Islamism
28 October 2010, 11:40 AM
#181
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 October 2010, 12:53 PM
#182
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/...b-77366f7af920
28 October 2010, 01:00 PM
#183
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second sentence was in relation to Sharia Law in general, like all docrine it is widely open to interpretation
28 October 2010, 01:46 PM
#184
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a matter of 'believing that', it simple logic and rational thinking. But what mechanism could a fiercely secular massive majority ever be subjected to, or be a willing party to Sharia Law. There is no need to fear something that will never happen.
The second sentence was in relation to Sharia Law in general, like all docrine it is widely open to interpretation
The second sentence was in relation to Sharia Law in general, like all docrine it is widely open to interpretation
All kinds of things happen that would have been unbelievable in earlier times.
Les
28 October 2010, 01:47 PM
#185
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 October 2010, 11:06 AM
#190
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: will be back in another scooby in time....
Posts: 2,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now that's going to make me kill some westerners lol
there is no jihad allowed in a country where there is peace. that's bull crap and I doubt he even exists.
there is no jihad allowed in a country where there is peace. that's bull crap and I doubt he even exists.
29 October 2010, 12:22 PM
#191
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Abbas, much food for thought and I'll tell you where I am with this post. I'm vacillating. I can say for sure that your contribution to this thread is very welcome and much needed but after that, I am unsure. What are your raisons d'être?
Here's the thing: Salafi is about as fundemental as Islam gets. It is, by definition, polar opposite to Western philosophy and because of that, my instinct is, with justification, to feel threatened by it.
You state quite clearly that you're anti-terrorist and that tells me that you are opposed to coercion by violence. Good stuff. But it tells me nothing else. It doesn't tell me that your sympathies are with the victims, simply that you view suicide-murderers as being theologically adrift and damaging to Islam. Additionally, you refuse to spell out the Salafis' position on apostasy and with good reason. The vast majority of people reading this thread would be sickened by it and it would serve to expose what many consider to be the inhumanity of this supernatural ideology.
You claim that the 'terror' groups you've listed below aren't true adherants to Salafi and yet they claim they are. Who are we to believe and are ideas ultimately more dangerous than violence?
True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!
So why do I vacilate? Well, perhaps I'm wrong. Only time will tell.
You see
Here's the thing: Salafi is about as fundemental as Islam gets. It is, by definition, polar opposite to Western philosophy and because of that, my instinct is, with justification, to feel threatened by it.
You state quite clearly that you're anti-terrorist and that tells me that you are opposed to coercion by violence. Good stuff. But it tells me nothing else. It doesn't tell me that your sympathies are with the victims, simply that you view suicide-murderers as being theologically adrift and damaging to Islam. Additionally, you refuse to spell out the Salafis' position on apostasy and with good reason. The vast majority of people reading this thread would be sickened by it and it would serve to expose what many consider to be the inhumanity of this supernatural ideology.
You claim that the 'terror' groups you've listed below aren't true adherants to Salafi and yet they claim they are. Who are we to believe and are ideas ultimately more dangerous than violence?
True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!
So why do I vacilate? Well, perhaps I'm wrong. Only time will tell.
You see
http://www.answering-extremism.com/t...b/ae_iar_1.pdf
Excerpt from: The Khawarij ideology, by Sheikh Fawzaan:
This is the exact methodology of the Khawaarij. It includes three things:
1. Making Takfir (removing from the fold of Islaam) of other Muslims.
2. Renouncing obedience to the leader or government.
3. Declaring the blood of other Muslims lawful to spill.
This is precisely the methodology of the Khawaarij. Even if a person were only to believe any of these things with his heart, yet he may not actually speak or do anything of them, he is still one of the Khawaarij in his baseless belief and opinions.
Nowadays, these people operate heavily online with particular focus on the Tube, through multimedia presentations, and recorded video lectures, attempting to deceive other Muslims with their claimed attachment to the way of the Salaf. You will come across these people lecturing on "Ascription to the Salaf" and speaking on particular aspects of the Salafi creed, and refuting some of the sects of innovation, and they steal or plagiarize much of the information from the Salafi websites, so they can show to the people that they have scores of articles in relation to the foundations of Islaam. They do this to gain credibility in their attempts to poison other Muslims with their real agenda - inviting to their cult and their hizbiyyah (partisanship), to frightening people away from the true and real scholars and instead to direct them to disgraces such as Omar Bakri and his likes.
It is known from history that the Innovators seek to promulgate their deviation through concealment and obfuscation, speaking with speech that outwardly appears to be in accord with the Sunnah, with the intent of using that as a means to promulgate one's foundational doctrines.
Despite all of this activity, it is a rule that if you are concealing an innovation or deviation, then you will not be able to hide it for long. It will certainly be exposed in your speech, or in your companionship, or in your actions, or allegiance and so on. And the greatest of the giveaways against them is that they continue upon their Leninst-Marxist Revolutionary Manifestos, following on from that movement of Takfir in the 1960s itself resulting from the notions of "social justice" coming from 20th century ignoramuses writing about Islam after having "gulped down" Western Materialistic Philosophies for 15 years of their lives. These doctrines continue to manifest from these people and it is essentially what their call is based around. For this reason, they are easily recognizable, no matter how much camouflage and obfuscation they try to create, at some point or other, they have to express the innovation they are calling to in reality, and express their resentment and hatred of the Scholars, Takfir of the Scholars and Takfir of Rulers and of Muslim nation-states through their calls for revolution (ideologically or otherwise).
So do not be deceived by these Khawaarij. Be warned - again - that they will not acknowledge themselves to be from the Khawaarij. Rather, they will call themselves Ikhwanul Muslimeen ("Ikhwanees"), or Qutbi, or Hizb ut-Tahreer, or Suroori, or Turaathiyaah, or al-Qa'diyah, or "al-Muhajiroon", orJamaa'at al-Jihaad, or Jama'atul-Hijrah wat-Takfeer, or Hamas, orJamaa'at ul-Islaamee of Pakistan, or Jamaa'at ul-Islaamee of Egypt, orIslamic "Jihaad" of Palestine, or Hizbollah of South Lebanon, or FIS and GIA, or the 'Salafist Group For Preaching and Combat' of Algeria, orTaliban, or Usamah bin Ladin's Al-Qaedah.
Student of knowledge, Hassan as-Somali said during a talk under the heading Al-Qa'idah and al-Khawaarij: Two Names, one ideology:
The Khawaarij prey upon ignorant people, people who don't understand their religion. That's why you found Hizb ut-Tahreer and (the group that calls itself) "Al-Muhaajiroon"... Where was their focus in the 1990s and likewise in the beginning of this year and last year and the year before last. Where was their primary focus? Who can answer? [Yes,] universities.
Universities!
Why? Because the majority of the people in the universities were unaware, not really understanding their religion. Yes, they were Muslims, but they didn't have the grounding and understanding that would be needed to repel and refute the doubts of these people, even though their doubts are weak.
So when people ask, 'Why is it that we find British-born citizens blowing up themselves? Then the answer is because you allowed Omar Bakri to preach in the university for the last 10 years, and other individuals who are like him.
Re:Rectification of these people, and the Muslims in general:
http://www.takfiris.com/takfir/
http://www.answering-extremism.com/ae/default.aspx
http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmes...=9&Topic=10219
A talk coming up which I will be attending:
Organised By Al-Meethaaq
Talks @ Bangladeshi Centre, Roundhay Road Leeds, LS8 5AN
From 4pm - 9pm on Saturday 6th November 2010
ISLAAM'S WAR ON TERRORISM
Tackling The Roots Of Terrorism & Extremist Ideology
Within Muslim Communities In The West
By Abu Khadeejah Abdul Waahid & Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq
Everyone Welcome
Muslims & Non- Muslims
Excerpt from: The Khawarij ideology, by Sheikh Fawzaan:
This is the exact methodology of the Khawaarij. It includes three things:
1. Making Takfir (removing from the fold of Islaam) of other Muslims.
2. Renouncing obedience to the leader or government.
3. Declaring the blood of other Muslims lawful to spill.
This is precisely the methodology of the Khawaarij. Even if a person were only to believe any of these things with his heart, yet he may not actually speak or do anything of them, he is still one of the Khawaarij in his baseless belief and opinions.
Nowadays, these people operate heavily online with particular focus on the Tube, through multimedia presentations, and recorded video lectures, attempting to deceive other Muslims with their claimed attachment to the way of the Salaf. You will come across these people lecturing on "Ascription to the Salaf" and speaking on particular aspects of the Salafi creed, and refuting some of the sects of innovation, and they steal or plagiarize much of the information from the Salafi websites, so they can show to the people that they have scores of articles in relation to the foundations of Islaam. They do this to gain credibility in their attempts to poison other Muslims with their real agenda - inviting to their cult and their hizbiyyah (partisanship), to frightening people away from the true and real scholars and instead to direct them to disgraces such as Omar Bakri and his likes.
It is known from history that the Innovators seek to promulgate their deviation through concealment and obfuscation, speaking with speech that outwardly appears to be in accord with the Sunnah, with the intent of using that as a means to promulgate one's foundational doctrines.
Despite all of this activity, it is a rule that if you are concealing an innovation or deviation, then you will not be able to hide it for long. It will certainly be exposed in your speech, or in your companionship, or in your actions, or allegiance and so on. And the greatest of the giveaways against them is that they continue upon their Leninst-Marxist Revolutionary Manifestos, following on from that movement of Takfir in the 1960s itself resulting from the notions of "social justice" coming from 20th century ignoramuses writing about Islam after having "gulped down" Western Materialistic Philosophies for 15 years of their lives. These doctrines continue to manifest from these people and it is essentially what their call is based around. For this reason, they are easily recognizable, no matter how much camouflage and obfuscation they try to create, at some point or other, they have to express the innovation they are calling to in reality, and express their resentment and hatred of the Scholars, Takfir of the Scholars and Takfir of Rulers and of Muslim nation-states through their calls for revolution (ideologically or otherwise).
So do not be deceived by these Khawaarij. Be warned - again - that they will not acknowledge themselves to be from the Khawaarij. Rather, they will call themselves Ikhwanul Muslimeen ("Ikhwanees"), or Qutbi, or Hizb ut-Tahreer, or Suroori, or Turaathiyaah, or al-Qa'diyah, or "al-Muhajiroon", orJamaa'at al-Jihaad, or Jama'atul-Hijrah wat-Takfeer, or Hamas, orJamaa'at ul-Islaamee of Pakistan, or Jamaa'at ul-Islaamee of Egypt, orIslamic "Jihaad" of Palestine, or Hizbollah of South Lebanon, or FIS and GIA, or the 'Salafist Group For Preaching and Combat' of Algeria, orTaliban, or Usamah bin Ladin's Al-Qaedah.
Student of knowledge, Hassan as-Somali said during a talk under the heading Al-Qa'idah and al-Khawaarij: Two Names, one ideology:
The Khawaarij prey upon ignorant people, people who don't understand their religion. That's why you found Hizb ut-Tahreer and (the group that calls itself) "Al-Muhaajiroon"... Where was their focus in the 1990s and likewise in the beginning of this year and last year and the year before last. Where was their primary focus? Who can answer? [Yes,] universities.
Universities!
Why? Because the majority of the people in the universities were unaware, not really understanding their religion. Yes, they were Muslims, but they didn't have the grounding and understanding that would be needed to repel and refute the doubts of these people, even though their doubts are weak.
So when people ask, 'Why is it that we find British-born citizens blowing up themselves? Then the answer is because you allowed Omar Bakri to preach in the university for the last 10 years, and other individuals who are like him.
Re:Rectification of these people, and the Muslims in general:
http://www.takfiris.com/takfir/
http://www.answering-extremism.com/ae/default.aspx
http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmes...=9&Topic=10219
A talk coming up which I will be attending:
Organised By Al-Meethaaq
Talks @ Bangladeshi Centre, Roundhay Road Leeds, LS8 5AN
From 4pm - 9pm on Saturday 6th November 2010
ISLAAM'S WAR ON TERRORISM
Tackling The Roots Of Terrorism & Extremist Ideology
Within Muslim Communities In The West
By Abu Khadeejah Abdul Waahid & Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq
Everyone Welcome
Muslims & Non- Muslims
Last edited by JTaylor; 31 October 2010 at 08:09 PM.
29 October 2010, 12:47 PM
#192
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Sorry, ran out of space on the phone).
You see I think you're a genuine guy that's true to his beliefs. But, how can those core beliefs ever co-exist in a society that espouses freethinking? How can I trust that, with exponential population growth of Muslims in the West, this fundamental adherance to theocratic ideology will not go beyond simply a physical threat? How can I know that my great-grand children will be able to exercise their right to freedom of conscience unhindered.
In summary, the threat isn't simply a physical one. The threat extends to our future generations and them being at liberty to think for themselves.
You see I think you're a genuine guy that's true to his beliefs. But, how can those core beliefs ever co-exist in a society that espouses freethinking? How can I trust that, with exponential population growth of Muslims in the West, this fundamental adherance to theocratic ideology will not go beyond simply a physical threat? How can I know that my great-grand children will be able to exercise their right to freedom of conscience unhindered.
In summary, the threat isn't simply a physical one. The threat extends to our future generations and them being at liberty to think for themselves.
29 October 2010, 01:24 PM
#193
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a matter of 'believing that', it simple logic and rational thinking. But what mechanism could a fiercely secular massive majority ever be subjected to, or be a willing party to Sharia Law. There is no need to fear something that will never happen.
The second sentence was in relation to Sharia Law in general, like all docrine it is widely open to interpretation
The second sentence was in relation to Sharia Law in general, like all docrine it is widely open to interpretation
Les
29 October 2010, 01:56 PM
#196
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making was that these punishments are not by any means the accepted and mainstream interpretation of Sharia Law
Hopefully that is clear enough to avoid you making another poorly judged flippant response
29 October 2010, 02:59 PM
#197
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A united Europe is absolutely critical to the future of this country and our brethren on the continent. Whilst I understand that the issues of perceived 'sovereignty' and fishing rights and imperial measurement are important to people, can you see how others, looking further ahead, may consider them subordinate? Look at the geo-political landscape, with Russia and China developing strong links, coupled with the subject at hand and tell me you think we should stand alone. I know that our membership in the Union is testing, but the alternative is an insuler, inconsequential and vulnerable Great Britain.
29 October 2010, 03:06 PM
#198
Scooby Regular
A united Europe is absolutely critical to the future of this country and our brethren on the continent. Whilst I understand that the issues of perceived 'sovereignty' and fishing rights and imperial measurement are important to people, can you see how others, looking further ahead, may consider them subordinate? Look at the geo-political landscape, with Russia and China developing strong links, coupled with the subject at hand and tell me you think we should stand alone. I know that our membership in the Union is testing, but the alternative is an insuler, inconsequential and vulnerable Great Britain.
29 October 2010, 04:20 PM
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought you were in favour of this sort of thing Les
The point I was making was that these punishments are not by any means the accepted and mainstream interpretation of Sharia Law
Hopefully that is clear enough to avoid you making another poorly judged flippant response
The point I was making was that these punishments are not by any means the accepted and mainstream interpretation of Sharia Law
Hopefully that is clear enough to avoid you making another poorly judged flippant response
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
29 October 2010, 04:43 PM
#201
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I object to being accused of supporting such sentences, I cannot understand why you should do so.
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
31 October 2010, 02:24 PM
#202
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
31 October 2010, 05:40 PM
#203
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I object to being accused of supporting such sentences, I cannot understand why you should do so.
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
31 October 2010, 05:45 PM
#204
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I object to being accused of supporting such sentences, I cannot understand why you should do so.
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
Why are you defending Sharia when there is a women awaiting execution by stoning in Iran for adultery? Seems mainstream enough for me!
I cannot comment on my own judgement of course, but I fail to see how you can accuse me of flippancy. I suggest you look that word up too.
Les
?I haven't defended Sharia Law, I was simply stating that Sharia Law isn't all about executing people. Let me make it clear for you though to avoid you once again deliberately misconstruing my words, I'm against capital punishment in any form, I am completely appalled by the way Sharia Law is interpreted by some regimes. Clear enough?
31 October 2010, 06:03 PM
#206
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les you are the capital punishment guy aren't you, or have you changed your mind on that? If so well done, you and I completely agree on something at last?
I haven't defended Sharia Law, I was simply stating that Sharia Law isn't all about executing people. Let me make it clear for you though to avoid you once again deliberately misconstruing my words, I'm against capital punishment in any form, I am completely appalled by the way Sharia Law is interpreted by some regimes. Clear enough?
?I haven't defended Sharia Law, I was simply stating that Sharia Law isn't all about executing people. Let me make it clear for you though to avoid you once again deliberately misconstruing my words, I'm against capital punishment in any form, I am completely appalled by the way Sharia Law is interpreted by some regimes. Clear enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1gZEmEcxg
Chief executioner in Saudi Arabia - worth reading the subs!
31 October 2010, 08:02 PM
#208
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les you are the capital punishment guy aren't you, or have you changed your mind on that? If so well done, you and I completely agree on something at last?
I haven't defended Sharia Law, I was simply stating that Sharia Law isn't all about executing people. Let me make it clear for you though to avoid you once again deliberately misconstruing my words, I'm against capital punishment in any form, I am completely appalled by the way Sharia Law is interpreted by some regimes. Clear enough?
?I haven't defended Sharia Law, I was simply stating that Sharia Law isn't all about executing people. Let me make it clear for you though to avoid you once again deliberately misconstruing my words, I'm against capital punishment in any form, I am completely appalled by the way Sharia Law is interpreted by some regimes. Clear enough?
So here's the rub; I and other descendents of the Enlightenment advocate and defend written law that's emerged from sound human reasoning whilst Islam and its 1.5 billion adherents back a 1400 year old sky-fairy hoax.
Cultural relativists: defending the indefensible for 70 years.
