"Follow the Prophet Mohammed, don't follow bin Laden!"

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Wed, 2010-08-11 19:19

"Follow the Prophet Mohammed, don't follow bin Laden!" That was the message from an anti-terrorism summer camp led by a top scholar which attracted hundreds of young Muslims in Britain this week.

Al-Hidayah (The Guidance) was led by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, who earlier this year issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, against terrorism.

His message to the roughly 1,300 people attending the three-day event on a university campus in Coventry, was clear -- terrorism is anti-Islamic.

And it was welcomed by members of the British Muslim community, which has been in the spotlight since the July 7, 2005 suicide attacks on London's public transport system killed 52 innocent people, plus the four young British Muslim extremists who blew themselves up.

"The thing he said about terrorism is a big thing to say," Anam Nazir, a young woman who attended the event, told AFP.

"I'm from Pakistan and I have never seen any scholar say things like that in the media because they're too scared... he's brave."

The event, which ended Monday, cost some 200 pounds per person to attend, including accommodation.

On the agenda were lectures about issues faced by Muslims living in the West such as terrorism, suicide bombing and integration as well as music and sports, plus prayers in the room which is usually the students' disco.

But for many attendees, one highlight was the opening speech by Tahir-ul-Qadri, the Canadian-based founder of moderate Islamic NGO Minhaj-ul-Quran International, during which he spoke out against Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Afterwards, Tahir-ul-Qadri said Islam states that followers can only voice disagreements with laws in a peaceful manner, and that it was a religion that preached integration.

According to Islamic law "these countries that protect your life and your wealth and your honour... are peaceful countries so you're not allowed to become terrorists against these countries and these societies," he said.

"This is the commandment of the Holy Prophet and Islam and Allah, to be integrated in the society where you're living."

The event was covered widely in the British media, much of which more usually depicts Islamic preachers as extremists like hook-handed Abu Hamza al-Masri rather than as moderates.

Hamza, the former imam of a London mosque, is serving a seven-year jail term for inciting followers to murder non-believers.

The European Court of Human Rights recently blocked his extradition to the United States, where he is facing terror charges.

Naseem, a young man attending the event who runs a hairdressing business, said the summer camp would help him to explain the true nature of Islam to the customers from all backgrounds who he serves.

"I believe (Tahir-ul-Qadri's) challenge to radicalisation, terrorism is very good -- terrorism is a danger towards mankind," he told AFP.

"I run a barber shop, I get all sorts of people from different walks (of life), I can give the true view of what Islam says".


( categories: )

Gregster ""maybe some of them

Leonid's picture

Gregster ""maybe some of them could after all keep their rights,"-Mischief-making ...

Hardly.

"If, however, it is Islam that's declared war on us, and not the something-other-than-Islam that you declare it to be, then all muslims have forfeited their rights by virtue of belonging to Islam."- Richard Wiig.

However, I agree. This is not funny. This is frightening.

Leonid

gregster's picture

"maybe some of them could after all keep their rights,"

Mischief-making ..

official position of this site notwithstanding.

.. not saved by humour.

mfgreaves

Leonid's picture

"The whole thread was pointless. There is no way that Mohammed can be held up as a moral ideal”

I don't have slightest idea why you say this.

I don't recall that in my numerous posts I ever discussed or related in any way to the moral posture of Muhammad. I also never referred to Tahir-ul-Qadri position in this regard. As a matter of fact, the article I posted also doesn't refer to this point except headline. I posted this article as simple prove that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty terrorists and maybe some of them could after all keep their rights, official position of this site notwithstanding.

In regard to Japan you are simply wrong. America could have achieved exactly the same effect with conventional bombing as she did in Germany. The usage of nuclear bomb was a demonstration and warning to the Russians. The question whether or not such an action was morally justified is still open.

Leonid

mfgreaves's picture

Leonid, I suggest you take a breather. You've written a lot of replies, and they aren't getting any better.

The whole thread was pointless. There is no way that Mohammed can be held up as a moral ideal - which is what Tahir-ul-Qadri was trying to do. It's true that Bin Laden is crazier than Mohammed was, but Mohammed was perhaps the most dishonest man who ever lived. These folks need to think for themselves, not believe that some guy 13 centuries ago had a conversation with an impossible intelligence and got the straight dope straight from the sky. Mohammed told the vastest of all lies - that his words were divinely sanctioned - in order that man should obey another man (him).

The whole Hiroshima with-respect-to the Russians thing is just silly. Hiroshima was bombed (and Nagasaki necessarily afterward) to end the war as promptly as possible. This prompt-end did many things, including preventing the Russians from grabbing more territory - it's true. But the key point is that this was entirely justified - to strengthen the footing of Freedom going forward.

It's like the brain-dead concept of "blowback". Of course a country's policies can irritate an immoral being into striking out at it. The important thing is that in doing so, he will be in the wrong, if that country's policies were justified and proper. Those American policies which enraged Bin Laden were proper, and his response was inexcusable. There's no question of the connection, but the connection does not establish the morality of the exchanges.

The Japanese could have surrendered under lesser pressures, but it would have been a serious error for America not to bomb them into immediate collapse.

(It is of no particular significance, but Tahir-ul-Qadri, originally from Pakistan, has resided in the same metropolitan area as me (Toronto) for "several years" now. He boasts that: "If you put a pistol in my hand, I wouldn't know how to use it." Well, I'm glad about that bit.)

Mike

Richard

Leonid's picture

"No. You are an intrinsicist, and Hiroshima would not have happened if you'd been in charge, and you, along with everyone else, would have been defeated."

Cannot see any connection. Maybe you observed massive attack of Islamic air forces on American targets, or mighty Islamic fleet in Pacific, but I don't. I also cannot recall when exactly Islamic armies occupied any part of the West during the course of modern history. Last time that happened in 1486. Besides, the last part of your statement is simply bizarre. Do you really believe that Japan, which military and economically was on the break of collapse, which lost it only ally and was facing a war with Russia could by some miracle defeat every one, hadn't America nuked Hiroshima?

And if you already mentioned Hiroshima, then maybe you can ask yourself a question : what was the real reason to nuke it? America bombed German cities to the dust without nukes. In the beginning of August 1945 Japan as military power ceased to exist. Its only functional military unit, Quantun Army was facing Russians in Manchuria, and Russians demolished it in just 2 weeks. So against whom America deployed nuclear weapons? My answer is simple: against Soviet Russia. Only by assuming this you can make out of Hiroshima's nuclear holocaust the case of self-defense.

Gregster

Leonid's picture

"Leonid is like the old ascetic sitting atop the hill, thinking that the power of his ideas, not actioned but merely existing in his mind, will defeat the evil ideas of others, existent and actioned."

If by action you mean initiation of usage of force, then you are right. However, if you mean non-coercive action, or usage of retaliatory force, you are wrong. In any case, actions always driven by ideas, not other way around.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"You have the freedom to do it in your own country, but you wouldn't have the freedom in an Islamic country."

Right. In theocracy those who in power do the picking and enforce it on the rest. In the free world, in which religion is separated from the power of state, each and every Muslim decides for himself which part of the teaching to adopt, aside of 5 pillars of Islam.

Commander

gregster's picture

You're on the right track. I'd call it religious relativism.

Leonid is like the old ascetic sitting atop the hill, thinking that the power of his ideas, not actioned but merely existing in his mind, will defeat the evil ideas of others, existent and actioned.

Suicidal

Richard Wiig's picture

However, you are right.

You could have simply said so.,

Even without all these they can declare war on. The question is whether or not they would be able to conduct it?

I think the answer is “NO”.

Tell that to the loved ones left behind from Beslan, Mombai, 9/11, 7/7 and on and on and on.

I don't think that Islamists represent any real danger to the West.

No apologist ever does.

What is dangerous, it yours proposition that West can allow "little bit" of rights' violation.

But it's not a case of "allowing any rights violation". It's a case of acting according to the context with the principle of self-defence uppermost at play. Hiroshima was a case of acting according to the context with the first principle being self-defence. The loss of the rights of the innocents who got hurt were tragic but irrelevant. Your position is a suicidal one.

That cannot be done, as girl cannot be little bit pregnant. If all Muslims in the West forfeit their rights, then you, me, Lindsay and every body else forfeit them as well. If you believe the opposite, then you believe in contradictions.

No. You are an intrinsicist, and Hiroshima would not have happened if you'd been in charge, and you, along with everyone else, would have been defeated.

Religious multiculturalism

Richard Wiig's picture

This view, that Leonid, and others here have, that all religions are equal, that Christianity is just as bad as Hinduism, which is just as bad as Bhuddhism, which is equally as bad as Islam, etc, is surely wrong. It makes me think of the multiculturalists who say that all cultures are equal, regardless of content. Well, Leonid, is saying, all religions are equal, regardless of content. To me it seems patently absurd.

Qur'an, as any religious

Richard Wiig's picture

Qur'an, as any religious scripture is like a supermarket. Everybody can find in it whatever he wants and use it for his own purposes.

Yes, any person such as you can pick and choose as you please, just as you can for Atlas Shrugged or any book of your choosing, let alone a religioius book. This is what you are doing, but don't mistake that for Islam. You cannot just pick and choose what you please and then decide it is Islam. There is a mainstream body of work that is Islam which has it all worked out for you. The laws for apostasy, adultery, the daily prayers, and on and on and on, are well established. If you were a muslim, and just picking and choosing as you felt like, chances are you'd end up dead. You have the freedom to do it in your own country, but you wouldn't have the freedom in an Islamic country. Even in your own country you're slowly losing the freedom to do that, in some part thanks to apologists like you.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Death for apostacy is nothing unusual in the Islamic world."

Death for apostasy wasn't unusual in the Christian world until recently. However, one should distinguish between state killing and mob killing. Although, for the murdered it doesn't make any difference, systematic killing of apostates by Christians states resulted in far greater numbers of victims. Your particular case refers to the country (or part of it) ruled by Sharia. As I mentioned before, there are no many such a countries in Muslim world.

"So the stateless followers of a religion cannot declare war on, Leonid."

Why, they can if they manage to mobilize armies, weapons, air force, Navy, intelligence service, chain of command, war industry, materials for this industry, some means to impose their war time rules and regulations, police, courts and prisons and firing squads for those, who don't complain with laws of war etc...etc...etc...They also need their own territory where they can do all these preparations and they should be able to protect it from the enemy's attacks. Don't you think that all this means creation of state?
However, you are right. Even without all these they can declare war on. The question is whether or not they would be able to conduct it? I think the answer is “NO”. I don't think that Islamists represent any real danger to the West. What is dangerous , it yours proposition that West can allow "little bit" of rights' violation. That cannot be done, as girl cannot be little bit pregnant. If all Muslims in the West forfeit their rights, then you, me, Lindsay and every body else forfeit them as well. If you believe the opposite, then you believe in contradictions.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Or do you mean interpretation?

More or less yes. Qur'an, as any religious scripture is like a supermarket. Everybody can find in it whatever he wants and use it for his own purposes. You want to be a terrorist-Qur’an supports you; you opt for peaceful coexistence, Qur’an supports this as well. It is not up to Qur’an, but up to the person to choose.

It's OK

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bad spelling is not as bad as bad faith.

Though it's close. Eye

LOL Now I'll have to edit it,

Richard Wiig's picture

LOL Now I'll have to edit it, because every time I see it it'll bug me. Smiling

Richard ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

ApostaSy, you apostate!!

Eye

It's a pretty feeble answer

Richard Wiig's picture

It's a pretty feeble answer to his question, Leonid. How many versions of the Qur'an are there? Or do you mean interpretation?

Yes, that is true. I didn't

Richard Wiig's picture

Yes, that is true. I didn't think of that. He was one of those Kuffar that "cause mischief in the land" and therefore should be dealt with harshly (the verse that comes right after the "killing one man is as if killing all of humanity" that apologists such as you like to use). However, it doesn't alter the fact that you can kill an apostate and get away with it if a Sharia court establishes that it was an apostate. Death for apostacy is nothing unusual in the Islamic world. The poor guy in Afghanistan last year who converted to Christianity was turned in by his family. They knew he would be put to death. This is one of your so-called secular states that you seem to have faith in as allies of the West that was going to put him to death. The same thing goes on in Egypt, Jordan, and other places. When Western pressure forced the Afghan government to spare his life, hardliners were ready to step in and enforce Sharia in spite of the state. The victim was spirited out of the country, so his life was saved, but if the hardliners had killed him for his apostacy, it wouldn't have been Sharia that put them to death for it. It would have been secular law based on non-sharia principles. Those hardliners were merely willing to do what their religion commands them to do. Instituting Sharia when others wouldn't. There's no Sharia punishment for that. Merely an esteemed place in the hierarchy.

Richard

Leonid's picture

This is your answer to Lindsay's question?

"The difference between him and Mohammed is that he uses the version of Qur'an which is adapted to his own political ideas and goals."

Yes

Richard

Leonid's picture

"My conclusion of this lengthy discussion is quite simple: we should fight Islamic terrorism with all our might and Islam with our mind and know the difference"

This is a difference you fail to acknowledge: between might and mind, between force and ideas.

That's funny ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm sure I remember the fatwa being issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Fascinated to watch this unfold.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Salmon Rushdie isn't apostate. He never changed his religion. Fatwa is a sentence of Islamic court.

"My conclusion of this lengthy discussion is quite simple: we should fight Islamic terrorism with all our might and Islam with our mind"

"That doesn't tell me much."

I know it.

This is your answer to

Richard Wiig's picture

This is your answer to Lindsay's question?

The difference between him and Mohammed is that he uses the version of Qur'an which is adapted to his own political ideas and goals.

I missed it too!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If Leonid answered my question, what's the difference between following Mohammed and bin Laden, I too missed it.

Probably because he didn't.

I wonder if they know that.

Richard Wiig's picture

Religion cannot declare war, only state can.

So the stateless followers of a religion cannot declare war on, Leonid.

"The death penalty for

Richard Wiig's picture

"The death penalty for apostasy comes from Muhammad himself.”

What, without trial, without appointed executor, without cherishing and supporting crowd, anybody can just come and kill apostate?

Absolutely! Salmon Rushdie was sentenced to death with no trial, and the Ayatollah gave sanction for anyone to kill him. That is Sharia. If someone is an apostate, you can kill him Leonid, and then there may be a trial. If the trial shows that it was an apostate that you killed, then you get off scott free.

If one does so, he will be the next who executed. You simply don't know much about Islam and Sharia.

I'm learning about Islam from people who have been born and bred into Islam, who've been immersed in it, and seen it and lived it first hand. I don't believe they are telling me lies.

"Why don't you go and join some left-wing anti-American party,"

Because I'm anti-left and pro-American.

Could have fooled me, Leonid, because you're pretty much saying what they say, word for word.

“How would following Muhammad be any different than following Bin Laden?"

I already answered that.

I will look for it then, because I missed it.

You just refuse to get it. No

Richard Wiig's picture

You just refuse to get it. No Abrahamic religion is peaceful.

I know that.

All religions committed unspeakable atrocities, but they cannot do it qua religions.

Muhammad was a dictator who incorporated his politics into his religion. Islam is not a personal thing, it's an all encompassing ideology that dictates every aspect of life from public to private, including the political. That's the fact of the matter. Why do you disagree with that and insist that politics is separate?

They have to use state machinery for that.

Sure, a totalitarian state aids in enforcing Sharia, but so what? It's part and parcel of Islam. It's followers are just as deadly before they have any state. A war is a war, regardless. I really can't understand this idea that there is no war until a state has declared. Seems like a recipe for defeat to me.

Religion is a system of believes which could be translated into political power, and that exactly what Jihadists try to do,

That's what their religion tells them they must do. That's what Islam tells it's followers they all must do.

so far without much success.

Which is completely irrelevant.

The Ummah as the collective nation of Islam is a spiritual concept; it doesn't exist as political entity.

It's a spiritual and political concept. Politics embraces the spiritual and Mo means it as a political entity, so there's little comfort in you saying it's spiritual.

My conclusion of this lengthy discussion is quite simple: we should fight Islamic terrorism with all our might and Islam with our mind

That doesn't tell me much.

Richard

Leonid's picture

You just refuse to get it. No Abrahamic religion is peaceful. All religions committed unspeakable atrocities, but they cannot do it qua religions. They have to use state machinery for that. Religion is a system of believes which could be translated into political power, and that exactly what Jihadists try to do, so far without much success. The Ummah as the collective nation of Islam is a spiritual concept; it doesn't exist as political entity.
My conclusion of this lengthy discussion is quite simple: we should fight Islamic terrorism with all our might and Islam together with all other forms of goblinism with all our mind and we should know the difference between them.

You do claim that it is peaceful

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't claim that Islam is peaceful religion.

Yes you do. You claim that all the violence is being perpetrated by something other than Islam. That obviously means that Islam is not the source of the violence.

It is not more or less peaceful than Christianity or Judaism.

I guess if you separate the jihadist from Islam, and pretend that they have nothing to do with Islam, then yes, Islam is as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, and Hare Krisnaism and Buddhism and every other religious ism. But it's all just pretend.

It's provides guideness for all aspects of life, including peace and war. What I do claim is that Islam qua religion cannot be at war. Only Islamic state, that is-military and political power, can wage such a war.

Under Islam, the Islamic state is the Ummah. The Ummah is the collective nation of Islam, regardless of geography. If some muslims have established an Islamic state somewhere, then that is good, but it's only purpose it further serve the Ummah. The Ummah can go to war, with or without a state. You are stuck in a traditional way of seeing. Tradition for traditions sake isn't a good thing.

Politics could be based on religion, but they are not the same. To claim, as Richard does, that Islam is political movement is simply wrong.

I don't claim it. Muhammad claims it. Muhammad is the one who founded Islam, and he is the one who made it an all encompassing code for life. All encompassing means everything, politics inclusive. You say that politics is not part of Islam. Muhammad disagrees wth you.

Religion is a system of believes which provides comprehensive view on existence.

It's not system of beliefs. Belief doesn't come into it. It's a comprehensive set of rules that demands your submission.

Among all Muslim countries only Iran, Saudi Arabia and Emirates could be considered as full theocracies. In other Muslim countries Islam may influence politics to bigger or lesser degree, but it doesn’t control state’s coercive powers.

Which tells us nothing about the nature of Islam.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"The death penalty for apostasy comes from Muhammad himself.”

What, without trial, without appointed executor, without cherishing and supporting crowd, anybody can just come and kill apostate? If one does so, he will be the next who executed. You simply don't know much about Islam and Sharia.

"Why don't you go and join some left-wing anti-American party,"

Because I'm anti-left and pro-American. But that doesn't mean I have to forfeit mind and common sense, as you and many other neo-cons do.

“How would following Muhammad be any different than following Bin Laden?"

I already answered that.

We're just going round in

Richard Wiig's picture

We're just going round in circles on this. You are wrong. The death penalty for apostacy comes from Muhammad himself. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Why don't you go and join some left-wing anti-American party, you'd fit right in. BTW, how about answering Lindsay's question. How would following Muhammad be any different than following Bin Laden?

Religion and politics

Leonid's picture

Marcus "It's very relevant here though, because you are arguing that Islam is a peaceful religion, not at war with the west."
Richard "Islam is a political movement...That's the only reason I can think of that you support and appease Islam. "

I don't claim that Islam is peaceful religion and by no mean I appease it. One doesn't appease religion, one accepts or rejects it. Islam is not more or less peaceful than Christianity or Judaism. It's provides guideness for all aspects of life, including peace and war. What I do claim is that Islam qua religion cannot be at war. Only Islamic state, that is-military and political power, can wage such a war. Politics could be based on religion, but they are not the same. To claim, as Richard does, that Islam is political movement is simply wrong. Religion is a system of believes which provides comprehensive view on existence. It is primitive philosophy. Political movement’s only goal is to control the machinery of the state, to use its power of coercion. This is true that throughout human history all religions created alliance with state and sometimes even dominated it, forming theocracies. However, this is not true in regard to modern Islam. Among all Muslim countries only Iran, Saudi Arabia and Emirates could be considered as full theocracies. In other Muslim countries Islam may influence politics to bigger or lesser degree, but it doesn’t control state’s coercive powers. .

Richard

Leonid's picture

"If you decide that someone is an apostate, and you murder him, or her, and the Sharia court ends up agreeing with you that it was an apostate, then you will suffer no punishment."

This is pure speculation. You don't know that. Did you consult any Sharia practitioner in this regard? What I know, that any extrajudicial premeditated murder is punished by death according to Sharia. Honor killing isn't considered by Sharia as premeditated murder, exactly as killing out of passion in the West where many people who killed their wives or girl friends out of jealousy also got away with relatively light sentences.

Islam is a political movement

Richard Wiig's picture

It is different. Islam is religion, Nazism is political movement.

Islam is a political movement. It seems that facts are not something you are after. Perhaps it's you that actually has the irrational fear, Leonid. That's the only reason I can think of that you support and appease Islam. A case of, if the crocodile eats those people over there it won't eat me, or however it is that saying goes.

First, you use the word

Richard Wiig's picture

First, you use the word "kaffir" wrongly. Literally "kaffir" means denialist, the one who knows Islam, but explicitly refuses to accept it. There are very few people like that today. Apparently you mean non-Muslim.

I think you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't mean non-muslim. Those who refuse accept Islam, can be legitimately murdered under Sharia. Those who submit to Islam cannot be legitimately murdered under Sharia. Those who submit, without converting to Islam, become protected, albeit with a second class citizen status. That is Sharia. Under Sharia, a woman is worth half a man. In my book, that too is a kind of murder. In sharia there's so much murder it's not funny, and here you are standing up for Sharia.

Second, you simply wrong. Anybody who commits murder will be punished by death under Sharia law.

Bollocks! Where the hell do you get this bullshit from? A simple example: Sharia mandates death for apostacy. If you decide that someone is an apostate, and you murder him, or her, and the Sharia court ends up agreeing with you that it was an apostate, then you will suffer no punishment.

Third, bloody money only allows substitution of death sentence by life sentence. That's all.

I know it as a fact, because recently Christian South African killed his Christian girl friend in Abu-Dhabi. He was sentenced to death and currently negotiates bloody money payment with the girl's family. Remember, that family has right to refuse the payment.

From one example you've decided that's what Sharia is, that it mandates either death, or life if bought off. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who's lived right smack in the middle of it, says it is common for people to get off from honor killings via blood money. The purpose is to avoid destructive family/tribal feuds. They don't even go to jail. There's also very light sentences handed down for honour killings, such as a few years in jail only, as with a case in Jordan but just a couple of years ago.

"In the realm of ideas size doesn't matter."

Marcus's picture

Is that a pick-up line you use at bars? Eye

It's very relevant here though, because you are arguing that Islam is a peaceful religion, not at war with the west.

To know that you have to find out what the majority of Muslims believe.

Marcus

Leonid's picture

In the realm of ideas size doesn't matter.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"If, however, it is Islam that has declared war on us ..."

This is wrong perception and stolen concept. Islam, as religion, hasn't declared war on us. Religion cannot declare war, only state can. War is a situation in which state deploys military power, that is-army, in order to gain control over certain territory. As far as I know, no Islamic state at present wages war against any Western country. More than that, many Muslim countries, except Iran and Syria are in fact allies of the West, like Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, which is NATO's member, Pakistan, Kuwait, Emirates, Saudi Arabia etc...Some of them are neutral, other actively fight terrorism (Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan). There is not for nothing Jihadists' wrath is aimed predominantly not against West or Israel, but against these Muslims regimes. What Jihadists wage against West is not a war, but a campaign of terror. Terror literally means fear and the purpose of such a campaign is not to conquer land, but to inculcate fear in its population, to cause chaotic, irrational response abroad and at home, as last 10 years history of USA amply demonstrates. Such a response is expected; since this fear is irrational phobia-terrorists don't have any significant military or political power to subdue the West. The source of this phobia is a false perception that West is at war against Islam, and therefore against all 1.5 billion Muslims. This is asshole stupid to adopt such a perception and completely hysterical to response with calls to violate freedom of already semi - free West.
This is true that all Jihadists are Muslims, but it's deadly wrong to assume that all Muslims are Jihadists. The onus of hostility's prove in the free society is always on the state. If you want to reverse this, then tomorrow you will have to prove to fascist state that you are not a Muslim, only the one who looks alike. BTW, there weren't Islamoglobinazis who resurrected the Crusaders, but George W Bush in his initial response to 9/11.

"This is no different from saying, "If, however, it is Nazism that has declared war on us”

It is different. Islam is religion, Nazism is political movement. Islam is not more Nazism than Christianity. The last time Islam waged war (the real one) against Western civilization more than 500 years ago. Nazism waged war only 70 years ago and destroyed Europe. Contrary to Nazism Islam doesn't promote racial superiority and doesn't exterminate millions of people on the base of race. Even not Osama bin Laden. The difference between him and Mohammed is that he uses the version of Qur'an which is adapted to his own political ideas and goals.

When did I mention...

Marcus's picture

...the power of ideas?

The question which arises is whether or not idea of a "Fatwa of Peace" has a wide body of Muslim adherents or is just a "fart in a glass".

Just as those who recognise the objectivist virtue of selfishness is a "fart in a glass" compared to the number who mindlessly accept collectivism.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"That depends on who you kill. Under Sharia law there's no punishment for killing unprotected kaffir."

First, you use the word "kaffir" wrongly. Literally "kaffir" means denialist, the one who knows Islam, but explicitly refuses to accept it. There are very few people like that today. Apparently you mean non-Muslim.

Second, you simply wrong. Anybody who commits murder will be punished by death under Sharia law.

Third, bloody money only allows substitution of death sentence by life sentence. That's all.

I know it as a fact, because recently Christian South African killed his Christian girl friend in Abu-Dhabi. He was sentenced to death and currently negotiates bloody money payment with the girl's family. Remember, that family has right to refuse the payment.

Marcus

Leonid's picture

Do you think that power of ideas is measured by numbers and coverage?

Linday is right.

Richard Wiig's picture

Observe that by this statement he not only denies the rights of ALL Muslims, but also postulates a war against Islam, that is-religious war, bloody crusade, like in 12th century. Is it Kass or ass?

You are being hysterical. I only support taking measures that are necessary for our defence. They may be light, such as scrutinising mosques, or they may be heavy, such as bombarding Iran's nuclear facilities, depending on what is needed for victory. That's not the same as going wantonly on the rampage slaughtering every muslim in sight.

I guess I just expected more,

Richard Wiig's picture

I guess I just expected more, even given the nature of the thread. It puzzles me too, Linz. I can see the intrinsicism, an error I used to fall into, but it seems to go beyond that into wilful distortion.

Under Sharia law the

Richard Wiig's picture

Under Sharia law the punishment for premeditated murder is death.

That depends on who you kill. Under Sharia law there's no punishment for killing unprotected kaffir. Under Sharia law you can kill a woman and likely get away with it because you can dream up a reason for it being her fault. Sharia law kills.

However, if murderer pays bloody money and family of the murdered agrees to accept, than death punishment could be replaced by life imprisonment.

Ummm... blood money means you can get off lightly, and probably even walk free. It is a destruction of justice, something that should appall you.

The same practice exists in the West, only money is not involved and decision is made not by anybody involved, but by some impersonal government official for whom it's really doesn't this way or another.

It does not exist in the West, and even if it did that wouldn't be any reason to find it acceptable in an Islamic country. It's unacceptable in both.

How it is better than Sharia? Why a rule which allows to the family to have a say in the matter which firstly involves them is a pure evil, but a rule which grants the same right to President, who never saw the guy and not involved in the matter in any way is not?

Having a family involved in the matter isn't necessarily a corruption of justice. So long as there is strict criteria keeping things in line with justice, then I don't have a problem. But that isn't what's going on with blood money. There are lots of honour killings, for instance, where the murderer, or the family of murderer, simply pays a fee to the family of the victim. That's not justice. That's barbarism.

Leonid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I asked you to cite a "call to violate the rights of ALL Muslims" you alleged to have been made by someone here.

You responded with Wiig's, "If, however, it is Islam that's declared war on us, and not the something-other-than-Islam that you declare it to be, then all muslims have forfeited their rights by virtue of belonging to Islam. That is the context."

Please note the part that says, "If, however, it is Islam that has declared war on us ..."

This is no different from saying, "If, however, it is Nazism that has declared war on us ... then all Nazis have forfeited their rights by virtue of belonging to Nazism."

And that is still not the same as saying all Nazis should have the rights that they've forfeited "violated." It's saying that one, in self-defence and retaliation, is entitled to "violate" their "rights" and if one does then the responsibility lies with the Nazis for declaring war in the first place. (Please, let not some concrete-bound moron come on and point out that it was the British who declared war on Hitler, belatedly.)

Now, I would put it differently from Richard. I'd say, and have said, that given that war has been declared and waged on us (in a series of outrages which you downplay for reasons I struggle to comprehend—what you're doing is evil, but I'm sure there's something going on that I for one don't know about) by Muslims in the name of Islam, not only do the declarers and the wagers of that war forfeit their rights but all Muslims who don't disavow it but remain silent do also. Thus it is entirely just, for example, while that war is being waged, for the aggressees to disallow the construction of new mosques on their territory and order the closure of existing ones, in the absence of such disavowal and proof of its genuineness.

You equate a decently KASS response to Islamogoblinazi filth with resurrecting the Crusades and being "asshole-stupid." You're hysterical. And there was someone calling you "cucumber-cool"!!

And I ask again: what's the difference between following Mohammed and following bin Laden?

Is Objectivism in your opinion also "fart in glass"?

Marcus's picture

Yes, it is.

That's the reality in terms of numbers and coverage.

Sorry to disillusion you.

Marcus

Leonid's picture

Not fart in a glass but a little light which disperses a lot of darkness. BTW, Objectivist conferences also attended by the similar numbers. Is Objectivism in your opinion also "fart in glass"?

Lindsay: Kass or ass?

Leonid's picture

Lindsay: "Please cite the "call to violate the rights of ALL Muslims" to which you refer."

With pleasure.

Richard "If, however, it is Islam that's declared war on us, and not the something-other-than-Islam that you declare it to be, then all muslims have forfeited their rights by virtue of belonging to Islam. That is the context."

Observe that by this statement he not only denies the rights of ALL Muslims, but also postulates a war against Islam, that is-religious war, bloody crusade, like in 12th century. Is it Kass or ass?

Leonid, I think this would explain it...

Marcus's picture

...from the BBC article.

"The Al Hidayah, which is being held in Heythrop Park Hotel near Chipping Norton this year, will be attended by 600 young people from across the UK...Last year's event in Shropshire attracted more than 300 men and women."

The Guardian reports an attendance of 1,500 and your article 1,300 - therefore the number of foreign muslims was more than the number of local ones.

Relative to the nearly 2 million Muslims that live in the UK this represents a "fart in a glass".

Leonid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Now you are really losing the plot. Please cite the "call to violate the rights of ALL Muslims" to which you refer.

And while you're about it, please explain the difference between Mohammed and Osama that would make following the former rather than the latter benign.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"That said, part of me is puzzled at Leonid's ongoing and relentless campaign against a KASS stance against the foul and fetid thing that is Islamogoblinism. "

The call to violate rights of ALL Muslims and the call for religious war is a KASS? The idea that you can fight Islamogoblinism by means of establishment of dictatorship is a Kass? I think this is not a Kass but ass-hole stupid.

"The event was covered widely in the British media,

Leonid's picture

Maybe by South African standards it is a wide coverage. But if you claim that it isn't, than maybe you have an idea why British media decided to ignore this event? Apparently British journalists like to cover bombing of “Tube “much more than to cover events which could prevent terrorism.

Richard W

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't see why you'd be flabbergasted at Leonid's speaking so warmly of an aspect of Sharia. This whole thread is premised upon a supposed difference between Mohammed, a bloodthirsty murderous pedophile, and Osama. I am reinforced in the judgment of Leonid I made the other night that got me in such trouble. That said, part of me is puzzled at Leonid's ongoing and relentless campaign against a KASS stance against the foul and fetid thing that is Islamogoblinism. There's something we're not getting here, though whatever it is it's certainly not what Leonid would claim it is.

Under Sharia law the

Leonid's picture

Under Sharia law the punishment for premeditated murder is death. However, if murderer pays bloody money and family of the murdered agrees to accept, than death punishment could be replaced by life imprisonment. The same practice exists in the West, only money is not involved and decision is made not by anybody involved, but by some impersonal government official for whom it's really doesn't this way or another. How it is better than Sharia? Why a rule which allows to the family to have a say in the matter which firstly involves them is a pure evil, but a rule which grants the same right to President, who never saw the guy and not involved in the matter in any way is not?

Who said anything about "wide coverage"

Marcus's picture

Pay attention Leonid! The writer of the article did:

"The event was covered widely in the British media, much of which more usually depicts Islamic preachers as extremists like hook-handed Abu Hamza al-Masri rather than as moderates."

Flabbergasted

Richard Wiig's picture

I'm flabbergasted at this comment, Leonid. Do you seriously mean it, because if you do it's pure evil.

Bloody money is an acceptable Sharia practice which allows the possibility of clemency for the murderer. Observe that such a clemency is granted by the family of the murdered and not by state which maybe not such a bad idea.

Yes, I have read the article,

Richard Wiig's picture

Yes, I have read the article, and I need a hell of a lot more than that to satisfy me. I've only delved into it slightly and I'm seeing what I consider major flaws.

Acceptable?

Richard Wiig's picture

Bloody money is an acceptable Sharia practice which allows the possibility of clemency for the murderer.

To who?

Have you actually read his Fartwa,

Leonid's picture

According to Islamic law "these countries that protect your life and your wealth and your honour... are peaceful countries so you're not allowed to become terrorists against these countries and these societies," he said.

What else do you need? Have you actually read the article?

Richard

Leonid's picture

Bloody money is an acceptable Sharia practice which allows the possibility of clemency for the murderer. Observe that such a clemency is granted by the family of the murdered and not by state which maybe not such a bad idea. If Shayk removed the existence gender inequality in this regard, than this is to his credit. In regard to the "Cartoon crisis"-well, he is not an Objectivist, but what is important, that he is against terror. Observe that he advocates only certain restrictions of the freedom of speech, and you advocate total restriction of the rights of all Muslims by postulating that all Muslims forfeit all their rights simply because they are Muslims. That doesn't make you Objectivist either.

Fartwa

Richard Wiig's picture

Have you actually read his Fartwa, Leonid, or did you just throw up your arms and exclaim, Hallelujah?

Marcus

Leonid's picture

And who said anything about "wide coverage" ? From you I understood that British media hardly covered this event . I wonder why?

Follow the prophet Mohammed

judith's picture

and see how you like praying five times a day http://www.aolnews.com/world/a...

Here's a web page of our

Richard Wiig's picture

Here's a web page of our Sheik. Notice his support for blasphemy laws in Pakistan, in fact helped bring them in, laws that are seeing Christians persecuted and murdered for no reason, for simply being accused. Notice his disgusting support for blood money (the paying off of the family of someone you've murdered) and how to make it equally stand for women somehow makes him a hero for womens rights.

http://www.minhaj.org/english/...

Here's his stand on the Cartoon crisis a few years back :

"In response to the "cartoon crisis" of 2005-2006, Qadri wrote an article available online titled: A call to prevent a clash of civilizations (Sunday, February 26, 2006). In it, he writes:

"[...] There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace.[...]
• 1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.
• 2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.
• 3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again."[...]"

[Update]

I have extracted the bit about the blasphemy laws to spare people the time searching for it:

"In another case the Blasphemy Law protecting the esteemed station and reverence of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) was also passed for the first time in the history of Pakistan after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the court, over a period of three days, culminating in an Act of Parliament."

And on womens rights:

Another landmark and famous enactment of Parliament concerning ad-diya (blood-money) of a murdered woman resulted after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented arguments in the President House of Pakistan during a special legislative session chaired by President Zia’ al-Haqq. This session was attended by all Federal Ministers, Secretaries, Governors of all provinces, all judges of the Federal Shari`a Court and Appellate Shari`a Bench of the Supreme Court, members of the Islamic Ideology Council, selected top ranking classical scholars and Shuyukh belonging to all schools of law. Shaykh-ul-Islam presented arguments in favour of equality of rights of women concerning ad-diya for eight hours followed by a question and answer session. This was a unique and unprecedented event in the judicial and legislative history of Pakistan. As a result of his arguments the discrimination clause was removed and women were given equality of redress. This shows the amount of concern that Shaykh-ul-Islam has for the respect and safeguarding of women’s rights in Islam

No, Leonid. I am just not

Richard Wiig's picture

No, Leonid. I am just not naive like you are.

OK Leonid...

Marcus's picture

...I only managed to find TWO reports. Nothing on BBC TV or radio.

Nothing in the Times, Daily Telegraph, Independent or Daily Express.

I'm afraid one Guardian newspaper article and one local BBC News article does not count as being "wide" coverage in this country.

Whoever wrote your source article was lying.

Meeting to combat radical Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eng...

Muslim group holds 'anti-terrorism' summer camp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Marcus

Leonid's picture

I live in South Africa and read South African news papers. I'm sure you can find the British links by yourself.

No Leonid...

Marcus's picture

...I want the links to the wide coverage in Britain that I missed.

Marcus

Leonid's picture

Richard

Leonid's picture

This is a typical response of the person whose mind is fogged by hatred. I bring the story about massive Islamic anti-terrorist movement which is organized and leaded by internationally recognized scholar of Islam Tahir-ul-Qadri, the Canadian-based founder of moderate Islamic NGO Minhaj-ul-Quran organization, and as response you quote an interview with the fucken Indonesian terrorist. Your bias simply blinds you.

"Either naively believed or it's outright lies designed to lull the unwary, and useful idiots such as Leonid"

Are 1200 people who paid 200 pounds to participate in this event also useful idiots? I don't think so. An idiot is a person who doesn't know and refuses to learn.

"The event was covered widely in the British media..."

Marcus's picture

That's weird. I missed it and I consider myself something of a news junkie.

Sure it is possible this news slipped under my radar, but WIDE British media coverage would have made that difficult.

Do you have any links for this?

Here's something that shows

Richard Wiig's picture

Here's something that shows how it really is (from Jihadwatch):

"There is no doubt that jihad has become an inseparable part of Islam. Why? Because the Koran explains it in more than 100 verses. Even the Prophet Muhammad took part in 28 of more than 70 wars..."

Here we are again with the same old cognitive dissonance that we see again and again and again: Western authorities and Islamic spokesmen in America and Europe insist that Islam is peaceful, that jihad is a benign struggle for justice, and that those who claim that jihad is warfare (violent and stealthy) to spread Sharia are ignorant "Islamophobes." Yet again and again and again, those Muslims who claim openly that jihad means warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Sharia present themselves as representing the true teachings of the Qur'an and the full obedience to Muhammad's example. No one from John Brennan to Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR has ever deigned to explain to us how it is that so many Muslims who study the Qur'an and devote themselves to implementing it misunderstand its message so drastically.

"JI crown prince Abdul Rohim sees violent jihad as inevitable," by Hasyim Widhiarto for The Jakarta Post, August 11 (thanks to Kris):

The youngest son of firebrand cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, Abdul Rohim, 31, is tipped by many to become the future leader of the jihadist movement in Indonesia. The young and energetic father of three daughters talked with The Jakarta Post's Hasyim Widhiarto several days before the police arrested Ba'asyir, the spiritual leader of the Jamaah Islamiyah. Here is an excerpt of the interview:
[...] You are also a senior member of the Jamaah Ansharu-Tauhid (JAT), which has also been linked to terrorism. Can you tell us more about this organization?

The JAT was established as the representation of our shared willingness to live according to sharia.

We have realized that Muslims in this country have no support to practice sharia, but we can't just keep silent about this, as Allah will someday demand our responsibility for our inaction.

We hope to see this organization play a role as a community for all Muslims who want to help us spread and practice Islamic teachings, for both ourselves and society.

Unfortunately, if you share these objectives with the infidels, they will liken such efforts to terrorism.

So what is jihad to you then?

There is no doubt that jihad has become an inseparable part of Islam. Why? Because the Koran explains it in more than 100 verses.

Even the Prophet Muhammad took part in 28 of more than 70 wars that took place during his 23 years of active missionary period.

Here, we teach our students about the Koran and Hadith, including the topic on jihad.

However, more and more people, even some Muslims, now consider teaching students about jihad similar to training them as terrorists.

We have also realized the West has put up much efforts to persuade Islamic schools worldwide to scrap the jihad subject (from their curriculum) and skip discussions on all Koran verses containing it.

Our duty is to share the complete version of our religious teachings to our students. We never urge them to set up terrorism operations as people have accused us. [...]

How do you view Islamic groups that use violence to promote sharia?

I have always believed that what these groups are doing is actually showing their deepest love of Islam and strong willingness to practice the entire teachings of their religion.

When such embedded rights (to practice Islam) have never been given, it's normal to see more and more Muslims joining an (organized) effort to get their rights back.

Some groups may choose the peaceful approach, but it's inevitable to see others take the violent path.

However, it's not in my capacity to make any comment on the violent approaches chosen by these groups to reach their goals, as they must have their own reasons to do that. [...]

So it's obvious to see many Muslims who feel satisfied with the government as long as they are allowed to build mosques, run daily prayers, and fast during Ramadan. But Islam is not as simple as that. It is true that all Muslims must adhere to all five pillars of Islamic principles. But like a house, Islam cannot stand with only pillars. It needs walls, a roof, paint, and other things to be complete.

That's why a Muslim must always refer to the Koran and the deeds of the Prophet Muhammad.

People may say that some Islamic law, like cutting off hands and rajam (stoning to death), are cruel, but that is what the Koran says. No matter how bad the laws are, they are undoubtedly the laws of Allah.

Once the entire Islamic law is upheld, it will bring mankind into a happy and orderly life, which cannot be achieved with any man-made laws. [...]

For us, the implementation of sharia is our final goal. It's because once you declare your syahadat creed, you must apply Islamic teachings entirely and not partially. Of course, we cannot ask Osama (bin Laden) to come to Indonesia and implement sharia here. It is our obligation to do that and Allah will ask your responsibility in the afterlife.

You know something, Leonid

Richard Wiig's picture

His message to the roughly 1,300 people attending the three-day event on a university campus in Coventry, was clear -- terrorism is anti-Islamic.

You don't fix something by pretending that it has nothing wrong with it.

"This is the commandment of the Holy Prophet and Islam and Allah, to be integrated in the society where you're living."

Either naively believed or it's outright lies designed to lull the unwary, and useful idiots such as Leonid

Bin Laden is following Big

Richard Wiig's picture

Bin Laden is following Big Mo.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.