What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

[Search]

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

Technically yes.

It's not a "technically yes." It is a yes. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.

But it's not so clearly refuted.

I'm a "traditional" Muslim and I can honestly say it's refuted. But being a non-Muslim listening to Sam Harris and not being in the know-how, I wouldn't expect you to think so.

Vigilante "justice" is sometimes praised, not just by Islamic scholars who are under Shariah law but by Islamic scholars in Scotland, for example. It all depends on exactly what was done in order to break Islamic law, and if a scholar or imam or the head of a mosque is sufficiently offended by the blasphemer (or whatever) then the act of vigilante justice might, sometimes, get some praise. And if the violent man is not killed by authorities on the spot, then whatever punishment he receives from the state might take some criticism.

As an analogy, I saw many Christians praising the Orlando shooting on the Internet. So, what's your point? Let me just rewrite this sentence, "It all depends on exactly what was done in order to break a Biblical commandment, and if a priest or pastor is sufficiently offended by the homosexual (or whatever) the vigilante justice might, sometimes, get some praise." Example Roger Jimenez and Steven L. Anderson.

PREJUDICED you are, thank you for proving my point.

Yes it is officially disallowed in the way that you describe, and of course every single non Muslim in the West is going to make that abundantly clear every chance they get. But Muslims, some of whom are in positions of trust and authority, are not 100% consistent in the application of this rule, and that is where the confusion comes from.

A person doesn't inherit Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any religion or atheism. If a person wants to kill someone, he/she will.

What, you think the US or the UK is somehow responsible for helping Muslims understand that they can enforce Shariah law? No no no, that wasn't us.

Actually, it was. Terrorism and extremism happens because the 24/7 news streaming has allowed society to feel unsafe and perpetrated this clash of civilizations idea because most of the press that Islam and Muslims gets is currently negative in most parts of the world. So, feeling attacked and persecuted or isolated or alienated, Muslims who lack religious literacy in Islam, as MI6 and FBI studies show, do turn to vigilantism.

That would be certain Muslims who create this confusion. You do acknowledge that there is some confusion on this point, right? And I hope you know who caused there to be some confusion. They practice a religion, and it's Islam.

Okay. Let me rewrite about abortion being likened to murder and the Planned Parenthood shooting. "That would be certain Christians who create this confusion. You do acknowledge that there is some confusion on this point, right? And I hope you know who caused there to be some confusion. They practice a religion, and it's Christianity." You're welcome.

Anywhere that shariah is enforced, that's a great place for it to stop being enforced.

No, what other countries or do not do is not your business, and you shouldn't poke your nose in other people's business. Didn't your mother teach you that when you were growing up?

Religious law must always be optional, and we should be judged according to that law after death and at no other time before then. Until that point, while we're alive, religious practice and adherence should be optional for everyone and the laws that govern our public spaces should be secular in nature, promoting the equal treatment of all people and of all religions.

Religious law cannot be option for Muslims; and that is because you don't know shariah. Shariah is only part penalty, but the bulk of shariah focuses on meeting everyday needs of a Muslim person such as going to work, praying, dressing modestly, how to behave in intermixed gathering, diet, and so and on and so forth. However, the penalty part can only be enforced by a legitimate Caliphate in a nation-state and not a person believing or even seeing that someone has broken the shariah. This is not an "optional" part for the vigilante to consider.

But of course that's not the official teaching of Islam.

But of course you being a Christian know what the official teaching of Islam is. If you were a student talking about Islam and your proficiency was judged by Islamic scholars, they'd probably give you a "D." How about you learn Islam from Islamic sources? I'll even give you guidance on where to find your Islamic course - Seekershub.org. The course is going to be starting in October 3 or thereabouts; you should think about taking some. Who knows? You might even find some more ammunition against Islam and Muslims, right? So, go on, take some.

PEACE.

 

[Zafran]

Sigh. Islam plus terrorism inevitably leads to an eternal hatred of the US

Not true Russia, China, serbia are a great example of hatred for the US - they also create state terrorism to keep US influences out of the region.

Your definition of "terrorism" i dont agree with at all.

Terrorism minus Islam reliably leads to that not being the case

 

[Zafran]

My sister currently resides in Saudi Arabia. She enjoys being in public without a head covering, and she enjoys driving. She's a very good driver, been doing it for a long time. She also enjoys inviting non-Christians to explore Christianity and consider becoming a Christian.

In what part of Saudi Arabia is she able to do any of those things?

strawman again he was talking about Muhammad pbuh not the state made in the 20th century. Very crafty there.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day.

The very first reaction to a new idea is either hostility or else indifference. You can easily see that for a religious idea, the reaction preferred by the proponents of the idea is obviously hostility. It is their hostility that will lead these opponents to investigate the idea. From there on, a number of them will try to become experts at the idea, in order to better express their hostility. However, there is very little difference between clergy and anti-clergy. Both have to be extremely well trained in the religious idea, in order to do their jobs. For the anti-clergy, defeating the religious idea increasingly becomes unattractive, because they have invested so much time and energy in investigating it. Soon, their real enemies, worthy of the worst insults, are no longer the proponents of the religious idea, but its less trained opponents. That explains why the nature of an anti-Islamic forum is to be a place where anti-Islamists more knowledgeable of Islam incessantly insult anti-Islamists deemed ignorant of Islam. Eventually, they stand to lose more from the disappearance of Islam than the Muslims themselves. The typical career path of an anti-Islamist are erstwhile pagan women who becomes scriptural experts in Islam -- the very minimum is to be able to recite the Quran from memory -- who end up swapping sides, and marrying a Muslim husband, whom they incessantly taunt and put down, for the lack of knowledge of the Islamic scriptures that they perceive in him.

 

[cooterhein]

* links are green and underlined

Greetings @cooterhein

I think that your perspective is a simplistic view of reality. It seems that it’s based on an evangelical Christian-American worldview – with Islam as the enemy (black and white problem).

These issues are actually more complex than what you’re making them out to be and I think you’ve been given some pretty good answers by our Members here.

I’ll try and add something to think about as well.

You see, there was a time when I labelled as crazy conspiracy theorist anyone who talked about active, continuous, and intrusive government surveillance. Then Edward Snowden came along.

Similarly, it was difficult to believe that anyone in the US Government could plot false flag terrorist attacks similar to those on 9/11. I thought that no one in the government would even think of doing something like this. That’s unthinkable. Then I was made aware of “Operation Northwoods”. Related declassified documents http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

The revelations made by Edward Snowden were illegal according to the Obama Administration. The US Government denied such activities existed until the leaks in 2013.

The Kennedy Administration documents relating to Operation Northwoods were declassified in 1997.

Please remember that the above examples – although public now – are related to secret government plans and activities. Both are related to governmental entities engaging in unethical behavior to further an agenda.

Under normal circumstances, information on contemporary covert operations aren’t revealed until years later – if at all.

For the sake of brevity, I am not going to provide complete information of the above in this post and request our respected readers to visit the provided links above if not already acquainted with this information.

That said, I am going to show you another example of how the US Government engaged in specific and directed unethical activities to further an agenda – how it directly fostered what you have termed as “Islamic terror”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on 3/23/2002 @ The Washington Post

From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.

Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."

The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise. A number of government agencies are discussing what can be done to counter these trends.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits.

AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books.

"Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.

"I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force.

AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.

Officials said private humanitarian groups paid for continued reprintings during the Taliban years. Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers.

"The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.

An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.

The military content was included to "stimulate resistance against invasion," explained Yaquib Roshan of Nebraska's Afghanistan center. "Even in January, the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it."

During the Taliban era, censors purged human images from the books. One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing.

Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.

"We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."

After the United States launched a military campaign last year, the United Nations' education agency, UNICEF, began preparing to reopen Afghanistan's schools, using new books developed with 70 Afghan educators and 24 private aid groups. In early January, UNICEF began printing new texts for many subjects but arranged to supply copies of the old, unrevised U.S. books for other subjects, including Islamic instruction.

Within days, the Afghan interim government announced that it would use the old AID-produced texts for its core school curriculum. UNICEF's new texts could be used only as supplements.

Earlier this year, the United States tapped into its $296 million aid package for rebuilding Afghanistan to reprint the old books, but decided to purge the violent references.

About 18 of the 200 titles the United States is republishing are primarily Islamic instructional books, which agency officials refer to as "civics" courses. Some books teach how to live according to the Koran, Brown said, and "how to be a good Muslim."

UNICEF is left with 500,000 copies of the old "militarized" books, a $200,000 investment that it has decided to destroy, according to U.N. officials.

On Feb. 4, Brown arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said.

"We turned it from a wartime curriculum to a peacetime curriculum," he said.

Illustrations of land mines and knives, found in a math primer bought last week in Pakistan, resemble drawings found in old schoolbooks furnished to Afghans by AID.First lady Laura Bush told Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, on Jan. 29 that AID would provide $6.5 million for new textbooks and for training teachers.

Thanks very much for this information, I wasn't fully aware of how long the Afghan textbook situation went on for or the controversy of that funding. I would be curious to know more specifics as to which parts of the education most influenced the later development of al Qaeda's religious teaching, especially where jihad is concerned. I'm sure there were some other things that fed into that too, right?

Anyway, Afghanistan is terribly important especially in the origins of modern terror, and I do hope there can be some course correction in that country. It doesn't look like the US is able to make that happen though, so I'm wondering what it will take and who can do it.

 

[cooterhein]

strawman again he was talking about Muhammad pbuh not the state made in the 20th century. Very crafty there.

To the best of what I am understanding here, he was actually saying that in comparison to Mohammed, way back when, shariah states later than that and up to the present day supposedly retain the practice of local laws that are more accommodating for non Muslims. It's funny how the same comment required two entirely different clarifications, though.

 

[cooterhein]

It's not a "technically yes." It is a yes. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.

Says the official spokesperson of all Muslims, you? Islam doesn't have a pope, so it's incredibly difficult to say anything about all Muslims in a way that's entirely unqualified.

As an analogy, I saw many Christians praising the Orlando shooting on the Internet. So, what's your point?

The Internet can be relied on for stupid hurtful comments on any given thing, seems to be your point. My point was that fairly important Muslims in leadership roles can sometimes be relied on for the same things, but that's a larger controversy because of what their roles are.

Let me just rewrite this sentence

No, that won't be necessary.

Example Roger Jimenez and Steven L. Anderson.

Roger Jimenez, you mean this guy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pastor-roger-jimenez-orlando_us_576c25a8e4b0d575ae421b6e

Actually, it was. Terrorism and extremism happens because the 24/7 news streaming has allowed society to feel unsafe and perpetrated this clash of civilizations idea

That is an unpleasant thing, but it doesn't specifically teach anyone that Shariah should be compulsory for everyone or that democracy and modernity are antithetical to Islam. I would very much like to say that Islam does not teach that, but there's all these Muslims who say that's exactly what Islam teaches. Including on this forum. In fact, there's an active thread as of right now that asks if Gulenism is a deviant sect. According to Huzaifah ibn Adam, and I seriously did not know this, Gulenism is deviant for these reasons, and I quote,

"1) Modernist views.
2) Belief in democracy.
3) Believing Jews and Christians can go to Jannah.

Someone who has done some research into the Gulen movement can list many more points, I'm sure.
In any case, the movement is a deviant one."
And you can find that page here. http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/134341568-gulen-movement-72-deviant-sects.html

If it were up to me, I would say go ahead and be a Gulenist, you can opt out of some of those beliefs if you like but much of that should be compatible with Islam. For me personally, I think that Islam should be seen as compatible with democracy and modernity, and I think it's insane to believe that a billion and a half Muslims are compelled to be against those things, or else be deviant.

I don't want to call those beliefs deviant, but who does? You tell me.

Okay. Let me rewrite

No, not going to let you do that.

about abortion being likened to murder and the Planned Parenthood shooting.

Yes, those were Christians, every time an abortion clinic has been attacked. It was the violent enforcement of their religious beliefs that led to their actions, and there is even a group called the Army of God that focuses primarily on abortion-related acts of terror. I do condemn this vigilante behavior and suggest that those on the Right in the US who make abortion a large issue (which is pretty much all of them) should not forget that these things are happening, these acts of violence have their political and religious beliefs as their origin, and they should make a more consistent point of condemning such actions. That goes for conservative pastors and for politicians, and increasingly sometimes both at the same time.

What I don't do is blame the victim, or blame society at large for making these people feel lonely and marginalized. As if that's the same thing as telling them to kill the wrongdoers and punish the sinners. No it's not the same thing.

No, what other countries or do not do is not your business, and you shouldn't poke your nose in other people's business. Didn't your mother teach you that when you were growing up?

Not exactly, no. You know I'm an American, right? My country's sphere of influence goes everywhere, this is kind of what we do.

Religious law cannot be optional for Muslims;

Actually it can. You can simply choose to order your life by it, or not. No punishment or penalty either way. That's it.

However, the penalty part can only be enforced by a legitimate Caliphate in a nation-state

I can't help but observe that there are not one, but two different non-legitimate Caliphates in different parts of the world, self-described Caliphates that have not succeeded in overthrowing and replacing a government and they do not control anything like a proper nation-state. Granted, they're not Supposed to be enforcing Shariah law, but what exactly are they doing with their legal systems, such as they are?

and not a person believing or even seeing that someone has broken the shariah. This is not an "optional" part for the vigilante to consider.

I actually am glad to see you saying this, I just wish it was equally clear to more people. I also wish you could be against the enforcement of Shariah law in the abstract, without qualifications like "well first you have to have a legitimate caliphate in charge of a nation-state, do you think you can get that set up? Because then you'll be good." Because, you see, when you put it out there like that people are going to try and set up a legitimate caliphate within a nation-state. But that is just a terrible idea, both in the process of doing so and in its long term effect, and you should be against all of that as well.

 

[Serinity]

if you want to know who causes terror and stuff, look at the humans. Some terrorists just use religion, in this case Islam, as "front" for their ambitions.

No doubt, all Muslims wants shariah. But are we going to blame Shariah/Islam, for what some extremists do? No. Most of those extremists have been rarely practicing, or haven't read the Quran or sat with a teacher, TO my knowledge.

Best thing is to settle it with dialogue between scholars and go back to the Quran, and back to where The extremists gets their views from. Most likely they read a verse out of context, and use that, kill non muslims who are noncombatants and calls it "Jihad".

Rather, we should face the extremists with facts from the Quran and The Sunnah, and go back to the verses where they justified extremism or terrorism.

we will not be able to "persuade" even this word "persuade" holds negative connotations imo. we should go back to the Quran and see what Allah says to us.

Those extremists are our brothers who has transgressed against us, lets help them by sincerely going back to the Quran and learn together with the extremists.

I doubt mere arguements about right and wrong will persuade them, nor will "trust".

And I doubt us working with kuffar to bring back extremists will work either, nor will trying to "sugarcoat" Islam.
This is already working towards a dead end imo.

we should learn Quran with a good sincere scholar, and we should learn about Jihad. Offensive Jihad, and Defensive Jihad. Etc.

While they may be on the other end of extremism, we may fall to the other end of extremism/neglect.

In other words - modernists or deviants are 1 kind of extremism. If we should help them out of extremism, we should help ourselves too! For I doubt they are the only ones. we may be too!
Allahu alam tho.

 

[kritikvernunft]

... I think that Islam should be seen as compatible with democracy and modernity ...

What is democracy? What is modernity? And why would these things be goals in themselves?

Without precise definition, these terms are meaningless. In fact, they are pretty much always used in a meaningless way.
They are meaningless on purpose. If you like something, call it democratic, and if you don't, also give it a meaningless name, but then with negative connotations, such as: dictatorial.

That is the danger that you run, when you refuse to sail under the flag of morality(=scriptures) or the flag of provability (=math) or at least the flag of falsifiability (=science). In that case, you will always be sailing under the flag of ideology (=arbitrary conjectures). Every statement pronounced under the flag of ideology will ultimately turn out to be inconsistent and even contradictory.

In other words, you will not be able, not even to save yourself from drowning, to avoid pronouncing contradictions and inconsistencies when refining the concepts of democracy or modernity. Hence, these terms are fundamentally dumb and imbecile. They carry with them the seeds of stupidity.

 

[M.I.A.]

My sister currently resides in Saudi Arabia. She enjoys being in public without a head covering, and she enjoys driving. She's a very good driver, been doing it for a long time. She also enjoys inviting non-Christians to explore Christianity and consider becoming a Christian.

In what part of Saudi Arabia is she able to do any of those things?

I think this is the ultimate argument really.

replace Christian with muslim in your post and you have the perspective of most people in the thread.

bearing this in mind Imo.. I can give you a totally unrelated answer.

if a person wanders the land unaccompanied by religion.. how does he judge the people he meets?

who needs convincing to be nice..

or why are they not nice?

to be fair, she is THE spokesperson for Christians.. she shouldn't have to convert anyone.

her being where she is, is a test of the people and herself.. although a persons intentions may or may not make a difference..

the wider audience will have its say either way.

the worst part of your post is if the same attitudes you assume are present, were present in western civilisations.

you can only do what is put in front of you.


erroneous beliefs do not endure apparently.. although you could be mistaken since Jews and christians still make up a sizeable population all over the world.

but life is the same everywhere.

all praise is due to Allah swt alone and without partner.

:/

leaving religion at a side, she will come to her own conclusions no matter where she goes.

any discrimination she faces can be mirrored on any number of points in any number of countries..

social standing, wealth, race, religion, sex, political views..

whatever.

the media never really tells me anything good about Africa although missionaries are a bit before my time.

what is the goal here?

 

[M.I.A.]

knowledge is not power, application of knowledge is power.

..in the difference between the two, there is an understanding of something.

...no point talking a good game.

your mother, your mother, your mother..

and then your father..

strange days.

 

[cooterhein]

I think this is the ultimate argument really.
replace Christian with muslim in your post and you have the perspective of most people in the thread.
bearing this in mind Imo.. I can give you a totally unrelated answer.
if a person wanders the land unaccompanied by religion.. how does he judge the people he meets?
who needs convincing to be nice..
or why are they not nice?

to be fair, she is THE spokesperson for Christians.. she shouldn't have to convert anyone.

The main reason she's inclined to do so is because Jesus said to and it's a rather large part of Christian faith and practice.

her being where she is, is a test of the people and herself.. although a persons intentions may or may not make a difference..
the wider audience will have its say either way.

the worst part of your post is if the same attitudes you assume are present, were present in western civilisations.

Okay, let's compare. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for anyone to be a citizen of KSA and have permanent residence there, unless that person is Muslim. It is illegal for anyone to try and persuade a Saudi citizen to leave Islam. If any Saudi citizen does decide to leave Islam, that is illegal and potentially punishable by death.

Now let's look at the United States. There is no religious test for citizenship, and that idea is fundamentally rejected from our very foundation. If a Muslim (US citizen or not) wants to persuade a Christian to leave their religion, that is entirely permissible. And if a Christian does decide to leave the religion they were raised in and join Islam, the worst thing that may happen is their family doesn't like it. From a legal standpoint, nothing happens. It's not a story.

you can only do what is put in front of you.
erroneous beliefs do not endure apparently.. although you could be mistaken since Jews and christians still make up a sizeable population all over the world.

Those aren't erroneous beliefs. So maybe there is something to that.

leaving religion at a side, she will come to her own conclusions no matter where she goes.
any discrimination she faces can be mirrored on any number of points in any number of countries..

No. It can't. As the most obvious example, KSA continues to be the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Some things about Islam are very unique, and not in a good way.

the media never really tells me anything good about Africa although missionaries are a bit before my time.

what is the goal here?

I'm not sure if I understand the question. What is the goal of missionaries? If that's the question, the goal is to invite people to become Christians and then help establish a permanent religious community (of the Christian variety) where there didn't used to be one. Sometimes missionaries also make a point of doing humanitarian work of some kind, sometimes missionaries are also doctors or they also teach people English or they are also teachers or pilots, they aren't necessarily full time pastors as their main occupation although sometimes they are. Some missionaries also make a point of training converts to be pastors and then train pastors to train pastors which all works toward the goal of establishing a permanent religious community. An excellent example of that can be seen here. http://www.entrust4.org/about/our-ministries/africa
Dr. Chitlango is a guy that I know, and the missionaries who helped him convert to Christianity ten years before the fall of Communism in Mozambique are people that I have known for quite a long time (they were, anyway, they died within the past few years) but they spent their last handful of years in the US attending church with me, following over 50 years of being missionaries in Africa- mostly in Mozambique and South Africa. They mostly focused on developing seminary programs and training people at all levels of running a seminary. Now Dr. Chitlango is the main guy running the show.

If that's not what you were asking, I must ask for clarification.

By the way, this is exactly the sort of thing that Christians would like to do in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (and China and a few other places too) without any sort of onerous government interference. Maybe one day, right?

 

[Abz2000]

Islam is clear on it's position of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood and a Muslim doesn't pretend to be neutral between the above mentioned conditions whereas the American government does pretend that everyone is free to do what they like - to the extent of displaying a huge idol of a woman which imaginarily confirms that everyone except those who live within the borders are free, whereas the religion (way of life practiced by the community) imposed upon the people is worship of any individual (backed and controlled by a group) that assumes presidency. This fact became stark during the branch davidian massacre.

Anyways, America was never a democracy and was claimed to be a republic when the freemasons running the show in America staged a theatrical coup in cohesion with the freemasons running the monarchy in England, (just as with india) there was no "independence".
it is only much later that certain people decided that the republican system despite it's liberalist constitution was still too conservative and rigid for their liking and with the force of the print media and monopoly on mass consent in their hands began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now, with "republicans" and "democrats" sparring on a fake stage whilst the false "conservatives" push manipulate indignance into bigotry "patriotism" and war, and use the false "liberals" to change any law the aristocrats become uncomfortable with in the name of the people lol.

Anyways, did you know that:

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

By*Global Post |*November 27, 2015

.....Almost twice as many people have died in attacks by right-wing groups in America than have died in attacks by "Muslim extremists". Of the 26 attacks since 9/11 that the group defined as terror, 19 were carried out by non-Muslims. Yet there are no white Americans languishing inside the prison camp at*Guantanamo Bay. And there are no drones dropping bombs on gatherings of*military-age males*in the country’s*lawless border regions.......

 

[cooterhein]

Islam is clear on it's position of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood and a Muslim doesn't pretend to be neutral between the above mentioned conditions whereas the American government does pretend that everyone is free to do what they like - to the extent of displaying a huge idol of a woman which imaginarily confirms that everyone except those who live within the borders are free,

Hey now, that was a gift. From France. In the spirit of a certain French-origin philosophy, mainly pertaining to liberty equality and fraternity. So why would France, who gave us this set of ideas, build a statue that says America is the only country that has this figured out?

Or maybe it's not really saying that.

Anyways, America was never a democracy and was claimed to be a republic

It's really both.

it is only much later that certain people decided that the republican system despite it's liberalist constitution was still too conservative and rigid for their liking and with the force of the print media and monopoly on mass consent in their hands began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now, with "republicans" and "democrats" sparring on a fake stage whilst the false "conservatives" push manipulate indignance into bigotry "patriotism" and war, and use the false "liberals" to change any law the aristocrats become uncomfortable with in the name of the people lol.

Some of that is kind of accurate.

Anyways, did you know that:

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

I'm well aware of the fact that white Americans are the largest people-group in the United States, so what's really going to matter is proportions. Are white Americans disproportionately likely to pose a terror threat? I don't know, and I don't really expect you to greet this question with a straight answer. You should, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

 

[Abz2000]

Hey now, that was a gift. From France. In the spirit of a certain French-origin philosophy, mainly pertaining to liberty equality and fraternity. So why would France, who gave us this set of ideas, build a statue that says America is the only country that has this figured out?

Or maybe it's not really saying that.

Lol France was the first country in which a freemasonic coup in the guise of "enlightenment" (freedom to be force enslaved by satanic vice) took governmental control after the templars were disbanded and lynched for "satanism, heresy, ritual idol worship, blackmail and extortion" after the freemasons regrouped in scotland and also took over england, founded the "bank of england" in 1694, and immediately turned scotland and england into "the kingdom of great britain" (1707), userers also funded both sides of the napoleonic war between england and france, then rothschild took over the assets on the london stock exchange after totally shorting it and also bought the entire british government bond market. The rothschild banking agents are the founders of what is now called mi5 (you know the one with the big eye of "providence" on it's seal?). Putting up a masonic leader to posture against you when the people begin to snarl is nothing unfamiliar with the masons, the east india company's residual nehru gandhi family nurtured and trained by the templar founded "inner temple" in london and grand lodges of india were put up during the final stages of "revolution" in india and still rule there from time to time.


“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769-1821

In order to grasp the magnitude of the evil works of the socio-paths, one must take into account all historical, economical, political, financial, and social events of our past. It is often difficult to get past the bias of the information provided by each individual division, but it is impossible to ignore the constant denominator negatively influencing and undermining the integrity of all, the INTERNATIONAL BANKERS.
Curt, Pittsburg.

It's really both.

The founders of America told the people something very different to what they agreed to write into the constitution:


Benjamin Franklin

“two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”


John Adams

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.


Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.


Benjamin Franklin

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.

Fraser Tyler

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.* It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.* From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”


We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.John Adams
(The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

Read Morehttp://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry

(What do you think he would have said of unrepentant adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, and bestialites that revel and riot on america's streets with the consent of their government?)




Benjamin Franklin

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary


It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.

Patrick Henry

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

Thomas Jefferson

Read Morehttp://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

Some of that is kind of accurate.

Ya know dat.

Anyways, did you know that:

I'm well aware of the fact that white Americans are the largest people-group in the United States, so what's really going to matter is proportions. Are white Americans disproportionately likely to pose a terror threat? I don't know, and I don't really expect you to greet this question with a straight answer. You should, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

I sure will
The men behind the PNAC document (which set america's blueprint for the century) RAND, blackwater "xe", are the people who do will do the most damage to America and carry out most of the false flag events and set up most of the violent incidents to distract and manipulate the public, and are nearly all -if not totally all- white fake christians, practicing atheists, and high level freemasons and members of other secret societies which are founded upon masonry running up to and beyond the satanic builders (masons) and divers of Prophet Solomon (pbuh)'s time. - all of whom are non-Muslims and are haters of what God has revealed, and devotees of perversion.
A Muslim however does not make a distinction based on skin colour, that was the newspaper article writer who's probably never been to Makkah and seen for him/her self the diversity in skin colour, possibly the most diverse at one place at the same time on the planet.
but yes, the people behind PNAC and others who work alongside them are diaproportionately the most dangerous people and disproportionate cause most of the irrational violence on the planet today.

 

[kritikvernunft]

This fact became stark during the branch davidian massacre.

Where is their Virtual Association discussing these events? My reaction would be to collect evidence as well as followers, and make all of that the only agenda of a Virtual Association, which would have no other goal than to deal with this. It is very possible to make it pretty much impossible for National States to attack or shut down Virtual Associations, prevent communications or prevent it from collecting funds from its members. National States are powerless against technologies such as the tor network and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. All that the members need to do, is to route ALL their communications about Virtual-Association matters through thoroughly encrypted channels. Members should not know any information about each other that could possibly identify them. The entire tor and I2P networks already function like that today. That kind of information asymmetry is undefeatable. It is clear and obvious to anybody today that the final offensive against the National States will be orchestrated from there.

... began a push to liberate themselves slowly from the checks and balances of the republic and began a so called "democracy" movement and slowly, via bait and shove turned it into the totally corrupt authoritarian usury dominated mess it is now ...

The starting point was merely an ideological conjecture already. Therefore, it does not matter really what it has degenerated into. As long as you refuse to believe in its legitimacy, no matter what form it came from, or what form it transformed into, you can be saved! ;-)

 

[Abz2000]

Where is their Virtual Association discussing these events? My reaction would be to collect evidence as well as followers, and make all of that the only agenda of a Virtual Association, which would have no other goal than to deal with this. It is very possible to make it pretty much impossible for National States to attack or shut down Virtual Associations, prevent communications or prevent it from collecting funds from its members. National States are powerless against technologies such as the tor network and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. All that the members need to do, is to route ALL their communications about Virtual-Association matters through thoroughly encrypted channels. Members should not know any information about each other that could possibly identify them. The entire tor and I2P networks already function like that today. That kind of information asymmetry is undefeatable. It is clear and obvious to anybody today that the final offensive against the National States will be orchestrated from there.

Lol, why is your conversation almost always encrypted?
if it was plain and straightforward i could try to make sense of it, otherwise i'd be trying to interpret the shapes and possibly causing damage......one thing you should be aware of though is the fact that computers can decrypt most conversations based on patterns, whether theiy're heiroglyphs or babel, unless every single word is encrypted separately and has a separate key, and google's other robots can trawl through most - if not all - servers on the web, whether deep or shallow, robots.txt is a joke. Digital currency as i said earlier is a banking industry scam that wouldn't take seconds for certain groups to crash, reboot, and hack before defence systems were up and running.
Even if you buy a brand new phone and sim, tape up cameras, all it takes is for you to type a few conversations and "hello world" will set it's algorythms to detect writing pattens, touch typing speed, etc and pull up your profile.

But it is more fitting that we fear and heed Allah:


7.*Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among them, - Nor between five but He makes the sixth,- nor between fewer nor more, but He is in their midst, wheresoever they be: In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Quran 58:7

39.*On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to his sin.
40.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
41.*(For) the criminals will be known by their marks: and they will be seized by their forelocks and their feet.
42.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
43.*This is the Hell which the Sinners deny:
44.*In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!
45.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
46.*But for such as fear the time when they will stand before (the Judgment Seat of) their Lord, there will be two Gardens
47.*Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
From Quran Chapter 55

The starting point was merely an ideological conjecture already. Therefore, it does not matter really what it has degenerated into. As long as you refuse to believe in its legitimacy, no matter what form it came from, or what form it transformed into, you can be saved! ;-)

That's if a specific idea is merely an ideological conjecture and not real.
Allah is real and you know it, so be aware that truth overcomes falsehood since truth is solid whereas falsehood illusory magic.

 

[cooterhein]

Lol France was the first country in which a freemasonic coup....after the freemasons regrouped in scotland and also took over england, founded the "bank of england" in 1694....userers also funded both sides of the napoleonic war between england and france....The rothschild banking agents are the founders of what is now called mi5...put up during the final stages of "revolution" in india and still rule there from time to time.

Getting back to the original point, you acknowledge that my initial objection to your characterization of the Statue of Liberty was well founded. Let's just get this where it needs to go.

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769-1821

That's a reasonable point, Napoleon was a smart guy. Did you know that he introduced the printing press to Egypt? Left four of them behind, as he fled by night from a country that didn't want him as a ruler. It allowed Egypt to get a bit of a jump on the rest of the ummah, which continued to say "The printing press is haram! And we'd rather have our Korans printed in Italy" for another hundred years, plus a little. Because, you know, Islam. And now the printing press is fine, it's great, it is acceptable, because Islam.

The founders of America told the people something very different to what they agreed to write into the constitution:

I'm actually quite familiar with the founders of America. But go ahead, do some quote mining.

Benjamin Franklin

“two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Let me start by saying I like this quote. Really, I like it a lot, I enjoy it and it does good things for me. The thing is, Ben Franklin did not say this or write this.

First, it can't be found in anything he wrote. It just can't. Second, the word "lunch" did not start to be used in the English language until the 1820's, which was decades after his death. Third, the tone and construction of the entire thing is stylistically off, it belongs in the 20th century and the last part of it is very likely not quite as old as the Internet, which is the place where this is widely attributed to Ben Franklin but not through any proper citation.

This is some proper citation.

"A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990.

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which must not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights," Los Angeles Times 12 January 1992.

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard, "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty" 1994.

Good news though, the other quotes were accurately attributed, although you could have been more specific in your citations.

Next up, I asked you to evaluate the proportionality of terror attacks since 9/11. You said

I sure will

And I'll believe it when I see it.

The men behind the PNAC document (which set america's blueprint for the century) RAND, blackwater "xe", are the people who do will do the most damage to America and carry out most of the false flag events and set up most of the violent incidents to distract and manipulate the public, and are nearly all -if not totally all- white fake christians, practicing atheists, and high level freemasons and members of other secret societies which are founded upon masonry running up to and beyond the satanic builders (masons) and divers of Prophet Solomon (pbuh)'s time. - all of whom are non-Muslims and are haters of what God has revealed, and devotees of perversion.
A Muslim however does not make a distinction based on skin colour, that was the newspaper article writer who's probably never been to Makkah and seen for him/her self the diversity in skin colour, possibly the most diverse at one place at the same time on the planet.
but yes, the people behind PNAC and others who work alongside them are diaproportionately the most dangerous people and disproportionate cause most of the irrational violence on the planet today.

And I did not see it. That wasn't it. Here, let me help you with that.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

There have been 28 separate terror attacks in the United States since 9/11. Here, they are helpfully categorized by jihadist attacks and Far Right attacks. Guess which one did more? You're right, it was the Far Right, 18 attacks by them and 10 by the jihadists! Well done. But guess who killed more people? Oh, that's too bad, it was the jihadists and the margin is nearly 2-1. That Orlando shooting really shows up in these figures, it was the most deadly US mass shooting of all time after all with 49 dead. The deadliest attack by the Far Right was the Charleston shooting at the AME church where Dylann Roof shot 9 people last year, and he was recently beat up in prison on the birthday of President Obama. George Zimmerman was beat up on that day as well, making it an official Top 5 Day for black people in America. https://onsizzle.com/i/tweet-dylan-roof-and-george-zimmerman-got-faded-on-teh-1807513

Getting back to the main point though, two additional attacks by jihadists were more deadly than that one, specifically Fort Hood in 09 and San Bernardino last year, at 13 and 14 respectively.

So what can we say about proportionality? Well, jihadist attacks are more deadly by far despite there being fewer of them, so you're out of luck there. It would be even worse if we took 9/11 into account, which we're not because...just because, apparently. Even so, jihadists are more deadly than the far right by a fair margin. But there were fewer attacks, which- congratulations- is the best possible way in which these numbers can be interpreted in your favor! Well done. 10 attacks out of 28, that is 35.7% but let's just call it 35, okay? Now what we're going to do is compare 35% to the percentage of the US that is Muslim. And that figure, according to figures from the beginning of this year, is 1%. Granted, it's been growing and is projected to increase substantially over the next little while here, but currently that stands at 1%.

Now we must ask ourselves, is 35% noticeably greater than 1%? And it turns out, yes it is. It really very much is. Well done jihadists, you are a disproportionately massive terror threat to the US, even when we bury the fact that you've killed more people than the Far Right, even when we ignore 9/11 for no apparent reason, it's still pretty clear. Even when the figures are adjusted so they are as favorable to you as they could possibly be, this is the basic outcome that you really can't ignore.

And there's just one more thing.

"Apply cold water to that burned area."
-Ben Franklin

 

[Zafran]

The US is much more deadly then entire Jihadists forces combined. Just look what they did to Iraq. They want Iran next.

 

[Abz2000]

^ i won't waste server spece requoting, but the statue of liberty is an ilegal graven image even by the standards of the time and the book upon which they swore the oath of office, it is an idol which is worshipped and through which the image of false "liberty" is propagated.

The quote attributed to ben frank is so widespread that i didn't know that it was a false association - i took it at face value and quoted it as i am human, you did however neglect to acknowledge the rest which clearly illustrate that "democracy" was not the pronciple upon which the masonic constitution and declaration was founded - although those too were amiguous at best.


You saw the false flag of 9/11 at the start of the century and then the following illegal wars, the subsequent false flags including boston where even a friend of the accused was shot dead at point blank range in his home by the fbi during conversation a few days before he was about to leave america - the land of the slaves of falsehood, the washington sniper where your politicians unwilling to sign off on illegal acts and others who played in falsehood and knew too much were shot dead was another proven sham and they still unjustly killed the man whom they falsely accused, and the backlash from the illegal wars is on the doing of your kaafir leaders.
And finally, without getting all apologetic for the lawful retaliations carried out by Muslims who haven't yet fully exercised their God given right to equal retaliation for crimes commited by the kuffar globally, i will clearly state that the sword of Allah has not yet reached the necks of the enemies of Allah as it should proportionate to the crimes commited. Sincere repentance to Allah for previous crimes may be forgiven if accepted by Allah, - if there is no repentance but continuation of crimes, know that the punishment of Allah is just and severe.