Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s no option for “Kick every single person who wanted a ‘peoples vote’, into the sea”
So I went for the second best option of “No Deal”
We should be encouraging these Muslim women as they stand on Westminster Bridge, hand-in-hand, against terrorism; not attacking them.
A passage from the Qur’an:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. – Qur’an 3:28
The most authoritative interpretations of this verse are the following, laid out here by three highly regarded scholars:
Allah said next, “unless you indeed fear a danger from them” meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” – lbn Kathir
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers — for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway — unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. God warns you, He instills fear in you, of His Self, [warning] that He may be wrathful with you if you take them as patrons; and to God is the journey’s end, the return, and He will requite you. – al-Jalalayn
(Let not the believers take) the believers ought not to take [the hypocrites:] ‘Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his companions [and] (disbelievers) the Jews (for their friends) so as to become mighty and honourable (in preference to believers) who are sincere. (Whoso doeth that) seeking might and honour [by taking the hypocrites and disbelievers as friends] (hath no connection with Allah) has no honour, mercy or protection from Allah (unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them) save yourselves from them, (taking (as it were) security) saving yourselves from them by speaking in a friendly way towards them with, while your hearts dislikes this.
Islam forbids Muslims from being friends with non-Muslims. Instead it encourages them to lie and to deceive non-Muslims by feigning solidarity with them in order to defend Islam and their fellow Muslims from reprisals and harm.
Sarah Waseem, 57, from Surrey, said from the Westminster bridge: “When an attack happens in London, it is an attack on me. It is an attack on all of us. Islam totally condemns violence of any sort. This is abhorrent to us.”
Politicians’ (particularly Theresa May) comments about the attack not being Islamic, but instead being a perversion of a great faith, is exactly why Islamic terrorism will continue to happen – and happen at an accelerating rate – unimpeded. They have blood on their hands, and as too I would suggest does every person in public life who also echoes their BS.
1 member liked this post.
Since you talked about the Jizya I will clarify some points about it: Jizya in Arabic means paying for a favor. In the Islamic law, we, Muslims, have financial responsibilities towards our society, which is given in form of charity (Sadaqa) or the obligated one which is Zakat (one the Islam five pillars). This money (or lands or whatever we give) is given to the financial house (Bayt mal al mouslimine) to be distributed on poor people (Muslims and non-Muslims, and again I’m talking about what it has to be done), and for the dispenses that the authorities has to spend for military purposes, what they have to fix for common benefits etc…Since non-Muslims are part of the Muslim country (if they are), they have to assume their responsibility as citizens, but they cannot be forced to pay in the same religious way as Muslims since it doesn’t fit with their religions, and this is why the Jizya was obligated on them, it’s a form of taxes that they have to pay. Jizya has to be paid by basically adult men, when women, children, priests who don’t have any economical activities, old men who can’t work, handicapped people who can’t work, and the transsexual who doesn’t determine his/her gender yet don’t have to pay it. Poor people (who don’t have money) from Non-Muslims don’t have to pay the Jizya, but instead they are helped by the financial house just like the other poor Muslims, without any difference. The amount of Jizya, which is in general less than what Muslims give in Zakat, depends on the economic situation of people, richer people pay more than poor people, and money can be divided in months.
That favour is not being killed by the Muslims.
Jizya is a tax levied on non-Muslims to allow them to exist within an Islamic state, but as being fully subjugated and humiliated people – not as equal citizens. As such it has always generally been at higher rate than what a Muslim would be paying in order to place a bigger burden on the non-Muslims compared to the Muslims.Zakat would be the primary tax that Muslims are obligated to pay to the state (and is what will be distributed to the poor), but it’s not permissible to give this to non-Muslims or Dhimmi’s. And Sadaqa isn’t collected as tax as such, it’s more a voluntary deed left to the discretion of each individual Muslim – mainly for the purpose of softening hearts in order to get non-Muslims to embrace Islam.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dhimmi#Taxation
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257604/islamic-jizya-fact-and-fiction-raymond-ibrahimThose who pays al Jizya are called ahlo-dima (people under the protection of Muslims by a pact), they have to be treated with respect, and no one has the right to oppress them, or to force them to do something just because they have a different religion, as what the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) has said: “Whoever kills a mu‘aahid (a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2995, and also said: “If anyone wrongs a mu‘aahid, detracts from his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do or takes something from him without his consent, I will plead for him (the mu‘aahid) on the Day of Resurrection.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 3052; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood,
They’re already in a state of humiliation and oppression by default, but yes they’re not suppose to be killed because the purpose of them paying the jizya in the first place is to ensure that they’re not. For the hadith about “if anyone wrongs a mu’aahid” though, well… mu’aahids hardly have any rights in the first place so that’s pretty moot; not burdening them with more work than they’re able to do just alludes to not overworking them to exhaustion, it doesn’t exclude demanding of them what they’re capable of, or subjugating and humiliating them; and not taking something from them without their consent just means that while they keep paying the extortion tax, their property will generally be protected (from theft) as set out in their agreed-upon pact with their Muslim rulers.
If they don’t pay the Jizya they will punished, not killed, just like any Muslim would be punished for not giving the Zakat, and like if you don’t pay your taxes there will be more to pay, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be protected etc, and when I say punishment it doesn’t mean physical, it means they will be forced to pay it, if they can to do so of course.
For Non-Muslims/Dhimmis, not paying the jizya is punishable by death.
Remember the caliph guy from the Pact of Umar? He says:
As muslims we have to treat non-Muslims in a good manner, as long as they don’t fight us, God says in the Quran (translation): “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who deal with equity. 9. It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion and have driven you out of your homes and helped to drive you out that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whoever will befriend them, then such are the wrong-doers.” (Al-mumtahana(chapter 60) 8-9)
The context for that verse is of a Muslim woman’s mother visiting her with a gift, but of her being a non-Muslim. The Muslim woman didn’t let her own mother in the house because of it, and then the Prophet Muhammad was asked about it and he said there’s nothing wrong with her (the Muslim woman) being civil to her non-Muslim mother (ie nothing wrong with being civil to weak non-Muslims–particularly family members–who have the potential to convert to Islam)
This does not mean though that Muslims are permitted to internally respect love or befriend non-Muslims – they’re not.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah_Forbids_You_Not_(Qur'an_60:8)#Al-Munajid
Jizya is no more applicable now, since there are other financial systems which are applied, and unfortunately even some Muslims don’t assume their responsibilities towards their societies, so we can’t ask the others to do so!
Jizya still ‘sort of’ exists today in Islamic countries, just in more discrete forms, yeah.
The pure nature of it though will continue to gain prominence and will likely gradually be implemented more and more as the Islamic world shifts back to true Islam. As Drac said too, ISIS in particular are definitely implementing it because they’re the main people right now who are trying to re-establish original Islam.As for ISIS or any extremist groups who kill in the name of a religion (Islam or whatever other religion) to justify their barbaric behavior, well I’m not concerned by them. They don’t represent me and I don’t acknowledge them. For me and the most majority of Muslims those are criminals, who present a danger for the whole world, Muslims first since they use our young people (18-24) who represent the future of our countries, and my own country was a victim of them more than once, they didn’t even respect the place where the Prophet (PBUH) is buried and they made an attack, they didn’t respect dead people and they attacked Jewish cemetery, so they represent themselves, criminals who have to be put in jail and punished for their crimes the way they deserve.
Lol you know full well they’re Islamic, that’s why you’ve likely deliberately been typing misleading things here despite apparently being knowledgable in Islam. I notice too that you’ve completely skipped rudeboy’s post which touches on jihad, pretty convenient…
ISIS are only doing what Psycho Muhammad and his early companions did, and carrying out what they wanted of their fellow Muslims; they’re following Islam properly. There’s pretty much no difference between how the Prophet Muhammad was, and of the things that he did, to that of the current leader of ISIS, Al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi is just the modern-day caliph, the current one in a long line back from when Muhammad was the caliph.
We, as Muslims, do not live with a knives in our hands, and you have just to look in History books to see how Muslims were in the past, when they were really appliying the laws as they have to be applied.
I’m so tempted to post the widely available picture of Theo Van Gogh here, laying in the street, dead, with a knife stuck in him. I won’t in case it gets me banned, but it’s fitting to this thread because all he did was make a film highlighting the abhorrent treatment of women in Islam. It enraged the Dutch Muslim community and obviously lead to a Muslim man killing him in a particularly violent manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
To answer your first question about feminism and Sharia, Yes you can be a Muslim woman and a feminist in the same time. Actually we took our rights as Muslim women to study, work, and take our decisions alone because of Islam, since there was a time when Muslim men tried to oppress women in the name of Islam too, using some Quran verses in the wrong time and place, but that was blocked by defending our rights using religious texts.
Muslim women are as if they’ve been locked in a basement their whole lives against their will by a captor, and who then burst into joy at the moments that he lets them out briefly to take a piss, celebrating it as an indication of how much their rights and dignity are respected by him. It’s hilariously sad.
A Muslim or a feminist. Pick one.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Women
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Women_in_Islam_-_From_Islam's_Sources
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Women
Concerning the application of Sharia in England and the other countries, well what is said in Islam is the Sharia law hasn’t to be applied on non-Muslims, and if there are non-muslims who live in Muslim countries, the only case when the Sharia (or Islamic law) is applied for them is in the case of legal disputes, since the law is based on Islam, other than that they have the freedom to exercise their religions as they want (I’m talking about what is stated in religious texts and what our Prophet (Peace be upon him) has done in his time, not about what people actually do these days, which can be, unfortunately, very far from what should be done).
The idea of Sharia law in regards to non-Muslims (Christians and Jews etc), is to make them feel subdued and humiliated as lesser status citizens than the Muslims. So any non-Muslims living under it certainly don’t have the freedom to exercise their religions as they want, as they must live and adhere to their faiths under severely restricted conditions that are imposed upon them as per the Sharia. All throughout history and to the modern day, non-Muslims living as dhimmis under Islam have always been held in a state of subjugation and humiliation.
Authoritative Islamic scholar lbn Kathir (who you even refer to for a better understanding of Islam) sums up the treatment of non-Muslims under Sharia:
“…Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.
Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salam (greeting) to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.”
The “leader of the faithful” that he’s referring to there (Al-Khattab) was the second Muslim caliph (ruler of the Muslims from 634–644) and was perhaps the first person to properly articulate how Christians ought to be treated under Sharia. He gave rise to an important document now known as the “Pact of Umar” which laid out the conditions that the Christians (which he had conquered) had agreed to abide by under his Islamic rule, and which for centuries has served as the foundational “go to” text in Islamic teachings for how Christians ought to be treated under Sharia.
lbn Kathir goes on to print a version of this document, which is written from the perspective of the Christians (wall of text warning):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Analysis_of_the_Pact_of_UmarIf you look into the legal systems of Islamic countries today, you will see the comparisons between a lot of their laws and the conditions of Umar in regards to discriminating against their non-Muslim minorities – including Morocco.
And now I can recall that there was an Egyptian actress, who is Christian, who wants to get her divorce but she couldn’t do it religiously since there was some complications (I can’t remember what was exactly, but I think it’s banned in their sect to do so), so she did it in the Islamic way by asking for divorce in the court (which based on Islamic law), since Muslim women have the right to ask for divorce and they get it.
“Ask” being the key word there, because they’re certainly not entitled to one.
In Islam, men control women; women are viewed as men’s property.A Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply saying that’s he’s divorced her, and it’s over with there and then – rendering him free from all obligation to her.
Women on the other hand though, lol…
They don’t have the right to divorce their husbands, they only have the right to “ask” for a divorce. And by this I mean that they have to ask their husbands permission for divorce, and it’s up to him whether or not he grants it. If he doesn’t grant it but she still desperately wants one, then she can take it to the Sharia courts, but for the Sharia judges to rule in her favour is conditional upon whether or not she can prove that her husband isn’t meeting his religious obligations to Allah, and not just on the basis that she doesn’t like him anymore.The problem with apostates is that they start trying to make the others leave their religion, and in history most cases when the punishment was applied was for political reasons to keep the Islamic countries bind together. That’s the danger disturbing from apostasy. And before declaring someone as an apostate there are lot of conditions that has to be fulfilled, and the punishment, if there is any, it has to be done by the assigned authorities who made their investigations and all, not by normal citizens, otherwise things will be more out of hands and anyone can point anyone as an apostate. As a personal opinion, I don’t have any problem with people who leave Islam, everyone has the right to do whatever he/she wants, as far as they don’t start describing us, Muslims, as stupid and retarded to follow this religion, a minimum respect has to be required from them.
Punishing apostates isn’t politically motivated; it’s religiously motivated.
Prophet Muhammad desired it.You don’t dare go against the wishes of your prophet, do you?
Lot of modern things didn’t exist at that time, we are talking about more than 1400 years. But scholars made their decisions about these things based on religious texts, so for woman driving cars don’t present any problem in all the Muslim countries (except in Saudi Arabia), since women can go out alone.
Women are property of their husbands, they need to both ask for permission to leave the house, and be accompanied by a male (mahram) if they wish to travel anywhere – especially in non-Islamic lands or travelling long distances.
http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/158770/seeking-the-husbands-permission-before-going-out
https://islamqa.info/en/83360
https://islamqa.info/en/69937https://islamqa.info/en/101520
https://islamqa.info/en/122630
https://islamqa.info/en/47029
https://islamqa.info/en/4523
http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/women_tr.htmThe rationale that Saudi Arabia uses to ban women drivers is based upon this.
To clarify, I do not believe there are any parts of Sharia that are compatible with either our culture or legal systems. Well who asked you to apply the Sharia law in your country ? You’ve your own law, we have ours, and the important is to respect each other’s cultures, very simple, No?
Why did Prophet Muhammad not respect any different cultures when he was alive, instead calling on his followers to wage active warfare against them all until they submitted to his rule – from the Arabia Peninsula to beyond?
Another thing I want to tell you is that I was raised knowing that I have my religion and you’ve yours, and that none can be forced to believe on what I believe or vice versa, because this is what I learned from the Quran (translation): “Say [Prophet], “Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship: you have your religion and I have mine.” (109:1-6)
Why have you omitted the fact that Prophet Muhammad revealed this verse in the context of conflict with his own tribe the Quraysh, particularly after he had been spewing hatred and aggression towards them for not submitting to his new religion? And that despite this, the Quraysh generously tried to make peace with him by offering various propositions – one of which was to take turns worshipping each others gods?
That verse that you’ve typed there is Prophet Muhammad’s reply to the Quraysh’s proposition of compromise to worship each others gods for a year at a time each way; it essentially amounts to him sticking his fingers up in disgust to the notion of worshipping alongside those who don’t subscribe to the supremacy of Allah and Islam. So it’s not the statement of tolerant coexistence as you try to make it out to be; given it’s proper context, it’s the complete opposite.
What’s also ironic is that Psycho Muhammad promised to bring the Quraysh slaughter just before revealing that verse, and he kept this promise too by doing so at a later date – which also coincides with the later verses he revealed that overrides this one (abrogation), commanding Muslims to fight all non-believers until the world is for Allah.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/To_You_Your_Religion_and_To_Me_Mine
“There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” (al-Baqrah 2:256), you have your will and I have mine, all I can do is to respect you as human being Who was created by the same God Who created me, and we can coexist and accept our mutual presence without killing or disrespecting each other, because surely God has created us different, and we can’t change that, that’s all.
Again here, this doesn’t mean what you’re implying it to mean.
There are three ways which this is generally interpreted: firstly is that it just simply means that true belief cannot be forced; that you cannot force someone to internally accept Islam (though this does not preclude giving them ultimatums to choose from). But most Islamic scholars interpret this to mean that either secondly: it’s specifically referring to Christians and Jews in asserting that they are not compelled to convert to Islam because they have the option to instead pay the jizya (a form of extortion tax for living as second-class citizens under Islamic rule), in comparison to non-Christians and Jews who aren’t given this option; and that thirdly: of it having the meaning you imply it to have, but of being abrogated altogether by later verses commanding Muslims to be harsh to non-believers, and to fight them all until they convert, pay the jizya, or are killed.So while there’s slight nuances in disagreement there between the scholars in regards to it’s meaning, it certainly isn’t understood in the way that you imply–that people of different faiths are able to hold hands and live together peacefully as equals–as this is unequivocally against Islam. All schools of Sunni jurisprudence are unanimous in agreement about the need to wage perpetual jihad in the world until global Islamic hegemony is achieved – until all non-Muslims are wiped out or feel themselves subdued.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Let_There_be_no_Compulsion_in_Religion
Well if you understand the core of Islam, you’ll understand why we’ve been asked to marry only Muslims (or woman from Ahl al kitab), and by the way this is not something exclusive to Islam, but in all other monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). The concept of family is very important in Islam, so if both parts of the marriage have the same faith and the same principles, it would be more efficient to put the family together and have a strong bind between them, which will prevent their children to be divided between two faiths that can be extremely opposite to each, and you can imagine what kind of person you’ll give to the society in this case.
It’s moreso prohibited on the grounds that marrying a non-Muslim has the potential to give rise to disbelief. This is why Muslim men are permitted to marry non-Muslim women, but Muslim women are categorically forbidden from marrying non-Muslim men; men can dictate Islam to their new wife and get her to convert to it, whereas women (as per Islam) are stupid and emotionally weak and thus carry a greater risk of leaving Islam and taking on the religion of their husband.
If it does take place, the marriage is considered void and she’s punished for adultery – which according to sharia entails either lashings or being stoned to death.
Marriage should not be arranged, or permited for ‘minors’. In general, the forced marriage is not allowed in Islam without the contentment of both parts, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “A previously-married woman has more right concerning herself than her guardian, and the permission of a virgin should be sought (regarding marriage), and her permission is her silence.” Narrated by Muslim, 1421.
The need for consent for marriage applies only to adult Muslim women. What you’ve ironically quoted there is evidence for legally being able to marry underage prepubescent girls in Islam without needing their explicit consent. This comes from the paedophile Prophet Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl and raping her when she was 9, justifying it to his demented Muslim followers that her consent was her silence, and of which is all that’s needed when dealing with minors
As for alcohol, God has made Humans special by giving us a brain and a will, consuming alcohol and drugs takes this from us because of its bad effects on brain, and you can see how much rapes and crimes were made by people who were under drugs or alcohol.
Look at how much crime and carnage Muslims cause around the world while intoxicated on nothing but the f’ked up ideology of Islam; thank god alcohol is forbidden for them is all I can say, imagine how much more trouble they would be making now if they were allowed a few pints a week.
What do you say about the Great betrayal? Has it to be illegal or not? Because apostasy is considered as a Great betrayal not only in islam but in the other monotheistic religions too, and again there are lot of conditions which has to be fulfilled before declaring a person as an apostate, and a danger for Muslims’ security.
This is revealing of the fact that Islam carries a fundamental us-vs-them mentality towards anything and everything non-Islamic, and that Muslims inherently feel that anyone who leaves Islam and sides with non-Muslims, then pose as much of a threat as they feel that standard non-Muslims already do. That apostates are punished harshly to the point of being jailed/killed for being traitors and siding with non-Muslims, just shows you how much hostility is automatically bestowed upon non-Muslims.
In morocco we have more liberal laws, which are made taking into account of the religious laws, and none is forced to what he doesn’t want to do. As far as I know we were living with Jews and there wasn’t any problem with that, and there was even some Muslim (Jews) women who breastfeed children of Jews (Muslim). Sorry if my English is bad, It’s my third language.
It might be liberal in comparison to certain other Islamic countries, but there’s still a lot of restrictions and discrimination against minorities – with minority religious groups in particular even being afraid to practice their faith in public.
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=256281
I think any solutions lie in Secularism. First, a declared secular state, as is France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Cuba, and many many more, approximately 120 other countries, even Turkey. Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism, and approximately half the countries of the world are secular, most of Europe is. Apart from Greece and Denmark, we are the only European country of any note to be a country with an official state religion. This fact in itself surprises me. Great Britain by remaining a Christian land is making its own problems for itself. As a christian land we must tolerate religion. Through official secularism, we can gradually play down and remove any priveliges religion gets in society. Thus, solving many issues around religion, and multi culturalism. I also think by going secular, and disposing of our own religion, Christianity, we are not foolish enough to allow another religion to come and replace it. Hallelujah
There is a reason that we, and most of Europe, are secular in nature.
You won’t like the answer, but… it’s because of Christianity, believe it or not.Europe was born from the Roman Empire which was a Christian empire, and thus we now owe a lot to the words in the gospel of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” which ultimately allowed for the separation of church and state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar“
That isn’t strictly true, as ISIS is very strongly in the Sunni branch of islam. I think a ‘normative’ version of islam would just be a literal interpretation of the Quran, without using the Sunnah or the Hadiths. Which is something that doesn’t exist as far as I know of.
They’re in the Sunni branch of Islam, but the Sunni branch of Islam is what 85-90% of the worlds Muslim population adheres to. So by normative Islam, I’m just meaning standard mainstream orthodox Sunni Islam which is the following of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Sunnis). The Qur’an and Sunnah is then what calls for ISIS to exist and to do what they do, or another words ISIS are just following standard mainstream Islam (Sunni). Interpreting the Qur’an on its own without the use of the Sunnah, hadith etc. is a thing and does exist – called Quranism, but those who subscribe to this are pretty much outliers to the extent of being irrelevant.
You can tollerate moderate (I don’t think a lot of people the media calles moderate actually are though) muslims without giving them a protected status. We are one of few countries that doesn’t have blasphemy laws, and should stay that way. Making practice of shariah illegal would also help, as it would encourage muslims to adopt British values instead.
I’d welcome legal changes to the effect of making the practice of shariah illegal–and was a signatory of the following petition if you or anyone else would like to add to it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/160883 –but I just really don’t think it’s going to be effective on it’s own. Islam prescribes (as part of Jihad) for Muslims to work to take advantage of and to undermine all forms of governance, and of all values that make a free and open plural society possible, in order to further the establishment of Islam onto it. The only rules and laws that practicing Muslims will ever give a hoot about are the ones of Allah, so unless you’re putting real pressure on them to fundamentally change their entire belief system and conduct, then they will just carry on doing what they’re already doing in disregarding all Western laws and values and circumventing them (via enclaves etc), all the while continuing to freely adhere to, promote, and propagate Islamic teachings, and continuing to strive to grow Islam’s influence to the point where they’re eventually in a better position to ultimately redact those laws or replace them with their own at the state level.
The Islamic text itself is the source of all the problems, and the nature of this text is never going to change; neither then is Islam, or that of Muslims. So implementing certain relatively minor laws now as a means to stop them transgressing any further across boundaries of what’s acceptable here in the West, or in attempt to encourage them to adopt more secular values, is likely not going work. Neither too will this do anything in regards to resolving the existing social problems that are associated with Islam or Muslim communities at present, including terrorism. Things will still just get worse. It’s really just putting plasters onto a leaking dam – it will help to a degree and it’s absolutely a step in the right direction which I do support, but it’s just not enough.
For me you really need to take a tough stance and go on an all out offensive on their entire belief system to really get anywhere. A good way to visualise this is to think of a tree in your garden; you have the main trunk and the branches as the Islamic literature, the leaves which you hate and want to always get rid of representing all of the Islam-related social problems, and then poisonous fruits representing the terrorism which you also want rid of. While bearing in mind that this tree is constantly growing: rather than trying to mould it into something that it naturally isn’t, or rather than individually keep plucking off all of the leaves that you hate, or keep plucking off all of the poisonous fruits, would it not be more sensible to just cut the tree down? Go for the branches and the trunk that continuously gives rise to and supports the leaves and the poisonous fruit. That’s how you stop the leaves and the poisonous fruit that you don’t want from continuously springing up in increasingly larger quantities, and that’s also how you stop Islam. Mosques, madrassas, shariah law, shariah councils, burkas, hijabs, the quran, the ahadith etc. completely outlaw all of it, a complete and total blanket ban.
For those who love Allah and Muhammad enough to still want to get their snackbar fix, then the Islamic world with all of it’s backwardness is that way >>> and thus can feel free to go there to burn their foreheads on as many rugs in public as they wish.I don’t think that all muslims have the potential to become radicalised, certainly some of them might do in certain situations but I don’t think a reaction against every single muslim can be justified.
It depends on what you mean by radicalised. In terms of meaning it to be physical confrontation then possibly not, although that’s something in which you have to assume will be the case by default because it’s a staple part of the religious teachings to do so – especially for fighting aged men. But what might legitimately be deemed radicalism could also be expressed in more inconspicuous forms, such as helping to spread misinformation and deceit and propaganda about Islam, or donning a suit and working up through the ranks to attain whatever social power that can be used to benefit Islam and fellow Muslims (hello Sadiq Khan), or of being a woman who’s just hell-bent on pumping out 7 babies a week which aids in growing the Muslim population. These people would all typically be tagged as “moderate Muslims”who on the face of it don’t pose any threat, but yet could just as legitimately be considered as being radicalised and as much of a threat in the long-term as perhaps the more impulsive guy running at police officers with bombs strapped to his head. All of them would be aiming for the same end-goals as commanded of them by Islamic scripture, but just differing by their tactics in getting there. And on top of this you have the genuinely innocuous people who don’t really care much about their religion, but who act to unwittingly support and bolster the radicals: giving to Islamic charities that ultimately funds jihad, wearing burkas to cement Islam as a cultural norm, acting victimised and generating support from it, and if assuming genuine ignorance: acting as a smokescreen for the negative and dangerous aspects for the theology to hide behind etc etc…. perhaps even these people could be deemed radicals as well just on account of identifying as adherents of Islam alone.
This is the problem with people who profess to be followers of an ideology that is inherently radical in nature and which commands it’s adherents to completely overthrow your society, you just have no way of knowing who the ‘radicals’ are, or are able to judge how much of a threat any of them pose for simply existing, so you have to put them all into the same basket. It’s not really any different to wanting to prevent dangerous individual migrants from getting here from war-torn Islamic countries, by painting a circle around them and rejecting all of them as a whole. It’s the same kinda thing, except it’s now towards those who as equally as much of a threat as those migrants, but of whom are just already here on our doorsteps.
Although this is all a bit of a side-step anyway because the main purpose for me in treating all Muslims the same in terms of discriminating, is just to enforce the norm of the non-acceptance of Islam to exist and be practiced freely here. You fundamentally think that Islam can coexist in society in some form though and which is why you deem it not justified to treat all Muslims the same, and so…
I can see the theat that Islam poses much more than some others here do, but there are benign versions of Islam. I think thats something we can encourage (in place of conservative Islam) in this country if we can get past the media calling all critcism of Islam racist or islamophobic (a term that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood just for this purpose). Reformation of Islam will never come out of places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, even Turkey is slipping back towards fudementalism. But I thinks it’s achievable here, and with any luck it might be able to spread to other Islamic countries with time. Even if that doesn’t happen we should still try for it here.
You can, that is true. I think this is the sticking point for where we disagree though; the difference of me thinking of Islam as something that’s well-grounded and uncompromising vs you thinking of there being perhaps an ability to reform it or of there being a variety of more liberal interpretations that could prevail and hence which ought to be championed.
Focusing on Sunni Muslims in particular, are you aware that they have to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad? That he alone is the basis of pretty much everything of what’s regarded as good or bad in Islam, of what’s allowed and not allowed; that everything he liked and approved of, they too must like and approve of etc? If so then I think the point needs to be made here that all the texts of what he allegedly did and said are already well established, and have been so for hundreds of years. This too includes all main rulings that constitute shariah law, and is why that too has largely not changed for hundreds of years either. The most highly respected authoritative scholars in Islam have crossed all the t’s and crossed and all the i’s centuries ago in regard to the main theological interpretations and understandings of Islam. There’s no changing what Muhammad assumedly did, and there’s no changing the now widely accepted and highly regarded authoritative texts that references what he did, and of which now guides Muslims around the world in their understanding and practice of Islam.
Combine this with the fact that Prophet Muhammad, who is to be revered as the perfect role model, was essentially the past version of the current leader of ISIS. This then leads me to believe that there is no moderate Sunni Islam, and that there is absolutely zero chance of reforming it.
What does moderate Islam mean for you, or how would you define it?
And I get the feeling you might have heard of the Quilliam Foundation, or Nawaz Maajid maybe?
I am fully supportive of conflict with Islam, but I would choose a different battlefield than you. As I said I think that Ideological means are enough to remove radical Islam from this country (assuming that we restrict non-intergrated muslims from comming here until we have made the muslim community reject radical members on their own), and we have enough ecconomic power to place sanctions on other Islamic countries that sponser terrorism.
Yeah we want the same things I think, just a difference on how to get there. For me though, as with the above point, you seem to be taking the more softer route in assuming that we can tame Islam/Muslims, or bring about a change in some way that would allows us to coexist with Islam/Muslims until they see the light and join us hand-in-hand in our current free and secular society as equals; whereas I don’t think that’s possible, at all, and think that it needs to just be stopped outright with a lot more vigour – a lot more stick than carrot.
Christianity isn’t a lot better than Islam, but there is now a moderate form of it.
The Catholic church has never done this as well I suppose then, or there has never been some sort of inquisition (nobody would expect it) to punish people who are not ideologically pure enough.
I’m atheist, religion for me is a load of nonsense. But Christianity is absolutely miles apart from Islam.
The form of Christianity that you now think of as moderate, is simply orthodox Christianity. This is how it’s been since it’s early history, the texts have not changed for centuries. The only thing that has changed to make you think that it’s more moderate now, is the people who purport to follow it. And they’ve changed by way of becoming more pious in adhering more closely to the Christian scriptures.There have been bad things done in the name of Christ by people (or moreso civic institutions), but those who did so could not and did not justify them by invoking Christian texts and teachings, because there were and are no such texts and teachings justifying such barbaric deeds. This is key, and is what stands in sharp contrast to the Islamic jihadists who regularly invoke the Quran and Hadith to justify their actions.
I linked to this guys article in a previous post but I’m gonna bring him up again in the flesh to make a crucial point that needs to be made in regard to what we’re talking about: that the Islamic reformation is happening, but of which is why you’re now seeing so many problems.
Just over one minute:
