Paris Attacks

[Abz2000]

So Abz,

Is the above your longwinded way of saying no? You don't seek to dominate others and destroy their ways? If so, then we've made a lot of progress with you since I first met you and you were calling for the extermination of homosexuals. Live and let live is your new way? That's marvelous. Cheers to you, my friend.

I seek to make the guidance and laws of God manifest to the best of my ability and will either succeed or die in such efforts. Either way, it is one if the two great victories, whereas for the deniers,



They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and (they also took as their Lord) the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He)[]. Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." (At-Tawbah 9:31)


Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from 'Adi bin Hatim (RA), who became a Christian during the time of Jahiliyya.

When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, 'Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah. 'Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At-Ta’i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, 'Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck.
The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah; They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.
'Adi commented, "I said, ‘They did not worship them.’" The Prophet said, ((Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshiped them.)) …
They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah… that the Christians and Jews obeyed their monks and rabbis in whatever they allowed or prohibited for them…"

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Eng Abridged), First Edition: May 2000], Volume 4, pp. 409-410)


.....Prophet Yusuf (AS) thought this in prison as is mentioned in Surah Yusuf see 12:39:40


"O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords (gods) better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible?
(Yusuf 12:39)

"You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not. (Yusuf 12:40)



-and when debating you need to bring these hujjah and there is no need to debate without valid hujjah

So to believe that someone has the power to legislate is shirk-and that is why Allah told the Sahabah, if they follow the kaafirs in Mecca-they would become pagans
You have to search for the hujjah, if it is in Qur'an then that's enough-and if in Qur'an and Sunnah then that's even better-so you are not allowed to blindly follow anyone.
http://www.authentictauheed.com/2012/03/270-tafseer-surah-taubah-part-5.html?m=1


Furthermore, and of immediate relevance to the discussion, are those qualities, unique to Allah, that single Him out, such as "al-Hakim", the Judge; "al-Hakim", the Wise; "al-'Alim", the All Knowing and "as-Shariy", the Legislator. Not only is Allah the Creator and Controller and Sustainer, but also the sole possessor of the wisdom and knowledge to legislate for mankind and to determine what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what is lawful and what is prohibited, and thus what laws we should judge by, what social, economic and political system we should utilize...**


"Indeed, the ruling is Allah's"*

[Noble Quran 12:40]

 

[Abz2000]

Yaaaayyyy, it's all about Abz again
Predictable.

Doesn't look like Abz speaks of his own desire...... Interestingly, after last night's conversation, i went into the kitchen to make tea, and my eyes fell upon a few booklets which i read around 2005 that were gathering dust in one of the lower shelves, i picked them up and the first one i dusted off and read spoke about people who speak falsehood out of desire to please people and people who calmly convey the truth in good faith despite the criticism:



Points from thawaabit 'alaa darb al jihaad (edited):
The difference between Mudahanaa and Mudaarah
Mudahanaa means to be soft with the kuffar or to compromise whereas Mudaarah is allowed. What is the difference?
Ibn Hajjar and Al Qurtubi narrated that Al Qadhi 'Eyyadh said
"Mudaarah means giving some of your dunya for the sake of your Deen, whereas Mudahanaa is giving away some of your Deen for the sake of your dunya".

For example, you invite a kafir over for dinner to give him da'wah. Here, you have given up some of your dunya by spending up some money on buying food and what not for the sake of Deen. This is allowed. This is Mudaarah.
However, let's say your boss is a non-Muslim and you know that your pay comes through him (even though your pay comes from Allah). So let's say he comes up to you and asks, "What is this Jihad? Can you explain to me what Jihad means?"
You tell him, "Jihad means struggling against your self. And there is nothing in Islam that allows using violence." Here, you are compromising the Deen of Allah for the sake of dunya. This is not allowed. This is Mudahanaa. This is the difference between the two.

Inclination towards al Kuffar whilst disobeying Allah
Allah says,

"And surely they had purposed to turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should fabricate something other than it against Us, and then they would certainly have taken you as an intimate friend.
"And had We not given you firmness, you would have nearly inclined to them a little."
(Quran Al Isra 73-74)

 

[sfontel]

Yaaaayyyy, it's all about Abz again
Predictable.

Doesn't look like Abz speaks of his own desire...... Interestingly, after last night's conversation, i went into the kitchen to make tea, and my eyes fell upon a few booklets which i read around 2005 that were gathering dust in one of the lower shelves, i picked them up and the first one i dusted off and read spoke about people who speak falsehood out of desire to please people and people who calmly convey the truth in good faith despite the criticism:



Points from thawaabit 'alaa darb al jihaad (edited):
The difference between Mudahanaa and Mudaarah
Mudahanaa means to be soft with the kuffar or to compromise whereas Mudaarah is allowed. What is the difference?
Ibn Hajjar and Al Qurtubi narrated that Al Qadhi 'Eyyadh said
"Mudaarah means giving some of your dunya for the sake of your Deen, whereas Mudahanaa is giving away some of your Deen for the sake of your dunya".

For example, you invite a kafir over for dinner to give him da'wah. Here, you have given up some of your dunya by spending up some money on buying food and what not for the sake of Deen. This is allowed. This is Mudaarah.
However, let's say your boss is a non-Muslim and you know that your pay comes through him (even though your pay comes from Allah). So let's say he comes up to you and asks, "What is this Jihad? Can you explain to me what Jihad means?"
You tell him, "Jihad means struggling against your self. And there is nothing in Islam that allows using violence." Here, you are compromising the Deen of Allah for the sake of dunya. This is not allowed. This is Mudahanaa. This is the difference between the two.

Inclination towards al Kuffar whilst disobeying Allah
Allah says,

"And surely they had purposed to turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should fabricate something other than it against Us, and then they would certainly have taken you as an intimate friend.
"And had We not given you firmness, you would have nearly inclined to them a little."
(Quran Al Isra 73-74)

My brother I agree with a lot of things you said...

For us, the word of God is ethernal...and there is NO negociation upon....like ...sin will ALWAYS be sin...no.matter what humans say....

For some people...my statement above alone make us extremists...or "fanatical" as the west like to use....

They use such word, just becouse I preach about Jesus...not becouse I am violent with acts....

Becouse I believe with all my heart in the bible! And a lot of people in the west, some from my own family feel unconfortable with me..

They react strange just becouse of my presence.....and believe me...99% of times I am not even saying anything!

Also:

I just want to make a correction...THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY HEART tha GOD exist!

I will always love them, but as adults, we all have to make a choice....we all are born free....and free we shall remain....concequently, responsable for ours choices no matter what they are....

And not blame God when things go wrong, a diasese stricks or there is a natural disaster....they only remenber God in such ocasions!..Lol...to blame Him....sudently God existes to them!

Preach and alert we must...but not with force and violence...

"The revange is my" says the Lord!

Big hug God bless!

 

[Abz2000]

My brother I agree with a lot of things you said...

For us, the word of God is ethernal...and there is NO negociation upon....like ...sin will ALWAYS be sin...no.matter what humans say....

For some people...my statement above alone make us extremists...or "fanatical" as the west like to use....

They use such word, just becouse I preach about Jesus...not becouse I am violent with acts....

Becouse I believe with all my heart in the bible! And a lot of people in the west, some from my own family feel unconfortable with me..

They react strange just becouse of my presence.....and believe me...99% of times I am not even saying anything!

Also:

I just want to make a correction...THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY HEART tha GOD exist!

I will always love them, but as adults, we all have to make a choice....we all are born free....and free we shall remain....concequently, responsable for ours choices no matter what they are....

And not blame God when things go wrong, a diasese stricks or there is a natural disaster....they only remenber God in such ocasions!..Lol...to blame Him....sudently God existes to them!

Preach and alert we must...but not with force and violence...

"The revange is my" says the Lord!

Big hug God bless!

1.*Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness:
2.*(He hath made it) Straight (and Clear) in order that He may warn (the godless) of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Believers who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a goodly Reward,
3.*Wherein they shall remain for ever:
4.*Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "(Allah) hath begotten a son":
5.*No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying what they say is nothing but falsehood!
6.*Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message.
7.*That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.
8.*Verily what is on earth we shall make but as dust and dry soil (without growth or herbage).


From Quran Chapter 18

وَمَا تَفَرَّقُوا إِلَّا مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءهُمُ الْعِلْمُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى لَّقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ أُورِثُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن بَعْدِهِمْ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مُرِيبٍ *

And they became divided only after Knowledge reached them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter would have been settled between them: But truly those who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it.


فَلِذَلِكَ فَادْعُ وَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَقُلْ آمَنتُ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ مِن كِتَابٍ وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَعْدِلَ بَيْنَكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّنَا وَرَبُّكُمْ لَنَا أَعْمَالُنَا وَلَكُمْ أَعْمَالُكُمْ لَا حُجَّةَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ اللَّهُ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا وَإِلَيْهِ الْمَصِيرُ *


Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in the Book which Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) Final Goal.

 

[sfontel]

1.*Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness:
2.*(He hath made it) Straight (and Clear) in order that He may warn (the godless) of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Believers who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a goodly Reward,
3.*Wherein they shall remain for ever:
4.*Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "(Allah) hath begotten a son":
5.*No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying what they say is nothing but falsehood!
6.*Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message.
7.*That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.
8.*Verily what is on earth we shall make but as dust and dry soil (without growth or herbage).


From Quran Chapter 18

وَمَا تَفَرَّقُوا إِلَّا مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءهُمُ الْعِلْمُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى لَّقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ أُورِثُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن بَعْدِهِمْ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مُرِيبٍ *

And they became divided only after Knowledge reached them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter would have been settled between them: But truly those who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it.


فَلِذَلِكَ فَادْعُ وَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَقُلْ آمَنتُ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ مِن كِتَابٍ وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَعْدِلَ بَيْنَكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّنَا وَرَبُّكُمْ لَنَا أَعْمَالُنَا وَلَكُمْ أَعْمَالُكُمْ لَا حُجَّةَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ اللَّهُ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا وَإِلَيْهِ الْمَصِيرُ *


Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in the Book which Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) Final Goal.

By do way, after you posted these quotes from the Koran I went to my locker and got my copy by...M.A.S Abdel Haleem and read all Chap. 18 and 19....

Its impossible not to note how much of the Kuran is dedicated to say that "God has no son or child".....

But this is another subject...and way off this topic...

In that regards of Paris topic, I believe I understood to some extention the situation where Muslams find them selfs today...

And for that Thank you!

Big hug and may God lead all to The Light!

 

[Abz2000]

God knows best! Better that we understand God.

 

[Pygoscelis]

My brother I agree with a lot of things you said...

For us, the word of God is ethernal...and there is NO negociation upon....like ...sin will ALWAYS be sin...no.matter what humans say....

For some people...my statement above alone make us extremists...or "fanatical" as the west like to use....

Being devout is not the same as being fanatical or "extremist" (I hate that word, as a true "extremist" should be super peaceful under a lot of visions of a lot of religions - an extreme Jain is an extreme pacifist). Doing as you say is not what makes people like Abz here look fanatical. It is when he makes statements more towards us all having to live by his rules, and him saying things like the people of Paris deserved what they got, etc, that makes him fanatical. When I first met him on here he was calling for the hunting down and killing of homosexuals. That's what makes him come off as fanatical and "extremist". People start to wonder if he supports ISIS, and he does nothing to downplay that, sometimes egging it on. I really can't tell if he is trolling when he does that or truly a fanatic.

So not sure about him, but you? I really don't think anybody here will call you a fanatic. If all you are going to do is say that sin is sin and you won't do x or y because it is bad to god or whatever, that isn't anywhere near the same. Refusing to eat pork, or work on Sunday, or drink, or insisting on praying at a particular time etc, is not a fanatic. That's a devout believer. If you don't want to be friends with somebody because they are gay or if you don't want to go to a family member's gay wedding or something like that, yes, we will judge you as perhaps bigoted (just as you judge us as sinners etc) but that doesn't make you a fanatic either. Now, if you join Fred Phelps and his gang picketing funerals and thanking God for the deaths of people, etc, or blaming natural disasters on them, or seeking to deny atheists the right to vote or give testimony in court (see US history) or leading a witch hunt or cheering one on, or cheering for bombings of abortion clinics, or supporting Joesph Kony, then you'd be a fanatic.

But I really really don't see that in you, at all. So rest easy. You're not a fanatic. You're devout Basically it comes down to whether or not you seek to hurt other people. I don't think you do.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Then explain to me a way to make it all work peacefully and harmoniously in this worldly life alone - rather than spending years upon years arguing with me about how i'm always wrong.

We can start by not declaring each other as enemies from the start, and not seeing the other as part of a united "side" diametrically opposed to another "side". That is propaganda. That isn't reality. There are a lot of Muslims who live around the world who wish only to live in peace and worship as they will, and who abhor Isis and terrorist acts such as Paris, etc. There are a lot of non-muslims living around the world who speak loudly against western aggression in the middle east and elsewhere (lets not forget south america and the rest of the world where these governments have done horrible things). Such people have protested, voted against, and even fought against such force.

Then you have Chrisitans and other non-muslims living amongst Muslims in Muslim dominated areas who suffer simply for being who they are, and you have Muslims who suffer the same, again just for being who they are. All because of the cycle of hate, bigotry, tribalism, and the vocal violent minorities taking all the attention.

Radical Muslims who want to destroy everything else exist. Powerful people in the west who would like to exterminate all muslims and other groups they disagree with (especially radical fundamentalist christians) also exist. They both push and push and push these conflicts.

Only by uniting across the divisions they seek to create can we ever prevail against them, and have any measure of peace. I find many on this very site encouraging. Muslims here who condemn violence against people in Paris simply for being people in Paris. I reach out my hand to them in turn and oppose the bombings of Syria, etc. Western Atheists like me, hand in hand and back to back with devout Muslims like those who have posted here, is a powerful image and can overcome the hate. We don't have to agree on everything. You can go on thinking I am a spiritually blind sinner, and I can go on thinking you are delusional, but we can still respect one another and fight for each other's rights to exist.

I invite you to join us. There really is a "Us" and a "Them", but the split isn't muslim/non... the split is hatred/peace. And yes, we can overcome.

 

[sfontel]

Well....I am very disapointed....I found somebody "very tolerable" in the IB forum....Lol

Insaanah! God bless you! Its ok...

 

[Abz2000]

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-a...ay-rights-abroad-post1482328.html#post1482328

 

[sfontel]

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-a...ay-rights-abroad-post1482328.html#post1482328

Great video....and I am going to watch all of it...

Who is the speaker? Is Abz?...just kidding...

The speaker says that Bush coment/speech about Islam was right to some extent....can you explain that? What the speaker means by that? I think its around 6:00-8:00 into the video...

God Bless! Thank you!

 

[Pygoscelis]

After listening to the audioclip above (yes, I listened to the whole thing) I am tempted to give Abz a big friendly hug...

... but I am afraid he will reach for a knife if I do.

I would actually be happy to see a true Islamic Nation form in the middle east, but I totally understand why people in the west worry about it. It isn't because they worry about you worshiping Allah and doing things your way there. They worry that you will push it and push to take over the whole world with it, as history shows cultures tend to do. We saw it with the Roman and Brittish Empires. We see it now with American imperialism (though I think that is nearing its end as other nations such as India and China rise). We saw it with the Ottomans and we saw it with the last rise of Islamic armies threatening Europe when Spain fell to Islam.

I really think your path to a peaceful Islamic nation, perhaps Palestine or perhaps some uniting middle east countries, will come through peace, not war. The west is too strong and technologically advanced, and will only attack stronger as you reinforce the image of Islam as the enemy and as a force that seeks to dominate non-muslims. Images of Palestinians and Syrians being unjustly treated by western governments are powerful and have potential to channel forces within those western countries to back hem down. Basically, if you want Islam to survive and Muslims to be treated fairly, you are gong to have to stop chopping off heads and videotaping it, and you are going to have to stop killing random kaffir. Such actions only make life worse for ordinary decent Muslims.

 

[Search]

:bism:

^^^

Lol, what was in it? Quick summary would be nice.

 

[sfontel]

I did not listen yet...so cant coment yet! But I will!...lol

 

[Pygoscelis]

:bism:

^^^

Lol, what was in it? Quick summary would be nice.

It starts with a complaint about non-muslims trying to define Islam and trying to say it is peaceful or encourage it to be liberal etc. The man speaking is irate that non-muslims would seek to do that. He seems to miss the hypocrisy in what he is saying though. It isn't as if Muslims (and other religious people) don't cast other religions and atheism in a bad light. And I have yet to have a conversation with theists about atheism without somebody insisting it is what it isn't, demanding I take this or that position, etc.

He then goes on to complain about western nations defining laws for themselves that conflict with Islam. But why move there if your religion can't mix in with that nation's culture? If you can't handle nude beaches, gay marriage, showing your face on your driver's license etc, stay out of Canada. It isn't like we go to Suadi Arabia and insist they change their laws to accommodate us.

The speaker then makes some valid points about western aggression, and then tries to spin it into support for terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on how you look at it) and calls for the caliphate to rule. The last bit is about not backing down to western governments, and forming a United Islamic Nation (as if Muslims themselves could agree on that) spanning from Indonesia to Spain. I stopped listening with about 10 minutes go go because I had to catch a ride, so I don't know what the very last thing said is.

Overall it leaves me sympathetic to Muslims who have suffered at the hands of western aggression, but especially sympathetic to Muslims who have suffered that, and even more due to the actions of fellow Muslims who do violence and spread hatred in the name of their religion.

 

[Search]

:bism:

Interesting.

From what I know of the narrator Anwar Awlaki, he's one of the well-known extremists, though deceased, of the modern world.

Unfortunately, he's also a very charismatic speaker.

In here and elsewhere, in Muslim social circles, there's a saying that if you see a person saying/doing something that is bad, don't take the bad, but what is good, you can take. So, I'd say the same goes for anyone here, Muslim or non-Muslim, in regards to this lecture.

Btw, I'd only recommend his audio narration on the Seerah (Biography) of Prophet :saws: to which I'd listened and found informative and inspirational.

However, as to his other points from the video you'd mentioned, I am not surprised:

@ points in your post:
I do find non-Muslims trying to call for reform of Islam an act more worthy of a stealth saboteur, because hey, then, the "changed" religion wouldn't be Islam. So, I'm always, like, umm, thank you but no thanks.

That said, I agree with your point about some Muslims casting other religions and atheism in a bad light. Lol, yeah @ your point about insisting on what is the position and other tactics.

I think a lot of Muslims who immigrate to the West do so out of social climbing ambitions or some variation thereof where a person and his/her family "makes it big." That said, I agree with you: If anyone really has or feels they will have a serious problem with the customs or culture of the country, then maybe they should reconsider immigrating as there's nothing saying you should. However, that said, I will say that I feel a person in good conscience can disagree with a custom, say, like gay marriage and immigrate as long as that belief does not interfere with law and is only a matter of personal conviction.

There, aha, I didn't bat an eyelash when you mentioned the lecture containing support for terrorists because I knew it would be thrown in there somewhere, given the identity of the speaker.

With terrorists' employment of aggressive tactics offending most of the world and its peoples (Muslims and non-Muslims), I don't see how ushering in a Caliphate is anything but a pipe dream. Also, as you said, Muslims all over the world are divided, not united, and from what I've seen so far, all calls to unity are a bit like a frustrated schoolteacher yelling to rowdy students on the playground to come back into line: All the children on the playground are of course too busy to care or notice? Also, if ISIS is the barometer of the modern-day Caliphate will look like, all sane people (Muslims and non-Muslims) will say, "No, thanks!"

It starts with a complaint about non-muslims trying to define Islam and trying to say it is peaceful or encourage it to be liberal etc. The man speaking is irate that non-muslims would seek to do that. He seems to miss the hypocrisy in what he is saying though. It isn't as if Muslims (and other religious people) don't cast other religions and atheism in a bad light. And I have yet to have a conversation with theists about atheism without somebody insisting it is what it isn't, demanding I take this or that position, etc.

He then goes on to complain about western nations defining laws for themselves that conflict with Islam. But why move there if your religion can't mix in with that nation's culture? If you can't handle nude beaches, gay marriage, showing your face on your driver's license etc, stay out of Canada. It isn't like we go to Suadi Arabia and insist they change their laws to accommodate us.

The speaker then makes some valid points about western aggression, and then tries to spin it into support for terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on how you look at it) and calls for the caliphate to rule. The last bit is about not backing down to western governments, and forming a United Islamic Nation (as if Muslims themselves could agree on that) spanning from Indonesia to Spain. I stopped listening with about 10 minutes go go because I had to catch a ride, so I don't know what the very last thing said is.

 

[Abz2000]

Lol, interesting analysis from pygo and search, all along i thought the lecture was about them. (rand and molla bradley/"sheikh" hasina.
And "search", have respect for the martyrs for truth who gave their lives for their testimony - unless you're ok with becoming a target yourself. The hatred shows in your regular judgemental labelling when lacking any clear argument.

Sfontel, the speaker (may Allah be pleased with him and his family), was referring to mufti bush's lecture on Islam to a crowd of Muslims in washington, not long after having begun the murder afghans en masse in the name of seeking Sheikh Usama who they were falsely accusing of the false flag which was the 9/11 fiasco.
he even gives us a history lesson lol.

http://www.claychipsmith.com/Bush_speaks_at_Eid.htm
.

 

[Abz2000]

Tunacrab • in 8 years RE: Ahmed’s completely innocent homemade clock.

When I first heard about Ahmed, the kid who made the news for his “bomb” clock project, I took his side. I played with discrete electronics as a kid. I built breadboards, I soldered, and I experimented with early robotics... In this STEM obsessed educational system, why couldn’t the school officials quickly dismiss this scare as a science project? Why did this make the news? I just didn’t get it… and then I saw a picture of the clock.
From CNN: “A teenager with dreams of becoming an engineer, he wanted to show his teacher the digital clock he'd made from a pencil case.”

Anyone with an understanding of electronics will immediately see this “homemade clock” is not the tinkering of a child or teen. It was never Ahmed’s idea to begin with. This isn’t some innocent science project. The picture of the clock exposes the lie. Ahmed did not lovingly patch together IC chips and resistors, as the media would like you to believe.

What you see is the guts from a manufactured digital clock, right down to the 9 volt memory backup, and the prefab button board. Absolutely nothing was made. It’s the equivalent of taking the plastic surround off of your TV and claiming you “made” a TV.

Look at the case itself. CNN calls it a “pencil case.” Please. The whole package is vaguely sinister, and it’s intentional. Notice the nondescript packet of unidentified white powder. See that nice dent in the side? I wonder if you could stash plastic explosives behind that huge LED. Why is the lining so bumpy? Look at the shoddy taping and the twisted wire used to close the case. It’s almost as if someone designed this clock to look like a questionable object.
Again, from CNN:

"I built a clock to impress my teacher but when I showed it to her, she thought it was a threat to her," Ahmed told reporters Wednesday.” It was really sad that she took the wrong impression of it."


Ahmed, you didn’t build a clock.
You’re a pawn to your Dad’s political and social agenda.
This is all a creation of your father.
I’m sure he involved you in the process, and made you feel as though you were truly making something, but you didn’t.
It’s a clock without its case. Everything in the “pencil case” was made in a factory. See, a legitimate electronics project full of diodes and resistors looks innocent. It usually runs off of a battery, not an exposed AC to DC transformer… speaking of science projects, Ahmed, why again did you bring this to class? Was it part of an assignment? Oh, you just wanted to impress your teacher with a clock you rearranged inside a small briefcase? Hmm…

From dallasnews.com: ““He fixed my phone, my car, my computer,” Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed said. “He is a very smart, brilliant kid.”
If he were so smart, he’d know the difference between creating a circuit and stripping the guts from a manufactured clock. His dad helped him “make” this, and dad helped to make this “project” look as questionable as possible, within the realm of plausible deniability.
The dad is a politician. He made this happen. Whatever agenda he’s advancing, it just further demonizes western society, and reminds us all to be guilty for how racist we all are. Maybe that’s the agenda.

It’s propaganda.

http://makezine.com/2015/09/16/this-is-ahmed-mohameds-clock/

Ahmed Mohamed meets Sudanese president with whom father had rivalry

The father of the Texas teenager who was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school attempted to run against Omar al-Bashir in two elections

Ahmed Mohamed poses with the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, on Wednesday in Khartoum, Sudan. Mohamed is scheduled to meet Barack Obama on Monday. Photograph: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images


Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old Sudanese-American student who was arrested after bringing a homemade clock to school in Texas, has met the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, a wanted war criminal who the teen’s father opposed in two presidential elections.
Related: Ahmed Mohamed is tired, excited to meet Obama – and wants his clock back
The leader of Sudan greeted the teen at his residence in Khartoum, the nation’s capital, on Wednesday evening, according to the Sudan Tribune.
Ahmed and his father, Mohamed al-Hassan, told reporters Bashir complimented the teen on his intellectual pursuits and encouraged his enthusiasm for the sciences.

Mohamed al-Hassan, Ahmed’s father, attempted unsuccessfully to unseat Bashir in the most recent election in April, according to a profile in the North Dallas Gazette.
He told the publication he ran to “save my Sudan” and “re-establish good connections with America”.


......Ahmed is due to meet Obama in Washington, after attending a Muslim gala on Saturday.
On Monday he is expected to visit the White House for an evening of stargazing, as a special guest of the president.

....Politicians and leaders in tech showed their support,
including Barack Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton, Nasa and the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-sudan-president-omar-al-bashir-texas-clock

His father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed, is a fascinating figure in his own right.
He's a Sudanese immigrant who has twice declared himself a presidential candidate in Sudan.
When Florida pastor Terry Jones put the Quran on trial and later burned it in 2012, Mohamed was the Muslim holy book's defense attorney

Appears to enjoy playing a part in theatre circuses

In 2012, Florida pastor Terry Jones said he was putting the Quran on trial. Jones had threatened to burn the Quran before, around the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, before eventually being talked out of it by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
This time, he wanted to stage a trial at his Florida church, and he needed a defense attorney. Mohamed volunteered: "[The church] put an ad on their channel: 'Whoever feels in himself he has the power to defend Quran is welcome,'" he told the Dallas Observer.
The trial ended with Jones declaring the Quran guilty of "crimes against humanity" and setting it on fire. Protests and riots in Afghanistan in response to the burning left seven people dead.
Mohamed, who leads a small congregation of Sufi Muslims, a mystical sect of Islam that is generally more liberal, told the Dallas Observer that he was grateful to have a chance to defend Islam, including his own interpretation of the Quran. He didn't realize the church would actually burn the book, although Jones had threatened to do so before.
(He also wanted an excuse to take his family to nearby Disney World, he told the Washington Post.)......

.....But he was undaunted by the experience and looked for a Texas church that would be willing to host his appeal of the verdict.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9339063/ahmed-mohamed-elhassan

VERDICT?????? OF TERRY JONES?????
lol

Once upon a time, if you did something famous you got to look into a camera and tell the world that you are going to Disneyland.
That’s just about the only place that is not on the itinerary of Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas student who made a clock that a teacher feared was a bomb, setting off a series of events that turned the ninth-grader into a social-media symbol of official overreaction to his Muslim religion.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ahmed-mohamed-clock-arrest-20150917-story.html

GUESS WHO THIS IS?

CAN YOU SEE THE SIMILARITY / SPOT THE DIFFERENCE,
OR CAN YOU PERCEIVE THE WARPED PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
"IT WAS A GENUINE MISTAKE"
Obama 'Surprised,' 'Upset' When Anwar Al-Awlaki's Teenage Son Was Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

GUESS WHO THIS IS?

Freedom Rider: Ahmed Mohamed and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Submitted by*Margaret Kimberleyon*Tue, 09/22/2015 - 18:34
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

The president that expanded U.S. wars throughout the Muslim world thinks he can make himself appear Muslim-friendly by inviting a kid to the White House. President Obama “makes a mockery of principles such as the right to trial when his agenda finds democracy too inconvenient,” calmly placing people on his weekly Kill List, then pretends to empathize with a teenager victimized by Texas-style Islamophobia.
Freedom Rider: Ahmed Mohamed and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

“If Syrians and Libyans can have their countries torn asunder, then a precocious teenager can be hauled off by the police.”


“Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.”

Those words came from president Obama’s twitter account after a 14-year old Texan named Ahmed Mohamed became world famous. The high school student brought his homemade clock to school but was later escorted out in handcuffs after a teacher reported that he had a bomb. Racism, Islamophobia, draconian “zero tolerance” policies, and base ignorance all played a role in the disgraceful turn of events.

When social media turned Mohamed’s name into a household word the president weighed-in with his words of support.
But unlike other individuals who felt genuine empathy or outrage about this case, the presidential tweet came with doses of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Obama is no protector of the rights of Muslim teens, as Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s family can attest.


Abdulrahman and his father Anwar were murdered on the president’ orders in 2011. Both American citizens, they ran afoul of the never ending “war on terror” and Obama’s political ambitions in the year before his re-election campaign.


“Racism, Islamophobia, draconian “zero tolerance” policies, and base ignorance all played a role.”


In the absence of legislation, judicial precedent or any case law, Barack Obama declared that he had the right to assassinate anyone in the world, including American citizens like the Awlakis. Anwar al-Awlaki was never even charged with a crime. Like his predecessors, Obama makes a mockery of principles such as the right to trial when his agenda finds democracy too inconvenient.His acolytes love to point out that the president once taught constitutional law. That fact doesn’t count for much in reality but neither do any of the claims that justify continuing a war of terror against the Muslim world.


The Obama administration made quite a big show of announcing the “kill list” policy which ended the Awlakis lives. The New York Times was happily used as the messenger when the administration eagerly revealed the inner workings of the assassination decision making process. There was precious little outrage about the president of the United States acting like a mafia boss, even after Anwar al-Awlaki was rubbed out like a rival gangster. When his son was killed in another drone strike two weeks later the White House pretended it had all been a mistake and tried to cover their crime by claiming that the 16-year old was 21.


Needless to say there were teenage victims of the United States and NATO in Libya in 2011. That was not just a bad year for the Awlakis, but for millions of people first in Libya and then Syria who had the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the regime change line.
“His policies against the Muslim world are even more ruthless than those of his much more reviled predecessor George W. Bush.”
These aggressions should not be forgotten because the president decided to jump on the #istandwithahmed bandwagon. He may have Ramadan Iftar dinners at the White House or speak Arabic words at the opportune moment, but his policies against the Muslim world are even more ruthless than those of his much more reviled predecessor George W. Bush.
The president cannot be let off the hook because of a social media post. He bears a great deal of responsibility for the continued animus against Muslim people. By criminalizing an entire region he gives credence to the belief that its people are criminals and unworthy of being thought of as human beings. If the Awlakis can be killed, if Syrians and Libyans can have their countries torn asunder and Pakistanis and Afghans can be victims of drone strikes on presidential whims, then a precocious teenager can be hauled off by the police.


Obama has always gotten too much credit and too little scorn because he is disliked by racist, dead ender Republicans. Of course, if Fox news and Sarah Palin criticize the president’s response to the Ahmed Mohamed case he is again seen as the bulwark of enlightenment when he is in fact just the more effective evil.


Ahmed was released without being arrested and no charges were filed against him. He has been embraced by people all over the world and the White House is not alone in rolling out the red carpet of welcome. But the effects of the traumatic experience have apparently not left him. His father reported that his son has lost his appetite and isn’t sleeping well. Ahmed added that the family is now “torn and confused” by their experience.


There are thousands of Ahmeds all over the country, reliving the terror of interactions with police. There are Ahmeds in the Middle East and north Africa who have survived America’s attempts to take their lives. Unfortunately that will all be forgotten when Obama gets his photo opportunity with this teenager. He is lucky to live in Texas and not Syria. In this country the president isn’t trying to kill him.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.



http://www.blackagendareport.com/ahmed_mohamed_and_abdulrahman_al-awlaki

Nasser has repeatedly demanded accountability for Abdulrahman's death, which the White House and its allies have struggled to explain.


Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary and senior adviser to Obama's reelection campaign, drew criticism for suggesting Abdulrahman would've been alive if he had a more responsible father.


"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children," Gibbs told reporters after a 2012 presidential debate. "I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."


Earlier this year, White House press secretary Jay Carney defended Obama's drone policy when pressed on a leaked Justice Department memo detailing the broad rationale the administration uses for its targeted killing program.


"I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred," Carney said when a reporter brought up the killing of Abdulrahman and asked if the teenager was a "senior operational leader" of a terrorist group.


Obama has also defended the conduct of his drone program, insisting his administration takes significant steps to avoid civilian casualties. But the president has declined to get into much detail about the al-Awlaki killings, offering instead his explanation of when an American citizen is a fair target.
"I think there's no doubt that when an American has made the decision to affiliate himself with al Qaeda and target fellow Americans, that there is a legal justification for us to try and stop them from carrying out plots,"
Obama told CNN in September. "What is also true though is that as an American citizen, they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process."

AMY*GOODMAN:*I wanted to bring Sheikh Saleh bin Fareed into this conversation and ask you to respond to President Obama saying that they wanted to prosecute Anwar al-Awlaki but could not find—could not get him, so they had to kill him. You, Saleh bin Fareed, are the head of the Aulaq tribe. Did the U.S. ever ask you to hand him over?

SALEH*BIN*FAREED:*In fact, I had been approached by President Ali Abdullah Saleh some years ago, and he asked me if I cou persuade Anwar to come to live in Sana’a or in Aden.
Anwar was living in a side—in Awlaki territory, and he was living peacefully, going to the mosque, meeting people in a small village. And, in fact—and he told me, "Please, try and convince him. We want him to come and live in Sana’a. And the Americans, they don’t want him to live in the Awlaki sheikhdom."

So I went, I met Anwar, I spoke to him, and he told me, "Uncle, please. I have—I got bored by living in Sana’a. I had been in jail for a long time, and they could not prove anything to me. And I am afraid if I go back to Sana’a, they will put me in jail again. So I want to be alone here in this peaceful village. And please assure them that I have nothing to do whatsoever with al-Qaeda. I have—I know nothing about it. But I hope they don’t force me to go to the end." I tried to convince him that he will be in peace, but he said, "I don’t trust neither the American government nor the Yemeni government for my safety. And just tell them that I have nothing to do whatsoever with al-Qaeda. And all I do, I mean, I do it openly. I go to the mosque. I meet people. And that’s all."

AMY*GOODMAN:*Sheikh Saleh bin Fareed, if the U.S. government had presented you with evidence, would you have turned Anwar al-Awlaki over to U.S. forces or to the Yemeni government?

SALEH*BIN*FAREED:*For sure, I would have done it. And I am sure his father would have done it. I have known Anwar for a long time, since he was a child. Anwar was—he was born to be honest. He born to be a leader. He was a very promising young man. He was loved by the people all over the country, by the tribesmen, by the Middle East people, by the politicians. And he was welcomed anywhere he would go. But I assure you he got nothing whatsoever to do what they—for what they claim. And I am sure I could have handed him over, me and my family, but they never, ever asked us to do that.

AMY*GOODMAN:*Nasser al-Awlaki, let me ask you the same question. You’re the father of Anwar al-Awlaki. If the U.S. government had presented you with evidence and you were convinced, would you have handed your son over?

NASSER*AL-AWLAKI:*Well, you know, if we go back, you know, when I wrote the letter to Mr. Obama telling him not to target my son, and I asked him to give me some time to have a dialogue with my son and convince him to not to make any sermons, even sermons against the United States of America or any other country, yet I got no response from the United States government. So there was no effort on the side of the United States government that they wanted to capture Anwar and put him to trial if they had anything against him. So, believe me, if the United States government gave me a concrete evidence against Anwar, I would have done my best to convince Anwar to come to Sana’a or to go even to the United States and face a trial.

But it was only allegations. For example, Mr. Obama in his speech claimed that Anwar was the foreign director of al-Qaeda operations in Yemen. This is a big lie. Al-Qaeda never claimed that Anwar is a member of their organization. They always called him a sheikh, Anwar al-Awlaki. They never claimed he is a member of their organization. They never said he had an office or any official standing in that organization. Even Anwar himself, he never claimed—he never said anything regarding that he is a member or not a member of al-Qaeda. So it is a complete lie. And I am really astonished that the American president, who made an oath that he will protect the American Constitution, will say something like this against an American citizen, who has never been alleged to make any crime, and he was not given the chance to say his—to come to court and defend himself.

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13696

 

[sfontel]

Should we start a new thread...San Bernardino?

 

[Search]

:bism:

Should we start a new thread...San Bernardino?

Hi!

There's already a thread on it.