselves.

his wife should be told to leave him, his family and friends should boycott him until he leaves the army and he repents.

Abu Abdullah
Click to expand...

What actions are you referring to? Is the fact that he joined the U.K. military in itself enough for "his wife to leave him", or is it the fact that he joined a military that is currently involved in conflict with Arabs and Afghans?
 
IbnAbdulHakim said:
when people enter islam they enter understanding what is required of them and they should enter knowing the view of islam if they ever leave. The rule in islam is to first be gentle and try to revert an apostate back to islam, thats the mercy, then its to kill them if they still refuse, thats the punishment.
Click to expand...

That's only non-muslims living in Islamic states who refuse to pay Jiziya. Apostates cannot be killed merely for leaving Islam. That didn't happen in the early days of Islam.

I believe, if the plot is real, then these people wanted to make an example of the soldier as a warning to other muslims who may want to serve the kufaars in killing muslim brothers and sisters. But kidnap and torture? That's inhumane.
 
Dawud_uk said:
no he wasnt a muslim.

someone may disagree with islam, but in the time of the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) people disagreed with God's messenger (pbuh) all the time but when they are very insulting then yes it is permissable according to the scholars of islam to kill that person as the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) send mujahadeen to kill certain individuals at that time for insulting him and lying against him.

Abu Abdullah
Click to expand...

Understood. Can you see how that would be very, very troubling to a non Muslim?

Or better yet, why would any non Muslim accept such a concept? Aren't they, in essence, ceding a decision about their mortal existence to a person they have never met?

Lastly, please explain, with notions like you expressed, how a non Muslim could possibly form a postive opinion of Islam?
 
also I see Kuffar again here, please explain is the Kuffar the anti-christ or is it simply someone who isnt Muslim? I do not wish to take this thread off topic just a simple one word answer and I will not continue on about it
 
MTAFFI said:
also I see Kuffar again here, please explain is the Kuffar the anti-christ or is it simply someone who isnt Muslim? I do not wish to take this thread off topic just a simple one word answer and I will not continue on about it
Click to expand...

:salamext:
Believer= Muslim
Kuffar=Non-Muslims
Munafiqoon-Hypocrite

:sl:
 
Malaikah said:
:sl:

Can you be more specific please? The case I remember, he wasn't only insulting him, he was being extremely insulting in a very public way and was trying to start a war between the kuffar and the Muslim, right?:?
Click to expand...

If Van Gough were, indeed, trying to start a relgious war, then there are secular laws in the Netherlands to deal with him. I have; however, never heard such a claim before and find it preposterous in the extreme that a Dutch army would march on Mecca.

It seems to me, the real threat was that Van Gough might cause practicing Dutch Muslims to question their faith. That he offended people is a certainty, but it is hard to imagine that he had the international impact in life that he now has in death. I suspect the "scholar" who issued the contract on Van Gough had no understanding of the harm his murder would do to the cause of Islam. What might have worked in the 7th Century will almost certainly not work in the 21st.

So, putting aside the morally bereft justification offered, one has to ask....what has been gained here in a utilitarian sense?
 
Muslimah_Sis said:
That's only non-muslims living in Islamic states who refuse to pay Jiziya. Apostates cannot be killed merely for leaving Islam. That didn't happen in the early days of Islam.

I believe, if the plot is real, then these people wanted to make an example of the soldier as a warning to other muslims who may want to serve the kufaars in killing muslim brothers and sisters. But kidnap and torture? That's inhumane.
Click to expand...

I believe you have it exactly right. That was likely the intended message.

BTW...remind me to get my Jiziya in on time should I be consumed with a crazy idea to move to a Muslim state.:muddlehea
 
Keltoi said:
What actions are you referring to? Is the fact that he joined the U.K. military in itself enough for "his wife to leave him", or is it the fact that he joined a military that is currently involved in conflict with Arabs and Afghans?
Click to expand...

hi keltoi,

if someone leaves the fold of islam, his marriage is no longer valid and someone should explain this to his wife so she leaves him.

as for arab and afghan comment, i dont care about their nationality, it is their faith that bothers me. if he fights against the mujahadeen the ruling is clear upon him.

Abu Abdullah
 
Dawud_uk said:
matter of debate amongst the scholars of islam and the mujahadeen.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a matter of practical certainty that the Sunni and Shia could never possibly agree on this point? Seems to me someone would have to be right and someone would have to be wrong.
 
Cognescenti said:
Understood. Can you see how that would be very, very troubling to a non Muslim?

Or better yet, why would any non Muslim accept such a concept? Aren't they, in essence, ceding a decision about their mortal existence to a person they have never met?

Lastly, please explain, with notions like you expressed, how a non Muslim could possibly form a postive opinion of Islam?
Click to expand...

yes,

i found it quite alarming when i was a non muslim but i accepted it.

this is because if someone accepts something as from God as they accept the sources for it then really such a person having submitted themselves totally to God would not find it alarming.

so i would ask the non muslim to look at the central arguments of islam, pure unadultorated monoetheism and its sources, the Quran and Sunnah.

if they accept those matters as true and correct then everything else is fine but as believers we cannot pick and choose what we like and dont like and having Allah be pleased with me because i defend the way of life he has given for mankind is more important than you liking me.

Abu Abdullah
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top