Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Labour Set To Take London


rollover

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Saying that I don't dislikes Muslims personally I just think in large numbers their presence is not beneficial..... Is just somebody being polite. ;)

The islamic world is falling apart, tearing itself to pieces and you know the best thing about it.... hardly any kafir are dying. It's a win win!

I really don't - it is not their fault their parents are Muslims and leaving sadly is quite dangerous. It is not like someone whose parents are Tories saying to them I am voting Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Just out of interest, no offence intended - Curiosity is never offensive. ;)

Like most refugees Britain took in in the 80's, my country used to be part of the "Empire" (prior to independence). During the implosion (of my country), we did seek refuge in various Islamic countries(after-all, they are geographically closer etc), but reception we got was, frankly outrageous. I, (merely) witnessed beatings and robbery, but I've known people who have been killed approaching boarders of Islamic countries. Only, Islamic country (to my knowledge) to have treated people humanely, is Syria (Governmental and societal). For clarity, my family (and my country) is Sunni, the leadership of Syria is Shia.....which is made their actions all the more impressive!

My extended family settled in various parts of the EU initially,(UK, FR and NL). Ultimately, we have all ended up living in UK. Nothing to do with welfare or economics, but simply (and shockingly), UK is more tolerant (even compared to its EU peers). My family couldn't tolerate, being at odds with the authorities in France (constantly) over headscarves.

In NL, social services are overzealous when it comes to interference in he family unit, under the guise of integration. I'm not talking about child abuse (which all countries should/must deal with), if a child didn't participate in school trip because the parents couldn't afford it, the social services would visit the parents and accuse them of prohibiting the child's integrating. Yet, I was excused from participating in catholic prayers, trips to churches and no one raised any concerns about my integration. My Arsenal shirt and Eminem CD may have spared me that, but our general impression is:

1. Laws in the UK generally tend to be well balanced, relative to its peers.

2. Society and Government was neutral or positive towards refugees. (Sadly and much to my personal distaste, the latter has changed).

Dar Al Islam isn't what is used to be! The current leaders are not cut from the same cloth as those who took in the Jews during the inquisition. They are not capable of funding science nor technology. Even, traditionally progressive nations like Malaysia appear to be regressing.

Funnily enough I think it's because we (mostly) keep things at a certain pragmatic/ironic distance. It's all a game,

It's a cheesy cliche but it's probably true: English (I think British also) sense of 'fair play'.

You come across pirates breaking the rules, you'll come across little hitler sticklers for them. Perhaps they're the Vikings and Normans. No matter, we respect the game and in time they'll succumb to the unwritten rules of the game - such as beer, good company and a dose of opprobrium.

Welcome to the forum anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

Just out of interest, no offence intended - Curiosity is never offensive. ;)

Like most refugees Britain took in in the 80's, my country used to be part of the "Empire" (prior to independence). During the implosion (of my country), we did seek refuge in various Islamic countries(after-all, they are geographically closer etc), but reception we got was, frankly outrageous. I, (merely) witnessed beatings and robbery, but I've known people who have been killed approaching boarders of Islamic countries. Only, Islamic country (to my knowledge) to have treated people humanely, is Syria (Governmental and societal). For clarity, my family (and my country) is Sunni, the leadership of Syria is Shia.....which is made their actions all the more impressive!

My extended family settled in various parts of the EU initially,(UK, FR and NL). Ultimately, we have all ended up living in UK. Nothing to do with welfare or economics, but simply (and shockingly), UK is more tolerant (even compared to its EU peers). My family couldn't tolerate, being at odds with the authorities in France (constantly) over headscarves.

In NL, social services are overzealous when it comes to interference in he family unit, under the guise of integration. I'm not talking about child abuse (which all countries should/must deal with), if a child didn't participate in school trip because the parents couldn't afford it, the social services would visit the parents and accuse them of prohibiting the child's integrating. Yet, I was excused from participating in catholic prayers, trips to churches and no one raised any concerns about my integration. My Arsenal shirt and Eminem CD may have spared me that, but our general impression is:

1. Laws in the UK generally tend to be well balanced, relative to its peers.

2. Society and Government was neutral or positive towards refugees. (Sadly and much to my personal distaste, the latter has changed).

Dar Al Islam isn't what is used to be! The current leaders are not cut from the same cloth as those who took in the Jews during the inquisition. They are not capable of funding science nor technology. Even, traditionally progressive nations like Malaysia appear to be regressing.

Funnily enough I think it's because we (mostly) keep things at a certain pragmatic/ironic distance. It's all a game,

It's a cheesy cliche but it's probably true: English (I think British also) sense of 'fair play'.

You come across pirates breaking the rules, you'll come across little hitler sticklers for them. Perhaps they're the Vikings and Normans. No matter, we respect the game and in time they'll succumb to the unwritten rules of the game - such as beer, good company and a dose of opprobrium.

Welcome to the forum anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

2. Seriously? America (+ Britain et al) and the can turn around to Iraq and say disarm yourselves (WMD) or we will invade....There is hardly difference between the last Ottoman empire and actions of modern states.

5. I think the Spanish elections may have played a part.

6. Clearly you don't know Taqfirs(zealots!). Their strategy isn't different from the old 'divide and conquer'. In Iraq is was Shia vs Sunni, London its Muslim vs Christians and Jungle it would be Man vs Apes. So long as they can find a enemy, they are good!

1. Agreement is good.

2. Strictly speaking the caliphate was a religious leader more than a monarchy, it also was the only organization capable of calling for offensive Jihad. A Caliph could threaten a non Muslim country and say convert or die (which is how it ruled so much land).

5. In 2004 Spain had 1200 soldiers in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#2004_withdrawals

In 2005 Poland had 2500 soldiers in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_involvement_in_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Spain got bombed Poland didn't. Possibly this was because the Polish police are so much able than the British and Spanish police possibly for another reason.

6. I don't think suicide bombers want all Muslims in their host country killed - although it is impossible to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

I've already succumbed to two out of the three unwritten rules :lol: - I still can't stand cricket tho!

Funnily enough I think it's because we (mostly) keep things at a certain pragmatic/ironic distance. It's all a game,

It's a cheesy cliche but it's probably true: English (I think British also) sense of 'fair play'.

You come across pirates breaking the rules, you'll come across little hitler sticklers for them. Perhaps they're the Vikings and Normans. No matter, we respect the game and in time they'll succumb to the unwritten rules of the game - such as beer, good company and a dose of opprobrium.

Welcome to the forum anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

2. Seriously? America (+ Britain et al) and the can turn around to Iraq and say disarm yourselves (WMD) or we will invade....There is hardly difference between the last Ottoman empire and actions of modern states.

5. I think the Spanish elections may have played a part.

6. Clearly you don't know Taqfirs(zealots!). Their strategy isn't different from the old 'divide and conquer'. In Iraq is was Shia vs Sunni, London its Muslim vs Christians and Jungle it would be Man vs Apes. So long as they can find a enemy, they are good!

2. The Ottoman empire killed millions of Armenians and for hundreds of years ill treated minorities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_tattooing_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Christians in Bosnia used to tattoo themselves to stop being enslaved modern states have done nothing similar for years

There is nothing similar in the west (I do think the Iraq War was a mistake although the intentions were good but wrong. They believed that it would be the same as the invasion of Panama and make Iraq like Panama post invasion).

5. Poland did have elections in 2005 - why did they not have attacks then? It is amazing that no one asked this question unless of course everyone knows the answer and very few people like the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

2. Nothing similar in the West? Literally of the top of my head:

A. Conquistadors vs the Mayans

B. Irish war of independence.

C. German empire vs Namibian tribes

D. British Empire vs Boers (Britain introduced the world to concentration camps)

E. Nazi final solution - unless you are evicting Nazi Germany from Western society! :lol:

5. Valid point. Not really considered it, but it is likely Polish parties had a homogeneous foreign policies (after all they need US protection from Russia)....where in Spain, there was a clear anti war party. To that end, the Madrid bombings were strategically successful (but morally repugnant!)

I am off to lie down! It is clear, I paid far too much attention to history in School!

2. The Ottoman empire killed millions of Armenians and for hundreds of years ill treated minorities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_tattooing_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Christians in Bosnia used to tattoo themselves to stop being enslaved modern states have done nothing similar for years

There is nothing similar in the west (I do think the Iraq War was a mistake although the intentions were good but wrong. They believed that it would be the same as the invasion of Panama and make Iraq like Panama post invasion).

5. Poland did have elections in 2005 - why did they not have attacks then? It is amazing that no one asked this question unless of course everyone knows the answer and very few people like the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

2. Nothing similar in the West? Literally of the top of my head:

A. Conquistadors vs the Mayans

B. Irish war of independence.

C. German empire vs Namibian tribes

D. British Empire vs Boers (Britain introduced the world to concentration camps)

E. Nazi final solution - unless you are evicting Nazi Germany from Western society! :lol:

5. Valid point. Not really considered it, but it is likely Polish parties had a homogeneous foreign policies (after all they need US protection from Russia)....where in Spain, there was a clear anti war party. To that end, the Madrid bombings were strategically successful (but morally repugnant!)

I am off to lie down! It is clear, I paid far too much attention to history in School!

Sorry I meant to say there is nothing similar in the West today in the 21st century to the Ottoman empire. If there were Muslims would be second class.

The main difference between the West in the past and Caliphate is that almost no one in the west thinks that we should start conquering other countries again and no one wants genocide. Lots of Muslims want the Caliphate back which is really scary.

BTW we had bombings after the elections when they had almost zero effect on foreign policy also in our two party system we did not have much choice in 2005 regarding foreign policy - still got bombed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Absurdly(given it was century ago), the last caliphate's policies would represent significant progress when compared to modern Muslim states. Think about Saudi Arabia and the insane treatment treatment of women. Of course, cars weren't widespread, but Ottomans had no such restrictions on women. One hopes, if the Caliphate did materialise, it isn't implementing policies which data back to Mohammed....but rather moved with the times. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware none Muslims were subjected to additional taxation etc, but I am also aware of vast majority of the civil service in the Caliphate were Christians.

As I've said on another thread, Caliphate has lost every battle vs Western powers since seige of Vienna. So, I think you've got very little to fear. Truth be told, under some circumstances, it might even be welcomed. Frankly, the current ISIS caliphate is none existent! Hypothetically, if Turkey declares itself as the last caliphate reformed.....that instantaneously undermines Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. It transfer ideological and political leadership to Turkey which is far more rational. My views are virtually identical to Michael Nance, I highly recommend you listen to him. (and I can confirm, one phrase from the ulima would virtually undermine the illegitimate Jihad that is being waged in the middle east!) Lack of this declaration is indicative of malice or impotence! Either way, Saudi Arabia should set aside! : https://soundcloud.com/war_college/one-phrase-from-saudi-clerics

In answer to your point about the 7/7 bombing, that was less strategic(they knew UK would never succumb to bombing.....after all Hitler with a first rate Air Force failed to achieve this), but more tactical. It was to impose a "cost" on Britain. Ultimately, the ware was a exceptionally costly exercise and the amount spent on counter terrorism has probably sky rocketed. Al-Qaeda's strategy was to bankrupt the West (I'm sure you can google the OBL quote), if 2008 financial crisis and the expense of the two stupid wars combine to ruin the American economy.....who's to say he hasn't succeeded?

Sorry I meant to say there is nothing similar in the West today in the 21st century to the Ottoman empire. If there were Muslims would be second class.

The main difference between the West in the past and Caliphate is that almost no one in the west thinks that we should start conquering other countries again and no one wants genocide. Lots of Muslims want the Caliphate back which is really scary.

BTW we had bombings after the elections when they had almost zero effect on foreign policy also in our two party system we did not have much choice in 2005 regarding foreign policy - still got bombed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Absurdly(given it was century ago), the last caliphate's policies would represent significant progress when compared to modern Muslim states. Think about Saudi Arabia and the insane treatment treatment of women.

I doubt any Armenians would agree with this.

As I've said on another thread, Caliphate has lost every battle vs Western powers since seige of Vienna. So, I think you've got very little to fear. Truth be told, under some circumstances, it might even be welcomed. Frankly, the current ISIS caliphate is none existent! Hypothetically, if Turkey declares itself as the last caliphate reformed.....that instantaneously undermines Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. It transfer ideological and political leadership to Turkey which is far more rational. My views are virtually identical to Michael Nance, I highly recommend you listen to him. (and I can confirm, one phrase from the ulima would virtually undermine the illegitimate Jihad that is being waged in the middle east!) Lack of this declaration is indicative of malice or impotence! Either way, Saudi Arabia should set aside! : https://soundcloud.com/war_college/one-phrase-from-saudi-clerics

In answer to your point about the 7/7 bombing, that was less strategic(they knew UK would never succumb to bombing.....after all Hitler with a first rate Air Force failed to achieve this), but more tactical. It was to impose a "cost" on Britain. Ultimately, the ware was a exceptionally costly exercise and the amount spent on counter terrorism has probably sky rocketed. Al-Qaeda's strategy was to bankrupt the West (I'm sure you can google the OBL quote), if 2008 financial crisis and the expense of the two stupid wars combine to ruin the American economy.....who's to say he hasn't succeeded?

I am not worried that a reformed Caliphate would be a risk to the west. However this is I hope is a useful analogy. Imagine 20% of Spaniards wanted the inquisition back, would it be unreasonable suggest that we should control Spanish immigration until we can work out how to stop this 20%? (Bearing in mind the Armenian and Greek genocides, and killing all the Jews in Medina it is a fair comparison).

In answer to your point about the 7/7 bombing, that was less strategic(they knew UK would never succumb to bombing.....after all Hitler with a first rate Air Force failed to achieve this), but more tactical. It was to impose a "cost" on Britain. Ultimately, the ware was a exceptionally costly exercise and the amount spent on counter terrorism has probably sky rocketed. Al-Qaeda's strategy was to bankrupt the West (I'm sure you can google the OBL quote), if 2008 financial crisis and the expense of the two stupid wars combine to ruin the American economy.....who's to say he hasn't succeeded?

I agree with your analysis about the 7/7 bombing. However if you went to a restaurant and with two friends and you and the one of them got given large bills and the other didn't. Wouldn't you say "why did he not have to pay?", unless of course you already knew the answer and didn't like it. I guess that even if 5000 people had been killed in the Spain and 0 in Poland no one would ask why Poland didn't pay. Why do you think Poland didn't pay a "cost"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

1. Armenians won't agree with that statement, certainly. Yet, does that stop it from being true? There hasn't never been a benign empire! Also, I could be wrong, but didn't they rebel? I'll concede, the Ottoman's were probably excessive in their response.

2. Your analogy has confused me dreadfully! :lol: However, I'm a bit of a dimwit....so, you'll have to bare with me. I understand you have some concerns on the nature of the caliphate, but surely if you can trust Turkey in Nato, if it re-branded it self...it wouldn't be that big of a deal! The question that is really being missed here is: Why do Muslims want the Caliphate back?

3. Valid question, on why Poland and the Baltic states have escaped the cost of their participation. Given the world we live in, (I'm sure I'm going to be on a watch list or two for saying this) I am sure Taqfirs(religious zealots) have limited resources. Therefore, their goals and their actions must maximise the economic, political, propaganda and psychological return on their operations. Therefore, if you kill 100k poles, you probably make the "other" news on the BBC and ABC. Yet any action within the G20 is likely to be magnified. Since the UK is a Tier 1 partner and the primary ally....it rational to expect we'd be prioritised. Even if there wasn't 1 Muslim here....Al Qaeda and its cohorts are expeditionary. Look at the Mumbai attack....carried out entirely by Pakistani's on Indian soil. They had to travel by boat with arms etc. This isn't to say, presence of Muslims (albeit a small number of disgruntled ones) doesn't simplify the situation for them.

I doubt any Armenians would agree with this.

I am not worried that a reformed Caliphate would be a risk to the west. However this is I hope is a useful analogy. Imagine 20% of Spaniards wanted the inquisition back, would it be unreasonable suggest that we should control Spanish immigration until we can work out how to stop this 20%? (Bearing in mind the Armenian and Greek genocides, and killing all the Jews in Medina it is a fair comparison).

I agree with your analysis about the 7/7 bombing. However if you went to a restaurant and with two friends and you and the one of them got given large bills and the other didn't. Wouldn't you say "why did he not have to pay?", unless of course you already knew the answer and didn't like it. I guess that even if 5000 people had been killed in the Spain and 0 in Poland no one would ask why Poland didn't pay. Why do you think Poland didn't pay a "cost"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

1. Armenians won't agree with that statement, certainly. Yet, does that stop it from being true? There hasn't never been a benign empire! Also, I could be wrong, but didn't they rebel? I'll concede, the Ottoman's were probably excessive in their response.

2. Your analogy has confused me dreadfully! :lol: However, I'm a bit of a dimwit....so, you'll have to bare with me. I understand you have some concerns on the nature of the caliphate, but surely if you can trust Turkey in Nato, if it re-branded it self...it wouldn't be that big of a deal! The question that is really being missed here is: Why do Muslims want the Caliphate back?

3. Valid question, on why Poland and the Baltic states have escaped the cost of their participation. Given the world we live in, (I'm sure I'm going to be on a watch list or two for saying this) I am sure Taqfirs(religious zealots) have limited resources. Therefore, their goals and their actions must maximise the economic, political, propaganda and psychological return on their operations. Therefore, if you kill 100k poles, you probably make the "other" news on the BBC and ABC. Yet any action within the G20 is likely to be magnified. Since the UK is a Tier 1 partner and the primary ally....it rational to expect we'd be prioritised. Even if there wasn't 1 Muslim here....Al Qaeda and its cohorts are expeditionary. Look at the Mumbai attack....carried out entirely by Pakistani's on Indian soil. They had to travel by boat with arms etc. This isn't to say, presence of Muslims (albeit a small number of disgruntled ones) doesn't simplify the situation for them.

1. I am glad that you think attempted genocide was excessive

2. I think some Muslims want the Caliphate back because they want to go back to the good old days of asking for tribute from non Muslims and conquering them. I also dislike the fact that there are people in my country who want an organization which would make me a second class citizen a dhimmi. Look at this from the treaty of Umar

"

  • Houses of the non-Muslims must be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remind them of their low status in the world."

Fortunately without the aid of fifth columnists it would be impossible now for them to try to reconquer Europe - and Easter Europe doesn't have any.

3. Poland of course is different from India in that they don't have a Muslim neighbour so they are not vulnerable to attacks. I like the theory that Osama Bin Laden was googling G20 countries to work out which to attack. (By the way Poland wants to be in the G20 so they obviously don't share that idea).

My theory is that a minority of Muslims are violent extremists and will attack if they can. Of course if you have a very small number of Muslims in a country the police can very very easily keep an eye on them. Sadly we and the Spanish had too many to look at, without recruiting 60K secret police.

(The number comes from the fact that there are allegedly 2000 extremist sympathizers in the UK and to follow someone you need 30 agents)

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

2. If your logic holds, then consider this:

If Britain votes to leave the EU and Scotland cedes the union (lets ignore NI :lol: ), what remains is old kingdom England + Wales. Since England has reformed, does it mean we rollback all the laws in passed (since the union)? IE begin at the Magna Carter? I mean no offence, but it is absurd to cite a document which was issued 1400 years ago...it is unlikely for the basis of a modern caliphate. It is hard to say what would for the basis of the caliphate, but it would be contingent on who is reforming it. Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia are very different to Saudi Arabia, let alone ISIS.

3. Poland isn't an island, there are large Muslim populations within striking distance. They could raid from the Russia, German or the Balkans. If large Muslim population was the cause of Islamic terrorism, France would have been decimated, along with Netherlands. Yet, not a single event was noted during the war.

3. Police can follow 2000, but about the millions of visitors? Chinese and Asian Muslims? Those from Africa, other EU countries. In short, nothing is foolproof.

1. I am glad that you think attempted genocide was excessive

2. I think some Muslims want the Caliphate back because they want to go back to the good old days of asking for tribute from non Muslims and conquering them. I also dislike the fact that there are people in my country who want an organization which would make me a second class citizen a dhimmi. Look at this from the treaty of Umar

"

  • Houses of the non-Muslims must be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remind them of their low status in the world."
Fortunately without the aid of fifth columnists it would be impossible now for them to try to reconquer Europe - and Easter Europe doesn't have any.

3. Poland of course is different from India in that they don't have a Muslim neighbour so they are not vulnerable to attacks. I like the theory that Osama Bin Laden was googling G20 countries to work out which to attack. (By the way Poland wants to be in the G20 so they obviously don't share that idea).

My theory is that a minority of Muslims are violent extremists and will attack if they can. Of course if you have a very small number of Muslims in a country the police can very very easily keep an eye on them. Sadly we and the Spanish had too many to look at, without recruiting 60K secret police.

(The number comes from the fact that there are allegedly 2000 extremist sympathizers in the UK and to follow someone you need 30 agents)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

2. If your logic holds, then consider this:

If Britain votes to leave the EU and Scotland cedes the union (lets ignore NI :lol: ), what remains is old kingdom England + Wales. Since England has reformed, does it mean we rollback all the laws in passed (since the union)? IE begin at the Magna Carter? I mean no offence, but it is absurd to cite a document which was issued 1400 years ago...it is unlikely for the basis of a modern caliphate. It is hard to say what would for the basis of the caliphate, but it would be contingent on who is reforming it. Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia are very different to Saudi Arabia, let alone ISIS.

3. Poland isn't an island, there are large Muslim populations within striking distance. They could raid from the Russia, German or the Balkans. If large Muslim population was the cause of Islamic terrorism, France would have been decimated, along with Netherlands. Yet, not a single event was noted during the war.

3. Police can follow 2000, but about the millions of visitors? Chinese and Asian Muslims? Those from Africa, other EU countries. In short, nothing is foolproof.

1) Why is it absurd to cite an old document when we have salafists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#Etymology

They want to go back to the times of Muhammad and his followers

"A hadith that quotes Muhammad saying "The people of my own generation are the best, then those who come after them, and then those of the next generation," is seen as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salaf[9] or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). They include Muhammad himself,[10] the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un) and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in). There are a number of records of the hadith[11] that is narrated in the Sahih al-Bukhari of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar (a companion of Muhammad)[12]"

Turkey are different to ISIS although of course in Turkey you can go to prison for saying "the Armenian Genocide" and recently confiscated Armenian churches so still a country stuck in the middle ages (similar to Henry VIII).

3) Holland of course did have an act of terrorism during the Iraq War - the murder of Theo Van Gogh. It is possible that there was no large scale Islamic terrorism in Holland because they didn't want to put Geert Wilders in power. I agree with you that nothing is foolproof, however there does seem to be a good but not perfect correlation between Islamic immigration and terrorism. I wish politicians who tell us that Islam is peaceful would prove it by insisting on only Muslim bodyguards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

1. I think you misunderstood Salafist (I know more than most....I am one). It is about returning the religion(not the whole society) to its original form and not at the point of the gun. They still want electricity and running water. We'd rather ride a car than camel :lol:

2. You can also go to jail in Austria and Germany for saying the Holocaust happen....both are perfectly normal countries.

3. Minor difference between murder of a man and Madrid bombings. One was political and other was personal. Wouldn't agree? Its the same for the Charlie Hebdo attack vs the Paris attack......terrorism yes, but one was revenge and targeted and other wholly indiscriminate. Neither are right ofcourse....but don't get them confused.

1) Why is it absurd to cite an old document when we have salafists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#Etymology

They want to go back to the times of Muhammad and his followers

"A hadith that quotes Muhammad saying "The people of my own generation are the best, then those who come after them, and then those of the next generation," is seen as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salaf[9] or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). They include Muhammad himself,[10] the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un) and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in). There are a number of records of the hadith[11] that is narrated in the Sahih al-Bukhari of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar (a companion of Muhammad)[12]"

Turkey are different to ISIS although of course in Turkey you can go to prison for saying "the Armenian Genocide" and recently confiscated Armenian churches so still a country stuck in the middle ages (similar to Henry VIII).

3) Holland of course did have an act of terrorism during the Iraq War - the murder of Theo Van Gogh. It is possible that there was no large scale Islamic terrorism in Holland because they didn't want to put Geert Wilders in power. I agree with you that nothing is foolproof, however there does seem to be a good but not perfect correlation between Islamic immigration and terrorism. I wish politicians who tell us that Islam is peaceful would prove it by insisting on only Muslim bodyguards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

1. I think you misunderstood Salafist (I know more than most....I am one). It is about returning the religion(not the whole society) to its original form and not at the point of the gun. They still want electricity and running water. We'd rather ride a car than camel :lol:

2. You can also go to jail in Austria and Germany for saying the Holocaust happen....both are perfectly normal countries.

3. Minor difference between murder of a man and Madrid bombings. One was political and other was personal. Wouldn't agree? Its the same for the Charlie Hebdo attack vs the Paris attack......terrorism yes, but one was revenge and targeted and other wholly indiscriminate. Neither are right ofcourse....but don't get them confused.

1. I have never debated with a Salafist before, I do know that you don't reject modern technology just the societies that created it. What would a Salafist society look like? Would there be a Dhimmi contract? Would there be Jizya? Would apostasy be punished by death? Would it be possible for people to insult Muhammad?

2. How many mosques have been confiscated in Germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

1. There in lies the common misconception. Salafism is first and foremost about faith....not societal or political organisation. Some political or societal organisation spouse Salafism, but it isn't the same thing. In sort, it about how you live your life rather than how you run a country. In a Utopian Salafist realm....all crimes would be left to be settled to judgement day (unless compelling evidence exists to prove one way or another). Apostasy and insult to Mohammed(saw) was tolerated in his own life time.....I don't see why current fuss exists.

2. I don't know the particulars of the confiscations, but there is some rule of law in Turkey. I find it hard to believe (but not wholly impossible), one morning the Turkish Gov decided.....we'll have all the Armenian churches now! They must have at the very least used some legal excuse.

1. I have never debated with a Salafist before, I do know that you don't reject modern technology just the societies that created it. What would a Salafist society look like? Would there be a Dhimmi contract? Would there be Jizya? Would apostasy be punished by death? Would it be possible for people to insult Muhammad?

2. How many mosques have been confiscated in Germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

1. ..... Apostasy and insult to Mohammed(saw) was tolerated in his own life time.....I don't see why current fuss exists.

What do you think about the below hadith? Non canonical or no longer relevant. It is a big issue for those who are facing death like Asia Bibi.

"Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Can I just interject to say how refreshing I find this debate to be. All credit to everyone especially 80sbaby for a quality, rational and educational discussion.

I am sure many (myself very much so) are learning here - just a shame that it is on a London thread that may no longer be widely followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Thank you...generally the rational people generally just get on with life and their daily affairs. The recent mayoral campaign and its tone duly perturbed (and alarmed me!).

Now, I'm watching Tories in full retreat! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36268739

Frankly, it was unbecoming of UK MP's let alone ministers!

Can I just interject to say how refreshing I find this debate to be. All credit to everyone especially 80sbaby for a quality, rational and educational discussion.

I am sure many (myself very much so) are learning here - just a shame that it is on a London thread that may no longer be widely followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Thank you...generally the rational people generally just get on with life and their daily affairs. The recent mayoral campaign and its tone duly perturbed (and alarmed me!).

Now, I'm watching Tories in full retreat! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36268739

Frankly, it was unbecoming of UK MP's let alone ministers!

It is unbecoming of UK MP's let alone mayors to use the term Uncle Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Can I just interject to say how refreshing I find this debate to be. All credit to everyone especially 80sbaby for a quality, rational and educational discussion.

I am sure many (myself very much so) are learning here - just a shame that it is on a London thread that may no longer be widely followed.

Thank you...generally the rational people generally just get on with life and their daily affairs. The recent mayoral campaign and its tone duly perturbed (and alarmed me!).

Now, I'm watching Tories in full retreat! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36268739

Frankly, it was unbecoming of UK MP's let alone ministers!

I'll second that, have been following, content to sit back and let the debate evolve.

The Conservatives, however nasty they get, seem to have applied an unusually reckless/incompetent cynicism on this one.

Can't help but wonder if a rather non-British version of RW thinking has been imported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

Hadith is like legal guidance, it isn't as stringent as dictates from Quran. There is nothing stopping people from evolving to accept people who converted from one to religion to another.

As for the "uncle tom" comment, it was in a interview, not shouted from the rooftop during a heated campaign. For the record, I'm pretty conservative (fiscally and socially). Yet I voted labour in the mayoral election.....because I was merely disgusted!

What do you think about the below hadith? Non canonical or no longer relevant. It is a big issue for those who are facing death like Asia Bibi.

"Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

Hadith is like legal guidance, it isn't as stringent as dictates from Quran. There is nothing stopping people from evolving to accept people who converted from one to religion to another.

As for the "uncle tom" comment, it was in a interview, not shouted from the rooftop during a heated campaign. For the record, I'm pretty conservative (fiscally and socially). Yet I voted labour in the mayoral election.....because I was merely disgusted!

1) What school of Jurisprudence do you follow?

2) Saying racist comments is somehow better when it is not in a campaign? How does that work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

1. Shafi - (althought I inherently disagree with one of its founding tents).

2. Of course.....it took the Daily mail to dig it out, for it to enter the mainstream. Rather than every major new outlet for 2-3 weeks. One would believe Khan was OBL! That isn't to say is comment wasn't wrong! Just a lower grade of wrong! Additionally, aren't there standards of behavior we expect from our leadership? MP is allowed to be an ignorant buffoon (a lot of them are!), they merely represent a small subset of our society. Ministers represent all of us and the PM represents us to the world.....It must make sense to you (it does to me), they be held to different standard.

1) What school of Jurisprudence do you follow?

2) Saying racist comments is somehow better when it is not in a campaign? How does that work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information