Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Labour Set To Take London


rollover
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. Shafi does call for the death of apostates - why do you say they are wrong?

2. I would say that ministers and mayors should meet the same standards, and don't care how they are reported. If anything Khan is guilty of saying radically different things to different audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. If it isn't in the Quran, it is entirely matter of opinion and debate. On this point law is clear....Shafi and i are equal :lol:

2. I hate to split hairs, but he wasn't the mayor at the time. A merely lowly MP. How's reported matters....look at it from my perspective. I am fairly rational and general tend not to over react. When Khan delivered his remark, it went probably unreported. I was blissfully unaware. When the men, charged of the defence of the realm consistently repeat a slur which has been proved to be unfounded. You can see how it is more alarming than say a Farage acolyte. It's nuanced, but never the less valid. If course, if I am being unduly alarmist, other can correct me.

1. Shafi does call for the death of apostates - why do you say they are wrong?

2. I would say that ministers and mayors should meet the same standards, and don't care how they are reported. If anything Khan is guilty of saying radically different things to different audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If it isn't in the Quran, it is entirely matter of opinion and debate. On this point law is clear....Shafi and i are equal :lol:

2. I hate to split hairs, but he wasn't the mayor at the time. A merely lowly MP. How's reported matters....look at it from my perspective. I am fairly rational and general tend not to over react. When Khan delivered his remark, it went probably unreported. I was blissfully unaware. When the men, charged of the defence of the realm consistently repeat a slur which has been proved to be unfounded. You can see how it is more alarming than say a Farage acolyte. It's nuanced, but never the less valid. If course, if I am being unduly alarmist, other can correct me.

In context what he said wasn't really anything to get hysterical about.

You have the entire RW press writhing around with bigotry - whether trying to create an anti-Semitic stink, or trying for ways to whip up Islamophibia. Must have been trawling through Khans entire back catalogue trying to lay a glove and this was the best they could come up with.

It wasn't good, but really, on that relative basis the entirety of UKIP, a substantial chunk of conservatives and no doubt a few Labour wouldn't be fit for government at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You point is wholly valid - the press, I (and most rational people) ignore, but when the statements/lies/"misunderstandings" normally associated (and expected from UKIP) are being uttered by Cameron and Fallon - its a cause for concern. Their backtracking on the point of the "Islamist Imam" indicates it was tactical and not long term strategic move. Yet, if future elections are tight, who's to say it wasn't a testing of a strategy? (albeit a flawed one!)

In context what he said wasn't really anything to get hysterical about.

You have the entire RW press writhing around with bigotry - whether trying to create an anti-Semitic stink, or trying for ways to whip up Islamophibia. Must have been trawling through Khans entire back catalogue trying to lay a glove and this was the best they could come up with.

It wasn't good, but really, on that relative basis the entirety of UKIP, a substantial chunk of conservatives and no doubt a few Labour wouldn't be fit for government at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If it isn't in the Quran, it is entirely matter of opinion and debate. On this point law is clear....Shafi and i are equal :lol:

2. I hate to split hairs, but he wasn't the mayor at the time. A merely lowly MP. How's reported matters....look at it from my perspective. I am fairly rational and general tend not to over react. When Khan delivered his remark, it went probably unreported. I was blissfully unaware. When the men, charged of the defence of the realm consistently repeat a slur which has been proved to be unfounded. You can see how it is more alarming than say a Farage acolyte. It's nuanced, but never the less valid. If course, if I am being unduly alarmist, other can correct me.

1. Are you saying that apostates should be put to death if that is the law? How do you justify the view "Hadith are a matter of opinion"? If that is the case why have schools of Jurisprudence?

2. It is ok to be racist providing that it is a foreign TV channel and the Daily Mail finds out about? There seem to be a double standard here.

3. What slur? Khan as an MP called for Babar Ahmad not to be extradited - he was and got 14 years (should have been longer). Why was he campaigning for terrorists?

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I am saying no one should be put to death for their beliefs or thoughts. If you are able to tolerate someone being born into another faith, it isn't a massive leap to tolerate conversation from Islam. Whilst we should be sad they chose to leave....their punishment (or benefit) is between them and god. Earth isn't the place for their judgement. The point of Jurisprudence schools is two fold:

A. The person was literate and intellectual enough to have read the Quran and Hadith and formed legal opinions.

B. Their views were adopted by a large body of people who viewed these legal opinions are 'correct'.

My view is 5 schools, all formed many years (if not thousands of years) ago cannot address the difficulties of modern life. My view is, these schools need either updating or a new school formed.

2. No, that is a misrepresentation of what I said. If racism comes from a man on the street, I'm likely to tell them where to stick it. If it comes from a MP, I'm likely to think he's a fool, but nothing more than a reflection of the foolish constituency which elected him. If its coming from the Defence minister and Prime Minister, I'm wondering, what exactly are they up to? Are they appealing to the far right? Is this a reflection of a change in British society or is this divergence between the people and the politicians? Khan's use of 'uncle tom', whilst deplorable, was part of a sentence. In which we was talking about reaching other parts of society....not just the 'uncle toms'. His choice of words were not part of a narrative or strategy. Compare that to the London Mayoral campaign, where the conservative party ran a wide deplored strategy. They implied terrorism and stated Khan had shared a stage with IS sympathisers. They retracted their assertions: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suliman-gani-michael-fallon-forced-apologise-imam-isis-link-david-cameron-pressure-sadiq-khan-claims-a7024656.html

Again, if this came from Farage, I wouldn't batter an eye lid, this is the Conservative party........I'm looking at them and wondering.....are they headed down the route of the American Republican party (whereby they alienate all ethnic minorities)?

3. You have made several points here, so I'll address them separately:

A. This: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suliman-gani-michael-fallon-forced-apologise-imam-isis-link-david-cameron-pressure-sadiq-khan-claims-a7024656.html - ISIS vs "An" islamic state...the difference is huge!

B. Babar Ahmad - I knew little of his case and having the wiki page on him, I'm hardly able to provide more than a passing comment. Lets take what we know the fact to be:

a. He fought in the Balkans, which was not illegal and supported by UK and US.

b. He ran a site from the UK, which advocated for the Taliban in 2000 and 2001(I'm unsure if it was pre or post 9/11).

c. His site was 'hosted' in the US.

d. This is what the judge had said:

"In July 2014, US federal Judge Janet Hall sentenced Ahmad to an unexpectedly lenient sentence of 12-and-a-half years in prison, meaning that with credit for time served he only had another 12 months to serve.[16] Judge Hall concluded that Ahmad was never interested in terrorism, stating, "There was never any aid given by these defendants to effectuate a plot. By plot, I mean a terrorist plot ... Neither of these two defendants were interested in what is commonly known as terrorism ..."[17] Hall stated that Ahmad "never supported or believed in or associated with Al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden."[18]

Judge Hall described Ahmad as a “good person” who she believed posed no threat to the public and stated she had weighed the seriousness of his crime with his good character after reading thousands of letters of support and hearing from British prison officials who described him as an exemplary inmate.[16]Judge Hall said “It appears to me that he [babar] is a generous, thoughtful person who is funny and honest. He is well liked and humane and empathetic... This is a good person who does not and will not act in the future to harm other people."[19]

Whilst the Judge's opinion and yours hold the same weight, surely you must consider your view "should have been longer" - a tad harsh, if not wholly erroneous!

Lets leave the judge's comments as 'subjective', lets look at the sentence, 14 years! Surely, innocent men don't get convicted....let alone get 14 years. Until you dig a bit further:

A. Conviction, means nothing when you look at it carefully. Gandhi and Mandela, both convicts, two years for sedition and 25 years on Robin island for Mandela. Yet, you'll hardly find a person who considered them terrorist today. I'm not saying Ahmad is innocent, nor someone of that stature, merely undermining the argument, legal conviction is proof of guilt. This holds specially true, given how fast and loose, recent American administration has played with the rule of law (even against their own: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers)

B. Lets flip this on its head....lets say someone in the US had broken a British terrorism law (which the Irish Bostonians regularly did during the troubles), what hope of an extradition? Let us go further and state, they merely lobbied for anti UK position but violated an incitement law...they would be protected by the constitutional protection of freedom of speech.

At this point, I'll go into speculation. The US would be liable for law suits (to the tunes of millions if not billions) if it does not secure a guilty verdict. So, these plead bargains indicate nothing about guilt, but more about avoiding future litigation.

In summary, given what the US justice system said about Babar, it is right and just....in fact, it is the duty for the local MP of this man to lobby on his behalf!

1. Are you saying that apostates should be put to death if that is the law? How do you justify the view "Hadith are a matter of opinion"? If that is the case why have schools of Jurisprudence?

2. It is ok to be racist providing that it is a foreign TV channel and the Daily Mail finds out about? There seem to be a double standard here.

3. What slur? Khan as an MP called for Babar Ahmad not to be extradited - he was and got 14 years (should have been longer). Why was he campaigning for terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is 5 schools, all formed many years (if not thousands of years) ago cannot address the difficulties of modern life. My view is, these schools need either updating or a new school formed.

That is IMHO a valid opinion and one that I would agree with. However is it an Islamic valid opinion. I.e. can you argue that from the Sunnah or the Hadith. I thought that only mujtahids could decide this, are you a mjutahid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad#Qualifications_of_a_mujtahid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meet most of the requirements, but I'm not a legal islamic scholar by any stretch (1 year in Saudi Arabian theological school, doesn't cut it unfortunately). However, my argument is based on the analysis of the shortcomings of the current schools and the difficulties they experiencing in addressing modern issues. Whilst my view isn't widely held, it is a well understood viewpoint.

That is IMHO a valid opinion and one that I would agree with. However is it an Islamic valid opinion. I.e. can you argue that from the Sunnah or the Hadith. I thought that only mujtahids could decide this, are you a mjutahid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad#Qualifications_of_a_mujtahid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robinson's case aside, how did you come to form your opinion on Babar Ahmad? My intent isn't to offend, but to understand your views.

True but no Labour MP in Luton has lobbied for Tommy Robinson despite his recent case being dismissed by the judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Robinson's case aside, how did you come to form your opinion on Babar Ahmad? My intent isn't to offend, but to understand your views.

Apologies for taking so long to reply. He supported the Taliban a group that killed non Muslims. His website encouraged terrorism, if it was e.g the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka I doubt anyone would have campaigned for him.

I am glad that he now says he was naive, although of course that could be because he got caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the Taliban kill non Muslims?

I could wrong of course, but the Taliban (Afghanistani) have no interest in anything other than ruling Afghanistan. Is it possible you are confusing them with the Pakistani Taliban(Haqqani network)?

Also, if killing None Muslims is a measure, does that mean you view Hezbollah and Hamas in the same light as Alqaeda?

What terrorism did his site encourage?

Apologies for taking so long to reply. He supported the Taliban a group that killed non Muslims. His website encouraged terrorism, if it was e.g the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka I doubt anyone would have campaigned for him.

I am glad that he now says he was naive, although of course that could be because he got caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the Taliban kill non Muslims?

I could wrong of course, but the Taliban (Afghanistani) have no interest in anything other than ruling Afghanistan. Is it possible you are confusing them with the Pakistani Taliban(Haqqani network)?

Also, if killing None Muslims is a measure, does that mean you view Hezbollah and Hamas in the same light as Alqaeda?

What terrorism did his site encourage?

I would say that the Taliban support of Al Qaeda was helping terrorism.

Of course I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah - although for strategic reasons Hezbollah is helping non Muslims in Syria. I guess that is an example of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that measure, Britain and America supported USSR during World War II. Does that make them Communist?

Even more ironically, Britain and America supported the Mujahedeen (Alqaeda's direct predecessor), does that make them terrorist?

Taliban granted Osama Bin Laden sanctuary given he was a Mujahedeen....this isn't a surprise. Now America demands his head, they are entitled to refuse....that does not make them terrorist. Taliban have never conducted a single attack outside their boards....that metric alone tells you they are not terrorist.

I notice you have quietly ignored my question about killing None Muslims, why? Could it be Taliban never killed none Muslims?

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a significant Christian population in their areas and to my knowledge, they have never mistreated them. Why? Because their goals are nationalistic rather than nihilistic. Therefore, to put them in the same bracket as Al Qaeda is plain wrong.

I would say that the Taliban support of Al Qaeda was helping terrorism.

Of course I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah - although for strategic reasons Hezbollah is helping non Muslims in Syria. I guess that is an example of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that measure, Britain and America supported USSR during World War II. Does that make them Communist?

Even more ironically, Britain and America supported the Mujahedeen (Alqaeda's direct predecessor), does that make them terrorist?

Taliban granted Osama Bin Laden sanctuary given he was a Mujahedeen....this isn't a surprise. Now America demands his head, they are entitled to refuse....that does not make them terrorist. Taliban have never conducted a single attack outside their boards....that metric alone tells you they are not terrorist.

I notice you have quietly ignored my question about killing None Muslims, why? Could it be Taliban never killed none Muslims?

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a significant Christian population in their areas and to my knowledge, they have never mistreated them. Why? Because their goals are nationalistic rather than nihilistic. Therefore, to put them in the same bracket as Al Qaeda is plain wrong.

Well, this has been a really illuminating discussion, but really, on the Taliban, that's just sophistry, ie mere debating society logic surely ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that measure, Britain and America supported USSR during World War II. Does that make them Communist?

Even more ironically, Britain and America supported the Mujahedeen (Alqaeda's direct predecessor), does that make them terrorist?

Taliban granted Osama Bin Laden sanctuary given he was a Mujahedeen....this isn't a surprise. Now America demands his head, they are entitled to refuse....that does not make them terrorist. Taliban have never conducted a single attack outside their boards....that metric alone tells you they are not terrorist.

I notice you have quietly ignored my question about killing None Muslims, why? Could it be Taliban never killed none Muslims?

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a significant Christian population in their areas and to my knowledge, they have never mistreated them. Why? Because their goals are nationalistic rather than nihilistic. Therefore, to put them in the same bracket as Al Qaeda is plain wrong.

Well, this has been a really illuminating discussion, but really, on the Taliban, that's just sophistry, ie mere debating society logic surely ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this has been a really illuminating discussion, but really, on the Taliban, that's just sophistry, ie mere debating society logic surely ?

Try opening a church or synagogue in Taliban controlled territory, or preaching from a Bible. You'll find out how tolerant the Taliban are. Where Sharia rules it's death or dhimmitude for the kaffir, and the eradication of any competing ideology. And they are just following the purported example of Mo in the 7th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that measure, Britain and America supported USSR during World War II. Does that make them Communist?

Even more ironically, Britain and America supported the Mujahedeen (Alqaeda's direct predecessor), does that make them terrorist?

Taliban granted Osama Bin Laden sanctuary given he was a Mujahedeen....this isn't a surprise. Now America demands his head, they are entitled to refuse....that does not make them terrorist. Taliban have never conducted a single attack outside their boards....that metric alone tells you they are not terrorist.

I notice you have quietly ignored my question about killing None Muslims, why? Could it be Taliban never killed none Muslims?

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a significant Christian population in their areas and to my knowledge, they have never mistreated them. Why? Because their goals are nationalistic rather than nihilistic. Therefore, to put them in the same bracket as Al Qaeda is plain wrong.

Do you think that the Taliban never killed non Muslims?

From the anti Muslim Newspaper the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/south-african-family-killed-taliban-attack-kabul-afghanistan

"A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed on Twitter that the compound housed a secret Christian missionary group."

Hezbollah and Hamas have both spoken about killing all Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that measure, Britain and America supported USSR during World War II. Does that make them Communist?

Even more ironically, Britain and America supported the Mujahedeen (Alqaeda's direct predecessor), does that make them terrorist?

The World War II was slightly different.

I would say the support of the Mujahedeen showed the ignorance of Islam which affects many politicians, although sadly none to the extent where they only have Muslim bodyguards to show how peaceful Islam is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This incident does not surprise me, because aid agencies aren't neutral. Therefore, these individuals are considered lawful targets. The two young kids is an unfortunate accident.

I wonder why Hamas and Hezbollah said that?

Do you think that the Taliban never killed non Muslims?

From the anti Muslim Newspaper the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/south-african-family-killed-taliban-attack-kabul-afghanistan

"A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed on Twitter that the compound housed a secret Christian missionary group."

Hezbollah and Hamas have both spoken about killing all Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This incident does not surprise me, because aid agencies aren't neutral. Therefore, these individuals are considered lawful targets. The two young kids is an unfortunate accident.

I wonder why Hamas and Hezbollah said that?

Because Mo said it?

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” — Sahih Muslim 6985

Off topic has anyone seen this

https://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/compare-and-contrast.html

Compare And Contrast...
Country takes in immigrant, whose dreams aren't realised:
An Iraqi asylum seeker in Britain allegedly
tried to join ISIS
after six months because he
did not like living in Sheffield
, a court has heard.
Shivan Hayder Azeez Zanagana, 20, known as Aziz,
lived with his brother in South Yorkshire
between November 2015 and May this year, when he was arrested.
Aziz is said to have
become homesick and missed his mother and siblings
.

Youngsters foolishly get themselves in trouble, need state help:

The parents of 34 teenagers rescued by lifeboats and a helicopter after becoming trapped by the rising tide on a rocky shoreline in Kent
have raised £5,000 for the Dover RNLI in gratitude
.
The boys, all 13 and 14 year-olds, were on an outing on Monday organised by the
Ahavat Yisrael community centre
in Stamford Hill, north London.

Spot the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try opening a church or synagogue in Taliban controlled territory, or preaching from a Bible. You'll find out how tolerant the Taliban are. Where Sharia rules it's death or dhimmitude for the kaffir, and the eradication of any competing ideology. And they are just following the purported example of Mo in the 7th century.

Well, that certainly shows where their sentiments lie - but that isn't the key problem.

They hosted al Qaeda much as the UK hosted US nuclear weapons pointed at the USSR. The material difference being one of them went off.

Under the circumstances, quibbling about whether or not the Taliban are technically 'terrorists' seems rather academic to me.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.