March for Free Expression

The next phase

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Dialogue

This campaign is about freedom of expression, not Islam. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of conversation in the comments section between Muslims and others. This is great, and it is a real achievement. Thank you, Ismaeel and thank you, anonymous, for continuing to engage in this conversation.

The following is taken from a recent comment:
I'm Muslim and I'm not scary, and we're talking, and we shouldn't let any one scare us or intimidate us from having a dialogue.

What is unacceptable to me, as I've said many times is to engage with an inhumane political party like the BNP or the one from Denmark that wants to deport all muslims from Europe. This is offensive not to mention impractical - where will anyone get a kebab?

What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world.

I agree with you about that. So these two groups have to be off the table because they make for too intimidating an environment for the others unless they are prepared to modify their tactics and change their policies so as not to be a direct threat on others, in which case they can come back to the table. In other words there needs to be a ceasefire from both these camps to bring them back to the table.

Until then we should all agree that this is an uncivilised approach.

195 Comments:

Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world.

I agree with you about that. "

The Muslim Brothers will fully agree with you. Or Tariq Ramadan. Or Abu Laban.

10:28 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:44 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

The comment voltaire quoted in that post was written at the bottom of the comments to this post;

http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/2006/03/blaxploitation.html

Now, i quote below the last comment i wrote to "annonymous" before he made the comment voltaire re-posted. Annonymous had just suggested to me that the BNP was trying to kill him....

********************************************************************



BNP member wrote;

"Ive just finished my post to come up and write this at the top; I started of writing acrimoniously, but by the end i realised that its not you personally who is choosing to be bad, but i think you are very mistaken, so i changed my post acordingly.


You may notice that im not trying to kill you :)

I am trying to get you to see that your prophet was a violent phsycopath, and the more people that folow him the more physcopath wannabe's there will be. (allah akbar and all that)

Jesus said thou shalt not kill, while Mohammeds message was thou shall not kill a muslim. When the PM read out that "he who kills a single soul, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind" quote from the koran on BBC primetime over and over was lying to us.

The quote is "He who kills a single soul that has not caused corruption in the land , it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind"

Remember, the PM had every PR guru to help him, and the best thing he could read out from the koran to convince us its non-violent to us? a lie. Because the koran IS violent as was mohammed.

About the English soldiers, if they did something wrong, our laws should have changed to stop them. Should the koran change? take out all the "apes and pigs" and beheading the infidel bits, the having the woman your right arm posseses bits, or is it just the English that should change to accomodate you and the millions like you coming here.

If something, anything, is wrong, it should change for the good of humanity. English, islam, christianity, French, whatever.

Here is what our greatest modern leader Churchill wrote about islam, and about what kept our Christian civilisation safe;

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill, our great wartime Prime Minister, On islam ("from The River War", first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)


As a last note. If you wernt muslim i wouldnt be arguing with you like this. I disagree with you because of what you choose to believe and who you choose to follow, just as i would with a nazi. As Churchill wrote, individual muslims can display many fine qualities, and you have displayed a few yourself. You are brave to come here and say your piece, and thats what free speech is all about. I dont believe your a bad person, but that your unintentionally backing the wrong team when it comes to good and evil.

Im proud of this post, and hope you dont take it as an attack on you personally, as some of my others probably were. Im sorry about that.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."


*******************************************************************

So thats the last post i wrote to him. Now these are a few of the simply insulting and lying posts "annonymous", who now says that I am threatening and stopping constructive dialogue, wrote after that post. Also please note that i didnt take the bait and respond to any of them, as he was getting far to acrimonious and aggressive;

**********************************************

Anonymous wrote;

"Polish Solidarity with Denmark.

You say you're scared of Islam - fine. There is no political party in the UK that seeks to deport those with Polish blood.

Are you not scared of the BNP?
Have you seen what a bunch of sickos they are?
"

****************************************************

Anonymous wrote;

"And how many times do I have to repeat - I'm not for BANNING the cartoons or changing the law, neither is Ismaeel.

My concern and Ismaeel's is about the sick F***s that are members of the BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY! "

**************************************

annonymous wrote;

"Hey BNP - gone all quiet?"

******************************************

"THE BNP ARE NOT RESPECTABLE. You can't even compare them with MAC. They seek to MURDER people. MAC don't. And just because you don't see the word Murder on their Manifesto doesn't mean that's not what it is. When they send back women and men to dies in their "countries of ethnic origin" and deport people who have lived in the country as bona fide citizens for generations because of their religion or skin colour.

The BNP are not respectable at all. You are very sick if you think that and you need help if you think that."


**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Hmmm! Never mind that that doesnt even resemble our policy!!

But whats the big difference between me and "annonymous" here? The muslim seeks to silence those who oppose him and his religion, something i have never done.

This is a link to a relevant post i made on my own "BNPandme" blog some time back;

http://bnpandme.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-top-link.html

An extract;

"But Hizb-but-tahrir (I cant spell it i admit) wants sharia law in the uk, and should in no way be banned from college campuses for that. Because where do you draw the line? an opinion is an opinion, and should be shared."

Sincerely,
Gareth.

11:50 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

BNP dude, great post, nicely assembled.

"But Hizb-but-tahrir (I cant spell it i admit) wants sharia law in the uk, and should in no way be banned from college campuses for that. Because where do you draw the line? an opinion is an opinion, and should be shared."

Here is a question for Ismaeel: if you believe that a Shiri'a court can only provide justice in an context that embraces all of Islam, that means you must feel that to install a Shiri'a court in the UK will not be just, therefore you are one of the "6 in 10 Muslims" that flatly oppose its introduction?

Cheers,

TFI

12:05 pm  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

The whole disturbing aspect of this freedom of expression movement is that it tried to stop cartoons being shown thus taking self censorship as the order of the day, then asked for the bnp to stay away thus deciding who and who not was going to be allowed freedom of expression. Doing all this just so you could align with the muslims, whome the majority of finished up protesting against you in anycase, because they think they should be telling us what to do and not standing with us. The total bias of those decisions where the final deciding factor in making me become a bnp supporter.

12:38 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Gareth - BNP Twat (sorry I meant British Nazi Party Member)

I've been to the BNP website and seen what it represents, and downloaded your so-called policies.

Mine, and the only intelligent conclusion to draw from all this is that the BNP organisation plays on people's fear, tars immigrants and particularly muslims with the "bogy man" brush, and advocates deporting ALL non whites to their countries of ethnic origin. And since we ALL originally came from Africa that ought to be Africa for British Whites? - Anyway it seems you're OK with "European kindred" descent, good job, if you weren't, you would have to deport the entire Royal Family to Germany!

There's very little to distinguish your so-called policies and indeed propoganda strategies with those employed by Nazi's before they got into power in Germany.

I didn't think for a second you'd come back to the table pretending to be reasonable because anyone with a brain cell can look at your site and see the insidiousness of what it represents for themselves.

If you think you can protect this country from barbaric punishments by re-introducing the death penalty you are more stupid than I thought. If you think my words are strong, they are not strong enough.

I have enough patriotism to realise that what the BNP represents is travesty of the word British. I am ashamed of your very existance as an active (albeit minority) political group in our cultural system.

Go take refuge with your pals and when you have acquired a brain cell between yourselves and finally realise that no constructive debate can exist while you threaten to aggressively eliminate any fellow Brits, whatever their skin colour, come back.

Until then I have every right to look upon you with the disdain you truly deserve.

12:39 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Oh great - now we have two BNP supporters here - great job! What part of "you're not welcome" don't you understand?

12:42 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Voltaire, did you know that Tariq Ramadan protested against the performance of a Voltaire play on Mohammed in 1993 in Geneva? T.R argued it was insulting the prophet Mohammed, and claimed that staging the play would ''be another brick in an edifice of hatred and rejection in which Muslims feel they are being enclosed.''

Sounds familiar to me.

They had another go recently, and you will find the reference to the 1993 attack on Freedom of Speech in the middle of this article (search it for "Ramadan" to locate that reference quickly)

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001756.html

1:11 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

This blog has become the debate of Muslim beliefs and the ideology of the BNP party. I fear that the element of “freedom of expression/of speech” is getting lost somewhat. I also fear that the message this blog (and subsequent rallies/marches) is giving out is solely that of Islam and the ramifications those beliefs have on our way of life.
Can we not focus and communicate a more far reaching proposition if we are to “..formulate a firm strategy for advancing our agenda.”?

I would like to attend on 22nd but some of the blogs have made be feel unwanted, un-educated and un-welcome. I can envisage a mass brawl, will you be asking the met to attend Voltaire??

1:26 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Anonymous,
I have just realised that "Dialogue" is a fragment of your reply to my concerns.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22297247&postID=114382986089834631


You say "Of course it's rational that you should be scared, especially reading all of that stuff and failing to realise that you are being played like a monkey in the propoganda of fear politics."

What "propaganda" do you mean? Are you insinuating that what I see with my own eyes is a secret plot of Islamophobes trying to discredit your own creed? That The Holy Qur'aan, Hadith and Sira are sabotage materials produced by The Very Far Right to deceive me about the Religion of Peace? You cannot build any dialogue on the premise that your opponent is a half-wit instead of providing a hard core evidence to refute my arguments.

"What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world."

No, this is not enough to me. I do not wish any, even the most moderate of moderate brands of Islam imposed on me or the rest of the world, be it in the most peaceful way.

Anonymous, a round table sounds like a great idea, but what are we to negotiate? Terms of free speech? Smooth talk does not cost anything. Muslims call it takiyya, infidels call it diplomacy.
Why after 7/7 did I not see MAC marching in the streets with banners saying "Not in my name"?
Why don't your imams preach in the mosques "Love thy infidel as thyself"? Why isn't there a similar distrust or fear towards Hindus, Jews, Sikhs in this country as towards Muslims? No smoke without fire, Mate.
Please answer my questions before we sit together by a cup of tea and a biscuit.

1:41 pm  
Blogger Voltaire said...

I hope you'll attend, feste clown. Please email, in confidence, with your real name so we can add you to the list.

1:51 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

feste clown,

I agree with you.

This will lead to the March chatting with MAC on panels and thus ennobling MAC, and giving MAC the opportunity to show that all March wants is to vilify and oppress the poor, poor Muslims.

Sad.

1:51 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

feste clown,
I will turn up in a bullet-proof jacket and a helmet just in case (only joking). Still think that passion might bring more progress than the apathy and lethargy we have witnessed for so long here.
Having said that I absolutely agree with you. It is time to act. Let's do something constructive. Words are cheap and ....wearing.

2:47 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:58 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

@babyboots & polish solidarity
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520246217/
or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520246209/

Just in case you don't know it

3:00 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Good god guys! Chill out.

BTW Gay Muslims was a good show if you want to get worked up about ethnic injustice. “Don’t Panic I’m Islamic” is a good show to remind you how people are people and that we have more in common than not.

Anonymous, you treat BNP members or sympathizes as if they were subhuman. If only they were to drop their ideology, they would be just fine. Sounds very familiar to another argument I’ve heard.

I think that the BNP and political Islam have more in common than not.

Could you take your bun fight to the MAC board and stop polluting this one?

Cheers,

TFI

3:17 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Thanks Luke, very imformative!

I think its about time I let the 'cat out of the bag' to Anonymous!

There isn't just two BNP people on this forum!

There's three!

I'm a BNP supporter as well!

:/

3:34 pm  
Blogger Complex Piss said...

I am not a supporter of the BNP, But I find it interesting that the so called 'racist' stuff is so one-sided with them because they defend white,christian, british values.

It's perfectly ok for 'Black' groups to have solidarity with their culture and history.(operation black vote, black history month etc.) It's pefectly ok for jewish groups as well.. But anytime 'whitey' seeks to defend his interests he is a bigot, racist scumbag!??

Who said that all whites have to be guilty and self loathing or otherwise they are all racist?
Just who is being racist here?

"Guilty of being white"?

Not me.. Why should I? Why should something that happened hundreds of years ago make me be ashamed of my culture..

I am White and proud and am not a racist about it. I embrace other cultures.. I wish to learn about them.. But I won't be guilty of mine.. If that makes me a racist than shame on you for thinking that.. I believe that view to be incredibly 'racist'..

4:36 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

TheFriendlyInfidel said...
BNP dude, great post, nicely assembled.

"But Hizb-but-tahrir (I cant spell it i admit) wants sharia law in the uk, and should in no way be banned from college campuses for that. Because where do you draw the line? an opinion is an opinion, and should be shared."

Here is a question for Ismaeel: if you believe that a Shiri'a court can only provide justice in an context that embraces all of Islam, that means you must feel that to install a Shiri'a court in the UK will not be just, therefore you are one of the "6 in 10 Muslims" that flatly oppose its introduction?

Cheers,

TFI

12:05 PM

Leading question...my answer however has to be more nuanced. Shariah law in various elements already exists in various ways in a voluntary self-regulating way- shariah courts for divorce cases, custody rights, inheritance etc. All issues relating to family law. Also many banks now offer shariah compliant loans and mortgages (though to be honest i don't really think they are anything of the sort)and Muslims daily pray, annually fast and pay zakat and try and perform the pilgrimage once a lifetime all according to the shariah. Certain aspects of english law mirror shairah law quite closely like for instance laws on contracts. Also we have tolerance from most employers and schools for women's dress code and men's beards. To be honest with you i don't know what is meant by implementing the shairah in muslim majority areas as i have never met an Imam who espouses such a view. As i've said before i believe this is scare-mongering by vested interests.
Also for the record, although not a member of HT, from my understanding they have never campaigned for the introduction of shariah law in the UK and are quite expicit about restoring the Caliphate in Muslim majority countries not here.
I was not actually in the country in the wake of 7/7 (i hear the rumble of conspiracy theories being woven) I was visiting family in SL. MAC didn't exist at that time and i don't know what the thought processes were that determined the Muslim response in this country. I imagine people felt very worried about a backlash and at the same time very shocked and outraged. I doubt they felt very comfortable coming out in the streets to say not in my name. What you have to understand Polish Solidarity is it is very different for a minority group to come out and say "not in my name" then it is for the majority. I don't remember Dr MLK organising protests about the racist tactics of the Black Power Movement, or being criticised for not having done so. However he did speak against them, which is what the vast majority of Imams did when this event happened from my understanding.

4:59 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"it is very different for a minority group to come out and say "not in my name" "

That's right Ismaeel. Naser Khader has a lot to say about this. (That is, if he is not killed before you can talk to him)

5:17 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Luke said...
"it is very different for a minority group to come out and say "not in my name" "

That's right Ismaeel. Naser Khader has a lot to say about this. (That is, if he is not killed before you can talk to him)

5:17 PM

Oh is that the chap from Free Muslims Coalition?
Yeah i don't listen to puppets, except Sweep, i always enjoyed his role in the Sooty show

5:31 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I agree with this. All you have to do in Islam is believe. The Quran repeats this over and over ad nauseam.
Believing is doing what the Quran tells you.
Thinking is not believing, it's a sin.
Listening to your conscience is thinking, thus wrong.

LOL, this makes me laugh because if you ask 95% of converts to Islam (of which i am one) is that Islam is the absolute opposite of this. The Qur'aan puts it to you to think, reflect, challenge, research and question all of it's claims. It is Christianity i think u will find that teaches you to ignore reason and science and just believe, as so many Christians have said to me.

Polish soldiarity i have to research into this as it is not something i have ever looked into in depth before. At this stage though i'd just like to point out that in Orthodoz Judaism which bases it's laws on the Torah which of course forms part of the Old Testement (i.e. part of the tradition of your Judeo-Christian values-although that notion is somewhat daft as Christians spent most of history persecuting Jews for allegedly killing Prophet Jesus (PBUH) despite their belief this was divinely ordained so he ould be resurrected) and was brought by Prophet Moses (PBUH) the punishment for adultery is also stoning to death, murder is also punishable by death and apostacy is also punishable by death.

5:33 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Ismaeel said:
"Oh is that the chap from Free Muslims Coalition?
Yeah i don't listen to puppets, except Sweep, i always enjoyed his role in the Sooty show"

This is about Freedom of Speech.

Naser Khader is this person giving an interview here.
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/04/03/demos-interview-with-naser-khader/

5:51 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"Prophet Jesus"

I take offence !!!! He is the Son of God, and God.
Who are you to insult 2 Billion people !!!!!!!!

Nay, this was a joke. The God of the Christians is too strong to need humans to defend him and the Truth about him.

5:56 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Luke said...
Ismaeel said:
"Oh is that the chap from Free Muslims Coalition?
Yeah i don't listen to puppets, except Sweep, i always enjoyed his role in the Sooty show"

This is about Freedom of Speech.

Naser Khader is this person giving an interview here.
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/04/03/demos-interview-with-naser-khader/

Oh he's that chap from the multicultural thingy in Denmark, my apologies

6:10 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Oh and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) refers to himself at least once as a Prophet (PBUH) in the Bible as well as the "Son of Man" but i don't think there is a single reference where he claims to be the son of God

6:11 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Ok read that article. He's supported by 16% of the Muslims in Denmark... interesting. I don't agree with all this nonsense about 10 commandments of democracy and all this modernist Islam buisness.
I don't agree with what he says about the Muslim brotherhood movements, i think they are quite open in propagating their ideology, you can buy their stuff anywhere and everywhere.
I do agree that al-Qaeeda are Salafy-Wahabbis.
I think it is important that people especially in Britain research into the roots of the Wahabbi movement and find the hand of the British in instigating their ugly perversion of theology in what is now KSA to destabilise the Ottomon Caliphate.

6:19 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Leading question...my answer
> however has to be more nuanced.

Your answer was not nuanced, it was obfuscating.

For someone that is so determined in their beliefs and claims to be sincere, you spend a lot of time sitting on a fence.

A yes / no answer would be more appropriate than "I know of no person that is asking for this".

You have stated that you do not feel that a Shiri'a court can be just outside of a true Islamic state.

Therefore by your own argument there can be no Shiri'a court in existence today that is "fair".

Cheers,

TFI

6:20 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

I think it is important that people especially in Britain research into the roots of the Wahabbi movement and find the hand of the British in instigating their ugly perversion of theology in what is now KSA to destabilise the Ottomon Caliphate.

Yes Ismaeel, Democracy is hypocrisy and we all have blood on our hands. Whereas the Caliphate was nothing but sweetness and love, it was a near utopia and in far supremacy to anything Christian borne descents could have never imagined or dreamed (despite the occasional stoning loving applied to those that wanted their sins atoned etc)

Cheers,

TFI
(PS. Could all you BNP people please find somewhere else to troll? The Jihad watch board will welcome you with open arms)

6:28 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

See you on the 22nd....

...for my personal safety I shall be the one at the back wearing a fake moustache and a dolly parton wig, please address me as Shirley!

I hope to meet some of you there.

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.

6:48 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> I do agree that al-Qaeeda are Salafy-Wahabbis.
I think it is important that people especially in Britain research into the roots of the Wahabbi movement and find the hand of the British in instigating their ugly perversion of theology in what is now KSA to destabilise the Ottomon Caliphate.


Coming from someone whose views are not visibly different from the Salafists :), this comment is priceless.

Ismaeel... I'm putting our conversation back up in

http://what-global-civility.blogspot.com

(not completely up yet)

So we may carry on our Civil conversation.

Last we left off, you said it was quite OK to blow up the Bhuddhas because they de-humanized people, notably the West, which were more concerned to save a few pieces of stone than to save a starving population.

I asked you what your take on how whether Islam de-humanzied people by making them focus more on Hajj for a bunch of people to walk around a piece of stone, and Da'wa and building mosques than spending the money on feeding people- no strings attached.

You responded by deleting our very civil conversation. What happened?

7:29 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

TFI

Now that's not very nice of you to boot out any group from this message board on Free Expression.

Our friend Ismaeel here also doesn't believe in moral relativism and multiculturalism... much like the BNP.

And we should continue to make him feel very welcome here.

7:50 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

TFI friday wrote;

"(PS. Could all you BNP people please find somewhere else to troll? The Jihad watch board will welcome you with open arms)"

You said my last post was great!

7:50 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Islam is not a monolith. I have referred to the book by Irshad Manji in at least one other post and believe that the ideas that she brings to light offer a real chance of building a bridge between Islam and the Western world. I would seriously recommend Muslims and non-Muslims to visit her website:

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com

What do you think to her views Ismaeel, have you read her book? What do you think about the concept that she mentions – Ijtihad?

7:53 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

Peace and Compassion to those who insult Lord Buddha

8:06 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

aeneas - good link.

Feste

8:11 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

BNP dude, it was and is, a most excellent post. You summarized view points and span the table around beautifully: who is the irrational hater?

Its all this "I'm comming out of the closet stuff. I'm BNP too!!!" stuff that is a little too much. Its making the board feel like a support group! There is no shortage of nasty links and stories about Islam out there to swap them amoungst ourselves. This board is not about airing personal grevances, its about debate.

> Our friend Ismaeel here also
> doesn't believe in moral
> relativism and multiculturalism.
> .. much like the BNP.

Oh yes he does, if you check aback through the boards you will find how he feels that having sex with 9-15 old girls is OK in different cultures, but not here and that he can bear to practise his religion without this right. That's cultural relativism if I've ever seen it.

I'm a cultural relativist too, but I am also a firm believer in "Best Practices" which I firmly believe are mostly found in the Western world.

Absolutely Ismaeel is very welcome here, I'm very interested in what he has to say, he does not say ...

> You responded by deleting our
> very civil conversation. What
> happened?

... and what he slips up about and then deletes.

It is funny that exact same thing happened to me in while having a civil dialogue about the pro's and con's of women getting stoned.

Fortunately I was able to retrieve it from the Google cache, this annoyed me so much I've now a script that collects posts from the MAC site to ensure that things don't go missing anymore.

Here is a top tip, to find your posts on the MAC site Google the following string, it’s a site search:

site:http://muslim-action-committee.blogspot.com Common Sense

I apologize if this is teaching you how to suck eggs. If the pages has "vanished", you need only click the "cached" link to get it back.

I’ll be back in a week, keep the candle burning for me.

Cheers,

TFI

8:31 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I'm ignoring you Common Sense, because i see absolutely no point to conversation with you. You ignore my points or say stupid things like my ideas are like Salafys and SWT means blessings upon the Prophet (PBUH) and then attempt to give credence to all this by saying you're an arab-american.

8:34 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

TFI:

I saved all the posts as I wrote them :).

8:35 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> I'm ignoring you Common Sense, because i see absolutely no point to conversation with you.

Fine. But why delete what was written?



>> You ignore my points

I didn't ignore your points. I listened to your points. You said it was OK for Muhammad to expel the Pagans from Mecca, and for him to take control of the Kaaba.

Then you condemned the Conquistadors for kicking out the Muslims from Andalucia- for their intolerance.

I asked you to reconcile those two points.






>> or say stupid things like my ideas are like Salafys

Well you said it was OK to blow up the Bhuddhas because they de-humanized people. That's what the Salafis believe.

Why don't you list the ways in which you and the Salafis differ. That way, you can shut me up.





>> and SWT means blessings upon the Prophet (PBUH)

That was a slip-up. I thanked you for the correction.



>> and then attempt to give credence to all this by saying you're an arab-american.

I am not an Arab-American. I am an Arab-Canadian.

Want to put me through the test? Want me to give you a call and speak to you in Arabic?

8:40 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel, you said "I imagine people felt very worried about a backlash and at the same time very shocked and outraged. I doubt they felt very comfortable coming out in the streets to say not in my name. What you have to understand Polish Solidarity is it is very different for a minority group to come out and say "not in my name" then it is for the majority."

And did British Muslims feel worried and uncomfortable when they went out 3 times in the streets to protest against the cartoons?

8:41 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

aeneas said...
Islam is not a monolith. I have referred to the book by Irshad Manji in at least one other post and believe that the ideas that she brings to light offer a real chance of building a bridge between Islam and the Western world. I would seriously recommend Muslims and non-Muslims to visit her website:

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com

What do you think to her views Ismaeel, have you read her book? What do you think about the concept that she mentions – Ijtihad?

I've heard alot about this woman from Canadians i know, just looked over her website now. What was most interesting was her discussion about her madrassa education. It sounds like she didn't have a teacher who could explain Islam to her properly and then she's drifted without proper guidance since, it happens to many and i feel sorry for her.
As for her view about ijtihad. Ijtihad has the same linguistic root as the word jihad- both mean to struggle. However the form means to struggle with the texts of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and to derive rulings from them. It does not mean free thinking. If we look at Islamic history only the highest calibre scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (RA) etc who were masters of all the Islamic religious sciences were able to derive principles of jurisprudence from the sources and then apply them to derive rulings. The students of these scholars arranged themselves into schools to apply these principles. When new circumstances arise those principles can still be applied. In this way existing Islamic law is flexible in accomadating new situations and events. I don't believe Ms Manji knows enough about what she is talking about. She is completley ostracised in the Muslim world as far as i am aware especially in Canada.

8:41 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel

As a Muslim will you be signing the Manifesto of 12: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism as mentioned on the site of the link I previously provided?

8:42 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

P.S. Ismaeel. I lived in the Gulf countries- home to the "Salafis". And you sound like one to me based on the cross-section of discussion we've had thusfar.

Do correct the misconception by laying out some examples of what you think they do that is unacceptable, and how you differ from them on that.


(or you can just ignore me :) )

8:45 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Fine

Salafys don't believe in Madhabbs
I do

Salafys don't believe in the Light of the Prophet (SAWS)
I do

Salafys believe Allah (SWT) has a direction and a location
I don't

Salafys believe the Prophet (PBUH) didn't have knowledge of the unseen
I do

Salafys believe anything which isn't word for word specified in a hadith is a bidah (illegal religious innovation)
I don't

Salafys believe Sufism is a non-Islamic cult
Whereas they are the cult.

Salafys don't believe in Awliya (Saints) their tombs, their intercession etc
I do

It really doesn't matter what ethnicity you are, all you are about is trying to prove how clever you are, when in fact you are not. I can't be bothered to entertain your ego any further.

8:47 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

aeneas said...
Ismaeel

As a Muslim will you be signing the Manifesto of 12: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism as mentioned on the site of the link I previously provided?

No, because it's arrant nonsense.

8:49 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

TheFriendlyInfidel said...
> Leading question...my answer
> however has to be more nuanced.

Your answer was not nuanced, it was obfuscating.

For someone that is so determined in their beliefs and claims to be sincere, you spend a lot of time sitting on a fence.

A yes / no answer would be more appropriate than "I know of no person that is asking for this".

You have stated that you do not feel that a Shiri'a court can be just outside of a true Islamic state.

Therefore by your own argument there can be no Shiri'a court in existence today that is "fair".

Cheers,

TFI

*I was referring to Islam as a governing system which deals with international affairs, criminal law etc when i said Shariah courts could not be fair.

As far as family law is concerned it is quite possible to have fair shariah courts in this country or anywhere else and they already exist on a voluntary, self-regulating basis.

Ok let me make myself clear about this, as long as we can eat halal, not be discriminated in our schools and workplaces for our dress and beards, as long as we can build mosques and pray in them, as long as we can go for hajj, as long as we can fast in Ramadhan, as long as we can worship Allah (SWT) freely and without persecution and manage our family issues such as marriage, divorce, burials etc according to our religious laws, i think we've got the amount of shariah we need to get by in this society.
Like i said before i don't know to what extent of shariah law people want to impose of Muslim-majority communities, because i don't know who they are to read their proposals or ask them. As Professor Sokheedo has helpfully not given any names, they are a little difficult to find. I'll say it again he is a troublemaker and a liar. If you can prove me wrong, go ahead and i'll retract it.

9:00 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel said...
It sounds like she didn't have a teacher who could explain Islam to her properly and then she's drifted without proper guidance since, it happens to many and i feel sorry for her.

Ismaeel - Does this happen a lot in madrassas?

9:02 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> But whats the big difference
> between me and "annonymous" here?
> The muslim seeks to silence those
> who oppose him and his religion,
> something i have never done.

That’s very interesting actually because while quizzing Ismaeel on his opinon on the hate spewing Islam ruining "Abu where-your-Hanza" he told me:

I don't think Abu Hamza was evil, i don't think anyone is evil. There isn't really a concept of evil in Islam. One of the first things i was taught as a Muslim was that "Don't hate people, hate their wrong actions". This is because Islam sees people as inherently good and with the opportunity to attain salvation until the last minute.

Seems to me like our friend Anonymous ought take a leaf from Ismaeel’s book and not see all BNP members as evil, just misguided.

Although I won't even start to go through the leafs that Ismaeel should take from anonymous, I've plane to catch and I'm sure that there is enough space.

Cheers,

TFI

9:03 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...
Ismaeel, you said "I imagine people felt very worried about a backlash and at the same time very shocked and outraged. I doubt they felt very comfortable coming out in the streets to say not in my name. What you have to understand Polish Solidarity is it is very different for a minority group to come out and say "not in my name" then it is for the majority."

And did British Muslims feel worried and uncomfortable when they went out 3 times in the streets to protest against the cartoons?

8:41 PM

Well it's a different context. Using the analogy i used last time, MLK came out and protested against white supremacy in birmingham alabama and elsewhere, he didn't however protest against the black power movement, despite radically disagreeing with them.

After 7/7 i think alot of Muslims were quite shocked and horrified and were more interested in going and finding out how this happened and trying to sort it out.

With the cartoons the community felt angry at the attack on their Prophet (PBUH) and peaceful protests were a good way of channeling that anger in a positive way.

9:05 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel said...
However the form means to struggle with the texts of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and to derive rulings from them. It does not mean free thinking.

Ismaeel – do you think free thinking is a bad thing?

9:05 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel said...
If we look at Islamic history only the highest calibre scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (RA) etc who were masters of all the Islamic religious sciences were able to derive principles of jurisprudence from the sources and then apply them to derive rulings.

Ismaeel – How does one become a “highest calibre scholar”? How is the opinion of such a person more valid than that of anyone else, surely their interpretations are just opinion?

9:07 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Ismaeel said...
However the form means to struggle with the texts of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and to derive rulings from them. It does not mean free thinking.

Ismaeel – do you think free thinking is a bad thing?

I don't think free thinking is a bad thing, i think it's a good thing. However when it comes to understanding religious texts which were very carefully preserved along with the science of how to interpret them from the founder of the religion (PBUH)himself then if you are a believer you have to go with that.

9:10 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

aeneas said:
Ismaeel – How does one become a “highest calibre scholar”? How is the opinion of such a person more valid than that of anyone else, surely their interpretations are just opinion?

The scholar who is able to perform ijtihad is called a Mujtahid. This scholar has firstly to be a master of classical arabic (no mean feat, try learning classical arabic grammer), to have memorised the Qur'aan, memorised 10,000 hadith, to know the rulings given by the Prophet (PBUH) and those of his family and companions eligable to give rulings, to be an extremley devout and pious Muslim in one's own conduct and many many other qualifications. Having reached this level they are thorough experts on the subject and are capable of exerting their own faculties to the weighty task of essentially interpreting Allah (SWT)'s words and those of his Messenger (SAWS). This is why their understanding has much more authority than mine or any other lesser scholarly person.

9:15 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel.

Thanks for the list.

>> It really doesn't matter what ethnicity you are,

Then you shouldn't have assumed that I tried to gain credibility by "pretending" to be Arab.



>> all you are about is trying to prove how clever you are,

Why be mean? I was asking sincere questions. I wasn't trying to be "clever". Were my posts "Clever" in your opinion?

You were not giving me straight answers.

I was trying to understand what you meant by your drive for "Global Civility". Trying to distinguish when something that is said should be considered "Valid Criticism", and when it should be considered "Gratuitous Insult".


You spent days beating around the bush, finally saying that you see nothing wrong in the actions of Muhammad destroying the Idols of the Kaaba, and his expulsion of Pagans from Mecca. You said you saw nothing wrong with the Taliban blowing up the Bhuddhas because they had come to symbolise the de-humanization of the West.

You described the Trinity as strange, and referred to the Statues as "pieces of stone".

I asked you to tell me if you felt it acceptable "criticism" to call Muhammad an intolerant bigot, in much the same way that you describe the Conquistadors or "traditional Christians".

I was wondering if that was part of the pact of Global Civility.


And now you say I am trying to be smart?






>> when in fact you are not. I can't be bothered to entertain your ego any further.

Fine: Why did you delete the posts?

Don't answer anything else. Just explain: Why did you delete the Posts?

9:15 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I explained very clearly to you several times what global civility meant and what it's narrow remit was in terms of how we discuss and dialogue. You chose to ignore that and instead waffle on about issues of politics, history, religion etc.
I realised you were trying to alter the image of our campaign by widening out the discussion and trying to link it back to the campaign about issues which have nothing to do with it. I made that clear several times.
I deleted the posts because i didn't want peope reading the posts on the MAC blog and associating my religious views and views on history and politics with the Campaign which is something completly different. So you can post it up wherever it is your hearts content to do so, but not on the MAC blog. Thanks
Oh and i said you were attempting to give yourself credence by describing yourself as an Arab-American (which is how you described yourself) whether it is true or not it doesn't cut any ice with me and that was my point.

9:22 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

TFI I agree they are both frigging mad - but I hope you can see that just as being British doesn't make you BNP being Islamic doesn't make you Al-Qaida!

9:28 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

I said I was an Arab living in North America.

>> I explained very clearly to you several times what global civility meant and what it's narrow remit was in terms of how we discuss and dialogue.

Yes. And I asked you if you thought that calling Muhammad an intolerant bigot for his actions was OK with you in terms of how we discuss and dialogue.

I mean you're OK with saying that the "pieces of stone" that are the Bamiyam Bhuddha dehumanize people, and hence ought to have been destroyed.

So I ask you- and I ask you sincerely- is it OK to say that that collection of papers that is the Koran has de-humanized people and made them think its OK to flog adulterers, and stone homosexuals, be destroyed.


What is your Global vision for Global Civility: Is it your ability to go around and say, "I don't believe in Multi-culturalism", and "Your ideas are Strange and de-humanizing", while getting assurances that no-body will say the same to you? That no-body will call Muhammad a terrorist?

9:32 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I never said I hated BNP people I said they are sick and make me ashamed to be British and that's a fair point given (and this is a long story which I( won't go into) that if they had had their way I would be dead now - so don't blame me for getting upset.

9:33 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel said...
Ok let me make myself clear about this, as long as we can eat halal, not be discriminated in our schools and workplaces for our dress and beards, as long as we can build mosques and pray in them, as long as we can go for hajj, as long as we can fast in Ramadhan, as long as we can worship Allah (SWT) freely and without persecution and manage our family issues such as marriage, divorce, burials etc according to our religious laws, i think we've got the amount of shariah we need to get by in this society.

Regarding marriage, does this include polygamy and mut'a?

9:36 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

What is more offensive blowing up statues of Buddha (a destructive act) or drawing a cartoon (a creative act)?

Also what caused the poverty in Afghanistan when the Buddha statues were destroyed?

9:41 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

aenas said:
Regarding marriage, does this include polygamy and mut'a?

well as a sunni muslim i don't believe in mut'a. However i believe both are possible under english law.

9:43 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

Ismaeel

Thanks for answering my questions.

10:06 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel: Final post to you.


>> I realised you were trying to alter the image of our campaign by widening out the discussion and trying to link it back to the campaign about issues which have nothing to do with it. I made that clear several times.


No- I was not trying to alter the image of your campaign. Your campaign itself slowly changed (Note: it started off requesting a "minimum" standard of civility be met).


I found it peculiar though, the list of supporters.

The list of Muslims groups and Mosques (that included HT).


Why this sudden drive for "Global Civility" because a newspaper in Denmark published some cartoons, and non-British European papers followed suit.

Every day in the Middle East media- be it Salafi controlled, or Shia, (or from any other Sunni madhab for that matter), you have the most terrible things being said: about Hindus (learn Arabic, and flip on Al-Jazeera). Read the newspapers. Log into MEMRI, and watch a clip from Al-Shatat, produced by Syrian TV and aired by Al-Manar, a channel that when it was being banned in France, Muslims went gung-ho over teh potential ban asking where "Freedom of Speech" was.


Where were all those Muslim groups then? The ones that reared their heads now and created a movement called Global Civility?


Sure, there are Muslims who spoke up before. There's plenty of them. But they are the Nasser Khaders (a puppet), Irshad Manji (misguided), and whole slew of others...

But Hizb-u-Tahrir? My oh my, where did it get all this strength from.

To set up a web-site, try to hook up a debate in Oxford Secular Society on Civility. All this energy. All this strength. Masha'Allah!


Anyways. I wish you all the best. But as a I told you before, you'll gain more credibility if your battle for Civility didn't focus on "how people talked to each other". Clearly, you're not polished in that regard either. But focus on more important things: focus on fighting for the dignity and life of those Yemeni and Jordanian journalists. At least feign the attempt. People will look at you with a little more respect. Fight also for improvements of the Human Rights situations in Muslim countries. People will look more respectfully at you and your groups.


Best of Luck.
Common Sense.

10:18 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

No- I was not trying to alter the image of your campaign. Your campaign itself slowly changed (Note: it started off requesting a "minimum" standard of civility be met).

And it still does, it hasn't changed from that. End of story.

10:46 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

aeneas said...
What is more offensive blowing up statues of Buddha (a destructive act) or drawing a cartoon (a creative act)?

Also what caused the poverty in Afghanistan when the Buddha statues were destroyed?

Ok let me clarify my position, i don't believe in going around destroying buddha statues willy nilly. In Afghanistan poverty had been caused by the US abandoning it to inter-factional fighting between the Mujahideen who had helped them give the USSR a good kicking. The country then suffered further because of the "moral high ground" the west took with the Taliban who has actually improved the situation by stabilising the country and ending the factional fighting that was destroying most of the country. Yes there was still a civil war but at least some law and order could occur. Now i am not apologising for the Taliban, they had alot of faults as well. But what they saw as hypocricy and frankly i agree is that western companies were coming in to restore two statues which had not been visited by Buddhists for centuries, but refused to give money to help feed the hungry people of Afghanistan. In the shariah preservation of one's life comes even before one's religious obligations, thus it is permissable to eat pork and drink wine if starving and having no alternative. The Western companies involved were clearly acting in an inhumane way. The destruction of the statues was to demonstrate the insignificance of their importance in relation to human life, which i hope you would agree with.
Now before anyone starts, i've already anticipated all the posts about well satirising the Prophet (PBUH) is less of a crime than the terrorism committed in his name. Arguably so, however does that justify satirising him (PBUH), he didn't approve of their actions or give legal sanction for them. In fact if you read many of their statements and "fatwas" they usually embroil themselves in countless excuses and legal chinangry in trying to justify not following Islamic law, by emphasising the importance of achieving their aim. However the end seperated from the means is not an Islamic concept but a thoroughly materialistic one and more akin to ideologies like Stalinism than to traditional understandings of Islam.

10:58 pm  
Blogger Derius said...

"I think it is important that people especially in Britain research into the roots of the Wahabbi movement and find the hand of the British in instigating their ugly perversion of theology in what is now KSA to destabilise the Ottomon Caliphate."

Clearly Ismaeel assumes, quite incorrectly, that no British person would possibly have any knowledge on this subject, and thus makes this completely ridiculous statement, thinking that nobody will notice the absurdity of it all.

Wahhabism was created around 1740 by Muhammad ibn Abdul al-Wahhab, who funnily enough, was not a British Colonialist, but instead a devout Arab Sunni Muslim. Wahhabism gained steadily more influence until various wars were fought between the Wahhabis and the Ottoman Empire from circa 1800 A.D. The British Empire only began to send aid the Wahhabis from 1850-1900, to help them against the Ottomans, who regularly attacked European ships on established trading routes. The idea that Western Colonialists could possibly have have had any influence on how Islam was practiced in Arabia in 1740 is absurd, not least because the Europeans were unable to reach that part of the world at that time, as the Ottoman Empire was too strong and attacked any European ships they saw in their territories. The Ottoman Empire had attacked Vienna only 60 years before this in 1683, and almost conquerd that city. This shows what a powerful force it was at that time.

Sorry Ismaeel, but British Colonialism was not responsible for Wahhabism. It is the Arabs in Arabia who adopted it at that time who were. Nice try though.

History Lesson over. Long live free speech.

11:07 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

aeneas...

The process of destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas long predates the arrival of the Taliban.

The statues were hacked away at for centuries by iconoclasts, with considerable damage done by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (this particular emperor is known for other atrocities). Those people were driven by austerity, not the lack of wealth. They were emperors. They took their direction from the example of Muhammad destroying Idols in the Ka'aba.


The first attempt at destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas came in 1998, when the Taliban first gained control of the area (Bamiyan). Mullah Omar then issued an edict saying that since the statues were not worshipped, per se, then they could remain untouched.


The West imposed sanctions on Afghanistan because it held a certain fellow by the name of OBL. Noteworthy is that this person is not really a Muslim, but belongs to a Non-Islamic cult called Wahabism/Salafism :).


Anyhow, the Taliban could have shown its (ahem) commitment to true Islamic principles by burning the Korans and mosques that the Saudis provided them with, and told them that more pressing humanitarian needs were in order (e.g. feeding the poor Afghanis). But instead of taking their wrath out on the Saudis , and their puritanical version of Islam, they lashed out on what's held dear by Buddhists. The same Buddhists whose organisations were slaving away in the refugee camps providing aid to the needy and hungry.


Of course, Mullah Omar could have revitalized Afghanistan instead of working to build the "perfect" Islamic emirate- a more dehumanizing endeavour, if ever there was one. Perhaps, the tourist dollars would have helped re-vitalize the country. But that was not to be.


Since the destruction, some Westerners have pointed to the irony of the fact that the materialist world has become obsessed with objects instead of caring for the poor and needy. A documentary was filmed by Swiss film-maker:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478157/


Among numerous articles in archaelogical magazines. Many of the people who belittled the crime were Buddhists and Christians (yes, those de-humanized by kissing statues of the Virgin Mary or the feet of Baby Jesus). Even then, in the face of the most humane grouping of people ever to grace the face of this earth, those people showed enough hate to go back to Afghanistan, to help the needy, and to feed the poor.

And what's the Taliban (inspired by the Humanizing Qu'ran) doing?

2:16 am  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

3:41 am  
Blogger Babyboots said...

TFI (who hopefully has managed to catch his plane, as he kept telling us a thousand times) said

"I think that the BNP and political Islam have more in common than not."

"Could you take your bun fight to the MAC board and stop polluting this one?"

"(PS. Could all you BNP people please find somewhere else to troll? The Jihad watch board will welcome you with open arms)"

"Its all this "I'm comming out of the closet stuff. I'm BNP too!!!" stuff that is a little too much. Its making the board feel like a support group!"

Wow!

It's amazing isn't it! All because I observed a character that does 'run with the fox and hunt with the hound'

And he has tried unsuccessfully to hound me off the board!

Well I've got breakfast to catch so I'll give the keyboard over to the BNP man!!!

Peace and Love to all
xxx

6:28 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Sorry Ismaeel, but British Colonialism was not responsible for Wahhabism. It is the Arabs in Arabia who adopted it at that time who were. Nice try though.

History Lesson over. Long live free speech.

*The documented of British spies in influencing Abdul Wahabb is well documented. You don't need ships to send spies.

6:53 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Even then, in the face of the most humane grouping of people ever to grace the face of this earth, those people showed enough hate to go back to Afghanistan, to help the needy, and to feed the poor.

LOL Common Sense my foot. Afghanistan was abandoned by the west for years. It only became important for the west to help out there because they wanted to put an oil pipeline through it. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
I didn't see anybody going in and saving the Tutsis when they were being slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda, most probably because they have no oil.
Also "Common Sense" please refer me to some documentation for all the Saudi mosques and Qur'aans brought in during the time of the Taliban.

6:58 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Of course, Mullah Omar could have revitalized Afghanistan instead of working to build the "perfect" Islamic emirate- a more dehumanizing endeavour, if ever there was one. Perhaps, the tourist dollars would have helped re-vitalize the country. But that was not to be.

I think you will find he was fighting a civil war and he was rebuilding a country that had been ravaged by war and where kalashnikovs cost less than shoes because of the heavy subsidising of the Mujahideen by the CIA. I don't know how much you know about the tourist industries in countries which are affected by civil wars but they don't tend to do to well during heavy fighting: Sri Lanka has been a good example of this.

7:01 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

The same Buddhists whose organisations were slaving away in the refugee camps providing aid to the needy and hungry.

Which Buddhist organisations were slaving away in the refugee camps, pray tell.

Also what have idols and statues got to do with the teachings of Buddha anyway. No wonder Buddhists belittled the event, because they have more sense.
It is interesting that people like you will go on about not wanting shariah law imposed in the west (which actually no Muslim group or Imam i've ever encountered has talked about doing) but you're quite happy to impose your western liberal ideas on Muslim countries.

7:06 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

And what's the Taliban (inspired by the Humanizing Qu'ran) doing?

I believe they are being hunted down by US troops intent on packing them off to that funhouse of western fairplay and legality: Guatanamo Bay.

7:08 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

The West imposed sanctions on Afghanistan because it held a certain fellow by the name of OBL.

Yeah liked they imposed sanctions on Iraq because of Saddam. Blissfully forgetting that they funded, armed and backed both of them for years and also not noticing that perhaps these wealthy individuals would probably not really be affected by sanctions and it would be the normal poor people of those countries. But then that was the plan all along in Iraq because the US could have supported the Shi'a uprising at the end of the 1st gulf war if they had wanted to just get rid of Saddam, but they didn't, in fact they aided and abetted him in putting it down.
Do you think it is right and consistant with your so-called universal human rights to punish a whole country because of the presence of a single person who most people in that country have no control over whether they are there? Doesn't that amount to collective punishment?

7:14 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel:

Your level of ignorance on which Aid groups were active in Afghanistan is astounding.

My job is not to rectify your illusions, judgements,...

But the Great Satan has made available great technology under your Finger Tips: Google, Yahoo, AllTheWeb, to name but a few.

This resource is, Masha'allah, free. Use it in your great journey to acquire knowledge.

Suffice it to say that I have a couple of friends who worked for Korean organisations (Buddhist) in the field in Afghanistan. And this is just lowly me. And though I was not there to witness it with my own eyes, I had the pleasure of seeing pictures.

As for Western aid organisations, you can always count of Christian aid groups in all those areas. And this should come as no surprise notably in places like, ahem, Afghanistan, where the Taliban routinely accused those groups with "Prosyletization". And where no doubt, that pesky little fellow Abdul Rahman, says he converted to Christianity "on account of seeing how much Christian groups were helping the poor".


Your disdain for the West is Herculean.


Kindly, don't assume what my political positions are. Your level of wrong-assumption making surpasses your ignorance of religion and history.

Perhaps, you project your own deficiencies onto those you talk to.

Why assume I want to "impose Western Liberal values" on anyone.

Is it because the groups you affiliate with want to impose Sharia in "Majority Muslim countries".


Did you feel I was seeking credibility by saying I was Arab because you were seeking credibility saying you are a Western convert- or should I say, revert- to Islam?



I don't need to quote sources for Saudi funding of mosques and Korans everywhere in this world. Nor do I need to quote their funding for Qu'ranic educational services in the UK, the US...

The Taliban were hosting, Masha'allah, a multi-millionaire, by the name of OBL. They could have given up that "non-Islamic cult follower", or squeezed him for some money to help the poor. But it seems the power relationship allowed Mullah Omar's original edict on the statues to be reversed rather than give up OBL.


Yes, Westerners and Buddhist alike realize it is just stones. And who really cares if they are gone? Like the Pagans of Mecca, who made their Idols of Dates (only to eat them later !?!?[Ismaeel really said this]), everyone else recognizes the symbols and their real place and worth, in a way that you don't. Because you busied yourself obsessing about the "dehumanizing idols", you no longer could see the forest from the trees.

Ba7. They're gone. A historical record is gone. The work of the ancestors of the Buddhists is gone. Why are you upset that the Salafi/Wahabi non-Islamic sect bashed the graves of your Awlia. They are just stones. I'm sure you survived. Much like the Buddhists and the few grumpy Archaelogists.


But what is left is the glaring reminder that the inspiration for all of this is this unhealthy, dehumanizing obsession and legacy with "Idols" and other peoples' beliefs that Muhammad has left his "1.6 Billion Followers" with.

Of course not Ismaeel. You don't support destroying statues "Willy Nilly". Who died and made you Allah?

Give it a break Ismaeel. Go back to your campaign to spread Global Civility, the campaign in which you and your friends will "Civilize" the way people talk to each other (but not deal with each other, since that does not fit the narrow aims of your organisation). Clearly, you perfected the art.


Istaghfer al-Shaitan min Allah al-Rajeem! Meen Khala2 majaneen mitlak?

8:05 am  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Hello Ismaeel!

I give you full, higher respect than Anonymous, who has proved himself to be disrespectful! At least you havn't lowered yourself in that way!

Peace be with you!

8:30 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

As for Western aid organisations, you can always count of Christian aid groups in all those areas. And this should come as no surprise notably in places like, ahem, Afghanistan, where the Taliban routinely accused those groups with "Prosyletization". And where no doubt, that pesky little fellow Abdul Rahman, says he converted to Christianity "on account of seeing how much Christian groups were helping the poor".

No Christian aid groups spend absolutley no time trying to prostylise in the third world countries where they go to feed the poor. It is well known that this is the case and not just in Muslim communities, i know many Buddhists in Sri Lanka who complain about Christian aid groups using their aid merely as a means of spreading their religion. Food packs and blankets usually come with books with Qur'aan written on the front and the bible inside. Also Christian groups took cans of pork to the poor starving people of North West frontier province after the recent earthquake in Pakistan.

As you are probably aware OBL involved himself in alot of development work, like building roads etc both in Sudan and Afghanistan. They doesn't excuse his other actions, but it does answer your questions about why didn't he give money, because he clearly did. As for Saudi Mosques and Qur'aans, do you think they're continued to be a good relationship between Saudi and the Taliban after they sheltered a man who avowed to destroy the Saudi regime. Also who has helped bacf, finance and facilitate this spread of Salafy propaganda around the world, who are the Saudi's best buddies in the whole world.
I didn't assume your politics, you're the one who defended the sanctions being placed.
I'm not ignorant of history or religion, though you clearly seek to distort both to prove what a "good arab" you are. I didn't seek to get credence by saying i'm a convert to Islam, i was merely explaining the fallacy of the man's arguments about Islam being a religion that doesn't involve thinking.
All religions and ideologies take stances about the beliefs of all others. Usually they don't approve of the others. Christianity spent most of it's history persecuting anyone who didn't accept it's dogmas until various Christian sects started persecuting each other. Liberals routinely denounce Islam. Communists hate all religions. Jewish scripture is full of disdainful comments about other races as well as alot of scorn for idolatry as well. Modern Evangelical Christainity is probably the most intolerant religious movement in the world, the most violent and aggressive.

However Islam has a history of tolerating and allowing other belief systems to live side by side with it throughout the world. Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years, yet they're are still plenty of Hindu temples predating their arrival in India. Christianity and Judaism also had large and vibrant communities across the Muslim world and it is only a move away from Islam that has caused modern tensions in those communities.
Anyway i'm sure you'll dismiss this as all stuff that happened hundreds of years after the Prophet (PBUH) and therefore having no relevance, because it was his ideas that we are talking about. However if you're going to be intellectually honest (which you are not) and consistant (which you are not) then why are you bringing up the issue of the Buddhist statues being destroyed as that was also hundreds of years after the Prophet (PBUH)
Go away and impress your western mates with how in love with their civilisation you are.

8:50 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Here's an interview with that spiritual leader of Ismaeel, and a consultant to Tony Blair, a man named Tariq Ramadan:

http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/19/tariq-ramadan-youre-an-arrogant-man/

8:52 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Istaghfer-el-Shaitan Min Allah Al-Rajeem!

Istaghfer-el-Shaitan Min Allah Al-Rajeem!

Istaghfer-el-Shaitan Min Allah Al-Rajeem!

Ismaeel, Does you brain function at all?


One Moment you say the "West" abandoned Afghanistan. Now you concur that Aid groups were there (but only because they were there to prosyletize).

Walak ya Majnoon. Make up your mind.

P.S. I won't be reading your posts anymore. I require a minimum level of rationality from those I talk to.

8:58 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Is the Hajj dehumanising?

No, i was blessed by Allah t'ala with being able to perform the Hajj two years ago masha'Allah. I am widely travelled, but I have never experienced such humanity and brotherhood in my whole life.

The experience itself where pilgrims come from all corners of the earth of all colours and races, all wearing the same simple sheets showing their shared humanity despite their racial and class differences in front of Allah t'ala is truly inspiring. It is notable that it was inspiring enough to change Malcolm X a preacher of racial hatred and black supremacy into a person who embraced people of all races and cultures.
The rites themselves are great humanising acts. The contemplation of one's life, one's good and bad actions at Mina, helps one to put one's life in perspective as one accounts one's self and his/her contribution to the world. Standing at Arafat along with millions of others asking Allah t'ala for forgiveness for one's wrong actions increases one's humility at one's insignificance in the cosmos and increases one's sense of responsibility for their action. The night at Muzdalifah where the people stay awake in the freezing cold contemplating on the sacrifice of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) and dedicating oneself to sacrificing one's life to serve Allah t'ala in working for his religion to uplift humanity from disbelief and materialism. The circling of the Ka'bah reminds people that their lifes are centred on Allah t'ala and their lives revlove around him, they came from him and they will after death return to him. This belief in Allah t'ala and his judgement humanises people to take care of their actions in this life, to serve humanity and seek to help bring people out of the illusions of disbelief that blind them to their ultimate destination which is the grave and what follows it.
The Sa'i the passing between the mountains of Safa and Marwa 7 times by all pilgrims reminds them of the maternal instincts and sacrifices of Lady Hajar(RA) as she sought water for her baby son Prophet Ismaeel(PBUH).
Yes i believe that Islam is the truth "Common Sense" otherwise i wouldn't be a Muslim, no i don't believe in multicultralism, moral relativity etc. I believe Islam is the only salvation for mankind as the do Christians believe about Christianity, as do Buddhists about Buddhism, as do Liberals about liberalism, as do Communists about Communism. I also believe in tolerance and changing people through debate and discussion, not through force and those are the teachings of Islam. I don't see the same tolerance and attempts to change people peacefully from Communists, Evangelical Christians or the Liberal Crusaders in the Middle East.

9:09 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Istaghfer-el-Shaitan Min Allah Al-Rajeem!

Oh you want me to talk about stoning the jamaraats in Hajj. Again not just throwing stones at stones. It is a deeply symbolic and spiritual act coming after seeking Allah t'ala's forgiveness in Arafat and dedicating oneslef to sacrificing one's life for his cause in Muzdalifah. It symbolises stoning the three shaitains, the first being the devil who constantly whispers to us tempting us to do wrong, the second being the devil of our egos (nafs) whose beastial desires often take us from our higher purposes. Finally the devil of the world that seeks to absorb us in materialism to the defecit of our spirituality

9:14 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

So it appears that the West "abandoned" Afghanistan.

The Taliban "stablized" the situation by quelling the Civil war, which really means decimating the Hazeris and not coming to a compromise solution with the various ethnic groups that wanted their slice of the pie.


Of course, the West is in Afghanistan now, and like the mightly OBL, are building highways (well trying to, as they dodge Taliban suicide bombers).


The West of course is "trying to impose Western Liberal Values". A recent example of course being when they pressed for the release of that Apostate- who the humanized Afghanis wanted to shred to pieces.


So of-course Western aid, and support should come with no Strings attached. For Christian aid groups, it means, they should keep their bibles at home (no similar condition on Muslim aid groups). For Western governments, it means leaving their brand of morality in their Parliaments.

Naturally, OBL and the other Jihadis need their money to buy rockets to blow up infidels. So Western nations should have obliged, and just sent money to Mullah Omar. That way, instead of using the soccer field as an execution hall, he could build proper facilities to kill sexual deviants, apostates and Shias.


While Westeners and Christians are strongly dissuaded from using economics to "spread Western Liberal values" and "Christianity". Muslims are urged to start boycotts in order to influence Western governments to put tighter controls on their Free Press.


Masha'Allah.

9:16 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

The reason that Iblis (Satan) fell according to the Qur'aan is he refused to prostrate to Prophet Adam (PBUH). The reason why? Because he only recognised man's material nature that he was made from clay. He had not seen the divine spirit enter into man and thus did not recognise his higher spiritual faculties. This was the mistake of Satan and he was damned for it.
Mankind becomes like Satan by following this approach. Though i appreciate not all materialists and humanists have these opinions, the problem with their beliefs is that without belief in an afterlife man/woman can become preoccupied with making this world a paradise for him/her but importantly for him/her selfishly not for mankind at large. The crimes of modern corporate capitalism reflect this thesis, the growing gaps between rich and poor worldwide also reflect this.
I believe a truely complete human is one who balances his intellectual, material, emotional and spiritual aspects.

9:21 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Ishmael proclaimed;

"Also Christian groups took cans of pork to the poor starving people of North West frontier province after the recent earthquake in Pakistan."

How dare they!

9:27 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

So it appears that the West "abandoned" Afghanistan.

Yep.

The Taliban "stablized" the situation by quelling the Civil war, which really means decimating the Hazeris and not coming to a compromise solution with the various ethnic groups that wanted their slice of the pie.

*I said from the outset that the Taliban did many wrong things which i don't agree with.

Of course, the West is in Afghanistan now, and like the mightly OBL, are building highways (well trying to, as they dodge Taliban suicide bombers).

*And toturing people in their detention centres.

The West of course is "trying to impose Western Liberal Values". A recent example of course being when they pressed for the release of that Apostate- who the humanized Afghanis wanted to shred to pieces.


So of-course Western aid, and support should come with no Strings attached. For Christian aid groups, it means, they should keep their bibles at home (no similar condition on Muslim aid groups). For Western governments, it means leaving their brand of morality in their Parliaments.

*I don't see Muslim groups giving out books with Bible written on the outside ad Qu'raan printed in the inside. I don't see them bringing meat to feed starving vegetarian Hindus. I don't see Muslim aid groups in fact trying to hand out Qur'aans while they give out their aid.

Naturally, OBL and the other Jihadis need their money to buy rockets to blow up infidels. So Western nations should have obliged, and just sent money to Mullah Omar. That way, instead of using the soccer field as an execution hall, he could build proper facilities to kill sexual deviants, apostates and Shias.

*Well thy were happy to do so while those same Mujahadeen were killing Soviet troops.

While Westeners and Christians are strongly dissuaded from using economics to "spread Western Liberal values" and "Christianity". Muslims are urged to start boycotts in order to influence Western governments to put tighter controls on their Free Press.

*No just to get some sort of decency and civility from people who are seeking to demonise Islam and the Muslim world and do not even have the decency to meet with the diplomatic representatives of the Muslim world.

Masha'Allah.

9:27 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Tariq Ramadan is not my spiritual leader, to be honest i haven't even read one of his books.

Hello Babyboots, i doubts that you wish peace on me but thanks all the same.

9:29 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years, yet they're are still plenty of Hindu temples predating their arrival in India. "

Wow, the muslims did not destroy all and everything.

A few links on the topic:
The comment:
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia13.htm
Online books
http://www.geocities.com/voi_publishers/Online.htm

9:31 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Some translations:

Majnoon: Crazy.

"Istaghfar allah min al-Shaitan al-Rajeem": Among secular Arab usage, it means, during an argument that you don't know just how to cast out how ridiculous the arguments are. It's something you say when an argument just seems to be going nowhere.

Litterally however, it means, "May Allah (God) give forgiveness and cast away the Shaitan (devil)", which I have flipped (for comic purposes and not to be uncivil!) around to say, "My Shaitan, help me and cast out this Allah-worshiper".

Muslims use this expression during their Pagan-like ritual of stoning the Devil (which of course is laden with spiritual and symbolic significance in a way the Icons and Stuatues of Christianity, Buddhism are not).

But, rest assured, my use of the term had nothing to do with the ritual. It was purely intended as an Arabic expression of pouting when one is fed up.

9:32 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:35 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Hey BNP Supporter:

"In the shariah preservation of one's life comes even before one's religious obligations, thus it is permissable to eat pork and drink wine if starving and having no alternative."


Those Western aid organisations should be sending Pork en masse to the Starving people of Afghanistan. After all, nothing in Sharia prevents them from eating pork.

And with Bird Flu, Salmonella, BSE, Mad Cow, Foot and Mouth.. I think those Afghanis should be glad they're getting Pork.

9:36 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"Tariq Ramadan is not my spiritual leader, to be honest i haven't even read one of his books."

He gives courses and produces cassettes.

(I came to the conclusion your logic and his are the same, as well as your tactics and his.)

9:37 am  
Blogger MJ said...

So the BNP is the equivalent to Al-Qaeda now eh? I'm no fan of the BNP, but this is ridiculous. Unless of course they've slammed a couple of planes into skyskrapers in the Muslim world and I missed it, or cut peoples heads off.

The BNP is not welcome, Al-Qaeda is not welcome...big deal. I doubt Osama's queuing up to get into the MFFE meeting. The problem we are facing is the suppression of free speech by 'moderate' organisations like the MAC, MPACUK and Hizb. They are the equivalent of the BNP, not Al Qaeda.

10:17 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Forgive me for being defensive but MAC is nothing like the BNP, MAC is not advocating any deportations of non Muslims or Ethnic Minorities...

1:47 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> Forgive me for being defensive but >> MAC is nothing like the BNP, MAC is >> not advocating any deportations of >> non Muslims or Ethnic Minorities...

No, MAC doesn't believe in moral relativity and multi-culturalism and will wait till the country is Majority Muslim to enforce its brand (we're not quite sure what that is yet) of Uni-cultural Islamic governance.

That's of course much better than the BNP solution of telling people it doesn't agree with to go build their system in KSA, or IEA, or IRP...

2:23 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Also, Anonymous,

As you will soon get to read in:

http://what-global-civility.blogspot.com

MAC is of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with Muhammad expelling and expropriating the Pagans from Mecca in an effort to "Purge their hearts and minds" from the dehumanizing faith they believed in.


This assertion means necessarliy that MAC is not in principle opposed to the core technique of the BNP, which is: When it doesn't suit the Empire (Islamic), the the process of Deportation is not Haram.

2:53 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
Also, Anonymous,

As you will soon get to read in:

http://what-global-civility.blogspot.com

MAC is of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with Muhammad expelling and expropriating the Pagans from Mecca in an effort to "Purge their hearts and minds" from the dehumanizing faith they believed in.


This assertion means necessarliy that MAC is not in principle opposed to the core technique of the BNP, which is: When it doesn't suit the Empire (Islamic), the the process of Deportation is not Haram.

"Common Sense" you do talk nonsense.

5:47 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
>> Forgive me for being defensive but >> MAC is nothing like the BNP, MAC is >> not advocating any deportations of >> non Muslims or Ethnic Minorities...

No, MAC doesn't believe in moral relativity and multi-culturalism and will wait till the country is Majority Muslim to enforce its brand (we're not quite sure what that is yet) of Uni-cultural Islamic governance.

That's of course much better than the BNP solution of telling people it doesn't agree with to go build their system in KSA, or IEA, or IRP...

*"Common sense" is nothing but a trouble maker. Just because we don't believe in multiculturalism or moral relativism doesn't mean i'm against tolerance and pluralism. Don't conflate these concepts. Multicultralism is the concept where we are taught to believe that all cultures and belief systems have equal value and should be valued equally. Moral Relativism means believing that morality is wholly dependent on cultural norms and given circumstances rather than solid universal eternal values. I and i suspect most people supporting MAC reject these values.
As Muslims however we value tolerance and pluralism which means communities with different values and beliefs living together peacefully. The latter concepts don't mean that we regard Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc as being value systems of equal merit as Islam, but it means that despite our disagreements we can still live together, we can debate, discuss and challenge one another's points of view.
From this point of view probably 99% of the people who use this board probably agree with me that they reject the former concepts and embrace the latter.

5:55 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
>> Forgive me for being defensive but >> MAC is nothing like the BNP, MAC is >> not advocating any deportations of >> non Muslims or Ethnic Minorities...

No, MAC doesn't believe in moral relativity and multi-culturalism and will wait till the country is Majority Muslim to enforce its brand (we're not quite sure what that is yet) of Uni-cultural Islamic governance.

That's of course much better than the BNP solution of telling people it doesn't agree with to go build their system in KSA, or IEA, or IRP...

*Finally "Common Sense" reveals his true colors. "Let's deport all the Muslims as they are a fifth column".

5:58 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel:

Have you finished convulsing yet?


As part of your package on Global Civility, you ought to put constraints on slander.

It seems you were not sufficiently satisfied with making unjustified assumptions about my positions, you have now sunk to new depths of depravity by putting words in my mouth.


>>*Finally "Common Sense" reveals his true colors. "Let's deport all the Muslims as they are a fifth column".


My opinion of "Muslims" is far more nuanced than you would have yourself believe.

Quite a few of my "Muslim" friends have managed to reconcile, much like my "Christian" friends, modernity with Islamic historiography- and are quite happy to pick and choose from their faith in a way that reconciles them with the "multi-cultural" world they live in. Don't you ever dare say I wish for any of these people to be deported.


Don't credit yourself for presenting a 5th column in society. The calibre of your argumentation leaves serious doubt in my mind regarding the staet of your mental faculties. You have offered nought but a series of incoherent and contradictory positions.


Finally, since I am opposed to the policy of deporting people with differing views from mine- however deprace they may be, I find myself armed with the right to call the man you revere, Muhammad, a terrorist and a religious bigot.

I would never dream to resort to the techniques he employed in drawing up an empire. Otherwise, I would find myself in the unpleasant company of people like yourself, your group MAC, and the BNP.


Good day Sir.

6:45 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
Ismaeel:

Have you finished convulsing yet?

*I think that would be you.

As part of your package on Global Civility, you ought to put constraints on slander.

* We do

It seems you were not sufficiently satisfied with making unjustified assumptions about my positions, you have now sunk to new depths of depravity by putting words in my mouth.

* You said it yourself

>>*Finally "Common Sense" reveals his true colors. "Let's deport all the Muslims as they are a fifth column".


My opinion of "Muslims" is far more nuanced than you would have yourself believe.

* I really couldn't care less for your opinions.

Quite a few of my "Muslim" friends have managed to reconcile, much like my "Christian" friends, modernity with Islamic historiography- and are quite happy to pick and choose from their faith in a way that reconciles them with the "multi-cultural" world they live in. Don't you ever dare say I wish for any of these people to be deported.

*Yes not the "good Muslims" we'll keep them, but let's help them get rid of the "bad Muslims" because then we'll be more acceptable to them.

Don't credit yourself for presenting a 5th column in society. The calibre of your argumentation leaves serious doubt in my mind regarding the staet of your mental faculties. You have offered nought but a series of incoherent and contradictory positions.

*I didn't claim to present a fifth column, but that comment convinces me that you are unable to understand any argument that doesn't fit with your one dimensional view of Muslims who follow their faith.

Finally, since I am opposed to the policy of deporting people with differing views from mine- however deprace they may be, I find myself armed with the right to call the man you revere, Muhammad, a terrorist and a religious bigot.

*Yes you and your "good Muslim" friends.

I would never dream to resort to the techniques he employed in drawing up an empire. Otherwise, I would find myself in the unpleasant company of people like yourself, your group MAC, and the BNP.

*Yes you would rather stoke a climate of fear and demonisation that dehumanises the Muslim community around the world and makes it easier for people to attack and slaughter us with impunity. Yes you have made your position crystal clear.

Good day Sir.

And you don't think this last post was self-contradictiing?
Well done "Common Sense" bow out now, because you clearly can't actually handle a real debate not ones your're used where you are able to just sit and patronise the opposition but one where they actually tackle your positions and your left at a loss on how to deal with them. You've slandered me plenty, i've dealt with what you've actually said.
It seems quite clear that you would like to style yourself as the "Good Arab" and no doubt your pick and mix Muslim friends style themselves as "good Muslims" and together you can attempt to patronise us, as you impress your european and canadian friends about how integrated into their liberal ideas you are. You do this out of fear, fear that if these governments do decide to deport Muslims and Arabs you would like to remain behind as one of the "good arabs".
You talk about history, go read what happened in Bosnia, you can integrate as much as you like, but when the fascists take over they won't care what your views are, they'll see you have an arab name and arab ethnicity and throw you in with everyone else.
Anyway good look with posting our conversation, please include all this as well.

7:52 pm  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Wow what a cool blog you have here! I am impressed. You really put a lot of time and effort into this. I wish I had your creative writing skills, progressive talent and self- discipline to produce a blog like you did. Your blog really does deserve an honest compliment. If you have some time, stop by my site. It deals with stuff like, click here: making money online business opportunity and then feel free to e-mail me with your words of wisdom.

P.S. I'll sure put the word out about your site and I would appreciate any business you may send my. way... Later, Scott.

8:25 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

*Yes you would rather stoke a climate of fear and demonisation that dehumanises the Muslim community around the world and makes it easier for people to attack and slaughter us with impunity. Yes you have made your position crystal clear.

Ismaeel. This art has been perfected by you and your friends. Which explains why Pakistanis have no problems blowing up Shias, relegating Christians and Hindus to 2nd status citizens, introducing highly one-sided Blasphemy laws. Have strong limitations on church buidling. Even poor aid workers have to disguise Bibles under the cover of Korans (according to you).

You and MAC should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the Other.



>> And you don't think this last post was self-contradictiing?

Nope. I don't worry about creating a climate of fear against describing the BNP as intolerant bigots. Nor, it would seem, do you.

Lumping you, and MAC, with a like-minded group such as the BNP will no doubt be an inconvenience to you. I see no contradiction when the forces of Humanism and Tolerance tackle extremism from all its sides.

By virtue of the placards that your friends at HT put out during the demonstrations, I doubt they are fearing extermination.

If you want to know how a subordinate community feels, visit a Church in a Muslim country (that allows one to be built), and hear the Kudos and praise they heap upon the leaders. Read a pronouncement from the Coptic Pope Shenouda, who inspite of the limitations on his community, still manages to mutter only the best.

That's how a subordinate community behaves. You, HT, and like-minded individuals are much like the BNP: hateful individuals who show little shame in expressing their contempt for all that is different.





>> Well done "Common Sense" bow out now, because you clearly can't actually handle a real debate not ones your're used where you are able to just sit and patronise the opposition


Facts of course, disagree with your assessment. I did not delete a conversation when it no longer suited me.




>> but one where they actually tackle your positions and your left at a loss on how to deal with them.


I am not at a loss on how to deal with you. I have dealt with you already. You have been reduced to raving like a lunatic, and complaining about my non-sense and ego, contradicting yourself in every other post.


While I may continue to entertain your flip-flopping, I hardly see the point. You yourself expressed little interest (and censored a whole string of conversation).

Now you have been magically re-invigorated when I lost interest in pursuing a conversation with you?

Is this your idea of a Civilised debate?







>> You've slandered me plenty, i've dealt with what you've actually said.

I have never slandered you, or put words in your mouth where you have not said them.

And if such a Post exist, reproduce it, and put an end to the matter right here and right now.


You did not deal with what I said: You said my true colors came out when I said, "Deport all Muslims, they are a 5th column".

I invite you to reproduce that post, and end this matter, right here and right now.




>> It seems quite clear that you would like to style yourself as the "Good Arab"

Nope. Just an Infidel Agnostic Arab who feels he has equal right to question religion, the religious, and their morals as you do to question mine.

The qualifier good never has entered the picture, and in many aspects of my life, I am far from the "Good" that I aspire to.



>> and no doubt your pick and mix Muslim friends style themselves as "good Muslims"


No, they don't style themselves as such. Some are quite disdained by my views, but are quite happy to tolerate them. They are people that obviously can continue to be my friends. But are they good? As you say, Allahu 'A3lam.

I am friends with them because we share much in common. Good times, shared interests.


>> and together you can attempt to patronise us,

We don't attempt to patronize anyone. We got out and have a good time. We talk politics and play sports. We have BBQs in the summer. That's what we do. We don't concern ourselves with you, or your lives. We couldn't care less how often you pray, how you pray, to whom you pray. But occasionally, when the Taliban blow up statues, or Western soldiers beat on prisoners, we shake our heads in dismay about the state of the world.




>> as you impress your european and canadian friends about how integrated into their liberal ideas you are.


Liberal ideas are not "their" ideas. They are mine too. They are the liberal ideas of a wealth of Arabs and Muslims that made the Andalusian landscape what it was. They are the ideas of the Mu'tazalis also, and of Ibn Rawandi. Of Ibn Arabi, Al-Suhrawardi and Ibn Rushd. People who inspired the European renaissance, and carried the torch of science and knowledge.

How dare you say it is "Their" idea, and imply that I have groveled to make it my own, as though as it were not part of my history too. My being. My Arab heritage.





Good day

8:51 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Ismaeel,

You said:

"but when the fascists take over"

Trust me - that won't EVER happen here in the UK.

8:53 pm  
Blogger Derius said...

"The documented of British spies in influencing Abdul Wahabb is well documented. You don't need ships to send spies."

Posted by Ismaeel, above

I had forgotten about that conspiricy theory, involving a British Spy called "Hempher" and Abdul Wahabb. It is entirely based on one document, which is supposedly the secret diary of Hempher himself. This certainly does not constitute being "well documented", as you have stated.

Hardly any scholars take this document seriously, with the exception of a few Sunni Muslims. Stephen Schwartz, an American muslim who is an expert on Wahhibism, has to my knowledge, never mentioned it in any of his works. This is because it has many flaws, including the Ottoman Empire being referred to as the "Sick man of Europe", which was a term that only become common much later on, when it became far less powerful. It was also never explained why a British spy would be writing his secret diary in Arabic, as opposed to English, when he would not have thought that anybody else would ever be reading it.

This conspiricy theory is often taken seriously by those who also believe in theories such as Israel being behind September 11th, and that the Holocaust never happened. However, I assume that you are not one of those!

I would also like to point out that if it could be proved that Wahhibism is a British invention, then it would collapse like a house of cards. It is no coincidence that it has not done so.

9:21 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Liberal ideas are not "their" ideas. They are mine too. They are the liberal ideas of a wealth of Arabs and Muslims that made the Andalusian landscape what it was. They are the ideas of the Mu'tazalis also, and of Ibn Rawandi. Of Ibn Arabi, Al-Suhrawardi and Ibn Rushd. People who inspired the European renaissance, and carried the torch of science and knowledge.

These were not liberal ideas, they were Islamic ideas, oh dear you really are lost and they are certainly not arab heritage, they are Islamic heritage.

I see the first half of your post proved your desire to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim world, so go ahead dig your own grave.

I've explained why i deleted that conversation before, go back and read it.

I'm not raving like a lunatic "Common Sense", it's interesting how you keep trying to reduce me to your stereotypical ideas of a Muslim so that you can attack me, but sorry you won't have any such luck with me.

You did not deal with what I said: You said my true colors came out when I said, "Deport all Muslims, they are a 5th column".

I invite you to reproduce that post, and end this matter, right here and right now.

*It was implicit in what were you were saying about BNP policies.

I haven't contradicted myself or flip flopped as i've proved several times and you have been able to deal with.

Deal with it, i'm not your stereotypical salafy Muslim who is easily patronised and defeated with a few well chosen arguments.

The fact that you can't keep up and understand the difference between multiculturalism and pluralism is really not my problem.

The fact that you can't be consistant in your arguments arguing that anything good Muslims do is irrelevant because it happened hundreds of years after the Prophet (PBUH) and anything bad they do is directly attributable to his teachings (PBUH) is also not my problem.

You are a groveller, in love with the west "good Arab" good luck to you your going to need it.

10:24 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Sir Percy said...
Ismaeel,

You said:

"but when the fascists take over"

Trust me - that won't EVER happen here in the UK.

* I think you are right Sir Percy, but i hope we are not mistaken.

10:25 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Derius said...
"The documented of British spies in influencing Abdul Wahabb is well documented. You don't need ships to send spies."

Posted by Ismaeel, above

I had forgotten about that conspiricy theory, involving a British Spy called "Hempher" and Abdul Wahabb. It is entirely based on one document, which is supposedly the secret diary of Hempher himself. This certainly does not constitute being "well documented", as you have stated.

Ok i'll accept your point on this, however as you yourself have pointed out it was the British who helped the Wahabbis into power to create Saudi Arabia. Before this their beliefs were confined to a few arab tribes in the Najd region and would never have spread without the backing of petrodollars

10:27 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Of Ibn Arabi, Al-Suhrawardi and

Sunni Muslims who followed Sufi Tariqats, whose teachings we study and have absolutly nothing to do with liberalism except that they influenced as you rightly say the renaissance. They are however ISLAMIC HERITAGE born of the ideas in the Qur'aan and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) not from the efforts of any non-Muslim arabs.

10:30 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

That's how a subordinate community behaves. You, HT, and like-minded individuals are much like the BNP: hateful individuals who show little shame in expressing their contempt for all that is different.

I am not contemptous of all that is different, i'm contemptous of your views which are stereotypical nonsense. If what you've written above is not slander i don't know what is.

The Prophet (PBUH) said "Wisdom is the like a wandering beast, the believer catches it wherever he finds it" meaning wisdom can be found anywhere and with anyone, this is why Imam Ghazzali used to spend a long time discussing with Christian and Jewish mystics about their experiences. Also the Prophet (PBUH) exhorted his companions (RAA) to travel far and wide to seek knowledge. That can't have been because he was intolerant otherwise he would have told them to stay and just listen to him (PBUH). The only intolerant person who hates difference here is you (and probably the BNP supporters here) with the venom you keep on spitting about anyone who dares to stand up for the Islamic faith fully and wholly.

10:38 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

"Common Sense" said:
You and MAC should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the Other.

And this is borne out by what????
And you don't slander anyone, no, no, Allah forbid.

10:39 pm  
Blogger St George said...

Sir Percy:

Ismaeel,

You said:

"but when the fascists take over"

Trust me - that won't EVER happen here in the UK.


I think you are wrong. In about 50 years time when Muslims are in the majority, we will be ruled by fascism - of the Islamic variety.

11:51 pm  
Blogger St George said...

Common Sense:

*Yes you would rather stoke a climate of fear and demonisation that dehumanises the Muslim community around the world and makes it easier for people to attack and slaughter us with impunity. Yes you have made your position crystal clear.

Ismaeel. This art has been perfected by you and your friends. Which explains why Pakistanis have no problems blowing up Shias, relegating Christians and Hindus to 2nd status citizens, introducing highly one-sided Blasphemy laws. Have strong limitations on church buidling. Even poor aid workers have to disguise Bibles under the cover of Korans (according to you).

You and MAC should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the Other.



>> And you don't think this last post was self-contradictiing?

Nope. I don't worry about creating a climate of fear against describing the BNP as intolerant bigots. Nor, it would seem, do you.

Lumping you, and MAC, with a like-minded group such as the BNP will no doubt be an inconvenience to you. I see no contradiction when the forces of Humanism and Tolerance tackle extremism from all its sides.

By virtue of the placards that your friends at HT put out during the demonstrations, I doubt they are fearing extermination.


You can say that again, especially if you see this video of the event.
I guess this is something we should regard as a 'peace' demo given that it was so well attended by supporters of 'the religion of peace'


Peace demo

12:19 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Common sense scathed;

"That's how a subordinate community behaves. You, HT, and like-minded individuals are much like the BNP, hateful individuals who show little shame in expressing their contempt for all that is different."

Speak for yourself! I like animals such as dogs very much, and they are different from me. My last GF was both jewish and autistic (said her first word at 17, doncha know, and is now paid to speak at conferences) and so on.

I just dont like whats bad. Whats bad is islam and anything approaching mass immigration. Our country is dying. If you wont vote for the BNP, who will you vote for to save it?

"those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad"

12:42 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:57 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> These were not liberal ideas, they were Islamic ideas, oh dear you really are lost and they are certainly not arab heritage, they are Islamic heritage.

Yes. They were liberal ideas. The ideas of the Mu'tazalis which went as far as stating the Qu'ran was man-made and quite temporal are liberal ideas. They are what created a relative climate of tolerance.

Ibn Rawandi was an outright atheist.

Ibn Rushd was an Aristetolian philospher.

I'm not here to educate you though.

Al-Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi were Sufis, and were more esoteric, and condemned by the Islamic court of the gentlemanly "Salahudin Al-Ayubi". Al Suhrawardi was decapitated for his views.

Again. I'm not here to educate you.

By and large the climate of the Muslim world pre-11th century was, for its time, quite liberal.

And though people like Ibn Rawandi, Al-Farabi, Omar Khayam were "nominally" Muslim, their outlook was quite secular.

Go get your Pom-Poms out for the Taliban, and build your Islamic state. But please don't taint the names of real intellectuals.



>> I see the first half of your post proved your desire to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim world, so go ahead dig your own grave.

Nope. It sought to shine a mirror on the reality that people who think like you have built.

The fascist and ignorant reality your friends have built in Sudan and Pakistan.



>> I've explained why i deleted that conversation before, go back and read it.

Yes: Part of your explanation was that you were tired of "debating" with me. Or is your memory so short term.

Why are groveling back seeking more debate?


>> I'm not raving like a lunatic "Common Sense", it's interesting how you keep trying to reduce me to your stereotypical ideas of a Muslim so that you can attack me, but sorry you won't have any such luck with me.


Au contraire. I've had quite the luck. You need only read everything you've written.


>> You did not deal with what I said: You said my true colors came out when I said, "Deport all Muslims, they are a 5th column".

>> I invite you to reproduce that post, and end this matter, right here and right now.

>> *It was implicit in what were you were saying about BNP policies.

There was nothing implicit about it. I was comparing your views to BNP policies. I didn't say I condoned BNP policies. But as I told you earlier, I have serious doubt about the state of your mental faculties, and I don't expect you to possess good comprehension skills.





>> I haven't contradicted myself or flip flopped as i've proved several times and you have been able to deal with.


Yes: You've contradicted yourself many times.

Example, one minute, you say no aid was forthcoming to Afghanistan.

Then you acknowledge that Christian aid groups (at least) were working in the area, though you scoff at the fact that they brought their bibles along.

Then you repeated that no aid was forthcoming in Afghanistan.

That is a classic syndrome of Flip-flopping.




>> Deal with it, i'm not your stereotypical salafy Muslim who is easily patronised and defeated with a few well chosen arguments.


From what you've written so far, very little separates you from Salafi Muslims. Minus your devotion to Awlia and their graves, you've pretty much bought into their Tawheed argument.





>> The fact that you can't keep up and understand the difference between multiculturalism and pluralism is really not my problem.


?!?




>> The fact that you can't be consistant in your arguments arguing that anything good Muslims do is irrelevant because it happened hundreds of years after the Prophet (PBUH) and anything bad they do is directly attributable to his teachings (PBUH) is also not my problem.


Nope. I never said that. I said ignore everything Muslims did hundreds of years after Muhammad- both good and bad. Because I was having a discussion with you on the limits of what you think people can call Muhammad.

Again, your questionable mental faculties did not help you see the forest from the trees.





>> You are a groveller, in love with the west "good Arab" good luck to you your going to need it.

You can do better than that Izzy, can't you?

2:07 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> I am not contemptous of all that is different, i'm contemptous of your views which are stereotypical nonsense.

You are contemptuous of my views. Those of the BNP. Those of Western Liberals. You brought to question the dehumanizing effect those stones that made up the Buddhas. And said outright that you don't even think Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism... are "equal value" systems. Though you didn't say anything specifically about Christian adoption of iconography and statue-kissing, you reserved a harsh view on Pagan practices. You were so troubled by the fact that those Christian Aid workers bringing their bibles along to help poor hungry people- no doubt placing greater importance on the fact that those people ought not to be swayed from the righteous path of Islam than being given food by people, who for whatever odd/nefarious reason, decided to put themselves in harm way to help the poor and needy.

All the above are things you have expressly stated throughout your postings. And all of the above imply your contemptuous attitude to all that is different.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the second-tier status that non-Muslims live in the Current Muslim world.




>> If what you've written above is not slander i don't know what is.


How is it slander? To state the truth. To repeat what you yourself have said.

Did I make any of it up?

Do you disagree with me on any of the accusations. If so. State it clearly now.

Otherwise, take responsibility for your opinions.


>> The Prophet (PBUH) said "Wisdom is the like a wandering beast, the believer catches it wherever he finds it" meaning wisdom can be found anywhere and with anyone, this is why Imam Ghazzali used to spend a long time discussing with Christian and Jewish mystics about their experiences. Also the Prophet (PBUH) exhorted his companions (RAA) to travel far and wide to seek knowledge. That can't have been because he was intolerant otherwise he would have told them to stay and just listen to him (PBUH).


I said that Muhammad was an intolerant bigot for expelling the Pagans from Mecca, and assuming control of their holy site.

Now I can't be sure he did all those things. You said he did. But based on this information, Muhammad's views are not different from the BNP, or from the Conquistador, both groups that you call intolerant.

Now that doens't mean I think all of Muhammad's teachings and doings were bad.

I happen to have great respect for the self-discipline of my Muslim friends, and the exemplary character they show when they are kind and helpful to people.

But I did not start a discussion with you to deal with all the aspect s of Islam. I was not here to talk about Islam. I started a conversation with you to prod you on the limits of what you find acceptable and Civil conversation. That was the purpose.

For the record, though I think that Muhammad was an intolerant terrorist and bigot, people of his character came a dime a dozen. At least the movement he started, and the imperialism it created helped cross-fertalize Greek and Indo-Sinic sciences and philosophy. The barbarism he started was the root of a wonder Globalized movement that moved the Spice trade from China to the Middle East and beyond.

But you know, British Imperialism wasn't all Bad either- even when it was viscious too.

But for you to gain such nuance when you deal with the subject of religion, you need a thicker skin. To allow you to have an objective look at history, and to be able to have the balls to be like the Mu'tazalis, and to allow far more open and permissive questions about Islam to be asked.

Otherwise you'll end up with systems like Pakistan, where they jail a science Professor for daring to suggest that Muhammad's parents were not Muslim. Or Egypt, where Naguib Mahfouz got a knife stuck through his throat, or Lebanon, where they hauled Marcel Khalife's behind twice to court for having the nerve for including what sounded like a Quranic verse in one of his songs.

Global Civility- Setting Minimum Standards of Civility. You don't even know what you're up against. Before you start crying over a few cartoons, go fix the big mess that people like you have left in the Muslim world.

And a good place to start is not to have such a contemptuous view of Western Liberal Values.





>> The only intolerant person who hates difference here is you (and probably the BNP supporters here) with the venom you keep on spitting about anyone who dares to stand up for the Islamic faith fully and wholly.

zzz.

2:34 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> "Common Sense" said:
You and MAC should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the Other.

>> And this is borne out by what????
And you don't slander anyone, no, no, Allah forbid.



Yes. Borne out of all the positive words you have for OBL and the Taliban (minus the few mistakes- as yet undisclosed- they made).

Your revulsion at the notion that "Western Liberal Values" should be spread. Though I'm not sure quite what troubles you about Western Liberal Values- tolerant views of Homosexuality? Permissivity of sexual relations? Opening borders for immigration? Building universities that teach about all faith traditions (including non-faith traditions).

Why is Western Liberalism such anathema to you. Because it is immoral?

So would it be fair then to say that you create a climate of fear against the other?

Maybe helps explain why women who've had pre-marital sex in Aghanistan got burried to their wastes and pelted with stones, their cries drowned by the Humane screams of Allahu Akbar. (Ever seen the RAWA videos, or are you one of those Sunnis who think those are just Shia Lies?).

The contempt you showed for those Christian aid workers, who "hid their bibles, behind the covers of the Koran", might help explain why the Taliban and apparently non-Taliban Afghanis wanted to rip Abdul Rahman to pieces.

Or where do you suppose this intolerance comes from?

Do you even consider it intolerance?

Or fear-mongering?

Or just simply righteous Islamic action?

Or is it Haram? And non-Islamic, a by-product of that Non-Islamic-Salafi-Wahabi sect that has infiltrated Afghanistan, but what the heck better those Afghanis be Non-Islamic-Salafi-Wahabi-Sect Members than Christians.


But I don't suspect you'll rush to expand on your moral and religious views. So far, we've gathered that though you don't support destroying the religious symbols of others Willy Nilly, under certain circumstances, you're OK with it.

As for sexual deviants, apostates, heretics, Christians.... we're not sure when it Willy Nilly suits you to say, it's OK to flog them here, or stone them there. Or destroy this church. Or kill this apostate. Suffice it to say, you're well versed on negative language to portray those of unacceptable moral standing, in your view. Your conception of Sharia has, to the best of my knowledge, not been expanded on. (Except the non-willy-nilly justification for blowing up a couple of worthless Stone Buddhas).

Hence my remark: You should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the other. Though in retrospect, perhaps I should not have used the word Fear, but Hate and Contempt instead.



I hope I've clarified my remark.

Should you object to anything I have written. Or should you disagree with any of my conclusions. Please state them with clarification of your position.

I promise to carefully consider what you have written, and apologize for any false generalization I have made.





BNP member:

Izzy has drained me out. I don't have the energy today to respond to your question. I'm off to sleep.

3:49 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
>> These were not liberal ideas, they were Islamic ideas, oh dear you really are lost and they are certainly not arab heritage, they are Islamic heritage.

Yes. They were liberal ideas. The ideas of the Mu'tazalis which went as far as stating the Qu'ran was man-made and quite temporal are liberal ideas. They are what created a relative climate of tolerance.

*The Mu'tazalis although differing from the Sunnis on many key points of belief were still Muslims and didn't believe the Qur'aan was man made. Yes they believed it was created but not by man but by Allah (SWT) wheareas the Sunni posiition is that it is the uncreated word of Allah (SWT)yet when written down and recited those words are created. You're really showing your ignorance now. They were not liberal ideas, you seem to have no clear what liberal ideas are.

Ibn Rawandi was an outright atheist.

Ibn Rushd was an Aristetolian philospher.

*Ibn Rushd was a Muslim who wrote a huge treatise called Bidayat ul Mujtahid which explains all the various rulings of the shariah according to Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik and Ash-Shafi (RAA) and then giving his own views on each topic. He supported stoning the adulterer, cutting the hand of the thief and lashing the slanderer and all the rest of the hadd punishments and the shariah in general. He did delve into aristolian philosophy as many did at the time and he is famous for his debates wih Imam Ghazzali for this, but at the end he was an Islamic scholar dedicated to the shariah.

I'm not here to educate you though.

Al-Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi were Sufis, and were more esoteric, and condemned by the Islamic court of the gentlemanly "Salahudin Al-Ayubi". Al Suhrawardi was decapitated for his views.

*Al Suhrawardi was killed by Salahuddin al Ayubi's son for political reasons, his "esoteric views" were an excuse. Both he and Ibn Arabi (RAA) were among the first class of Sufis and influenced all later conceptions of sufism which inform the general masses of the Muslim world with the exception of Saudi and the Gulf States which are Salafy dominated. They were not liberals, Ibn Arabi wrote books about the shariah and especially about Jihad.

Again. I'm not here to educate you.

*That's quite clear.

By and large the climate of the Muslim world pre-11th century was, for its time, quite liberal.

*Liberalism is a secular ideology started by predominantly Christian thinkers in Europe in the enlightenment period. This was Islam. I know you can't admit it because then you would have to amend your stance that Islam is inherently evil.

And though people like Ibn Rawandi, Al-Farabi, Omar Khayam were "nominally" Muslim, their outlook was quite secular.

*Omar Khayam belonged to the druze sect, he was not even nominally Muslim.

Go get your Pom-Poms out for the Taliban, and build your Islamic state. But please don't taint the names of real intellectuals.

*I don't have my pom poms out for the Taliban, i didn't approve of much of what they did in Afghanistan but i understand their actions in their proper historical context which you fail to do so.

>> I see the first half of your post proved your desire to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim world, so go ahead dig your own grave.

Nope. It sought to shine a mirror on the reality that people who think like you have built.

The fascist and ignorant reality your friends have built in Sudan and Pakistan.

*Pakistan is a secular country ruled by a military dictatorship: General Musharaff says he wants to do for Pakistan what Attaturk did for Turkey. And who is it that supports his rule, isn't it your nice liberal friends in the west as he helps in the war against terror. I only know two people from Sudan, but it is far from an Islamic state.



>> You did not deal with what I said: You said my true colors came out when I said, "Deport all Muslims, they are a 5th column".

>> I invite you to reproduce that post, and end this matter, right here and right now.

>> *It was implicit in what were you were saying about BNP policies.

There was nothing implicit about it. I was comparing your views to BNP policies. I didn't say I condoned BNP policies. But as I told you earlier, I have serious doubt about the state of your mental faculties, and I don't expect you to possess good comprehension skills.

*yawn



>> I haven't contradicted myself or flip flopped as i've proved several times and you have been able to deal with.


Yes: You've contradicted yourself many times.

Example, one minute, you say no aid was forthcoming to Afghanistan.

Then you acknowledge that Christian aid groups (at least) were working in the area, though you scoff at the fact that they brought their bibles along.

*I said that state aid had got cut off and sanctions had been imposed. Are you capable of distinguishing between the two. Yes i'm critical of aid organisations which are only giving aid to aggressivley spread their faith to people who have nothing.

Then you repeated that no aid was forthcoming in Afghanistan.

That is a classic syndrome of Flip-flopping.




>> Deal with it, i'm not your stereotypical salafy Muslim who is easily patronised and defeated with a few well chosen arguments.


From what you've written so far, very little separates you from Salafi Muslims. Minus your devotion to Awlia and their graves, you've pretty much bought into their Tawheed argument.

*Tawheed is a belief of all Muslims, Salafys didn't make it up.
But then i'm not here to educate you.



>> The fact that you can't keep up and understand the difference between multiculturalism and pluralism is really not my problem.


?!?




>> The fact that you can't be consistant in your arguments arguing that anything good Muslims do is irrelevant because it happened hundreds of years after the Prophet (PBUH) and anything bad they do is directly attributable to his teachings (PBUH) is also not my problem.


Nope. I never said that. I said ignore everything Muslims did hundreds of years after Muhammad- both good and bad. Because I was having a discussion with you on the limits of what you think people can call Muhammad.

Again, your questionable mental faculties did not help you see the forest from the trees.

*Please, nice try, no cigar.





>> You are a groveller, in love with the west "good Arab" good luck to you your going to need it.

You can do better than that Izzy, can't you?

Yeah but it was late

7:35 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
>> I am not contemptous of all that is different, i'm contemptous of your views which are stereotypical nonsense.

You are contemptuous of my views. Those of the BNP. Those of Western Liberals. You brought to question the dehumanizing effect those stones that made up the Buddhas. And said outright that you don't even think Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism... are "equal value" systems. Though you didn't say anything specifically about Christian adoption of iconography and statue-kissing, you reserved a harsh view on Pagan practices. You were so troubled by the fact that those Christian Aid workers bringing their bibles along to help poor hungry people- no doubt placing greater importance on the fact that those people ought not to be swayed from the righteous path of Islam than being given food by people, who for whatever odd/nefarious reason, decided to put themselves in harm way to help the poor and needy.

*I'm allowed to be critical of anyone i choose, i believe Islam to be the truth, doesn't mean i am contemptous of all else. I do have strong views about pagan worship- i think it's dehumanising. I do have problems with aggressive Christian missionaries who trade food for faith and i do have problems with liberal crusaders who try and impose their values on a country like Iraq. That doesn't mean i am contemptous of all that Christianity and Liberalism has achieved or has to offer, but i still feel they are lacking in comparison to Islam.

All the above are things you have expressly stated throughout your postings. And all of the above imply your contemptuous attitude to all that is different.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the second-tier status that non-Muslims live in the Current Muslim world.

*If non-Muslims live in a second tier status in the Muslim world today, it is because of two things. One the Caliphate got torn apart by the west and even western historians have to acknowledge that all races and religious denominations lived together harmoniously under the Ottomons until they started instilling western concepts of nationalism.
Secondly because of the creation of Israel, where non-Muslims aggressivley forced Muslims (and Christians) out of their ancestral homes.
I've been to Pakistan only once and I attended several Muslim weddings, there were some Christians there and they didn't seem to feel they were treated like second class citizens. I have seen pictures of Christian processions in Pakistan and even know some Christian Pakistanis here who never complain about any persecution. In fact in Pakistan most of the tele-dramas and soaps feature Pakistani Christian actors playing Pakistani Christian characters.




>> If what you've written above is not slander i don't know what is.


How is it slander? To state the truth. To repeat what you yourself have said.

Did I make any of it up?

Do you disagree with me on any of the accusations. If so. State it clearly now.

Otherwise, take responsibility for your opinions.


>> The Prophet (PBUH) said "Wisdom is the like a wandering beast, the believer catches it wherever he finds it" meaning wisdom can be found anywhere and with anyone, this is why Imam Ghazzali used to spend a long time discussing with Christian and Jewish mystics about their experiences. Also the Prophet (PBUH) exhorted his companions (RAA) to travel far and wide to seek knowledge. That can't have been because he was intolerant otherwise he would have told them to stay and just listen to him (PBUH).


I said that Muhammad was an intolerant bigot for expelling the Pagans from Mecca, and assuming control of their holy site.

Now I can't be sure he did all those things. You said he did. But based on this information, Muhammad's views are not different from the BNP, or from the Conquistador, both groups that you call intolerant.

*It wasn't "their" holy site as i've explained numerous times. They were expelled because they posed the danger of being a very real fifth column as they had fought against the Muslims for years on the basis of faith.

Now that doens't mean I think all of Muhammad's teachings and doings were bad.

I happen to have great respect for the self-discipline of my Muslim friends, and the exemplary character they show when they are kind and helpful to people.

*All taught by the Prophet (SAWS)

But I did not start a discussion with you to deal with all the aspect s of Islam. I was not here to talk about Islam. I started a conversation with you to prod you on the limits of what you find acceptable and Civil conversation. That was the purpose.

*No you came on the MAC blog and accussed me of being a hypocrite and a weasel.

For the record, though I think that Muhammad was an intolerant terrorist and bigot, people of his character came a dime a dozen. At least the movement he started, and the imperialism it created helped cross-fertalize Greek and Indo-Sinic sciences and philosophy. The barbarism he started was the root of a wonder Globalized movement that moved the Spice trade from China to the Middle East and beyond.

*Utter ignorance.

But you know, British Imperialism wasn't all Bad either- even when it was viscious too.


But for you to gain such nuance when you deal with the subject of religion, you need a thicker skin. To allow you to have an objective look at history, and to be able to have the balls to be like the Mu'tazalis, and to allow far more open and permissive questions about Islam to be asked.

*Good grief.

Otherwise you'll end up with systems like Pakistan, where they jail a science Professor for daring to suggest that Muhammad's parents were not Muslim.

* Sounds good to me.

Or Egypt, where Naguib Mahfouz got a knife stuck through his throat,

* don't know what that is about.

or Lebanon, where they hauled Marcel Khalife's behind twice to court for having the nerve for including what sounded like a Quranic verse in one of his songs.

*Seems mild compared to what the liberal Christian militias did to Muslims during the civil war.

Global Civility- Setting Minimum Standards of Civility. You don't even know what you're up against. Before you start crying over a few cartoons, go fix the big mess that people like you have left in the Muslim world.

*Now let's see: The British and the French vivisectioned al Sham, created Israel, installed monarchies in Iraq, Jordan and KSA.
Pakistan and Bangladesh adopted the British parliamentary system and much of their laws. Nasser was an Arab nationalist and Baathism which is the most cruel and oppressive system in the middle east (as it still exists in Syria) was started by a Christian Arab. Because of all these interferances with the Caliphate and Shariah systems to the point where they are left as bits and pieces here and there, it is no wonder that they seem out of place and extreme. But whose fault is that?

And a good place to start is not to have such a contemptuous view of Western Liberal Values.

* I don't have a contemptous view of western Liberal values, i have a contemptous view of your disregard for history.





>> The only intolerant person who hates difference here is you (and probably the BNP supporters here) with the venom you keep on spitting about anyone who dares to stand up for the Islamic faith fully and wholly.

zzz.

7:54 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
>> "Common Sense" said:
You and MAC should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the Other.

>> And this is borne out by what????
And you don't slander anyone, no, no, Allah forbid.



Yes. Borne out of all the positive words you have for OBL and the Taliban (minus the few mistakes- as yet undisclosed- they made).

* I said from the outset i did not support them. Get a grip.

Your revulsion at the notion that "Western Liberal Values" should be spread. Though I'm not sure quite what troubles you about Western Liberal Values- tolerant views of Homosexuality? Permissivity of sexual relations? Opening borders for immigration? Building universities that teach about all faith traditions (including non-faith traditions).

*Disrespect for Islam, proliferation of pornography, tolerant views of homosexuality, permissivity of sexual relations,

Why is Western Liberalism such anathema to you. Because it is immoral?

*Western liberalism as a whole is not anathema to me, but i am against the promotion of immorality that it leads to.

So would it be fair then to say that you create a climate of fear against the other?

*Nope.

Maybe helps explain why women who've had pre-marital sex in Aghanistan got burried to their wastes and pelted with stones, their cries drowned by the Humane screams of Allahu Akbar. (Ever seen the RAWA videos, or are you one of those Sunnis who think those are just Shia Lies?).

*Nope never seen them. Pre-marital sex is not punishable by stoning, so if they have done that then it is haraam.

The contempt you showed for those Christian aid workers, who "hid their bibles, behind the covers of the Koran", might help explain why the Taliban and apparently non-Taliban Afghanis wanted to rip Abdul Rahman to pieces.

* They hid them behind Qur'aan covers to try and dupe poor ill educated people into believing in their religion. That is why i have contempt for them.

Or where do you suppose this intolerance comes from?

*Intolerance for immorality?

Do you even consider it intolerance?

*What are you asking about, it's not very clear?


Or fear-mongering?

Or just simply righteous Islamic action?

Or is it Haram? And non-Islamic, a by-product of that Non-Islamic-Salafi-Wahabi sect that has infiltrated Afghanistan, but what the heck better those Afghanis be Non-Islamic-Salafi-Wahabi-Sect Members than Christians.

*Certainly various forms of Wahabbism have infiltrated into Afghanistan, also many Afghanis like Pakistani tribals don't apply the shariah but rather their own tribal codes which is of course as you say haraam.


But I don't suspect you'll rush to expand on your moral and religious views. So far, we've gathered that though you don't support destroying the religious symbols of others Willy Nilly, under certain circumstances, you're OK with it.

*As i've said before non-Muslim minority religious communities including Buddhists have lived under Muslim rule for centuries without having their temples etc destroyed. Sometimes Hindu temples have been destroyed for political reasons because they were being used as fortresses. Like i said before if destroying a Buddha statue wakes people up to their inhumanity in spending millions in restoring a piece of carved stone over feeding starvinf people, then all well and good.

As for sexual deviants, apostates, heretics, Christians.... we're not sure when it Willy Nilly suits you to say, it's OK to flog them here, or stone them there. Or destroy this church. Or kill this apostate.

*The shariah is quite clear, go and study it. However there is no Islamic state which enforces the entire of the shariah today.

Suffice it to say, you're well versed on negative language to portray those of unacceptable moral standing, in your view. Your conception of Sharia has, to the best of my knowledge, not been expanded on. (Except the non-willy-nilly justification for blowing up a couple of worthless Stone Buddhas).

*It has, ask TFI

Hence my remark: You should know a thing or two about creating a climate of fear against the other. Though in retrospect, perhaps I should not have used the word Fear, but Hate and Contempt instead.

*Nope sorry, still not getting you.



I hope I've clarified my remark.

*Nope you've just shown your ignorance once again.

Should you object to anything I have written. Or should you disagree with any of my conclusions. Please state them with clarification of your position.

*Done

I promise to carefully consider what you have written, and apologize for any false generalization I have made.

*Oh i doubt that very much



BNP member:

Izzy has drained me out. I don't have the energy today to respond to your question. I'm off to sleep.

8:07 am  
Blogger rightsvault said...

This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this Free Software site, it's pretty awesome too!

10:06 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel:

The Mu'tazali movement was quite a large one, and a long spanning one. Ibn Rawandi (the atheist) was a member. It is the movement that spurred the translation of scientific texts.

The climate of the Muslim world in the 7th was not the climate of the 20th century.

When someone says the Muslims world was liberal, then: it was with respect to their attitude and spectrum for tolerance of different ideas.


Ibn Rushd was the Prima Facie Aristotelian Philosopher of the Islamic world. Not only did he write commentaries on the said philosophy, he married Islamic thought into that philosophy.

His arguments with Al-Ghazali on the "Coherence of Philosophers" was what , in the grand of scheme of things, marked the point of intellectual decline in the Muslim world.

Even then, as a last point, his last vestige of Safety was with the Amawis in Andalus- a very much Arab-oriented Islamic "empire" as no doubt you know.

I have not read all of Averroes works. And I don't know what punishments he supported. But he lived way back when in the 12th century or so. And times- they were a different back then and across the border in France, the Catholics were busy burning their witches.


But as I told you from the get-go: I was not here to discuss 100s of years of life after Muhammad. Because, as I told you before, the discussion would never end.

11:44 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> Al Suhrawardi was killed by Salahuddin al Ayubi's son for political reasons, his "esoteric views" were an excuse.

He was killed by Malik on the advice of his father, who was old and had relinquished power to his son.

Of course he was killed for political reasons. And the Conquistadors kicked out the Muslims and Jews for political reaons to. They just blamed the action on the religious views of the expelled!

The fact that by the time the 12th century rolled in, the Khalifa could get away with killing someone for their "Esoteric" views drew a distinct line in the sand from the "Enlightened Empire".

Unlike you, you doesn't think other thought and faith systems have "Equal Value" to Islam. The Catholics began to gather the work and knowledge of the Muslims. That's when their "Multi-Culturalism" and "Moral-Relativism" started to take root.

But I doubt very much that you see that. You cannot correlate the vibrant scientific culture of Bayt-Al-Hikma, with the more fashionable prevailing philosophy at the time.

11:54 am  
Blogger Common Sense said...

*Liberalism is a secular ideology started by predominantly Christian thinkers in Europe in the enlightenment period.

Well among other periods too.


>> This was Islam.

Excuse me. Are you flip-flopping again?

One minute you discount the philosophers and thinkers that inspired the Renaissance and Enlightnement as Illiberal, and now you say that "liberalism" was Islam.


>> I know you can't admit it because then you would have to amend your stance that Islam is inherently evil.

I have spent the last few posts trying to redeem a whole slew of thinkers and philosophers.

For the crime of daring to suggest that Liberalism has Islamic roots too, you convulsed and rushed to try and shut me up by explaining to me how they all Supported the barbaric punishments of Sharia.

And now you say I can't admit. Ya B'heem, I've wrote post after post admitting it.

12:00 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

I think that this whole debate, while occasionally of some interest, has moved WAY off subject.

I'm interested in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I'm not really interested in the intricacies of precisely how offence can be taken by various groups of people at this overall level, simply the notions of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression” as currently enshrined in UK law.

These are too valuable to lose and I don't like the idea of compromise because you either have freedom or you don't.

Can people ever be really “free”? That's an interesting question for debate.

Given that anyone can give offence in so many different ways this whole area is legal minefield and I would like to see government stay well clear.

While it goes without saying that I believe in the artistic licence to “offend” (which doesn't actually harm anyone physically) I personally try to live my life in a reasonable, friendly and considerate way because I deal with people from so many different backgrounds on a daily basis although I would stress that I'm living according to my own value-system and moral code.

However, in my spare time, if I choose to go to see “Jerry Springer The Opera” or read “The Satanic Verses” (not that I would – they're both boring!), then that's MY choice and I don't want to be dictated to by anyone else based on their own definitions of what's offensive.

As a mature adult what I choose to do within the law is MY choice and no one else's.

There is no reason at all to change the law.

12:33 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Oh I can't keep doing this.


*Omar Khayam belonged to the druze sect, he was not even nominally Muslim.

I did not know that. Do you have a reference? P.S. Still waiting for the Koranic verse.



*I don't have my pom poms out for the Taliban, i didn't approve of much of what they did in Afghanistan but i understand their actions in their proper historical context which you fail to do so.


Yes, I fail to do so. Because there is no proper historical context for the arrogance they showed.

And you supported their blowing up of the Buddha- not Willy Nilly- of course, but is a reflection of the kind of respect you would show for Non-Muslims, when the "proper context" presents itself.

As for where you depart from their intolerant actions, I'm not sure. You have kept that a well-hidden secret.




*Pakistan is a secular country ruled by a military dictatorship:

Which has blasphemy laws used regularly to intimidate CHristians there, and restrictions on Church building.

Yes, yes of course. It is a "Secular" country.


>> General Musharaff says he wants to do for Pakistan what Attaturk did for Turkey.

I wish him the best of luck. Now all he needs to do is to change the laws of the country, one by one. But there's far too many Majaneen living there for him to have real power to do anything.

>> And who is it that supports his rule, isn't it your nice liberal friends in the west as he helps in the war against terror.

Well, technically, its George Bush who supports him. And George Bush is far from "liberal".

What's Musharraf doing for the "War on Terror". Paying lip service while extorting money?





>> I only know two people from Sudan, but it is far from an Islamic state.


Of course. It's far from an Islamic state, and since you're Sunni, I presume you think Iran is far from an Islamic state. And since you said you disagreed with most of what the Taliban did, then the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was also Far from an Islamic State. And the Rest of the Gulf countries, which are influenced by the Non-Islamic-Salafi-Wahabi sect views, they too are far from being Islamic States.

Where is this Utopic Islamic State that has far superior Value systems to all the "Multi-Cultural", "Moral-Relativist" systems of the West.

Tell us about it. Will you be the new Salahudin to usher in the new age? Any of your friends over at HT? You know how to do it better than the Taliban?


You want to drag me out into conversations like this. If you re-read our early posts. It is precisely as I predicted: you'll just say this is not Islamic, or that is not Islamic, or this Hadith is not accurate. Bla Bla Bla.

You support an idealogy, a frame-work for state building. All those who came before you from Abdul-Wahhab, to Khomeini, to Mullah Omar seem not to have done- by your account- a good job of any of it. What makes you think you'll be better?






>>>>> I haven't contradicted myself or flip flopped as i've proved several times and you have been able to deal with.


>>Yes: You've contradicted yourself many times.Example, one minute, you say no aid was forthcoming to Afghanistan.Then you acknowledge that Christian aid groups (at least) were working in the area, though you scoff at the fact that they brought their bibles along.

*I said that state aid had got cut off and sanctions had been imposed.

No, you said no aid was forth-coming, and no-where did you use the word State.

And why shouldn't sanctions be imposed and state aid be withheld. After all, the empire was holding OBL- whose views you say you don't agree with, and who is nothing but a Salafi-Wahabi-non-Islamic cult member, who had planned and executed several operations against the US. Why should the American government prop up the Taliban.

And to teach the world a lesson by blackmail, they went ahead and blew up the Buddhas.

In Arabic, we have a saying, "Sha7at oo be Aamer", which is a very sarcastic way of saying Beggars can't be choosers.

That is the real context. Now you might want to stretch out this conversation by saying that the Taliban asked for proof that OBL was behind the bombings, bla, bla, bla. You'll try to draw out this conversation for a few more hundred posts. I say end it here. There was no excuse. If the Taliban had the "interests of their people" at heart, the price to pay was very small. And since they were not doing a bang-up job building your perfect Islamic Caliphate, you should concede this point.

But instead, you took out your pom-poms and suggested that it was OK to blow up the Buddhas, because of your profound understnading of the historical context for what they did.





>> Are you capable of distinguishing between the two. Yes i'm critical of aid organisations which are only giving aid to aggressivley spread their faith to people who have nothing.

So you should have skipped on the Hajj, saved the money, and sent it to the poor and needy.

And you should start a movement urging all Muslims to do the same.

But to sit in the sidelines, and start throwing stones at the people who are there trying to do something.

I'll go one step further.

In fact, your statement is reflective of your contempt for Christianity. Because you don't have a problem with the Saudis going and funding the spread of their Wahabi-Salafi views- which according to you are non-Islamic cult views. But then in the same vein, you have a problem with Christian aid groups doing the same.






*Tawheed is a belief of all Muslims, Salafys didn't make it up.
But then i'm not here to educate you.

Tawheed is not the belief of all Muslims. You yourself tried to distinuguish yourself from the Salafis by saying you believe in Madhabs, where they don't. Though in retrospect, you don't believe in all Madhabs. And the 4 you're fine with you argue were deemed Coherent by Al-Ghazali.

Which is nothing but the core of what Abdul-Wahhab taught.

Or was it the British spy that infiltrated and gave him those ideas :).


Nuff for now.

12:36 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

I know you are all having fun discussing the origins of Islam et al...

...any chance we could open this out a bit? What about Mark Barrett getting nicked for organising a picnic on Westminster Green..

1:05 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

"Little Sense"
Tawheed is not the belief of all Muslims. You yourself tried to distinuguish yourself from the Salafis by saying you believe in Madhabs, where they don't. Though in retrospect, you don't believe in all Madhabs. And the 4 you're fine with you argue were deemed Coherent by Al-Ghazali.

Which is nothing but the core of what Abdul-Wahhab taught.

You really are a joke "Little Sense". The four madhabbs are those that have survived as coherent schools of law, the others fizzled out centuries ago because of the lack of scholarly interest. Abdul Wahabb Najd did not accept the four madhabbs, he drew on the works of Ibn Taymiyyah himself a heretic and drew up a distorted version of Islam which only allowed the taqlid of an extremist form of the Hanbali madhabb. It posited an anthropomorphic concept of Allah (SWT) and denied the spiritual status of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Awliya. It considered all Muslims other than Abdul Wahabb's followers as kafirs and thus allowed mass slaughter in the Hijaz. He was considered a heretic and a traitor and executed as such by the Ottomon authorities. His spiritual descendants continue this same bastardised version of Islam alive in KSA and propagating it around the world.

Tawheed is the belief in Allah (SWT) absolute oneness, all Muslims believe in it otherwise they would be committing shirk which is a sin which removes you from Islam. You are really showing your ignorance now.

I rest my case, you clearly know nothing about Islam.

I do object to the Salafys spreading their poison around the world, i spend a large part of my time refuting their erroneous doctrines including their erroneous understanding of Tawheed.

The Mutazallites were a particular group of Muslims who had particular set of views. They are distinct from the Falasifah whom you seem to be interested in.

If you read Bidayat al Mujtahid you will see that Ibn Rushd was a staunch upholder of the shariah as a set of laws based on revelation not on reason.

Sanctions shouldn't be imposed on any country when it is clear that it will only harm the poor and the weak and not the wealthy people who those states imposing the sanctions on actually want to harm. I have explained this to you before.

I don't have my pom poms out for anyone. I'm an englishman and thus have no time for such things.

I didn't say liberalism is Islam, i said that the ideas espoused by the majority of the Ulema and Sufis you mentioned were Islamic ideas, not liberal ideas. They are ideas based in Prophetic revelation, not some personal rationalisation. Yes Ibn Rushd drew on aristotle and married it to Islam, for what purpose? To explain Islam and defend it from those who opposed Islam and used greek thought as a means of attacking it.

The Caliphate existed from the time of the Prophet (PBUH) until 1924, it wasn't a perfect utopia but it did have a system of properly qualifies judges and courts which applied the shariah correctly. It also had an economic system which eschewed interest. It also had a currency of gold and silver coins, not paper money which is essentially usurious.

I'm not a state builder, i'm not building or planning to build an Islamic state, the Muslims of the world are not ready for it. Again you love to slander. Just because i don't accept the bastardised versions of shariah being promulgated around the world as being shariah or those countries as being Islamic states, yet i do believe in a shariah system and the restoration of the Caliphate, doesn't mean i'm busy trying to rebuild it.

I do have friends in HT, many in fact, however i don't agree with their analyses or their methodology and that is why i'm not a member of HT.

The Taliban did many wrong things like the ethnic massacres you refer to as well as the enforcement of niqab on women and the closing of schools.

Al Qaida has also many sins to it's name: 9/11, Madrid, Bali, 7/7 etc
If you had actually read the letter on which you started commenting you would know that my Shuyookh outrightly condemned 9/11 at the time with an ulema conference.

But like i've said throughout you're not really interested in finding out what we're about. All you're interested in doing is trying to smear us with your stereotypical view of Islam and Muslims, based on your poor research and lack of understanding.

Well sorry, i don't have to be what you want to be. Do us all a favour go and pick on some Salafys, you know what i'll even help you.

1:49 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Polish Solidarity et al.

The Question of Apostacy in Islam, it's punishment and the case of Abdul Rehman

I have been asked several times on this blog and elsewhere for my views on the above. I have said i needed to do research.

Now i've done it, i'll try and give some answers based on my limited understanding.

In the time of the Caliphate, Islam was the life blood of the political system. Politics and religion were inseprable. Therefore to apostate was not a private expression of changing faith, it was an act of treason. Being treasanous it was punishable by death.

The situation today: There is no Islamic state that implements the entirety of the shariah, therefore to impose the punishment for apostacy is unjust.

Abdul Rehman became a Christian over 20 years ago, no issue was made about it until now. The Judge in this case is being ridiculous and i'm suprised it even came to this. The problem as i have been saying for a long time is a lack of education. Most of these village mullahs do not have the qualifications to be judges, which in the time of the Caliphate required a very high level of scholarship indeed, a level which is rarely attained by Islamic scholars today for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the decline of state funding and a decline in the quality of Islamic univeristies due to the take over of secular, nationalist, baathist and monarchical rule in the Muslim world.
Oh and we have blasphemy laws for Christianity in this country "Little Sense"

1:58 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Yes, we do currently have blasphemy laws in the UK but they only apply to the Church of England.

They haven't been used for a long time. The last man to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott. In 1922 he was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown. In Scotland, there has not been a public prosecution since 1843.

The laws should be repealed because they are outdated and could be used to limit freedom of speech or expression.

I'm all for protecting the believer but I'm totally against protecting the belief.

2:12 pm  
Blogger Bylaugh Babe said...

Dialogue is always a good thing.

Stephen

3:00 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

Ah that'll be a 'no' to opening up the conversation then!

- Cheers

3:04 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Dialogue is always a good thing.

Not always Stephen. There are many times in ones life when actions speak louder than words. I can think of many instances.

Dialogue can also be a bit of luxury when you've come to a decision and time is of the essence.

3:13 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel, I'll put all your rubbish to rest, once and for all.


>> You really are a joke "Little Sense". The four madhabbs are those that have survived as coherent schools of law, the others fizzled out centuries ago because of the lack of scholarly interest.

What survives today are the various schools of thought that criminalized independent thinking.

Because anyone who didn't fit the mold was killed, for excuses of Apostasy, or Heresy or Esotericism.

People like Ibn Rushd, by the end of his life was persecuted by the the "Caliphate".

The "Caliphate" you speak so very fondly of.






>> Abdul Wahabb Najd did not accept the four madhabbs, he drew on the works of Ibn Taymiyyah himself a heretic


A heretic that didn't meet the fate of the other heretic Al-Suhrawardi. All he got was house imprisonment.

Care to venture a guess why?

Because the 4 madhabs that you believe in (The Shafii, the Maliki, The Hanbali, and the Hanafi) are not all that different from each other.

The esoteric views of the Sufis were always considered more heretical by the time of the 12th century. And though there was a revival of Sufi thought both in the Mughal as well as Ottoman empires, a period existed in between in which esoteric views were heavily suppressed.



>> and drew up a distorted version of Islam which only allowed the taqlid of an extremist form of the Hanbali madhabb.

Which is reconcilable to all 3 other Madhabs.



>> It posited an anthropomorphic concept of Allah (SWT) and denied the spiritual status of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Awliya.

These are words. The concept of Tawhid was to claim the one-ness of God, and to remove any attachment of importance to secondary beings like Awliya, because that precisely is what Shirk is, and what Muslims had spent centuries mocking Christians for (e.g. Iconography within the Byzantine tradition, which revered Saints).

The line you draw between your own understanding of Islam and that of the Wahabis is virtually non-existant.

Yes yes. You have a few saints you revere too. Maybe you would have liked to pay homage to their Graves in Saudi Arabia.

Maybe that is de-humanizing and steers you from the Path of Allah, and focussing on feeding the poor and hungry.

Maybe destroying those graves was a good thing- to cast your mind away from what diverts you from the Path of Allah, the way Muhammad crused the Idols of the Kaaba, to divert the people away from the teachings of their "Gods".






>> It considered all Muslims other than Abdul Wahabb's followers as kafirs

Much like Al-Suhrawardi was eventually considered a "Kafir" and decapitated back in the 12th century?




>> and thus allowed mass slaughter in the Hijaz.

Mass slaughter in the Hijaz?

Based on people not believing in Abdul-Wahhab.

Masha-allah, Shiites are living in KSA right now under the rules of Abdul-Wahhab. And they haven't assumed his teachings.






>> He was considered a heretic and a traitor and executed as such by the Ottomon authorities.


The same Ottomon authorities that was slowly adopting European praticies before culminating in Ataturk, and completely abolishing the Sharia, and purging their education from anything Arab.

Yes indeed.

The Ottomon empire Masha-Allah knew what it was doing.




>> His spiritual descendants continue this same bastardised version of Islam alive in KSA and propagating it around the world.


You shouldn't call it Islam. Call it a non-Islamic cult.



>> Tawheed is the belief in Allah (SWT) absolute oneness, all Muslims believe in it otherwise they would be committing shirk which is a sin which removes you from Islam. You are really showing your ignorance now.

I know what Tawheed is. As stated before, you association of Spirituality with the "Awliya", is arguably an act of Shirk. In fact that's what the Wahabis charge you with.

And that's what traditional Muslims have associated Christians with for centuries because of their icons, their statues.

And they like you- don't think your value system is quite valid. Because it very clearly is hypocritical.






>> I do object to the Salafys spreading their poison around the world, i spend a large part of my time refuting their erroneous doctrines including their erroneous understanding of Tawheed.


But you don't question the aid they provide, nor do you speak with dismay about the fact that the Aid they spread comes with strings attached.

Perhaps you think it's OK if people are converted to Islam with their aid and money, and then hope to rectify their wrong interpertations.

Ultimately, it is a refletion of the contemptuous attitude you hold towards anything that is not Muslim.

Which explains why you will never say that its OK, context or not, to blow up a mosque or Burn a Koran, but see no problem (in the right context of course) to blow up a Buddha.








>> The Mutazallites were a particular group of Muslims who had particular set of views. They are distinct from the Falasifah whom you seem to be interested in.

I am not a philospher. But I have a life philosophy. So did the Mu'tazila.

Back to this subject. Let me ask you, what do you suppose the Mu'tazila meant when they said that the Koran was created, not eternal? Why do you think they made this assertion?


>> If you read Bidayat al Mujtahid you will see that Ibn Rushd was a staunch upholder of the shariah as a set of laws based on revelation not on reason.


You know Ismaeel, you're a Dunce.

One minute, you gloat that Muhammad encouraged his followers to seek knowledge, even if it is from China. And now this.

Ibn Rushd didn't rubbish Islamic law, but he upheld the Supremacy of Greek philosophy and was a staunch defender of it.

Have you ever read any Aristotle, or Plato? Pick up Aristotle's Ethics.

Do you think these people were libertarians agaisnt punishing people?

Why do you bring up Shariah, every second sentance.

Ibn Rushd's point was that you can reconcile ALL knowledge if you properly understood it. And for that "liberal" position, he was assaulted by the Islamic courts.

And who led this assault? Your Friend Al-Ghazzali, you argued about the non-sense of the Greek Philosophers.


Is that the kind of vision Muhammad had laid out when he said, "Seek Knowledge even if you go to china".

Unlike you, Ibn Rushd sought value in the various schools of thought- even those that proceeded him. And for that? Persecution.

What did you expect him to write about the Sharia. To rubbish it? The best he could do is to protect and defend critical thought.

And in that, he stands in a completely different league from Al-Ghazali.


















>> Sanctions shouldn't be imposed on any country when it is clear that it will only harm the poor and the weak and not the wealthy people who those states imposing the sanctions on actually want to harm. I have explained this to you before.


No of course not. Except if you're Ismaeel, or MAC, and you urge a boycott of Danish products, which only means Arla will lay off factory workers who aren't exactly cream of the crop in Danish society.

Using economics to influence state action is a tool only you, and the Muslims should have at hand.







>> I don't have my pom poms out for anyone. I'm an englishman and thus have no time for such things.

So you shouldn't worry about the BNP when they go chasing the "Mooslums" and my "fellow Arabs" out of Britain.

You can say, look at me, I have white skin just like you.




>> I didn't say liberalism is Islam, i said that the ideas espoused by the majority of the Ulema and Sufis you mentioned were Islamic ideas, not liberal ideas.

They were "Islamic ideas". Or were they Graeco-Roman. Or were they ideas of the people who lived in the area as well.

The Islamic peoples who lived in the area had a variety of ideas. Are all their ideas "Islamic ideas".




>> They are ideas based in Prophetic revelation, not some personal rationalisation.


Really. Why seek knowledge from anyone else (Greek, Chinese) then. Are you going back on your support for seeking knowledge from anywhere?

If Ibn Rushd's opinions were based purely on "Prophetic revelation", then he wouldn't have spent one tract after the other arguing with Al-Ghazali. He should have rubbished all the work of the Greek Philosophers and said, "everything we need to know is here", which is the attitude that Al-Ghazali had.



>> Yes Ibn Rushd drew on aristotle and married it to Islam, for what purpose? To explain Islam and defend it from those who opposed Islam and used greek thought as a means of attacking it.

Really!

Is that why he was persecuted by the Islamic courts?

Is that why Al-Ghazali had such glaring reviews of his work!

Wa7ed B'heem.



>> The Caliphate existed from the time of the Prophet (PBUH) until 1924,

Well there were multiple Caliphates in different times.


>> it wasn't a perfect utopia

But I suppose you beleive it is preferable to the system in England.



>> but it did have a system of properly qualifies judges and courts which applied the shariah correctly.


Like when they executed Al-Suhrawardi for heresy.

Or when they decided to de-face the Aya Sofia and turn it into a Mosque?

Or when the Ottoman legions took boys from Eastern Europe to rear their own private army.

Were all those actions in line with their correct implementation of "Sharia"?


Just asking.




>> It also had an economic system which eschewed interest. It also had a currency of gold and silver coins, not paper money which is essentially usurious.


LOL. So you want us all to go back to Gold and Silver Coins.



>> I'm not a state builder, i'm not building or planning to build an Islamic state, the Muslims of the world are not ready for it.

No, they're not. Not like they were between the time of Muhammad and 1924.

Then there were perfectly ready for it.


>> Again you love to slander. Just because i don't accept the bastardised versions of shariah being promulgated around the world

I don't know what you consider Bastardized and what you don't consider bastardized.

Is stoning an adulterer bastardization of Sharia?

How about dropping a wall on Homosexuals?

How about killing apostates? When their act is treasonous? Is Salman Rushdie treasonous, how about Nasser Khader? Are they treasonous.

Are those bastardizations?

We don't know! The Englishman won't tell us.



>> as being shariah or those countries as being Islamic states, yet i do believe in a shariah system

The yet undisclosed Sharia system. We know its application nowadays is bastardized. We don't know how so.



>> and the restoration of the Caliphate, doesn't mean i'm busy trying to rebuild it.

Nope of course you're not.



>> I do have friends in HT, many in fact, however i don't agree with their analyses or their methodology and that is why i'm not a member of HT.

Are they Uncivil? Or Civil? Are they the ones who held up placards saying "behead those who insult Islam". Why


>> The Taliban did many wrong things like the ethnic massacres you refer to as well as the enforcement of niqab on women and the closing of schools.


But the ethnic massacres stopped the civil war! Did it not. It brought stability, did it not?

Now you're not that naiive to think that when there is war, massacres don't happen, are you Ismaeel?

So what did you want the West to send more money and give it to the Taliban for. Obviously, they weren't building schools, and paying law enforcemnet officials to force women to wear the Niqab, and to commit massacres.

Why should the State continue giving money to the Taliban regime! Because you are naive enough to believe that the Taliban would use it to feed their people, as opposed to bolstering their own power and causing more suppression and oppression.

Is that why you were OK with them blowing up the Buddhas (not willy nilly- of course not!)




>> Al Qaida has also many sins to it's name: 9/11, Madrid, Bali, 7/7 etc

Sins. Why sins. The West has been oppressing the Muslims all this time.

The West's policies in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, propping up dictators. Isn't terrorism the weapon of the weak?





>> If you had actually read the letter on which you started commenting you would know that my Shuyookh outrightly condemned 9/11 at the time with an ulema conference.


Al-7amdul-lilah!




>> But like i've said throughout you're not really interested in finding out what we're about.

I see HT is part of your grouping. And you said you didn't agree with them. Clearly, what you're about is a multitude of things.

I asked you what you're about on a number of points.

So far, you've impressed me on none.

Your fickle and selective knowledge of history included.


>> All you're interested in doing is trying to smear us with your stereotypical view of Islam

Smear. Your arguments must stand on their own strength.

Did I smear you when you said you thought it was OK to blow up the Buddhas because they are de-humanizing (in that particular context of course).


>> and Muslims, based on your poor research and lack of understanding.

My research is first hand. Of course my understanding is poor. Like the undersanding of the BNP, HT, Wahabis, the Falasifa, Irshad Manji, Christians, Jews and Hindus who follow "unequal thought systems". Salman Rushdie, Moral Relativists, Multi-Culturalists, and followers of "Western Liberal Values".

We all suffer from a condition of poor understanding.

You of course, don't.

3:44 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

All of this endless talk about religion reminds me of something I saw in a greetings-card shop a few days ago.

You'd never guess what - an "Easter card" with a religious theme on the front!

Easter!!! I tell you, they're trying to get religion in everywhere these days.

They'll want to make Christmas a religious holday next - you mark my words!!!

3:55 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Common Sense said...
Ismaeel, I'll put all your rubbish to rest, once and for all.


>> You really are a joke "Little Sense". The four madhabbs are those that have survived as coherent schools of law, the others fizzled out centuries ago because of the lack of scholarly interest.

What survives today are the various schools of thought that criminalized independent thinking.

*They criminalised independent thinking, what nonsense, please show me even one reference for this.

Because anyone who didn't fit the mold was killed, for excuses of Apostasy, or Heresy or Esotericism.

*Sorry again not true and unsubstantiated.

People like Ibn Rushd, by the end of his life was persecuted by the the "Caliphate".

*Again for political reasons.

The "Caliphate" you speak so very fondly of.

*And which i have said was not perfect





>> Abdul Wahabb Najd did not accept the four madhabbs, he drew on the works of Ibn Taymiyyah himself a heretic


A heretic that didn't meet the fate of the other heretic Al-Suhrawardi. All he got was house imprisonment.

Care to venture a guess why?

Because the 4 madhabs that you believe in (The Shafii, the Maliki, The Hanbali, and the Hanafi) are not all that different from each other.

*Actually they are quite different and his heresys were ones of aqeedah not law. The four madhabbs relate to law, aqeedah was regulated by the schools of Ashari, Matrudi and Hanbal. Again you display your ignorance.

The esoteric views of the Sufis were always considered more heretical by the time of the 12th century. And though there was a revival of Sufi thought both in the Mughal as well as Ottoman empires, a period existed in between in which esoteric views were heavily suppressed.

*No they weren't only certain acts of certain Sufis, they were widely accepted in both Ummayad and Abbasid periods, Hassan al Basri, Junaid al-Baghdadi, Rabia Basri etc etc were all leading sufis and accepted during the Ummayad period. Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (the heads of those schools you claim criminalised free thought) all had sufi masters that they went to, if you had read Ghazalli's works insted of reading about them then you would know that.


>> and drew up a distorted version of Islam which only allowed the taqlid of an extremist form of the Hanbali madhabb.

Which is reconcilable to all 3 other Madhabs.

*No it's not, it's totally cut off from the principles and deductions of them as well as the main body of the Hanbali school.


>> It posited an anthropomorphic concept of Allah (SWT) and denied the spiritual status of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Awliya.

These are words. The concept of Tawhid was to claim the one-ness of God, and to remove any attachment of importance to secondary beings like Awliya, because that precisely is what Shirk is, and what Muslims had spent centuries mocking Christians for (e.g. Iconography within the Byzantine tradition, which revered Saints).

*Now you are really showing what little understanding you have. Muslims have criticised Christians for worshipping Jesus (PBUH) and the Saints putting them in the place of Allah (SWT). To use the awliya as intercessors is something completley different and was something taught by the Prophet (PBUH) himself.

The line you draw between your own understanding of Islam and that of the Wahabis is virtually non-existant.

*It's a huge gulf but your desire to sterotype us all together won't allow you to see past that.

Yes yes. You have a few saints you revere too. Maybe you would have liked to pay homage to their Graves in Saudi Arabia.

*Actually we have thousands of saints. One is even buried here in England.

Maybe that is de-humanizing and steers you from the Path of Allah, and focussing on feeding the poor and hungry.

*No it is not dehumanising because it reminds us of their achievements and of our own final destination- the grave and the return to Allah t'ala.

Maybe destroying those graves was a good thing- to cast your mind away from what diverts you from the Path of Allah, the way Muhammad crused the Idols of the Kaaba, to divert the people away from the teachings of their "Gods".

*Desecrating graves is not a good thing and they did not divert anyone away from th teachings of Allah (SWT)




>> It considered all Muslims other than Abdul Wahabb's followers as kafirs

Much like Al-Suhrawardi was eventually considered a "Kafir" and decapitated back in the 12th century?

*No, because that was due to political machinations.


>> and thus allowed mass slaughter in the Hijaz.

Mass slaughter in the Hijaz?

Based on people not believing in Abdul-Wahhab.

*Go read some history and also study some geography. Al-Hijaz is the western most strip of land in KSA embracing Mecca, Medina and al-Taif, the bedouin tribes of al-Saud and their wahabbi allies swept in from the najd region to the east and committed mass slaughters in the Hijaz at the beginnning of the twentieth century.

Masha-allah, Shiites are living in KSA right now under the rules of Abdul-Wahhab. And they haven't assumed his teachings.

*Who are deeply oppressed and not allowed to build their own mosques and live in the eastermost part of the country. The Wahabbi movement has had to become more pragmatic because of the Saudi's love in with the US.





>> He was considered a heretic and a traitor and executed as such by the Ottomon authorities.


The same Ottomon authorities that was slowly adopting European praticies before culminating in Ataturk, and completely abolishing the Sharia, and purging their education from anything Arab.

Yes indeed.

*Yeah let's just forget there is about 150 years difference between the Ottomons who finished the Caliphate and the ones who executed Najdi.
The Ottomon empire Masha-Allah knew what it was doing.




>> His spiritual descendants continue this same bastardised version of Islam alive in KSA and propagating it around the world.


You shouldn't call it Islam. Call it a non-Islamic cult.

*I'll call it whatever i like. It is a distorted bastardised version of Islam


>> Tawheed is the belief in Allah (SWT) absolute oneness, all Muslims believe in it otherwise they would be committing shirk which is a sin which removes you from Islam. You are really showing your ignorance now.

I know what Tawheed is. As stated before, you association of Spirituality with the "Awliya", is arguably an act of Shirk. In fact that's what the Wahabis charge you with.

*It is not an act of shirk it is an accepted precept according to all 4 schools of law and three schools of aqeedah.

And that's what traditional Muslims have associated Christians with for centuries because of their icons, their statues.

And they like you- don't think your value system is quite valid. Because it very clearly is hypocritical.






>> I do object to the Salafys spreading their poison around the world, i spend a large part of my time refuting their erroneous doctrines including their erroneous understanding of Tawheed.


But you don't question the aid they provide, nor do you speak with dismay about the fact that the Aid they spread comes with strings attached.

*Of course i question the aid they provide and the strings they attach. It is only your suspicious nature that prevents you from seeing that.

Perhaps you think it's OK if people are converted to Islam with their aid and money, and then hope to rectify their wrong interpertations.

Ultimately, it is a refletion of the contemptuous attitude you hold towards anything that is not Muslim.

*Whatever

Which explains why you will never say that its OK, context or not, to blow up a mosque or Burn a Koran, but see no problem (in the right context of course) to blow up a Buddha.

*Actually the Mosque built b hypocrites not only can but should be pulled down.

> The Mutazallites were a particular group of Muslims who had particular set of views. They are distinct from the Falasifah whom you seem to be interested in.

I am not a philospher. But I have a life philosophy. So did the Mu'tazila.

Back to this subject. Let me ask you, what do you suppose the Mu'tazila meant when they said that the Koran was created, not eternal? Why do you think they made this assertion?

*They made this assertion because they believed the concept of the Qur'aan being the eternal word of Allah and being uncreated was not rational and they believed all aspects of Islam and rationality were compatible. They said because the words of the Qur'aan had beginnings and ends then they must be the creation of Allah (SWT) and not an uncreated attribute of Allah (SWT). On the other extreme Ahmed bin Hanbal said flatly that the Quraan was uncreated. The accepted orthodx position in between is that although the revelation is Allah (SWT)'s word eternal and uncreated, what is written in books and recited on the tongue is created.


>> If you read Bidayat al Mujtahid you will see that Ibn Rushd was a staunch upholder of the shariah as a set of laws based on revelation not on reason.


You know Ismaeel, you're a Dunce.

One minute, you gloat that Muhammad encouraged his followers to seek knowledge, even if it is from China. And now this.

Ibn Rushd didn't rubbish Islamic law, but he upheld the Supremacy of Greek philosophy and was a staunch defender of it.

Have you ever read any Aristotle, or Plato? Pick up Aristotle's Ethics.

*I've read both and Socrates too.

Do you think these people were libertarians agaisnt punishing people?

Why do you bring up Shariah, every second sentance.

Ibn Rushd's point was that you can reconcile ALL knowledge if you properly understood it. And for that "liberal" position, he was assaulted by the Islamic courts.

*Nothing to do with politics at all no no.

And who led this assault? Your Friend Al-Ghazzali, you argued about the non-sense of the Greek Philosophers.

*Al-Ghazzali lived in Baghdad and sometimes in Syria, Ibn Rushd in Spain. They debated via correspondence. Al-Ghazzali himself used greek philosophical concepts but his difference with Ibn Rushd was that he rubbished their conclusions.


Is that the kind of vision Muhammad had laid out when he said, "Seek Knowledge even if you go to china".

* That is a fabricated hadith even though it's meaning is true. When he talked about seeking knowledge, he didn't mean that you then use that knowledge to commit heresy or distort the understanding of Islam.

Unlike you, Ibn Rushd sought value in the various schools of thought- even those that proceeded him. And for that? Persecution.

*Yeah because i've not read Locke, Hobbes, Adam Smith, Baudrillard, Marx, Hindu scriptures, the teachings of Buddha, Gandhi, MLK and taken benefit from them, no no

What did you expect him to write about the Sharia. To rubbish it? The best he could do is to protect and defend critical thought.

*He claimed to be a Mujtahid Imam in the book i have mentioned which means he could perform his own ijtihad, if he is as you claim he could have thrown out all the "illiberal" aspects of the shariah at this point, but he did not contenting himself with agreeing with one or other of the established Imams. No-one forced him to write the book.

And in that, he stands in a completely different league from Al-Ghazali.

*yeah yeah

















>> Sanctions shouldn't be imposed on any country when it is clear that it will only harm the poor and the weak and not the wealthy people who those states imposing the sanctions on actually want to harm. I have explained this to you before.


No of course not. Except if you're Ismaeel, or MAC, and you urge a boycott of Danish products, which only means Arla will lay off factory workers who aren't exactly cream of the crop in Danish society.

* A voluntary boycott is quite different to economic sanctions and Denmark is very different to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Using economics to influence state action is a tool only you, and the Muslims should have at hand.







>> I don't have my pom poms out for anyone. I'm an englishman and thus have no time for such things.

So you shouldn't worry about the BNP when they go chasing the "Mooslums" and my "fellow Arabs" out of Britain.

You can say, look at me, I have white skin just like you.

*I'm not worried about the BNP and their ilk.


>> I didn't say liberalism is Islam, i said that the ideas espoused by the majority of the Ulema and Sufis you mentioned were Islamic ideas, not liberal ideas.

They were "Islamic ideas". Or were they Graeco-Roman. Or were they ideas of the people who lived in the area as well.

The Islamic peoples who lived in the area had a variety of ideas. Are all their ideas "Islamic ideas".

*They were Islamic ideas, sorry to burst your bubble.




>> They are ideas based in Prophetic revelation, not some personal rationalisation.


Really. Why seek knowledge from anyone else (Greek, Chinese) then. Are you going back on your support for seeking knowledge from anywhere?

*To learn about other things which are not contradictory to the beliefs put foward in the Qur'aan, of which there is much.

If Ibn Rushd's opinions were based purely on "Prophetic revelation", then he wouldn't have spent one tract after the other arguing with Al-Ghazali. He should have rubbished all the work of the Greek Philosophers and said, "everything we need to know is here", which is the attitude that Al-Ghazali had.

*The Ulema have always differed and argued with each other over the understanding of Islam. Even the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) themselves used to differ about interpretations of law.

>> Yes Ibn Rushd drew on aristotle and married it to Islam, for what purpose? To explain Islam and defend it from those who opposed Islam and used greek thought as a means of attacking it.

Really!

Is that why he was persecuted by the Islamic courts?

Is that why Al-Ghazali had such glaring reviews of his work!

Wa7ed B'heem.

*He was misunderstood in his time and persecuted as were other luminaries such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Shaykh ibn Arabi and Al-Ghazzali himself. Despite all this they are now seen as the cornerstones of the Islamic faith.

>> The Caliphate existed from the time of the Prophet (PBUH) until 1924,

Well there were multiple Caliphates in different times.

*Not really at most there was ever two an Abbasid one in Baghdad and an Umayyad one in Andalucia. After the fall of the one in Andalucia there was only ever one. There were many sultans ruling independent empires but they all paid at least nominal allegience to the Caliph.

>> it wasn't a perfect utopia

But I suppose you beleive it is preferable to the system in England.

*yep.

>> but it did have a system of properly qualifies judges and courts which applied the shariah correctly.


Like when they executed Al-Suhrawardi for heresy.

Or when they decided to de-face the Aya Sofia and turn it into a Mosque?

Or when the Ottoman legions took boys from Eastern Europe to rear their own private army.

Were all those actions in line with their correct implementation of "Sharia"?


Just asking.


*I didn't say there was any corruption or deviation, humans are after all fallible and weak.

>> It also had an economic system which eschewed interest. It also had a currency of gold and silver coins, not paper money which is essentially usurious.


LOL. So you want us all to go back to Gold and Silver Coins.

*Yes


>> I'm not a state builder, i'm not building or planning to build an Islamic state, the Muslims of the world are not ready for it.

No, they're not. Not like they were between the time of Muhammad and 1924.

Then there were perfectly ready for it.

*yep

>> Again you love to slander. Just because i don't accept the bastardised versions of shariah being promulgated around the world

I don't know what you consider Bastardized and what you don't consider bastardized.

Is stoning an adulterer bastardization of Sharia?

*Nope

How about dropping a wall on Homosexuals?

*Nope

How about killing apostates? When their act is treasonous?

*Nope

Is Salman Rushdie treasonous, how about Nasser Khader? Are they treasonous.

*No Salman Rushdie is an apostate and Nasser Khader seems to be misguided.

Are those bastardizations?

We don't know! The Englishman won't tell us.

* I will if you ask.


>> as being shariah or those countries as being Islamic states, yet i do believe in a shariah system

The yet undisclosed Sharia system.

* No the one implemented by the Caliphate for 12 centuries.

We know its application nowadays is bastardized. We don't know how so.

* Because it is incomplete, lacking its social, economic and political systems and usually only implementing punishments for crimes.

>> and the restoration of the Caliphate, doesn't mean i'm busy trying to rebuild it.

Nope of course you're not.

*Believe whatever you like.

>> I do have friends in HT, many in fact, however i don't agree with their analyses or their methodology and that is why i'm not a member of HT.

Are they Uncivil? Or Civil? Are they the ones who held up placards saying "behead those who insult Islam". Why

*No they weren't that was a group caled Al-Ghuraaba who number about 30 people, you can see that from the video of the incident. HT had a very peaceful and civil rally the following day, i know i was there. Also they were out in force at the MAC rally, you can still see our placards on our site, perfectly civil.

>> The Taliban did many wrong things like the ethnic massacres you refer to as well as the enforcement of niqab on women and the closing of schools.


But the ethnic massacres stopped the civil war! Did it not. It brought stability, did it not?

Now you're not that naiive to think that when there is war, massacres don't happen, are you Ismaeel?

So what did you want the West to send more money and give it to the Taliban for. Obviously, they weren't building schools, and paying law enforcemnet officials to force women to wear the Niqab, and to commit massacres.

*Aid as you know always comes with strings attached they could have applied pressure to moderate their stances. They could also have helped to stop the civil war, but they just weren't interested, just like they weren't interested in Rwanda back in 94

Why should the State continue giving money to the Taliban regime! Because you are naive enough to believe that the Taliban would use it to feed their people, as opposed to bolstering their own power and causing more suppression and oppression.

Is that why you were OK with them blowing up the Buddhas (not willy nilly- of course not!)




>> Al Qaida has also many sins to it's name: 9/11, Madrid, Bali, 7/7 etc

Sins. Why sins. The West has been oppressing the Muslims all this time.

The West's policies in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, propping up dictators. Isn't terrorism the weapon of the weak?

*It is not the weapon of the Muslim. Have you watched Lion of the Desert when the Mujahideen capture an Italian Fascist soldier in Libya and are about to execute him, their leader Omar Muktar intervenes and stops it, "but they do it to us" says one of his men. "They are not our teachers" was his eloquent reply.



>> If you had actually read the letter on which you started commenting you would know that my Shuyookh outrightly condemned 9/11 at the time with an ulema conference.


Al-7amdul-lilah!




>> But like i've said throughout you're not really interested in finding out what we're about.

I see HT is part of your grouping. And you said you didn't agree with them. Clearly, what you're about is a multitude of things.

*No we're about one thing- Global Civility, apart from that we're not connected in any other way.

I asked you what you're about on a number of points.

So far, you've impressed me on none.

Your fickle and selective knowledge of history included.


>> All you're interested in doing is trying to smear us with your stereotypical view of Islam

Smear. Your arguments must stand on their own strength.

Did I smear you when you said you thought it was OK to blow up the Buddhas because they are de-humanizing (in that particular context of course).


>> and Muslims, based on your poor research and lack of understanding.

My research is first hand. Of course my understanding is poor. Like the undersanding of the BNP, HT, Wahabis, the Falasifa, Irshad Manji, Christians, Jews and Hindus who follow "unequal thought systems". Salman Rushdie, Moral Relativists, Multi-Culturalists, and followers of "Western Liberal Values".

We all suffer from a condition of poor understanding.

You of course, don't.

* Of i lack understanding of many things, i unlike you however have the humility to admit it when the topics come up.

4:44 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

However, in my spare time, if I choose to go to see “Jerry Springer The Opera” or read “The Satanic Verses” (not that I would – they're both boring!), then that's MY choice and I don't want to be dictated to by anyone else based on their own definitions of what's offensive.

As a mature adult what I choose to do within the law is MY choice and no one else's.

There is no reason at all to change the law.

*Whose suggesting changing the law Sir Percy? I think i've said it to you before we want to encourage people to be civil voluntarily and refrain from authoring such things as the Satanic Verses and the Jerry Springer Oprea in the first place

4:48 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Sir Percy said...
All of this endless talk about religion reminds me of something I saw in a greetings-card shop a few days ago.

You'd never guess what - an "Easter card" with a religious theme on the front!

Easter!!! I tell you, they're trying to get religion in everywhere these days.

They'll want to make Christmas a religious holday next - you mark my words!!!

LOL, whatever next?

4:49 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Ismaeel said:

we want to encourage people to be civil voluntarily and refrain from authoring such things as the Satanic Verses and the Jerry Springer Oprea

As I said somewhere else, that's fine by me Ismaeel but if Mr Rushdie decides to go ahead anyway, because do still have freedom of expression in this country, that's fine by me too.

As I said earlier you can ask him not to publish something but untimately, it's his choice. He's free to do as he wishes.

5:04 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

Meanwhile back at the 'Ismaeel' and 'Common Sense' forum....

6:50 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

SP - Nice jokes lol

Having problems sorting pc cookies to log back in to by blog - blooming idiot that I am! Otherwise would have left a message on mi blog for you.
At it happens here are am interuppting the heated debate - as per - betwixt Common Sence and Ismaeel.

What's a simple gut like me gotta do?!

7:10 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

...that's GUY not GUT please!

7:12 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Ismaeel. I don't have the energy for you any more.

Now killing people for their religious views, you argue, was politics. Well unless you're from a particular off-shoot sect of Sufism- in which the Just and Informed Islamic court can successfully lay a charge of heresy. Mash'allah.

There won't be winning this argument. When it suits your argument: you'll say an action is an excess, or mistakes were made, or this or that was not perfect.

Apparently, the Muslims were ready then for the Caliphate, and although imperfect, and made lots of mistakes, like snitch young Christian boys from Greece and create armies out of them, desecration of holy sites of Christians, Hindus,... Persecution of free thinkers (for political reasons of course- but under the guise of Heresy, ex. Suhrawardi, Ibn Rushd), War-mongering, and Imperialism, expropriation of propety and wealth... All those things, all those imperfections still present a better system of governance than the current "Western Liberal" system of government.

Masha'Allah.



As for your views. Of course, Believing in the Awlia is OK, and desecrating their graves is Haram, because at least 3 of the valid Madhabs say so. The Hanbali perhaps questionably so since it is what Ibn Taymiyah based his teachings on.

Reverence of Saints (when they are Muslim) is valid, since your theology says so. It is not Ishrak- even if Muslims go and pray at the graves of those "Awliya".

Unlike the Pagans, or Christians, Having spiritual reverenace for the Awliya does not misguide you. Which is why the teachings of Abdul-Wahhab are incorrect. Apart from that, you agree with pretty much everything else. Masha'Allah!


The Christians, and Buddhists. With their statues. They are Mushrikeen par excellence who attach importance to Icons and Pieces of Stone. De-humanizing pieces of stone, when Willy Nilly, it suits the purposes of the Just Islamic Empire, ruled by the Just rules of Sharia law, their places of worship, or articles of worship can be brought down.

No doubt, this is why you believe the intolerant bigot Muhammad had every right to expel the Pagans, expropriate their property and destroy their place of worship.


In your perfect empire, non-Muslims, sexual deviant.. had better watch how they behave. Otherwise, not willy-nilly, your jurists will deal with them Swiftly and Justly.



I'm glad to know that Mosques can also be brought down when they are built by Hypocrites. No doubt, that was just the kind of reasoning Zarqawi and co. used when they blew up those Shiite shrines. After all, his ilk regularly call Shias, "Worse than animals and dogs". No doubt, they too consider them hypocrites. The Pakistani Sunni clerics who frequently denounce the Shias no doubt hold the same views.

I'm glad to see that you are fully supportive of the rights of the Oppressed Shias. No doubt, you supported the liberation of Iraq from the tyrannical stranglehold of the Sunni Arabs, who regularly massacred the Shia there.



I'm glad to hear your views on sexual deviants and homosexuals. Worthy of being killed. Your preaching of morality of course does not create a climate of fear and hate towards those groups.


You should rectify your Statement of Intent to reflect your views. I am speaking specifically of Item 2:

http://www.globalcivility.com/statement.htm

Your views are remarkably unique. Such graceful views of Shia and the "original" Sufi (none of the neo-Sufi stuff coming out of Africa and India no doubt) tradition, plus support for the most viscious punishments of Shari'a.

A remarkable ability to say you hold so steadfastly to the ideas of the 4 Magical Madhabs, while being able to call other views both Islamic, as well as discounted views (and hence no longer practiced) both at the same time. Masha'Allah- never have I seen such skill.

Your assumption that Ibn Rushd adopted Greek Philosophy to argue against those who attacked Islam was so farcicle a claim, it hardly was worth a re-buff. Averroes was as staunch an Aristotelian as they got. In fact, most of Europe's knowledge of Aristotle came from his work.

I have serious doubt that you read any of the works of the said people. Though if you are interested, it can all be found in

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com

and following the necessary links.


Ghazali's work on the Incoherence of the Philosophers did in fact use ideas from Greek Philosophy (do note that even those "Islamic" contributors relied ultimately on non-Islamic originals- though of course, you call ALL their work Islamic). However, his use of the said philosophy was expressly to demonstrate that dabbling with these ideas naturally lead to Heresy, and are in themselves sometimes incoherent. He did so grudgingly, and to put an end to dabbling with Philosophy or ideas not present in the Islamic body of knowledge.

As I said 100 posts back, his work spelt the end of rationalism within the Islamic empire, and its natural decline to the pathetic state it is in now.

Europe, which adopted the rationalist views of Averroes took an upward slope instead.

Rationalism lead to the Rensaisance and then to Enlightenment, and finally to the Western Liberal tradition that exists today.


And Ya Akhi, I know that Ghazalli was in Iraq, while Ibn Rushd was in Andalus. Do you think you're talking to someone who popped down yesterday from Mareekh?


But what Al-Ghazali shared in intolerant ideology with you, with Muhammad, with the Wahabis and Salafis is this profoudn indelible hate for Kufr, and an obsession with all things that lead to such.

The mighty Englishman has a tolerance for 4 Madhabs! Masha'Allah wal 7amdul-lilah. But 4 Madhabs or 1 Madhab, their whole ethos and writing related to an obsessiveness with whether one was a Heretic or not.

Watch out. Here comes the Heretic. Off with his head. Sorry CS... we just killed him "for politics", and "used the excuse of Heresy", why not: the Law's right there, as part of Sharia 101.


And here you are talking about Civility.

You call the Conquistadors Intolerant, and you complain about why I think you're no different?


Masha-Allah.



Kifayi. Tawashitnee.

That's all I have to say.

8:26 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Alhamdullilah, "Little Sense" has finally shut up. I can't be bothered to refute your last post, you've proved time and again you know little to nothing about Islamic history, law, philosophy, beliefs and mysticism for me to carry on showing what an imbecile you are.

Sadly your pride in being an Arab and refusing to admit a poor little ajami convert to Islam knows more about the history of your "arabic" heritage is truly pathetic.

8:36 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

>> Sadly your pride in being an Arab and refusing to admit a poor little ajami convert to Islam knows more about the history of your "arabic" heritage is truly pathetic.


Are you Ajami or Ajnabi?


Masha-Allah with your knowledge of Arabs. We should ask the BNP to send you to Arabia to start undoing all the ignorance currently over there with the rampant Wahabism that has afflicted the area!

Maybe you can correct all their views on the Heretical Ibn Taymiyah.

So you're proud that as a Muslim you know a thing or two about Islam :). Want a trophy for that? Your knowledge of Arab history is lacking and highly distorted, as per your wrong views on the Mu'tazila, and on the Falasifa.

And are you mostly proud that you have uttered naught but the most bigotted and intolerant views (supporting killing homosexuals, bringing down the Buddhas, killing Heretics). I have never met a man so proud of such wondrous achievements!

Masha'Allah!

9:19 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

How does any of this relate to

freedom of speech

or even

freedom of expression

???

9:31 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Sir Percy:

It relates to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression because Global CIvility has started a movement in which it aims to "Civilize the way we talk to each other".

It was their way of camouflaging their true refusal to allow anything critical to be said with the notion of "Civility". The idea being that while they support the notion of being able to express oneself, it should be done in a way that is Civil. And that it had nothing to do with disallowing Valid criticism.

Tasked with explaining what Valid criticism was, Ismaeel was at a loss for words one whether describing some of Muhamamad's action were in fact intolerant, bigotted and terrorist.

He of course said they were not, though suggested identical actions by those he considered non-Muslim were in fact terrorist and intolerant.

Naturally, Ismaeel's drive for Global Civility did not include any constraints on how his group of people ought to converse with each other. So though he conceded that Peter Tatchell might feel offendeded by Sacranie's comments on homosexualty: those remarks were OK.

Today we learnt that Ismaeel would take this one step further by- should he have his way- dropping walls on the Buggers.

Apart from championing the idea that we should all Talk to each other in a Civil way (the limits of this civility naturally defined by himself). He came out in favor of actions like Blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas. And destroying mosques when they are built by Hypocrites (though he didn't say if he thought Zarqawi was right to blow up the Shrines of Shiites in Iraq).

The notion of Civility, it would seem is limited to attempt stopping any negative portrayal of Muhammad, or Islam (though of course, their demand is that it only be done on a voluntary basis).


As for Acting civil to one another. That is another matter altogether. Well. Not Willy Nilly of course :).


So in short: Ismaeel would like to supress any speech that is unflattering of Islam.

9:45 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

Good question...

9:48 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

"little sense"
knock it off, it's really quite boring now

9:48 pm  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

common sense;

Sir Percy:

It relates to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression because Global CIvility has started a movement in which it aims to "Civilize the way we talk to each other".

It was their way of camouflaging their true refusal to allow anything critical to be said with the notion of "Civility". The idea being that while they support the notion of being able to express oneself, it should be done in a way that is Civil. And that it had nothing to do with disallowing Valid criticism.


No one is in a position to refuse anything are they? Certainly not from where I'm coming from.

And if they try... isn't what the March for Free Expression is all about?

10:15 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Percy.

Ultimately, yes. This is what it should be about.

But for bonus marks, it's always fun to lay to rest the mis-informed views of religious bigots.

11:04 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

“Gareth - BNP Twat (sorry I meant British Nazi Party Member)” – Anonymous

How very civil of you Anonymous.


"Oh great - now we have two BNP supporters here - great job! What part of "you're not welcome" don't you understand?" - Anonymous

See I disagree with this... all peoples who wish to debate and who are democrats (which the BNP are) should be allowed to debate.


I think I can safely say, after reading all 153 comments on here so far that Ismeeal is either lying about Arab history (which is in the grand scheme of things insignificant)or he is gravely misinformed about it. I praise Common Scene's constant statements of truth and his commitment to the truth while he is up against a person who responds to his historically accurate points with the words 'yeah yeah'.

As this debate moves forward it is plain to all that Global Civility means censorship of the critics of Mohammed.

However while the problem of Islamic terror and Islamic totalitarianism is very great we must not ignore the problems that exist with regard to our own laws such as the religious and racial hate bill, ID card bill, LRR Bill and blasphemy laws.

I want for a time to see this debate move off Islam and on to our own government because while we concentrate on the problems we face from Islamic law and such we let the government move towards establishing a totalitarian state of their own.

Debate and discussion must be balanced between Islam and the problems of this government.

2:18 am  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Will said:

I want for a time to see this debate move off Islam and on to our own government because while we concentrate on the problems we face from Islamic law and such we let the government move towards establishing a totalitarian state of their own.

Good points Will and I quite agree. Is, for example, this whole matter some sort of diversionary tactic to keep us busy while they establish a totalitarian state?

The debate here will clearly go round and round in circles for eternity until Peter starts a new post (..."Peter!?").

While you are waiting, in the meantime if you (or anyone else come to that) wishes to debate these and other important issues you could visit my political forum:

www.talkveritas.com

(shameless plug! LOL) and get it all off your chest!

7:24 am  
Blogger feste clown said...

I know you are all having fun discussing the origins of Islam et al...

...any chance we could open this out a bit? What about Mark Barrett getting nicked for organising a picnic on Westminster Green..

9:33 am  
Blogger Paul Bell said...

Many of you may have seen this article in the Guardian relating to the Freedom of Speech Rally. The link is below along with my letter that was not published.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wormseyeview/story/0,,1740743,00.html

My response to him is below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Brown,

I read with interest your article in the Guardian entitled “A worm’s eye view”, for it never ceases to amaze me how journalists often miss the whole picture, when the hyperbole of sanctimonious drivel appends the page or violates the pixels of my computer screen. For I, my father and my partner attended the Freedom of Expression event in Trafalgar Square on Saturday and got a completely different impression to the one you published.

Of course, I was expecting to be called an extremist or even a racist for daring to stand up for something that my family have defended for centuries, namely the right to be heard and counted. However, to be labelled pathetic, surely that word is one that insults your own intelligence as does your supposed synopsis that the rally and my intention was to defend free speech simply to stir up hatred. I urge you to consider, as someone who sits all high and mighty in your ivory tower, that when you have been beaten-up because you’re gay by both fascist and Islamist thugs, the one thing you value is non-violence. I see the damage hate can do.

May I suggest to you, that in order to get a more accurate account of any future events, that you speak to the people there and ask them their reasons for attending, rather than the inaccurate picture painted in your article. As a writer and a published journalist, you have a duty to tell the truth and not to spread propaganda.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Bell

10:01 am  
Blogger Paul Bell said...

Below is a link to an article written by a Guardian journalist and my letter which did not get published.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wormseyeview/story/0,,1740743,00.html

My response to him is below:

--------------------------------------

Mr Brown,

I read with interest your article in the Guardian entitled “A worm’s eye view”, for it never ceases to amaze me how journalists often miss the whole picture, when the hyperbole of sanctimonious drivel appends the page or violates the pixels of my computer screen. For I, my father and my partner attended the Freedom of Expression event in Trafalgar Square on Saturday and got a completely different impression to the one you published.

Of course, I was expecting to be called an extremist or even a racist for daring to stand up for something that my family have defended for centuries, namely the right to be heard and counted. However, to be labelled pathetic, surely that word is one that insults your own intelligence as does your supposed synopsis that the rally and my intention was to defend free speech simply to stir up hatred. I urge you to consider, as someone who sits all high and mighty in your ivory tower, that when you have been beaten-up because you’re gay by both fascist and Islamist thugs, the one thing you value is non-violence. I see the damage hate can do.

May I suggest to you, that in order to get a more accurate account of any future events, that you speak to the people there and ask them their reasons for attending, rather than the inaccurate picture painted in your article. As a writer and a published journalist, you have a duty to tell the truth and not to spread propaganda.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Bell

10:04 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Will said:

I want for a time to see this debate move off Islam and on to our own government because while we concentrate on the problems we face from Islamic law and such we let the government move towards establishing a totalitarian state of their own

Seconded (or thirded, i guess)

11:09 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:07 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi Ismaeel,

I see that you are struggling with Common Sense, this is not news.

As far as family law is concerned it is quite possible to have fair shariah courts in this country or anywhere else and they already exist on a voluntary, self-regulating basis.

Ok let me make myself clear about this, as long as we can eat halal, not be discriminated in our schools and workplaces for our dress and beards, as long as we can build mosques and pray in them, as long as we can go for hajj, as long as we can fast in Ramadhan, as long as we can worship Allah (SWT) freely and without persecution and manage our family issues such as marriage, divorce, burials etc according to our religious laws, i think we've got the amount of shariah we need to get by in this society.


Thank you for the clarification lets focus in on this for a second. Does "family issues such as marriage, divorce and burials" include polygamy, redistribution of wealth after death and divorce? In these specific areas is enough of the Shiria in place? Ought Muslims be given more power over these aspects in alignment of private life to be in accordance with the Shiri’a.

i think we've got the amount of shariah we need to get by in this society

What society, British society? As I understand the amount of shariah varies country to country, I have to ask you again to be more specific.

Cheers,

TFI

1:22 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

TFI said:
Does "family issues such as marriage, divorce and burials" include polygamy, redistribution of wealth after death and divorce?

*Yes

In these specific areas is enough of the Shiria in place? Ought Muslims be given more power over these aspects in alignment of private life to be in accordance with the Shiri’a.

*No i believe it should remain as it is as a voluntary self-regulating thing.

i think we've got the amount of shariah we need to get by in this society

What society, British society?

*Yes

As I understand the amount of shariah varies country to country, I have to ask you again to be more specific.

Cheers,

TFI

Oh and the Common Sense joke, very poor, i haven't struggled with him, he has regurgitated typical orientalist nonsense, i've refuted him, he refuses to accept it- stalemate what can you do?

3:10 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Oh BNP supporters, i'd appreciate your feedback about the story in this link below:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1749555,00.html

3:21 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Good points Will and I quite agree. Is, for example, this whole matter some sort of diversionary tactic to keep us busy while they establish a totalitarian state?

The debate here will clearly go round and round in circles for eternity until Peter starts a new post (..."Peter!?").

While you are waiting, in the meantime if you (or anyone else come to that) wishes to debate these and other important issues you could visit my political forum:


I don't think the whole Islamic situation has been developed by the government intentionally but they have helped the Muslim people believe that they are under attack due to their foolish and irresponsible actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have contacted him and I'm hoping he will very soon post something up on the LRRB.

I have registered with your forum and hope to make very good use of it in the future.

3:30 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Oh and the Common Sense joke, very poor, i haven't struggled with him, he has regurgitated typical orientalist nonsense, i've refuted him, he refuses to accept it- stalemate what can you do?

I thought it was very good actually.

Throughout this debate you have really shown your true allegiances and were your heart really lies by showing us how willing you are to defend a murderer like Mohammed and call for the destruction of religious sites that are not Muslim. Why not just tell the truth about it all, acknowledge that that is how he behaved and that you aspire to be like a sword welding murderer. I say it is you who is regurgitating, regurgitating lies to suit your cause and your religion, lies to move Britain ever closer to an Islamic state, lies to silence the educated few and support the expansionist Sharia policy that is Jihad. You sir are the one who refuses to accept the truth, you sir are the one who stands in the way of reason and common sense. You are part of the problem within this society Ismaeel, not common sense; he spells it out clear and crystal whereas you play a game deceit and lies. You are part of the public relations job that is confusing the British public as to what the threat really is. As I said, you are the one regurgitating; you’re regurgitating the same lies that aid and abet jihad. Time to start telling the truth about Islam, its prophet and what it has really done for the world, not jihadist nonsense.

3:55 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Oh BNP supporters, i'd appreciate your feedback about the story in this link below:

I see no problem. If they wish to not field non-whites so be it. I find it to be very foolish to be honest. But I don’t mind that there is a left wing whites only party, because in reality that’s what they are, they aren’t right wingers at all, they are left of Labour on most things apart from Immigration and a few other policies.

4:02 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Oh and for future ref. I'm a Conservative, a One Nation Conservative.

4:04 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

WillB, you are a Christian with deep prejudice towards Islam, of course you're going to think what "Common Sense" said was some accurate portrayal of history and what i've said is lies.
I'll let your comments on this subject and on the BNP speak for themselves.

10:01 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Is it worth the while to discuss with a racist?
Someone who does discriminate between men and women (polygamy yes, but polyandry no), someone who does discriminate between muslims and kuffirs?

I do not think it is worth the effort to discuss any more.

10:39 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Ishmael, i did a small post on that yesterday;

http://bnpandme.blogspot.com/2006/04/grandson-of-greek-christian-standing.html

10:39 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Luke said:
Is it worth the while to discuss with a racist?
Someone who does discriminate between men and women (polygamy yes, but polyandry no), someone who does discriminate between muslims and kuffirs?

I assume this is about me, firstly please tell me how i am a racist, that i'd be very interested to hear.
Secondly i don't discriminate a women, i do however recognise that they are different.
Thirdly i don' discriminate between Muslims and Kuffar, if something is right or wrong, it's right or wrong whether you believe or you don't.
Again you are the one who is congenitally prejudiced towards Muslims.

11:07 am  
Blogger Henrik said...

Some say that Hizb ut-Tahrir (yes, I checked the spelling) and others who seek to overthrow our political system and replace it with the Caliphate should not be banned, because that's just Freedom of Expression.

We have had that discussion in Denmark quite a few times. Most of us have a deep desire to defend our democratic secular society, womens' rights etc., and would like to see them dissolved sooner rather than later. In Denmark, this can be done on basis of a law forbidding incitement of violence, and they're always balancing right on the edge of that, suggesting to use violence only through relevant Quran quotes.

It's interesting that our constitution does not have any measures to defend itself against people wanting to replace democracy with dictatorship. The Danish constitution is quite vague on civil liberties, that's not much use either - but in Germany, the constitution is detailed enough that some have brought a case against the islamists on constitutional grounds.

In the UK where there's no constitution at all (AFAIK), that doesn't make much of a difference, though...

BTW, I'm quite rattled by that attitude from Scotland Yard: "no protection can be provided in case the cartoons are published. That reminds me of the Turkish standards for freedom of press. It's deeply rotten. They should be the ones defending our freedoms, not letting us down when we use them.

11:46 am  
Blogger Henrik said...

The reason that Islam always gets blended into the issue of free expression is of course that the challenge to free expression - and the rest of our civil liberties - comes form Islam. Or to be more exact, from political Islam which wants to eradicate all expressions countrary ("offensive") to Islam, and establish Islamic norms for every aspect of society.

Anyone working to defend freedom of expression will have to deal with the challenges coming from the Islamic side of the equation. Noone else, no jews, nazis, hindis, New Age or anyone else is launching any credible attack on our liberties.

I recently read the book that caused the 12 cartoons to be drawn in the first place. It's a detailed, and historically accurate, account of the life of Muhammad, by Kåre Bluigten. While the Danish imams didn't like it, they had to admit the accuracy.

It's based solely on Islamic sources, and no manipulation is needed to make Muhammad stand out as an unusually brutal ruler and warlord. Most of the book is about raids, plunders, adultery, slave trade and other things deemed rather offensive - or outright criminal - by most people.

In particular, Muhammad instituted assassinating political opponents, poets and others critisising his ations as a legitimate tool for propagating Islam. By doing so, he effectively muted anyone opposing him, and further intimidate others from even trying.

This tradition unfortunately seems alive and well today, and is dangerous. It is imperative that anyone using our freedom is protected, and the recent policy of Scotland Yard towards The Liberal is deeply disappointing.

Fortunately the situation in Denmark is much better. Couragious people like Naser Khader and Lars Hedegaard continue to speak up against the threats, and the Danish police is actively protecting these people. As long as political Islam tries to impose their system on everyone, cartoons and all other relevant forms of critisism are badly needed.

12:06 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Hi Ismaeel, yes, I am talking about you, and about your friends.

You are free to call me prejudiced - personnally however, I'd rather say I am post-judiced. i.e. I came, after studying texts and after many a discussion, to the definite conclusion that your ideology is racist .
Two reasons are given in my previous post above, I won't restate them.
Your refutation makes me think of intellectual contortions.

12:13 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Izzy reminds me of
Lucy Liu in the last scene of the movie Kill Bill.

>> Thirdly i don' discriminate between Muslims and Kuffar, if something is right or wrong, it's right or wrong whether you believe or you don't.


... Well unless, you're the sort of Kuffar like the Pagans, and the "action of expelling them from the Hijaz" was Right.

Versus if you're a Catholic and the action of expelling Muslims is wrong.


Unless you're a "proper Muslim" (we must make allowances for Muslims who need excuses to destroy Shia shrines) and destroying the religious object of Buddhists, Pagans, Churches. This action would be considered Right.



Luke: I don't think Izzy quite realizes how badly he's hit himself!

12:25 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

So no answers then, good good, shows your intellectual honesty. Little Sense has never had intellectual honesty so i won't bother with him.

1:30 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Izzy baby,

Why don't you go and continue busying yourself with the Campaign for Global Civility.

By the looks of it.. you have a lot of people you'll need to Civilize. Us, the Wahabbis, the misguided buffoons who make you look bad. All those "Good Arabs" cozying up to the West so the BNP won't chase them out. All the "Good Muslims" we like too. The list is long.


Also, I forgot to thank you for your Geography lesson on the Hijaz and Saudi Arabia. It didn't occur to me that after living in that country for over 15 years, I needed your wisdom to teach me where the Hijaz was :). It demonstrated to me truly how miniscule my Sense actually was!

9:03 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

WillB, you are a Christian with deep prejudice towards Islam, of course you're going to think what "Common Sense" said was some accurate portrayal of history and what i've said is lies.
I'll let your comments on this subject and on the BNP speak for themselves.


I am disgusted by and have a big problem with, a religion that seeks to subdue every non-Muslim and beat them into submission. I wouldn’t have a, as you call it ‘prejudice’ towards Islam if its prophet and the leaders that came after him where not such a horde of rampaging, murdering scum.

If we want to play the game of ‘he is Christian so he must be prejudice and hate Islam and will believe anything said against the faith.’ Then we could also say that some about you, that you will consume and regurgitate any old nonsense regarding Islam if it reflects well upon the faith.

What exactly are you suggesting Ismeeal? That I am some white racist pig? When you have a point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever, make the point and don’t dance round it. Be clear, be honest and of course be precise. I know that it is hard for you to be any of those three things but do attempt it some time because people don’t like a smart ass.

All I expect from a person in this country is loyalty, loyalty to his country, his Queen and his fellow Britons, It doesn’t matter what creed or colour he is, its whether he is loyal and nothing more. Ismeeal can you say you are truly loyal to Queen and country, can you truly say you are loyal to its entire people and our way of life? From all your comments thus far you come off as a Muslim who hates our system, who hates our way of life and who hate his country. You don’t show a great deal of loyalty at all.

You must subscribe to the expansionist Sharia policy of Jihad as you want a full implementation of Sharia as you have said before. Jihad is part of Islamic law, you and I both know that so do not try and hide from reality. You and I also both know that Muhammad was violent and in fact nick named his favourite swords. His and his successor’s violent acts are well documented inside and outside of the Koran and the Hadith. I said it before and I’ll say it again, you are part of the problem, not common sense; he spells it out clear and crystal whereas you play a game deceit and lies. You are part of the public relations job that is confusing the British public as to what the threat really is. You are the propagator of lies that aid and abet jihad. Time to start telling the truth about Islam, its prophet and what it has really done for the world.

I cannot accept that Islam is a peaceful religion when evidence inside and out of their holy books contradicts that theory.

My comments on the BNP and Arab history don’t need your twisting and your cheap jabs and tricks because they are clear, honest, and precise, unlike yours. You are a trickster, a trickster that seeks to pull a bag over our heads and have us submit to Islamic tyranny.

10:45 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

In the UK where there's no constitution at all (AFAIK), that doesn't make much of a difference, though...

We do have a constitution, however it is uncodified and based on a number of things. Common Law, Statue Law, Conventions, Royal Prerogative, Works of Authority and Treaties and Laws of the EU.

10:59 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

WillB, i said that you have declared yourself a Christian and been making anti-Islamic remarks ever since i had the misfortune to run into you in cyber space.

I've never said Jihad isn't part of Islam, of course Jihad is part of Islam but Jihad doesn't mean terrorism whatever you may think.

Sometimes you have to fight just wars and thats what the Prophet (PBUH) did defending himself and his community and fighting against oppressors. He also introduced an ethical code of conduct how to fight those wars not mirrored by anything in the west until the Geneva convention. Wars sometimes have to take place, deal with it.

As for my loyalty to this country, i carry a British passport with Her Majesty's name in it and i partake in all the benefits of being a British citizen and yes i am loyal to this country and I am also loyal to my faith and i see no contradiction even if you do.

Anyway I give up with this conversation with you, Common Sense et al because it is clear you all have ideas stuck in your head and you refuse to budge on them whatever i might say. Common sense is worse because sadly for him i don't fit one of his sterotypical pigeonholes of Muslims laid out for him by the orientalists because I follow Sufism and believe in Shariat and Caliphate, man obviously hasn't heard of Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio of Nigeria, Imam Shamil of Daghestan, Imam Ahmed Sirhindi of India, i could go on and on but i'm bored of this pointless argument with people who have pre judged everything already, who believe they know everything already. But at the end of the day it doesn't bother me because i know Islam is the truth and whatever you say can't detract from that or from the honor of the Prophet (SAWS). Anyway i'm officially quitting this argument, take it as a victory if you like, if it makes you feel happy.

11:47 pm  
Blogger Common Sense said...

Come on Izzy...

Nobody's pigeon-holed you. We just have taken your remarks at face value.

If it's any consolation, everyone has his own hypocrisy. I'm partial to Western Liberalism.

I didn't bring up those historical references just, as they say, Willy Nilly.

Sharia is quite fine if you want to live your own life by it. I don't think anybody cares.


I don't care about Averroes (who was not really a Failsuf in the strict sense of the word), nor do I care about Suhrawardi. I could have picked 10 different names for you. But the story is the same. It's the same story that afflicted the Christian world, the Graeco-Roman Pagan world, and other civilisations too!

Back in the 10th century, if Muslim jurists thought it OK to prosecute people based on Faith, teachings. That's OK. It was 10 centuries ago.

The problem is the people who look back on those days with Nostalgia.

It wasn't "just Politics". It was the system.

You think your value system is better than everybody elses. GREAT. The multi-cultural world lets you live with those delusions. And nobody Willy Nilly cares about your delusions. But leave with this thought. It is the Western Liberal model that ironically gives you the free space to think (and say) what you want- just as long as you let everybody else think and say what they want.

Other than that. Willy Nilly nobody gives a damn.

And that sir, is what makes the "Liberal Value System" better. Maybe not perfect. But better than Sharia. So when/if you have a son, and should he decide to be Atheist/Gay/Buddhist /Christian/Western Liberal and be open about it- you should be glad that the political system allows him to be 1 of a million options of being- as long as he too doesn't hurt anyone else. And that no "jurist" will ever even have the excuse of laying a charge of "heresy" and saying "Off with his Head". Because the road to Sharia is a Slippery one, because the system is as Fundamentally flawed today as it was in the time of Averroes.


That's all.

1:53 am  
Blogger Sir Percy said...

Ismaeel,

You said:

at the end of the day it doesn't bother me because i know Islam is the truth and whatever you say can't detract from that or from the honor of the Prophet

Thanks for your honestly but your statement tends to indicate that any kind of meaningful dialogue which could lead to some sort of agreement and/or concessions from both sides would be a complete and utter waste of time.

After all, some people "believe" but if you "know" then that puts a whole different complexion on dealing with you.

12:42 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

WillB, i said that you have declared yourself a Christian and been making anti-Islamic remarks ever since i had the misfortune to run into you in cyber space.

I've never said Jihad isn't part of Islam, of course Jihad is part of Islam but Jihad doesn't mean terrorism whatever you may think.

Sometimes you have to fight just wars and thats what the Prophet (PBUH) did defending himself and his community and fighting against oppressors. He also introduced an ethical code of conduct how to fight those wars not mirrored by anything in the west until the Geneva convention. Wars sometimes have to take place, deal with it.

As for my loyalty to this country, i carry a British passport with Her Majesty's name in it and i partake in all the benefits of being a British citizen and yes i am loyal to this country and I am also loyal to my faith and i see no contradiction even if you do.

Anyway I give up with this conversation with you, Common Sense et al because it is clear you all have ideas stuck in your head and you refuse to budge on them whatever i might say. Common sense is worse because sadly for him i don't fit one of his sterotypical pigeonholes of Muslims laid out for him by the orientalists because I follow Sufism and believe in Shariat and Caliphate, man obviously hasn't heard of Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio of Nigeria, Imam Shamil of Daghestan, Imam Ahmed Sirhindi of India, i could go on and on but i'm bored of this pointless argument with people who have pre judged everything already, who believe they know everything already. But at the end of the day it doesn't bother me because i know Islam is the truth and whatever you say can't detract from that or from the honor of the Prophet (SAWS). Anyway i'm officially quitting this argument, take it as a victory if you like, if it makes you feel happy.


No you didn’t you stated that I am “a Christian with deep prejudice towards Islam” Just because I make Anti-Islamic remarks doesn’t mean I am prejudice, what it means is I have drawn conclusions about Islam after investigation.

Jihad is a military expansionist policy of Sharia.

You have stated on a number of occasions that you don’t like Nationalism that originated in the west, you have also stated that Islam rejects nationalism, being loyal to your country requires nationalism.

I would go on but your useless, blinded by your foolish idolatry of Mohammed.

11:59 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Peter.. I wonder where you are, I am stil waiting for a response to my email on a few things, including the policy meeting on the 22nd.

12:17 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

After all, some people "believe" but if you "know" then that puts a whole different complexion on dealing with you.

Welcome back Sir Percy, I had thought that you had broke out the tea bags to soon.

You ought note how Izzy backs the death sentence for many personal things that are not his business.

We all know when to listen to Common Sense.

Cheers,

TFI

11:30 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Jihad is a military expansionist
> policy of Sharia.

The word means many things, it only means "struggle".

It is unfortunate that the Islamists have in the Western consciousness are managing to claim this word for themselves. It is equivalent with mixing up the phases “freedom of speech” and “bashing Muslims”.

Words are a reflection of thought and are terribly powerful. Try using the term "Jihadist" as, at least in my opinion, that helps separate your peace loving Muslim up the road struggling with internal conflict from the bomb strapping mass murdering psychotics.

Don’t underestimate the power of words and association.

Cheers,

TFI

11:45 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Sir Percy said:
Thanks for your honestly but your statement tends to indicate that any kind of meaningful dialogue which could lead to some sort of agreement and/or concessions from both sides would be a complete and utter waste of time.

After all, some people "believe" but if you "know" then that puts a whole different complexion on dealing with you.

*I totally disagree, my response was to Common Sense's continued diatribe in which he refused to concede he was wrong about anything. I have given up with that conversation because he is someone who is not interested in coming to agreement but rather proving he is right.

Will B said:
You have stated on a number of occasions that you don’t like Nationalism that originated in the west, you have also stated that Islam rejects nationalism, being loyal to your country requires nationalism.

* Yes and i stick to saying in reject nationalism and i disagree that it requires nationalism to be loyal to your homeland. Like so many issues discussed here i doubt you really know what nationalism means. Nationalism is an ideology which places your national identity as the one identity that subsumes all others, i believe that is an extremely dangerous and foolish ideology and leads to the idea of my people right or wrong. I have several identities, my father is Sri Lankan, my mother is English, i was born and raised here and Islam is my faith, i don't find these identities conflicting, i find that each brings different persepctives and meanings to the others. As I said before i am loyal to this country on the basis of a notion of a social contract which has absolutley nothing to do with nationalism.

8:44 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

I totally disagree, my response was to Common Sense's continued diatribe in which he refused to concede he was wrong about anything.

You are on the other hand will admit that you are wrong about specific facts and for this I respect you. However he has been poking you and you have been coming out the most amazing sh1t.

However you will never admit you are wrong on certain ideas and concepts because of your absolute beliefs.

I have given up with that conversation because he is someone who is not interested in coming to agreement but rather proving he is right.

Actually I think that you have given up talking to him because he is showing you to an Islamist Monster far more successfully than I.

I laughed out loud when he wrote "get your pom poms out for the Taliban", nearly as hard I as did when you suggest that we ought go back to gold and silver.

Other than you occasionally owning up to spreading memes as fact, I cannot see a single reason to respect you, nor can I see any reason to be civil to you. I could make a time machine I’d send you back to the time to live your dream, we don’t need you in the 21st Century.

Cheers,

TFI

12:53 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Would the title of this book be an accurate term for the "explanations" we have been reading?

12:14 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

@Luke, the synopsis is spot on.

1:15 pm  
Blogger muscularliberalswatch said...

Boy do I hate spammers. A new movement has started, an excellent manifesto, written by top notch academics

http://muscularliberalswatch.blogspot.com/

12:32 am  
Blogger Steven said...

If you vote for the BNP you should be ashamed.

11:19 am  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

Common Sense - I judge you to be the winner of this debate.

...but then again, my vote is only worth 1/2 for being an infidel. Then 1/2 of that again for that minor incident with the goat. Oh and then 1/2 for that time I let off a seaweedy egger during friday salat, minus 1/2...

11:24 am  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

One bit in one of Ismaeels earlier posts which nobody seemed to pick up on at the time:

*************
It seems quite clear that you would like to style yourself as the "Good Arab" and no doubt your pick and mix Muslim friends style themselves as "good Muslims" and together you can attempt to patronise us, as you impress your european and canadian friends about how integrated into their liberal ideas you are. You do this out of fear, fear that if these governments do decide to deport Muslims and Arabs you would like to remain behind as one of the "good arabs".
You talk about history, go read what happened in Bosnia, you can integrate as much as you like, but when the fascists take over they won't care what your views are, they'll see you have an arab name and arab ethnicity and throw you in with everyone else.
********



He creates a straw man argument that CS's logical, rationally argued and explained views are based purely on fear (you're sticking with them cuz you think they're gonna kill you), then presents a purely fear based argument against this kind of reasoning. (you should oppose them, cuz theyre all gonna kill you)

Without even breathing for pause, Ismaeel! Nice.

12:01 pm  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

Common Sense - are you trying to convince Ismaeel to agree with Abdul Wahhab?

You're a British spy arent you?


Joking aside, it is my understanding that although the Mutazilim did allow ijtihad and encouraged certain rationalist viewpoints, they were also a violent bunch.

It is my opinion that this is the case because the core text (koran) is essentially, in its core meaning, violent. Practitioners of Tassawaf quite literally end up spinning round in circles to evade the self evident aggression and divisiveness at its core.

I am not a fan of Derrida and the deconstructionists who claim that violence originates from an excess of rational certainty - I believe the truth, as always is somewhat more sophisticated than this. In fact, often the truth is much more sophisticated than we are able to comprehend. I certainly believe that this argument has been misapplied to our own maladies.

Assuming this to be true, this presents us with a double horned dilemma. Do we use reason to expose its core violence and risk driving the dizzy headed apologists onto the horn of literalist interpretation, or do we empower the anti-rationalist horn of the softly spoken zealots and risk assisting the spread of this cryptofascist ideology?

Either way, we're to blame.

12:45 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home