The moon god worshipers have declared an end to Ramadan Bombathon for another year, most devout muslims assure me that they will get there own back next time.

Mo, not his real name (protected for obvious reasons) commented "I will kill the fvckers next EID. At least he was SUNNI about his effort. Contrast that with Allah (again a nom de plume) he clearly and forcibly made claim to the most inflammatory statement "The SHIITS HAVE IT IN SPADES" So the official figures are in and..........

THE SCORE IS...................

Over the Bombathon period we find the following.

Muslim killings by muslims for muslims in the name of muslims 1651, or bombings 28, or wounding's 3048.

What I find reprehensible however is a person in the UK had the temerity to dare plant one bomb at a mosque.

Yadda have you been overseas again you naughty boy?   

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/



   

Adamant wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

The moon god worshipers have declared an end to Ramadan Bombathon for another year, most devout muslims assure me that they will get there own back next time. Mo, not his real name (protected for obvious reasons) commented "I will kill the fvckers next EID. At least he was SUNNI about his effort. Contrast that with Allah (again a nom de plume) he clearly and forcibly made claim to the most inflammatory statement "The SHIITS HAVE IT IN SPADES" So the official figures are in and.......... THE SCORE IS................... Over the Bombathon period we find the following. Muslim killings by muslims for muslims in the name of muslims 1651, or bombings 28, or wounding's 3048. What I find reprehensible however is a person in the UK had the temerity to dare plant one bomb at a mosque. Yadda have you been overseas again you naughty boy?    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

adamant,

All of those Ramadan casualties,       ....and the casualties from the behaviour of moslems fighting in the cause of Allah [during the other 11 months of the year] ?




Yes.

All of those casualties are caused by people like myself [and of course, those sneaky, ingenious Zionists !!] !

The moslems [Allah's holy warriors] are all innocent, righteous, rightly guided people.

And all of the actions of the moslem people are innocent.

And the innocent moslem people have always been terribly accused and slandered by those who hate the innocent moslem people - who would never kill, even a fly.





THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/





View this gallery of 'rightly guided' moslem car bombings [no bodies];
http://www.startribune.com/galleries/217382211.html
AND;
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/car-bombings-in-iraq-1375112449-slideshow/

"Allah Akbar!!!
View those images, and know!!!!! ....that we moslems are building a better world, inspired by our righteous and perfect religion!!!!
Allah Akbar!!!"






SYRIA: An example of moslems slaughtering moslems
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333935983/73#73








Quote:

"....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood."

ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutbi
+++


KORAN....

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11





HADITH....

"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i

n.b.
......"He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."



"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026

But the moslems, are the innocent, righteous people.

Never forget that!






Speaking in the UK, publicly, AND THEN PRIVATELY, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.


Quote:

"......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

n.b.
This moslem declared to the broader community that moslems condemned the killing of all innocent civilians.
BUT LATER IT WAS REVEALED, that that moslem omitted to declare that moslems in the UK, DO NOT regard the members of the broader UK community as innocent civilians.

Y, do you ever get sick of continuously quoting the same British muslims over and over as if they are the sole representatives of the muslim community? You post that quote at least once every week - for as long as I've been here - and no doubt long before I was here. That and Amjen Choudary, and the placard images. Your posts are like a tape on a continuous loop. What the loop doesn't include though is that all these statements and actions are roundly condemned by mainstream muslims.

What we won't ever see in Yadda's posts are quotes like these:


Quote:

A statement from the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the slaughter of the soldier by two men – both believed to be Christian converts to Islam – as “a barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and which we condemn unreservedly.”

Quote:

“They have done a cowardly, barbaric act,” said Imam Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain. “They have insulted God and Islam. They are low vile scum. We, the British, will remain together resolute and strong.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/british-muslims-condemn-savage-attack-on-drummer-lee-rigby_n_3329691.html

The difference? My quotes are from official, mainstream islamic bodies. Amjen Choudadry and co are universally recognised to be on the fringe, and have been disassociated and unreservedly condemned by mainstream islam.

But Y, do please reply with your standard "this just proves that muslims are deceivers" schtick - and let the endless loop continue.  ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

Y, do you ever get sick of continuously quoting the same British muslims over and over......

No.



IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg
[NOT BRITISH MOSLEMS]
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.


Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.
i







How do moslems typically react, when moslems are forced to publicly face their own shame ???

Here is an example, in Australia.....

Please watch this YT...
Abdul Nacer Benbrika welfare scandal on Today Tonight                        goto 20s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjcfoD2mzeQ



And this...

Please watch this YT...
Muslims being deceptive Islam EX-Muslims                        goto 4m 30s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx8cNSC9O0

What are you saying Gandalf? That only 10% of Muslims want to start chapping people's heads off right now?

Abu didn't agree with their "tactics" either. But he also thought Islamic law proscribed the death penalty for blasphemy.

The biggest difference between mainstream and fringe Islamic sources is that the mainstream ones know when to keep their mouth shut - most of the time.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

The biggest difference between mainstream and fringe Islamic sources is that the mainstream ones know when to keep their mouth shut - most of the time.

You've made this claim before FD - that mainstream muslims are only different to the extremists in that they are better at PR. I started a thread in which I gave you the opportunity to back this statement up with some evidence (ie that they are just as intolerant and extreme, and have no sincerity in their message of peace and tolerance) - yet after 20+ pages you provided no evidence other than "what Abu said". .

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:51pm: The biggest difference between mainstream and fringe Islamic sources is that the mainstream ones know when to keep their mouth shut - most of the time. You've made this claim before FD - that mainstream muslims are only different to the extremists in that they are better at PR. I started a thread in which I gave you the opportunity to back this statement up with some evidence (ie that they are just as intolerant and extreme, and have no sincerity in their message of peace and tolerance) - yet after 20+ pages you provided no evidence other than "what Abu said". .

Abu is a good example, as I just explained.

I challenge you to find one of these mainstream Islamic organisations that criticised the beheading posters who also went on to insist that Islamic law does not proscribe the death penalty for blasphemy.

Or do you want me to provide evidence that they are good enough at PR to completely avoid that issue?

It was in response to the murder of the British soldier actually.


freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

I challenge you to find one of these mainstream Islamic organisations that criticised the beheading posters who also went on to insist that Islamic law does not proscribe the death penalty for blasphemy.

Perhaps more relevant would be to find a mainstream islamic organisation or leader who does insist that beheading is the proscribed punishment for blasphemy?

What mainstream muslims have said regarding blasphemy:


Quote:

There has been and there is no crime such as blasphemy in Islam’s sacred scripture.

- statement issued by the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford1
http://britishpakistanichristian.blogspot.com/2011/03/muslim-leaders-condemn-blasphemy-law-of.html


Quote:

There is no prescribed law for blasphemy in Islam. Muslims should exhibit tolerance and demonstrate wisdom. Violent protests against Danish cartoonist (Kurt Westergaard) and Salman Rushdie for their anti-Islamic views were a waste of energy. If someone writes against the Prophet Muhammad, we should have sound knowledge to dislodge his propaganda and prove him wrong. We should be well-equipped with logic and reasons to counter unscrupulous elements who want to create confusion with regard to Islam.

- scholar and peace activist Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Do you know why so many Muslims think there is an Islamic law on blasphemy?

Because they're angry and ignorant and confounding religious law with contemporary geo-political contexts?

One of the main confusions seems to be over differentiating between those who physically wage war against islam, and those who merely criticise.

But you don't have to search very far at all to see that belief in death for blasphemy is not mainstream at all. of the 54 muslim countries, a total of 4 have death sentences for blasphemy.

Google Pakistan blasphemy laws, and there is a surprising amount of criticism and contempt amongst muslims - especially amongst Pakistanis themselves.

Quote:

Because they're angry and ignorant and confounding religious law with contemporary geo-political contexts?

I'll give you the first two, but Abu for example always went to great lengths to blame any contemporary geoploitical context on western interference.


Quote:

One of the main confusions seems to be over differentiating between those who physically wage war against islam, and those who merely criticise.

In Abu's case, that is certainly not the issue.


Quote:

But you don't have to search very far at all to see that belief in death for blasphemy is not mainstream at all. of the 54 muslim countries, a total of 4 have death sentences for blasphemy.

They also abolished slavery - western interference, innit? After all this, do you seriously expect us to believe you are making this argument honestly and in good faith? Do I need to explain the hypocrisy in you using this argument?


Quote:

Google Pakistan blasphemy laws, and there is a surprising amount of criticism and contempt amongst muslims - especially amongst Pakistanis themselves.

Obviously. Especially if they are the wrong type of Muslim.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Abu for example always went to great lengths to blame any contemporary geoploitical context on western interference.

Of course, but not in the way Abu thinks. Read much about Libya lately? 1000 criminals recently broke out of prison. Assassinations and lawlessness are rampant now. Yet Gaddaffi held society together in relative peace for 40 years - and achieved the best standard of living in Africa. Or perhaps you could explain the west's support for salafists in Syria - who routinely enter villages and massacre the inhabitants. Fundamentalists like these are being exported from Saudi Arabia - the wahabist state that remains the US's favourite client. In short, the US is actively supporting islamic fundamentalism, and is in no small manner facilitating the radicalisation of the region. In fact the US has an excellent track record of this - mujahideen in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan, Kosovar terrorists etc etc.


freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

They also abolished slavery - western interference, innit? After all this, do you seriously expect us to believe you are making this argument honestly and in good faith? Do I need to explain the hypocrisy in you using this argument?

;D Yes please do explain the hypocrisy - for example the fact that the 4 countries mentioned are the staunchest US allies. Whats that about western interference again?

Also slavery still exists in the arab world - by - you guessed it - those ever reliable western allied Gulf states.


freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Obviously. Especially if they are the wrong type of Muslim.

What does that mean?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Because they're angry and ignorant and confounding religious law with contemporary geo-political contexts? One of the main confusions seems to be over differentiating between those who physically wage war against islam, and those who merely criticise. But you don't have to search very far at all to see that belief in death for blasphemy is not mainstream at all. of the 54 muslim countries, a total of 4 have death sentences for blasphemy. Google Pakistan blasphemy laws, and there is a surprising amount of criticism and contempt amongst muslims - especially amongst Pakistanis themselves.

The point is that the death penalty for blasphemy exists only on the basis of Islam. And where where they don't have the death penalty for it, they have other ways to coerce and intimidate - see the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from the so called Muslim lands.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

But you don't have to search very far at all to see that belief in death for blasphemy is not mainstream at all. of the 54 muslim countries, a total of 4 have death sentences for blasphemy. Google Pakistan blasphemy laws, and there is a surprising amount of criticism and contempt amongst muslims - especially amongst Pakistanis themselves.

So you expect us to believe that death for blasphemy is not mainstream Islamic law despite the fact those countries with the death penalty for blasphemy all have Islam as the state religion.

They chop your head off for blasphemy where Islam originated in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi constitution says the Quran and the sunnah of their profit is the country's constitution.

7 countries have the death penalty for atheists, all of them have Islam as the state religion, what does Islam preach about atheists gandalf?


Quote:

In Oct 1990, The Federal Shariat court ruled that 295-C was repugnant to Islam by permitting life imprisonment as an alternative to a death sentence. The court said: The Penalty for contempt of the holy profit is death. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan

The good sheik at Islam qa also says behead those who insult your pedo profit.

5 out of 54 muslim countries have capital punishment for blasphemy, and in your book that represents mainstream islam? Strange logic you have their baron - thats like saying hanging is "mainstream" in the US because 2 out of 50 states allow it.

Neither blasphemy or apostasy is a punishable offense in islamic law. That is my opinion, and I fully understand that many muslims will disagree with me. Not a majority, but many.

Also Saudi Arabia is under the thumb of Wahabists. Wahabism is not a mainstream sect in islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

5 out of 54 muslim countries have capital punishment for blasphemy, and in your book that represents mainstream islam? Strange logic you have their baron - thats like saying hanging is "mainstream" in the US because 2 out of 50 states allow it. Neither blasphemy or apostasy is a punishable offense in islamic law. That is my opinion, and I fully understand that many muslims will disagree with me. Not a majority, but many. Also Saudi Arabia is under the thumb of Wahabists. Wahabism is not a mainstream sect in islam.

Let me guess which countries have the death penalty for blasphemy-
Saudi Arabia- chop your head off
Islamic republic of Iran- they hang you, Khomeni Fatwa on Salman came from the bearded supreme ruler
Pakistan- The land of the pure (99% muslim)
Yemen?
Mauritania?

Do you think jailing people for blasphemy is acceptable gandalf?

When did the christians/jews stop killing people for blasphemy?

One of the 5 pillars of Islam is Hajj, where do you go for that Gandalf is it the homeland of Islam Saudi Arabia?

If you dont agree with death for apostasy then surely you dont consider it blasphemy to sign this petition to outlaw the death penalty for apostasy-
Countries that have the death penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy)-
Iran- death penalty
Egypt-death
Pakistan- death
UAE- death
Somalia-death
Afghansitan-death
Saudi Arabia- death
Sudan (muslim)- death
Qatar-death
Yemen-death
Mauritania- death
Jordan- jail
Malaysia- jail
Morocco- jail
Algeria- jail
All of these countries are in violation of the Universal declaration of human rights article 18, all of them have Islam as the state religion.
www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/decriminalise-apostasy

You're not disproving any of my points Baron.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

You're not disproving any of my points Baron.

You offered your opinion on whether blasphemy or apostasy is punishable under Islamic law and you also said many muslims will disagree with you, you have also presented information from Ahmadi muslims in the past and they do not represent mainstream Islam they have been declared heretics by mainstream Islam.
Is the persecution of Ahmadi muslims by mainstream Islam evidence that Islam cannot reform?

The fact is  only countries with Islam as a state religion execute people for blasphemy and apostasy in 2013.

Another fact is only countries with Islam as the state religion do not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with many saying it violates Islamic law.

So what points were you trying to make?

Quote:

In fact the US has an excellent track record of this - mujahideen in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan, Kosovar terrorists etc etc.

Do you think the US was wrong to support the Afghans against the Russians?


Quote:

Yes please do explain the hypocrisy

You are a hypocrite for insisting that the standard set by modern countries reflects mainstream Islam when it suits your argument, and insisting it doesn't when it does not suit your arguments.


Quote:

What does that mean?

Abu for example appears to think that the death penalty for apostasy/blasphemy should apply to the "wrong type" of Muslims also. As you can imagine it was a bit hard to get him to elaborate on the details. I think the most he said was that the ones that kept their mouth shut would not be killed. So obviously those Muslims are going to oppose the punishment if they are likely to end up on the receiving end of it.


Quote:

Neither blasphemy or apostasy is a punishable offense in islamic law. That is my opinion, and I fully understand that many muslims will disagree with me. Not a majority, but many.

Do you understand why?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

Do you think the US was wrong to support the Afghans against the Russians?

All outside interference by foreign powers using impoverished countries as pawns in a game of global supremacy is wrong. Even so, it would have been slightly better if the US had a post-Soviet rebuilding plan for Afghanistan, instead of just abandoning her as soon as the Soviets left.

But I certainly think its wrong of the US to provide material support to barbaric islamists attempting to overthrow stable secular regimes - ignoring a long list of atrocities along the way, and propping up corrupt islamic regimes that have institutionalised slavery and forbid their women to drive - just so they can maintain a reliable military base in the region and have a secure supply of oil. Do you think thats wrong FD? Do you see yet that western interference isn't all nobility and abolishing slavery?


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

you are a hypocrite for insisting that the standard set by modern countries reflects mainstream Islam when it suits your argument, and insisting it doesn't when it does not suit your arguments.

Take a breath FD, and explain to me how its hypocritical to point out that 5 out of 54 muslim countries does not represent the mainstream of islam. I tend to ascribe mainstream islam to where muslims are in the majority. 49 out of 54 is a majority, therefore its mainstream. Can you give me some examples where I have "hypocritically" ascribed mainstream to a minority muslim view? Or is this simply where you have incorrectly assumed something is mainstream - like you did with the blasphemy=beheading view - where you ran away from my request to cite a single mainstream islamic body that holds that view?

Then perhaps you can explain how its not hypocritical to praise the inteference of western nations in the muslim world as forcing progressive things like ending slavery - while ignoring the interference of western nations that have promoted fundamentalism and extremism.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

Do you understand why?

Ignorance, anger and confounding religion with geo-political contexts.

Quote:

All outside interference by foreign powers using impoverished countries as pawns in a game of global supremacy is wrong. Even so, it would have been slightly better if the US had a post-Soviet rebuilding plan for Afghanistan, instead of just abandoning her as soon as the Soviets left.

So they shouldn't have interfered, but they should have interfered more?


Quote:

But I certainly think its wrong of the US to provide material support to barbaric islamists attempting to overthrow stable secular regimes - ignoring a long list of atrocities along the way, and propping up corrupt islamic regimes that have institutionalised slavery and forbid their women to drive - just so they can maintain a reliable military base in the region and have a secure supply of oil. Do you think thats wrong FD? Do you see yet that western interference isn't all nobility and abolishing slavery?

Are you a fan of secularity?


Quote:

Take a breath FD, and explain to me how its hypocritical to point out that 5 out of 54 muslim countries does not represent the mainstream of islam.

It is if you pretend it says anything about Islamic law or mainstream Islam.


Quote:

I tend to ascribe mainstream islam to where muslims are in the majority. 49 out of 54 is a majority, therefore its mainstream.

Is that what defines Islam?


Quote:

Can you give me some examples where I have "hypocritically" ascribed mainstream to a minority muslim view?

Actually, most Muslims seem to think Islam is about the Koran.


Quote:

Or is this simply where you have incorrectly assumed something is mainstream - like you did with the blasphemy=beheading view - where you ran away from my request to cite a single mainstream islamic body that holds that view?

Earth to gandalf - my whole point was that they were refraining from commenting on this.


Quote:

Then perhaps you can explain how its not hypocritical to praise the inteference of western nations in the muslim world as forcing progressive things like ending slavery - while ignoring the interference of western nations that have promoted fundamentalism and extremism.

It is hypocritical to use it to define Islam when it suits you, then complain when people like Yadda do the same.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

So they shouldn't have interfered, but they should have interfered more?

reading comprehension please FD.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

Are you a fan of secularity?

By and large yes. Thats not the point here though. The point is I oppose the US barging in to needlessly destroy stable governments that have created great prosperity - as was the case in Libya. And thats irrespective of whether its a secular or non-secular regime. Libya had the highest standard of living of any African nation, its literacy rates and education levels were world class - even by developed world standards. Now it is a poo hole, with terrorism, assassinations and arson a near daily occurrence. The US is attempting to facilitate the same deal in Syria - not as blatantly, but they are funding and now arming foreign salafist terrorists who routinely enter Alawite or christian villages and massacre the civilians - or at least drive them out. The Syrian people are now turning to the regime, and hailing them as saviours whenever they drive out the terrorists. And thats not a reflection on how virtuous the regime has been - they have been brutal too - but it just shows how terrible the so called "rebels" are. And here is the US (and her clients Qatar and Saudi Arabia) funding and now arming these scum.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

It is if you pretend it says anything about Islamic law or mainstream Islam.

If you are talking about the islamic doctrine, thats an easy one - there is no proscribed punishment for blasphemy - let alone beheading. However in this case I am defining "mainstream islam" as the muslims who best represent islam. 5 out of 54 countries does not reflect the muslims that represent mainstream islam.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

Earth to gandalf - my whole point was that they were refraining from commenting on this.

Refraining? Rubbish. Based on what? Nothing.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

It is hypocritical to use it to define Islam when it suits you, then complain when people like Yadda do the same.

You missed the question, but anyway...

I have only ever referenced mainstream muslim leaders and organisations to make my points about islam's rejection of terrorism and intolerance. Yadda routinely cites universally rejected clowns like Amjen Choudary and images of fringe protests. Recently I adopted what is seemingly a non-mainstream view regarding Quranic verse 4:34 (alleged wife beating), but I believe I openly acknowledged that it was non-mainstream.

If I starved myself from sun up to sundown, I would probably be in a pissed off mood too.

Quote:

By and large yes. Thats not the point here though. The point is I oppose the US barging in to needlessly destroy stable governments that have created great prosperity - as was the case in Libya. And thats irrespective of whether its a secular or non-secular regime.

And how do you feel about dictatorship?


Quote:

Refraining? Rubbish. Based on what? Nothing.

Exactly. If you want I can post a link to them refraining.


Quote:

I have only ever referenced mainstream muslim leaders and organisations to make my points about islam's rejection of terrorism and intolerance. Yadda routinely cites universally rejected clowns like Amjen Choudary

Except it is not quite universal, is it? If I was Gandalf I would spend the next page belabouring this point and how I proved you wrong and pretending it was the only issue under discussion.


Quote:

Recently I adopted what is seemingly a non-mainstream view regarding Quranic verse 4:34 (alleged wife beating), but I believe I openly acknowledged that it was non-mainstream.

I would go further and say it fails the common sense test, in terms of your interpretation of the text. But I still think it is great that you insist on thinking for yourself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:54am:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:22pm: It is hypocritical to use it to define Islam when it suits you, then complain when people like Yadda do the same. I have only ever referenced mainstream muslim leaders and organisations to make my points about islam's rejection of terrorism and intolerance....

In this forum, gandalf asserts that persons like himself, promote the views of 'mainstream' ISLAM and the views of 'mainstream' moslems - which is a 'rejection of terrorism and intolerance'.

And that REAL ISLAM has no association with extremism or acts of terrorism.

gandalf wants OzPol forum members to understand, that 'mainstream' moslems [i.e. the majority of moslems] are in reality, all 'moderate' [i.e. SECULAR] moslems.








FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED - ISLAM'S PROPHET AND ARGUABLY, THE AUTHOR OF ALL OF ISLAM'S THEOLOGY

Allah's Apostle said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062




"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193






FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED - ISLAM'S PROPHET AND ARGUABLY, THE AUTHOR OF ALL OF ISLAM'S THEOLOGY


Quote:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:     Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

hadith/bukhari/001.002.025




+++


QUESTION;
Relative to ISLAM, who is Mohammed ?

What has Mohammed to do with mainstream ISLAM ?



QUESTION;
Relative to ISLAM, who is Allah ?

What has Allah to do with mainstream ISLAM ?



QUESTION;
Relative to ISLAM, what are holy ISLAMIC texts ?

What have holy ISLAMIC texts to do with mainstream ISLAM ?




ANSWER;
Moslems like gandalf, come to this forum, and they assert that only 'mainstream' moslems, like themselves, know what real ISLAM is [....because moslems, like themselves, are the majority, among the moslems].

To imagine that Mohammed, Allah, and holy ISLAMIC texts, can have any influence upon how mainstream moslems follow their faith is an aberrant thought - it is a thought coming from persons who know nothing, about the love of 'secularity', among 'mainstream' moslems.

!!!!!           ;D          :Dipolite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:54am:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:22pm: Are you a fan of secularity? By and large yes.....

gandalf asserts;
That as moslem, he can be a moslem AND, that he can also be a fan of secularism [or 'secularity'].      :o      :o      :o




I assert that gandalf is deluding [deceiving] himself.


Dictionary;
secular = =
1 not religious, sacred, or spiritual.
2 not subject to or bound by religious rule.


+++



SOME REALITY;

"Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."
Ishaq:231






Dictionary;
ummah = = the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion.

Dictionary;
Islam = = the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Dictionary;
Koran = = the Islamic sacred book, believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad and written down in Arabic.







In having you to examine those dictionary definitions [immediately above] i want you to understand that the word 'moslem' does not exist, in isolation.

The word 'moslem' is NOT undefined.

The word 'moslem' has a meaning, which is defined by ISLAM.

We should understand, that a person who self declares as a moslem, is "a follower of Islam".



And in that understanding we need to acknowledge, with intellectual maturity, just what the implications of that truth really, really, are.




As far  ISLAM and [the non-'secular'] moslems are concerned, being a moslem, is like being pregnant, YOU EITHER ARE A MOSLEM, OR, YOU ARE NOT, A MOSLEM!

Further, ISLAMIC law makes it clear that those who oppose ANY part of the tenets and laws of ISLAM - ARE NOT MOSLEMS.







+++

The roots of Islamism
".....Islamists believe in the re-ordering of society to secure total submission to a narrow, puritan and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam......

Many moslems [like gandalf], within this forum, will assert that they are moslems.

But, at the very same time, some will assert that they are also [essentially] secularists too [i.e. that they do 'support' secularism].         :o      :o      :o



Q.
What is the medical [psycho] term for people who believe that they 'embody' more than one personality at the same time ???        :)







polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:54am:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:22pm: Are you a fan of secularity? By and large yes.....

Dictionary;
secular = =
1 not religious, sacred, or spiritual.
2 not subject to or bound by religious rule.


+++



SOME REALITY;

"Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."
Ishaq:231






Dictionary;
ummah = = the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion.

Dictionary;
Islam = = the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Dictionary;
Koran = = the Islamic sacred book, believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad and written down in Arabic.

Q. What is the medical term for someone who doesn’t accept the existence of differing points of view?

A. Oppositional Defiance Disorder with autistic features.

You’ll find it in the DSM, Y.

Yadda wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

Q. What is the medical [psycho] term for people who believe that they 'embody' more than one personality at the same time ???        :)

I was thinking of schizophrenia.


Dictionary;
schizophrenia = = a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behaviour, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, and withdrawal from reality into fantasy and delusion.








But this may also apply, to the 'moslem' psyche;



Quote:

Cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Dictionary;
cognitive dissonance = = the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.



Quote:

The Reality of Cognitive Dissonance among Muslim Apologists By  Syed M. Islam ".....Having mingled with several Islamists and seeking to learn from their arguments with empathy and interpersonal respect, it is my opinion that, among many of them, cognitive dissonance is a reverberating reality. My opinion is based upon first-hand evidence gathered over two years. The evidence confirms a dangerous and disturbing dig of denial among many Muslim apologists."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/MunirIslam40206.htm

Karnal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

Q. What is the medical term for someone who doesn’t accept the existence of differing points of view? A. Oppositional Defiance Disorder with autistic features. You’ll find it in the DSM, Y.

K,

I accept another persons right to hold and express views [which are not my own].



I do not accept that i have the right to end the life of persons who do not believe what i believe.

Moslems do believe that.

ISLAMIC texts and theology, teaches moslems, that belief.







+++



MURDERING INFIDELS WHO RESIST THE MOSLEMS, INFIDELS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MOSLEMS BELIEVE, IS TOTALLY RIGHTEOUS AND IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.
......Allah has said so;



Koran 2.98
Koran 47:8-11
Koran 4.74-76

The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'.

Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that;
1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that,
2/    the 'criminals' [i.e. the 'unbelievers'] deserve every punishment they get, and the 'criminals' are outside of the protection of law, and that,
3/    good moslems have an obligation to,    ....'fight in the cause of Allah' , and all good moslems are 'rightly guided' and are justified in their 'crime fighting'.




Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated...

1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.].
Koran 2.98
[ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.]

2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47:8-11
[ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off]

3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76
[ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed, by ISLAM and by Allah, as being innately evil. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are described as 'oppressors', and are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare.
...'those who reject Faith' are described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.]



Once again, the 'theology' which ISLAM inculcates into the psyche of all moslems, is this;...

1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.
2/    The 'criminals' have no 'lawful' protection whatsoever.
3/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished by good moslems, and the punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, the 'unbelievers' are in league with evil forces, and they are the oppressors of the people [stated in Koran 4.74-76].

Schizophrenia, cognitive dissonance, manic depressive (sorry that's not politically correct)  bipolar, the original Mo man had the lot. Not to mention all the wife beating he had to do. ;D ;D ;D

369
freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

And how do you feel about dictatorship?

I support democracy FD, I've made that abundantly clear before. Its not the point though. You have a knack of responding to my points with something that is completely irrelevant. For example, I opposed Saddam, but I opposed the invasion even more - because I knew that it would release a poo storm that would be far far worse than the sum total of Saddam's attrocities. And I was right - but even I underestimated the full scale of the horrors unleashed by the invasion. I also wasn't a great fan of Gaddaffi's human rights record, but I opposed the NATO intervention even more - because once again I knew it would release a poo storm - which it has - and its only started. Ditto with Assad and arming Al-Nusra. To bring this back to your question - while I support democracy, I don't support installing one when it will mean far greater turmoil and suffering than not having a democracy.

I also like to point out the irony that its me - a muslim -  not the resident islamophobes who is lanbasting the west for empowering islamic terrorists against non-islamic regime. I enjoy pointing this out because I know you in particular are a fanatical supporter of US cultural imperialism, and seem to support its implementation wherever it happens in the third world. Its amusing because when this involves promoting islamists and their terrorism, its interestingly juxtaposed with your clear anti-islam prejudice. On any other day you would be jumping at the opportunity to point out that any sort of empowering of islamists is the very antithesis of the freedom and democracy you think the US is all about promoting. But you have been strangely quiet on this issue when its pointed out that its the US that have been responsible for this.


freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

Exactly. If you want I can post a link to them refraining.

That should be interesting. Are you going to quote people not saying anything? Not sure how that works.

Yadda wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:28am: Q. What is the medical term for someone who doesn’t accept the existence of differing points of view? A. Oppositional Defiance Disorder with autistic features. You’ll find it in the DSM, Y. K, I accept another persons right to hold and express views [which are not my own]. I do not accept that i have the right to end the life of persons who do not believe what i believe. Moslems do believe that. ISLAMIC texts and theology, teaches moslems, that belief. +++ MURDERING INFIDELS WHO RESIST THE MOSLEMS, INFIDELS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MOSLEMS BELIEVE, IS TOTALLY RIGHTEOUS AND IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. ......Allah has said so; Koran 2.98 Koran 47:8-11 Koran 4.74-76 The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'. Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that; 1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that, 2/    the 'criminals' [i.e. the 'unbelievers'] deserve every punishment they get, and the 'criminals' are outside of the protection of law, and that, 3/    good moslems have an obligation to,    ....'fight in the cause of Allah' , and all good moslems are 'rightly guided' and are justified in their 'crime fighting'. Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated... 1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.]. Koran 2.98 [ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.] 2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector." Koran 47:8-11 [ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off] 3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.." Koran 4.74-76 [ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed, by ISLAM and by Allah, as being innately evil. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are described as 'oppressors', and are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare. ...'those who reject Faith' are described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.] Once again, the 'theology' which ISLAM inculcates into the psyche of all moslems, is this;... 1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime. 2/    The 'criminals' have no 'lawful' protection whatsoever. 3/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished by good moslems, and the punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, the 'unbelievers' are in league with evil forces, and they are the oppressors of the people [stated in Koran 4.74-76].

Gandalf told you what his point of view is, Y. You don’t accept it.

It obviously threatens you in some way.

Demokracy, innit. Karmic Khristian style.

Quote:

I support democracy FD, I've made that abundantly clear before.

I just thought it was odd that you would use the word "secular" to describe these dictatorships. It's like describing a murderer as an animal lover.


Quote:

Its not the point though. You have a knack of responding to my points with something that is completely irrelevant. For example, I opposed Saddam, but I opposed the invasion even more - because I knew that it would release a poo storm that would be far far worse than the sum total of Saddam's attrocities.

Including the war with Iran and the chemical weapons? Or is that the west's fault too?


Quote:

I also wasn't a great fan of Gaddaffi's human rights record, but I opposed the NATO intervention even more - because once again I knew it would release a poo storm - which it has - and its only started.

Are you suggesting NATO started the poo storm and it would not have happened if they had stayed out?


Quote:

I also like to point out the irony that its me - a muslim -  not the resident islamophobes who is lanbasting the west for empowering islamic terrorists against non-islamic regime.

I thought it was strange for you to support secularity.


Quote:

I enjoy pointing this out because I know you in particular are a fanatical supporter of US cultural imperialism, and seem to support its implementation wherever it happens in the third world.

You sure about that? Have you actually read my posts on the matter?


Quote:

Its amusing because when this involves promoting islamists and their terrorism, its interestingly juxtaposed with your clear anti-islam prejudice.

I keep forgetting Muslims' knack for pretending these conflicts are Muslims on one side and coalitions of various non-Muslims on the other.


Quote:

That should be interesting. Are you going to quote people not saying anything? Not sure how that works.

Well done Gandalf. I think you finally figured it out.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

I just thought it was odd that you would use the word "secular" to describe these dictatorships. It's like describing a murderer as an animal lover.

;D ;D What??

Secular = loving free democracy does it FD? Good one.

Saddam, Assad, Gaddaffi, Mubarak - all examples of secular dictators. Please look them up.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Including the war with Iran and the chemical weapons? Or is that the west's fault too?

Now now, don't be making strawmen again.

Saddam probably killed a comparable number of people to the number killed a a result of the US invasion - although you will need to draw the long bow of blaming the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war solely on Saddam.

But really, its not a simple case of counting the death toll to measure the damage done. Several million Iraqis have fled the country - which includes a very large section of the intelligentsia. Thats a huge brain-drain on a country attempting to rebuild. This may never be recovered. There's also the infrastructure damage and neglect - caused both by the US's de-baathification policy, that removed just about all of the bureacracy, as well as state-employed workers that maintained the infrastructure (who had the expertise), and the US's spectacular failure at rebuilding the country's infrastructure with their own (very corrupt) US-based contractors. Then there's the crippling political paralysis that has contributed to the continued instability and violence.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Are you suggesting NATO started the poo storm and it would not have happened if they had stayed out?

Libya? The rebellion was not started  by NATO, but they fueled a fire that was either about to die a natural death, or could have been extinguished without the instability and bloodbath that comes with regime change. Gaddafi was on the verge of defeating the rebellion when Britain and France appealed to the UN for NATO to set up a no-fly zone to protect civilians. The UN said fine, good idea - please go and protect the civilians. But NATO didn't set up a no-fly zone, they used their air power to provide direct tactical support for rebel offensives. Not only that, France dropped in military supplies in direct contravention to the UN resolution, and special forces from the US and Qatar were secretly inserted into the rebel ranks to coordinate the final rebel offensive. The US also deployed drones to bomb government positions. Long story short, NATO blatantly violated the resolution that was designed only to set up a "safe zone" for civilians in rebel-held territory, and prevent government attacks into those regions. Russia especially were outraged at this, which is the reason why they have opposed US-led proposals for any intervention in Syria at every step.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

I keep forgetting Muslims' knack for pretending these conflicts are Muslims on one side and coalitions of various non-Muslims on the other

I'm not. Al Nusra and other salafist fanatics need to be opposed precisely because they are the enemy of muslims. The only pretending going on here is by you - pretending that the US is not the hypocritical one supporting intolerant and violent salafists - while preaching democracy and freedom.

Quote:

Secular = loving free democracy does it FD? Good one.

That is not what I said. I even included an example in the hope it might help you understand the point.


Quote:

But really, its not a simple case of counting the death toll to measure the damage done.

It's a good place to start. I notice you have already started to shift the blame away from Saddam wherever you can.


Quote:

Libya? The rebellion was not started  by NATO, but they fueled a fire that was either about to die a natural death, or could have been extinguished without the instability and bloodbath that comes with regime change.

You sure about that?


Quote:

But NATO didn't set up a no-fly zone, they used their air power to provide direct tactical support for rebel offensives.

As opposed to what? Dropping bombs on the civilian areas they were supposed to protect every time Gaddafi's forces went in for a slaughter? Or do you somehow imagine Gaddafi's forces would have driven along the highway on the way there with flags to let the foreign airforce identify them?


Quote:

I'm not. Al Nusra and other salafist fanatics need to be opposed precisely because they are the enemy of muslims.

You say you are not, yet you finish the sentence by doing exactly that. Abu played the same trick. Whenever Muslims were killing Muslims, he would go to great lengths toe xplain how one of the sides were not Muslims and it was all America's fault.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

That is not what I said. I even included an example in the hope it might help you understand the point.

Sorry, I must be still missing it. I'll just clarify my position (again), and hopefully it will answer whatever you want answered:
- I support secularism
- I support democracy
- I oppose dictatorships

Opposing dictatorships means all dictatorships - whether they be secular or religious. Saying I support secularism doesn't mean I support secular dictators - Clear?


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

As opposed to what? Dropping bombs on the civilian areas they were supposed to protect every time Gaddafi's forces went in for a slaughter? Or do you somehow imagine Gaddafi's forces would have driven along the highway on the way there with flags to let the foreign airforce identify them?

The threat Gadaffi posed to civilians ended the minute NATO destroyed his offensive on Benghazi. They only needed to maintain the safe zone they had established and forced the two sides to the negotiating table. Instead they facilitated the rebels push westward - in direct violation of the terms of the UN resolution.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

You say you are not, yet you finish the sentence by doing exactly that. fault

Excuse me? Explain to me again what I am pretending? My last sentence states the fact disputed by no one - that the US is supporting Al Nusra in Syria. Are you going to tell me they are not?


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

Whenever Muslims were killing Muslims, he would go to great lengths toe xplain how one of the sides were not Muslims and it was all America's fault.

I'm not saying that - both sides are muslims. And I never said it was America's fault that this was happening - the salafists are being trained and sent by other muslim countries. America is nonetheless guilty of hypocrisy by supporting the salafist-dominated FSA.

Quote:

The threat Gadaffi posed to civilians ended the minute NATO destroyed his offensive on Benghazi. They only needed to maintain the safe zone they had established and forced the two sides to the negotiating table. Instead they facilitated the rebels push westward - in direct violation of the terms of the UN resolution.

That doesn't make sense Gandalf. If he posed no threat, the rebels would have easily won. If you can take on the rebels, it is easy enough to slaughter civilians.


Quote:

I'm not saying that - both sides are muslims.

So Muslims are the enemy of all Muslims?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

I also like to point out the irony that its me - a muslim -  not the resident islamophobes who is lanbasting the west for empowering islamic terrorists against non-islamic regime.

For example?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

If he posed no threat, the rebels would have easily won. If you can take on the rebels, it is easy enough to slaughter civilians.

There is no evidence Gaddafi was slaughtering civilians. The only civilians under threat during the rebellion were those that were potentially going to be in the crossfire when they found themselves on the front line. It was also reasonable to assume civilians in the rebel strongholds of Benghazi and Misrata were at risk. That was the whole point of the no-fly zone - to stop Gaddafi's advance into tthese strongholds, to protect the civilians there from reprisals. They did that easily - but then turned to offensive operaitons in close coordination with the rebel forces. And in doing so, directly violated the terms of the UN resolution authorizing the no-fly zone.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

So Muslims are the enemy of all Muslims?

I was talking about Syria.


Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

For example?

Al Nusra in Syria. Before that, islamists in Libya - who returned the favour a year later by assassinating the US ambassador in Benghazi. Another crucial empowering of islamists by the US was the support it provided to Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan - who was the one who turned Pakistan from a secular country, to a religious state - and empowered militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. And we all know what happened with that.

So Islamists are the enemy of all Muslims?

Are you the Muslim equivalent of the anti-Zionist Jews?

Depends what you mean by "islamist". All I'm saying is that the salafists who are terrorising Syrian civilians are the enemy of islam. I wasn't trying to make a universal statement.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

Depends what you mean by "islamist". All I'm saying is that the salafists who are terrorising Syrian civilians are the enemy of islam. I wasn't trying to make a universal statement.

Which muslim sect is considered, in your opinion, the "saviour of islam".

the phrase 'saviour of islam' makes no sense.

Suffice to say, any islamic "sect" that considers it a proper duty of a muslim to wage war against other muslims, slaughtering villagers and having no worldly concerns other than to ensure they die violently fighting the infidel - is not the "rightly guided" sect as far as true islam is concerned.

So they wage war against other Muslims but only die when they fight the infidel?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

369 freediver wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:26am: And how do you feel about dictatorship? I support democracy FD, I've made that abundantly clear before.

Are you against sharia law and in favour of common law and constitutional liberal democracy? Are you against the world-wide caliphate under sharia law?

Or do you support democracy, as in Egypt, until the pro-sharia forces are elected and then that's the end of it?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

So t

Well obviously they don't consider them muslim.


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 8:56am:

Are you against sharia law and in favour of common law and constitutional liberal democracy? Are you against the world-wide caliphate under sharia law? Or do you support democracy, as in Egypt, until the pro-sharia forces are elected and then that's the end of it?

no, yes, yes, yes

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 8:56am: Are you against sharia law and in favour of common law and constitutional liberal democracy? Are you against the world-wide caliphate under sharia law? Or do you support democracy, as in Egypt, until the pro-sharia forces are elected and then that's the end of it? no, yes, yes, yes

I thought so - the no and the last yes are contradictory.
Democratically (demographically) capture power only establish a sharia-based dictatorship.

I thought you'd be confused by that Soren.


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

Are you against sharia law

no


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

and in favour of common law and constitutional liberal democracy?

yes


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

Are you against the world-wide caliphate under sharia law?

yes


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

do you support democracy, as in Egypt

yes


Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

until the pro-sharia forces are elected and then that's the end of it?

I didn't answer this because it has a false premise - that the election of islamists = end of democracy.