Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
I wonder why you guys keep voting for people who import Muslims into your country.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Charlie Hebdo attacks
- Thread starter Wade
- Start date
Free episodes:
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
I don't and on the local level I am vocal about it.
This gets me called a racist on a regular basis... Islam is not a race it is a religion so one can not be racist in this case... I get told I am a bigot and need to be more tolerant when I point out the same things Mike has posted.
No I do not vote for people who push this sort of integration.
what I am for is giving people a chance on the individual level.. but in the case of Islam the core doctrine demands sub servitude to it from its followers so the will of Allah can be done.... you can not integrate with that.
Its funny isnt it, if you object to a racist, sexist, supremist, minorityphobic ideology you are a bigot.
No one bats an eye if you object to the KKK's ideology, but since islam is a religion, then objecting to it makes you a bigot.
A Warning To The West: A Voice From The Heart Of The Islamic World |
600 moslems at an australian meeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir
The Aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da'wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life's affairs in society are administered according to the Shari'ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bay'ah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through da'wah and jihad.
This organisation views democracy and western values as evil, thinks that stoning and beheading and the honour killing of women is OK.
It wants to replace our Govt with a caliphate and institute sharia law. Its leader says what happened at Charlie Hedbo was justified and that those who insulted Mo, deserved to die the way they did.
600 of them........ yeah a radical minority.......... This is what pure Islam looks like. If it makes you feel smug to think otherwise good luck to you.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's Work
The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da'wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society. It aims to do this by firstly changing the society's existing thoughts to Islamic thoughts so that such thoughts become the public opinion among the people, who are then driven to implement and act upon them. Secondly the Party works to change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah (swt). Finally, the Party works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam. These actions which the Party performs are political actions, since they relate to the affairs of the people in accordance with the Shari'ah rules and solutions, and politics in Islam is looking after the affairs of the people, either in opinion or in execution or both, according to the laws and solutions of Islam.
No one bats an eye if you object to the KKK's ideology, but since islam is a religion, then objecting to it makes you a bigot.
A Warning To The West: A Voice From The Heart Of The Islamic World |
600 moslems at an australian meeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir
The Aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da'wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life's affairs in society are administered according to the Shari'ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bay'ah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through da'wah and jihad.
This organisation views democracy and western values as evil, thinks that stoning and beheading and the honour killing of women is OK.
It wants to replace our Govt with a caliphate and institute sharia law. Its leader says what happened at Charlie Hedbo was justified and that those who insulted Mo, deserved to die the way they did.
600 of them........ yeah a radical minority.......... This is what pure Islam looks like. If it makes you feel smug to think otherwise good luck to you.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's Work
The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da'wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society. It aims to do this by firstly changing the society's existing thoughts to Islamic thoughts so that such thoughts become the public opinion among the people, who are then driven to implement and act upon them. Secondly the Party works to change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah (swt). Finally, the Party works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam. These actions which the Party performs are political actions, since they relate to the affairs of the people in accordance with the Shari'ah rules and solutions, and politics in Islam is looking after the affairs of the people, either in opinion or in execution or both, according to the laws and solutions of Islam.
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
Who do you vote for?
Personally i dont vote, never have.
But the gestalt of the question is imo answered by my previous comments. Most westerners including our politicians dont know much more about Islam other than its another religion. Most of them are christians themselves and so dont bother to learn much about rival ideologys.
In contrast to Islam, their cultural programming is one of acceptance and forgivness.
In ignorance they label these attrocities the acts of a radical minority, but as is so often the case our definitions which we consider universal ones are simply not the same as the islamic definitions. The question what is radical islam is answered in this video
Our definitions are not the same, what we consider extreem or radical, stoning for adultery hatred of homosexuals subjugation of women are considered "normal" in islam.
Charlie Hedbo's new front page ironically illustrates the wests ignorance of islam
Translated the headline is "all is forgiven" suggesting Mo himself would have forgiven them the insult.
But that would never be the case
The very reason why even here in the 21st century so many adherants of Islam hold the execution of those who insult the prophet as a sacred duty, is because Mo himself considered it to be so.
This months cover of CH illustrates just how little we understand islamic attitudes and values. and thats the problem
Last edited by a moderator:
Another example, the definition of the word innocent
After almost every terrorist attack Muslims in the West pretend to condemn the killing of “Innocent” people or say Islam condemns the killing of such “innocents”…The notion of “innocent” in Islam can never be applied on Non-Muslims, because according to the islamic Jurisprudence, they (the non-Muslims) rejected the message of Allah and Mohammed (they are not Muslims), so they are considered automatically non innocents…But when the Muslims say it in the western media addressing this statement to a non-Muslim audience , they are considered to not be lying because they mean”Islam condemns the killing of Muslims”. They are the only people considered Innocents in the Islamic jurisprudence…
Muslims can never say Islam condemns the killing of Non-Muslims openly and directly, but says “Innocents” instead…This widely used tactic is called ”Tawriya” or ”Ketman” (تورية و كتمان ). This is an integral part of the Islamic teachings on dealing with non-Muslims. It means a Muslim say something but in his heart he means another thing completely the opposite for example. So that is NOT considered lying in Islam.
The same thing is applied to the word “terrorism” or “terrorist”…Muslims consider what they do is not terrorism; In their mentality they believe it’s a “resistance” or they are “defending Islam” , “fighting oppression” or “Jihad in the way of Allah”. Therefore Muslims can easily say “Islam condemns terrorism” or “Muslims are not Terrorists” because in their hearts they believe what they do is not terrorism and as mentioned before they are not lying.
They are not lying when they say they condemn the killing of innocents, but by their definition non muslims are not innocents, if you have rejected the message of allah and Mo, then you are a sinner, ie not innocent
God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers.
Quran 2:89-2:90,
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
Quran 9:73,
Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away. They have not the power to do so. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy...
Quran 8:59-60,
Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrong-doers.
Quran 5:51,
The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Quran 98:6
A Primer on Islamic Deceit (Taqiyya, Kitman, Tawriya, Muruna, etc. . .) | Islam Exposed Online
After almost every terrorist attack Muslims in the West pretend to condemn the killing of “Innocent” people or say Islam condemns the killing of such “innocents”…The notion of “innocent” in Islam can never be applied on Non-Muslims, because according to the islamic Jurisprudence, they (the non-Muslims) rejected the message of Allah and Mohammed (they are not Muslims), so they are considered automatically non innocents…But when the Muslims say it in the western media addressing this statement to a non-Muslim audience , they are considered to not be lying because they mean”Islam condemns the killing of Muslims”. They are the only people considered Innocents in the Islamic jurisprudence…
Muslims can never say Islam condemns the killing of Non-Muslims openly and directly, but says “Innocents” instead…This widely used tactic is called ”Tawriya” or ”Ketman” (تورية و كتمان ). This is an integral part of the Islamic teachings on dealing with non-Muslims. It means a Muslim say something but in his heart he means another thing completely the opposite for example. So that is NOT considered lying in Islam.
The same thing is applied to the word “terrorism” or “terrorist”…Muslims consider what they do is not terrorism; In their mentality they believe it’s a “resistance” or they are “defending Islam” , “fighting oppression” or “Jihad in the way of Allah”. Therefore Muslims can easily say “Islam condemns terrorism” or “Muslims are not Terrorists” because in their hearts they believe what they do is not terrorism and as mentioned before they are not lying.
They are not lying when they say they condemn the killing of innocents, but by their definition non muslims are not innocents, if you have rejected the message of allah and Mo, then you are a sinner, ie not innocent
God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers.
Quran 2:89-2:90,
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
Quran 9:73,
Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away. They have not the power to do so. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy...
Quran 8:59-60,
Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrong-doers.
Quran 5:51,
The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Quran 98:6
A Primer on Islamic Deceit (Taqiyya, Kitman, Tawriya, Muruna, etc. . .) | Islam Exposed Online
Last edited by a moderator:
Tolerance
The Western viewpoint.
This has already been covered in the section on “peace” since I regard it as a prerequisite for peace. But to summarise, western tolerance could be taken as a “live and let live” attitude, coupled with political/legal equality for all.
The Islamic viewpoint.
Despite the claims of some that Islam is “intolerant”, this is not strictly true.
Throughout history Islam has tolerated minority groups within its domain. Indeed, Islam defines a tolerated (or, in its own choice of words, a protected) minority within its society as “dhimmis” who are tolerated under a “dhimmah” (also spelt “dhimma”) which is the treaty that emplaces the conditions of “dhimmitude” on the minority. Historically, this contract was an explicit document between the minority and the leaders of the Islamic community.
As originally conceived, the concept of dhimmitude was only applicable to Jews and Christians (also called “people of the book”), and possibly to Zoroastrians according to some sources, but for pragmatic reasons over time the concept was extended to other non-Muslim groups also.
Latterly, it seems that many non-Muslims existing in Muslim Countries are regarded as “dhimmis” even without a contract – in other words the “dhimmah” is implicit rather than explicit, but the consequences of it still apply. It should be said that being a dhimmi is an improvement over the alternative, that of being a “harbi”[1].
Thus to understand what tolerance means within Islam, we have to study examples of dhimmah treaties. The archetypal dhimmah is the “Pact of Umar”[2].
I do not intend to reproduce it here; but apart from a number of discriminatory conditions, aimed at enforcing the superiority of the muslims over the dhimmis, or as the Pact preface words it “conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace” it includes a “hostage” clause, this I do reproduce below:
“If we [the non-Muslims] break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”
This clause exists in several versions, but the key point is the principle that if any dhimmi breaks the rules, all dhimmis become liable for retaliation. Thus all dhimmis are “hostage” for each others’ behaviour[3]. It is also worth noting that “people of defiance and rebellion” are ‘fair game’ for Muslims and can be killed, raped, enslaved and despoiled with impunity[4].
The Western viewpoint.
This has already been covered in the section on “peace” since I regard it as a prerequisite for peace. But to summarise, western tolerance could be taken as a “live and let live” attitude, coupled with political/legal equality for all.
The Islamic viewpoint.
Despite the claims of some that Islam is “intolerant”, this is not strictly true.
Throughout history Islam has tolerated minority groups within its domain. Indeed, Islam defines a tolerated (or, in its own choice of words, a protected) minority within its society as “dhimmis” who are tolerated under a “dhimmah” (also spelt “dhimma”) which is the treaty that emplaces the conditions of “dhimmitude” on the minority. Historically, this contract was an explicit document between the minority and the leaders of the Islamic community.
As originally conceived, the concept of dhimmitude was only applicable to Jews and Christians (also called “people of the book”), and possibly to Zoroastrians according to some sources, but for pragmatic reasons over time the concept was extended to other non-Muslim groups also.
Latterly, it seems that many non-Muslims existing in Muslim Countries are regarded as “dhimmis” even without a contract – in other words the “dhimmah” is implicit rather than explicit, but the consequences of it still apply. It should be said that being a dhimmi is an improvement over the alternative, that of being a “harbi”[1].
Thus to understand what tolerance means within Islam, we have to study examples of dhimmah treaties. The archetypal dhimmah is the “Pact of Umar”[2].
I do not intend to reproduce it here; but apart from a number of discriminatory conditions, aimed at enforcing the superiority of the muslims over the dhimmis, or as the Pact preface words it “conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace” it includes a “hostage” clause, this I do reproduce below:
“If we [the non-Muslims] break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”
This clause exists in several versions, but the key point is the principle that if any dhimmi breaks the rules, all dhimmis become liable for retaliation. Thus all dhimmis are “hostage” for each others’ behaviour[3]. It is also worth noting that “people of defiance and rebellion” are ‘fair game’ for Muslims and can be killed, raped, enslaved and despoiled with impunity[4].
Freedom
The Western viewpoint.
In the West “freedom” is used to describe a whole range of things encompassed in civil, political and individual rights.
Perhaps the most succinct definition of “freedom” is that of Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” He went on to say: “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often [nothing] but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Quite explicit in Jefferson’s definition is that all people have equal rights and that all (non-tyrannical) laws must apply equally to all people without exception. (This idea was put in British law as the law acting indifferently -as in ”without difference” – towards all people.)
The Islamic viewpoint.
The entry on freedom, or “hurriyya”, in the “Encyclopedia of Islam” describes a state of divine enthralment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is “the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him.“
Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery to Allah”. To put it another way, Islamic-style “freedom” is freedom from unbelief ( “Khufr”) in Islam.
According to the Pew report (2010) 84% of Egyptians favour the death penalty for apostates from Islam and a slightly greater percentage (90%) favour religious freedom. To the Western mind this is “double-think”. If you favour killing those who leave your religion, then you don’t believe in religious freedom. Conversely, if you believe in religious freedom you don’t kill those who leave your religion.
To the Islamic mind there is no contradiction because “religious freedom” is understood to mean the freedom to practice only Islam, in other words “freedom from Khufr” (unbelief in Islam). Thus, whereas to the Western mind freedom means basically the right to “do what you want”, to the Muslim mind freedom means “the right to fully practice Islam” which in turn means the full implementation of Sharia law (including all its discriminatory elements against the non-Muslim, women etc). Note: many Muslims may well want freedom from their dictatorial rulers too (who often are not very “Islamic” themselves) as seen in the recent unrest (2011) in the Mid. East. But this is not to say that what they mean by freedom is what we would naturally assume it to be.
The Western viewpoint.
In the West “freedom” is used to describe a whole range of things encompassed in civil, political and individual rights.
Perhaps the most succinct definition of “freedom” is that of Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” He went on to say: “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often [nothing] but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Quite explicit in Jefferson’s definition is that all people have equal rights and that all (non-tyrannical) laws must apply equally to all people without exception. (This idea was put in British law as the law acting indifferently -as in ”without difference” – towards all people.)
The Islamic viewpoint.
The entry on freedom, or “hurriyya”, in the “Encyclopedia of Islam” describes a state of divine enthralment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is “the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him.“
Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery to Allah”. To put it another way, Islamic-style “freedom” is freedom from unbelief ( “Khufr”) in Islam.
According to the Pew report (2010) 84% of Egyptians favour the death penalty for apostates from Islam and a slightly greater percentage (90%) favour religious freedom. To the Western mind this is “double-think”. If you favour killing those who leave your religion, then you don’t believe in religious freedom. Conversely, if you believe in religious freedom you don’t kill those who leave your religion.
To the Islamic mind there is no contradiction because “religious freedom” is understood to mean the freedom to practice only Islam, in other words “freedom from Khufr” (unbelief in Islam). Thus, whereas to the Western mind freedom means basically the right to “do what you want”, to the Muslim mind freedom means “the right to fully practice Islam” which in turn means the full implementation of Sharia law (including all its discriminatory elements against the non-Muslim, women etc). Note: many Muslims may well want freedom from their dictatorial rulers too (who often are not very “Islamic” themselves) as seen in the recent unrest (2011) in the Mid. East. But this is not to say that what they mean by freedom is what we would naturally assume it to be.
It is accepted as a truism by many liberals and multiculturalists and touted by much of the Western media that the "clash of civilizations" between the West and the Islamic world is a clash of values between a secular, tolerant, post-Christian world and a minority (albeit a large one) of Muslims, fundamentalists, and literalists who pervert the meaning of their faith-traditions. The Qur'anic verse, "There is no compulsion in religion,"[1] is frequently invoked to prove that Islam is not the intolerant, subjugating religion that Islamist clerics like Yusuf Qaradawi or terrorists like Osama bin Laden make it out to be. The belief is that "Islam," as former president George W. Bush said not long after the 9-11 attacks, "is peace."[2]
But what if Bush's statement, along with the mainstream view, ignores the reality of Islam's central tenets? Are the Islamists' beliefs really only a warped minority position or are they a truer reflection of the inherent nature of the Muslim faith-system? Can the West ever reach a modus vivendi with an Islam that by its very nature considers Western civilization an unclean "other" that must be brought into the orbit of Islam through subjugation at best or destruction at worst?
A closer examination of Islam's central tenets is called for, one that gets past the feel-good nostrums of multiculturalism and that engages the Muslim belief-system on its own terms, beginning with one of the most fundamental of those tenets, the doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara (love and hate for the sake of God).
Love and Hate for the Sake of Allah
In the introduction to the 2005 exposition of al-Wala wal-Bara by Muhammad Qahtani, Sheikh Abdar Razaq Afifi, deputy president of the Department of Guidance and a member of the Board of Great Ulema of Saudi Arabia, declares:
The subject matter is of paramount importance and utmost interest: Firstly, it is concerned with one of Islam's main foundations, which has two major prerequisites of true faith: al-Wala is a manifestation of sincere love for Allah, his prophet and the believers; al-Bara is an expression of enmity and hatred toward falsehood and its adherents. Both are evidence of true faith. Secondly, it has been written at a very crucial time where Muslims are no longer aware of those qualities which distinguish the believers from the nonbelievers; their faith has become so weak; and they have taken the disbelievers as their friends while displaying enmity toward the believers.[3]
Qahtani's English publisher adds the following:
It is impossible to provide a literal translation in English of the al-Wala wal-Bara, but the meaning of this Arabic term indicated, on the one hand, drawing near to what is pleasing to Allah and His Messenger and, on the other hand, withdrawing from what is displeasing to Allah and His Messenger.[4]
Al-Wala wal-Bara means then total loyalty to Islam and total disavowal of anything else. It is one of Islam's main foundations and is of paramount importance, second only to Tawhid, acknowledgement of the oneness of God. Total allegiance and love are only to be given within the Islamic community, and rejection, hate, and enmity against the other is commanded, based upon Qur'anic foundations:
Say: "If you love Allah then follow me that Allah may love you and forgive your faults… Allah does not love the infidels. … They are the residents of Hell, and will there forever abide."[5]
Islam and Infidels
The issue of the Muslim's relationship with the infidel is one of the most important in Islam. The amount of attention devoted to the infidel is huge: 64 percent of the total Qur'an addresses that relationship while 81 percent of the Sira (chronological biographies of Muhammad) and 37 percent of the Hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) focus on this as well. In sum, nearly two thirds of Shari'a (Islamic law) is devoted to the infidel.[9]
What comes through clearly by examining this subject is that Islam is not about universal brotherhood, as is often claimed, but about the brotherhood of believers, members of the umma.[10] The flip-side of this is a total denunciation of the "other."[11] There are more than four hundred verses in the Qur'an alone that describe the torment in hell that Allah has prepared for the infidel. The Qur'an dehumanizes infidels: They are vile animals and beasts, the worst of creatures and demons;[12] perverted transgressors and partners of Satan[13] to be fought until religion is Allah's alone.[14] They are to be beheaded;[15] terrorized,[16] annihilated,[17] crucified,[18] punished, and expelled,[19] and plotted against by deceit.[20] Believers must be in a constant state of war with the infidel.[21]
Conclusion
The doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara is critical to understanding the Islamic world-view and its perception of the other as it is second only to attesting to tawhid, the oneness of God, for the faithful. Faith is incomplete without it, and it is the criterion used to distinguish between believers and the enemies of Islam. Tawhid will never be achieved on earth until believers apply al-Wala wal-Bara through adherence to Muhammad's way of life (as-Sirat al-Mustaqim).[83]
Since it is the deepest Islamic obligation to have all recognize the truth of Muhammad's message, it is a Muslim duty to impose Shari'a on humanity. The infidels who resist Islam are thus responsible for the persistence of violence and the absence of world peace. It is they who force Muslims to take defensive measures to protect the truth of Islam through jihad, if necessary.[84] Submission is the only solution to world peace, and it is in the best interest of humanity for the other to lose his otherness. This self-image helps explain why multitudes of Muslims react violently at almost every situation in which the honor of their prophet or their faith seems to be belittled while simultaneously complaining of being victims of oppression, aggression, racism, and the new and custom-made bête noir, "Islamophobia."
Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim :: Middle East Quarterly
But what if Bush's statement, along with the mainstream view, ignores the reality of Islam's central tenets? Are the Islamists' beliefs really only a warped minority position or are they a truer reflection of the inherent nature of the Muslim faith-system? Can the West ever reach a modus vivendi with an Islam that by its very nature considers Western civilization an unclean "other" that must be brought into the orbit of Islam through subjugation at best or destruction at worst?
A closer examination of Islam's central tenets is called for, one that gets past the feel-good nostrums of multiculturalism and that engages the Muslim belief-system on its own terms, beginning with one of the most fundamental of those tenets, the doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara (love and hate for the sake of God).
Love and Hate for the Sake of Allah
In the introduction to the 2005 exposition of al-Wala wal-Bara by Muhammad Qahtani, Sheikh Abdar Razaq Afifi, deputy president of the Department of Guidance and a member of the Board of Great Ulema of Saudi Arabia, declares:
The subject matter is of paramount importance and utmost interest: Firstly, it is concerned with one of Islam's main foundations, which has two major prerequisites of true faith: al-Wala is a manifestation of sincere love for Allah, his prophet and the believers; al-Bara is an expression of enmity and hatred toward falsehood and its adherents. Both are evidence of true faith. Secondly, it has been written at a very crucial time where Muslims are no longer aware of those qualities which distinguish the believers from the nonbelievers; their faith has become so weak; and they have taken the disbelievers as their friends while displaying enmity toward the believers.[3]
Qahtani's English publisher adds the following:
It is impossible to provide a literal translation in English of the al-Wala wal-Bara, but the meaning of this Arabic term indicated, on the one hand, drawing near to what is pleasing to Allah and His Messenger and, on the other hand, withdrawing from what is displeasing to Allah and His Messenger.[4]
Al-Wala wal-Bara means then total loyalty to Islam and total disavowal of anything else. It is one of Islam's main foundations and is of paramount importance, second only to Tawhid, acknowledgement of the oneness of God. Total allegiance and love are only to be given within the Islamic community, and rejection, hate, and enmity against the other is commanded, based upon Qur'anic foundations:
Say: "If you love Allah then follow me that Allah may love you and forgive your faults… Allah does not love the infidels. … They are the residents of Hell, and will there forever abide."[5]
Islam and Infidels
The issue of the Muslim's relationship with the infidel is one of the most important in Islam. The amount of attention devoted to the infidel is huge: 64 percent of the total Qur'an addresses that relationship while 81 percent of the Sira (chronological biographies of Muhammad) and 37 percent of the Hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) focus on this as well. In sum, nearly two thirds of Shari'a (Islamic law) is devoted to the infidel.[9]
What comes through clearly by examining this subject is that Islam is not about universal brotherhood, as is often claimed, but about the brotherhood of believers, members of the umma.[10] The flip-side of this is a total denunciation of the "other."[11] There are more than four hundred verses in the Qur'an alone that describe the torment in hell that Allah has prepared for the infidel. The Qur'an dehumanizes infidels: They are vile animals and beasts, the worst of creatures and demons;[12] perverted transgressors and partners of Satan[13] to be fought until religion is Allah's alone.[14] They are to be beheaded;[15] terrorized,[16] annihilated,[17] crucified,[18] punished, and expelled,[19] and plotted against by deceit.[20] Believers must be in a constant state of war with the infidel.[21]
Conclusion
The doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara is critical to understanding the Islamic world-view and its perception of the other as it is second only to attesting to tawhid, the oneness of God, for the faithful. Faith is incomplete without it, and it is the criterion used to distinguish between believers and the enemies of Islam. Tawhid will never be achieved on earth until believers apply al-Wala wal-Bara through adherence to Muhammad's way of life (as-Sirat al-Mustaqim).[83]
Since it is the deepest Islamic obligation to have all recognize the truth of Muhammad's message, it is a Muslim duty to impose Shari'a on humanity. The infidels who resist Islam are thus responsible for the persistence of violence and the absence of world peace. It is they who force Muslims to take defensive measures to protect the truth of Islam through jihad, if necessary.[84] Submission is the only solution to world peace, and it is in the best interest of humanity for the other to lose his otherness. This self-image helps explain why multitudes of Muslims react violently at almost every situation in which the honor of their prophet or their faith seems to be belittled while simultaneously complaining of being victims of oppression, aggression, racism, and the new and custom-made bête noir, "Islamophobia."
Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim :: Middle East Quarterly
How many radical Muslims are there in the world?
Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.
The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.”The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”
7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.
But even the authors admit they massaged the data
Who Speaks for Islam"[edit]
Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito co-authored the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of a survey conducted by the Gallup polling agency and released in 2008. The authors claim only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are "political radicals" who believe the 9/11 attacks were completely justified. Yet another 29.6 percent think the 9/11 attacks were partially or in some way justified. This takes the total world-wide percentage of Muslims who think the mass-slaughter of innocent non-Muslim (and some Muslim) civilians on 9/11 was either completely, partially or some way justified, up to 36.6 percent, or almost 4 out of every 10 Muslim.
In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.
MOGAHED: I can't off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.
To clarify a couple of things about the book--the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that's important: It's meant for a general audience, and it's not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn't about . . . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] . . . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that . . .
So, how did we come up with the word "politically radicalized" that we unfortunately used in the book? Here's why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours . . . At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.
QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?
MOGAHED: I seriously don't remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].
QUESTIONER: So it's seven Fours and seven Fives?
MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here's what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define "politically radicalized" for our research.
Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate . . . I don't know. . . .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. . . . You know, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.
So, there it is--the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.
The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.
And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."[15]
Muslim Statistics (Terrorism) - WikiIslam
As this links shows in areas that are naturally islamic in culture, the percantages can go much much higher
Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.
The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.”The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”
7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.
But even the authors admit they massaged the data
Who Speaks for Islam"[edit]
Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito co-authored the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of a survey conducted by the Gallup polling agency and released in 2008. The authors claim only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are "political radicals" who believe the 9/11 attacks were completely justified. Yet another 29.6 percent think the 9/11 attacks were partially or in some way justified. This takes the total world-wide percentage of Muslims who think the mass-slaughter of innocent non-Muslim (and some Muslim) civilians on 9/11 was either completely, partially or some way justified, up to 36.6 percent, or almost 4 out of every 10 Muslim.
In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.
MOGAHED: I can't off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.
To clarify a couple of things about the book--the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that's important: It's meant for a general audience, and it's not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn't about . . . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] . . . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that . . .
So, how did we come up with the word "politically radicalized" that we unfortunately used in the book? Here's why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours . . . At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.
QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?
MOGAHED: I seriously don't remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].
QUESTIONER: So it's seven Fours and seven Fives?
MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here's what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define "politically radicalized" for our research.
Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate . . . I don't know. . . .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. . . . You know, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.
So, there it is--the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.
The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.
And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."[15]
Muslim Statistics (Terrorism) - WikiIslam
As this links shows in areas that are naturally islamic in culture, the percantages can go much much higher
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
It would be good once in a while paracast had a political commentator on as this forum is mature to discuss current political issues such as what happend in Paris . Maybe Radio comentator Mr Michael Savage would be a intresting guest?
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
If you don't vote, how do you expect to influence your government to stop importing Muslims into your nation?
TrivialSublime
Skilled Investigator
So scale is important to you? What’s one doctor who works at a clinic (abortion doctor try to set the tone) getting killed by a person whom states that their Christian beliefs warrant it? So 12 newspaper employees is worse than 1 doctor? Death is death, wrongful death is bad no matter how many.
I've seen a lot of your post here, apparently this is very important to you (to explain Islam to us).
There are crazies across the world, the reason there are Christians in the Middle East has a lot to do with these things called Crusades, you know where you convert to Christianity or die.
I take it from your posts that you are from Australia, forgive if that’s not true. How do you (or is it something best forgotten) explain the genocide on the Aborigines?
Religious nuts, state sponsored terrorism, false flags, it’s a complicated world. There is not one boogie man in my opinion, there are many.
And don't forget about the nut jobs protesting at the funerals of service man and saying it happened because God hates fags.
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
I used to vote left when I was younger then I voted right as I started running my own company.. then I grew up and stopped with the left right puppet game.
There are no political groups to which I could support these days so I have stopped voting altogether. They are all simply two sides of the same corrupt and self interested coin.
But...
I am still very much involved in local politics, I go to local council meetings and make sure I have my say on the local level, and I have absolutely no fear in standing up and telling any political figure be they national or local body that they are full of shit.... As you know I do not live in the USA Charlie but in New Zealand (well you know now), in fact half my family comes from Australia (Perth to be exact). We are a very different people down here, yeah it takes a fair bit to piss us off as a collective but god damned help you if you do... in short Kiwis and Australians are stroppy..
I think its far far more effective for me do what i do here and in other forums, to take the discussion about Islam beyond the simplistic "Its a religion" level.
To shed light on its ideology to expose the devil that is the detail.
Ive explained this here
When you lay the two ideologys side by side and walk down the timeline of social and ideological evolution, the simplistic they are both just religions argument falls down.
This journalist makes some very good points
Islam, you have a very serious problem
She makes another good point
Its time to look into Islam, its core ideology its practises, its attitudes to women, to minoritys such as other religions and homosexuals. To examine what it is at a level deeper than just "a religion" and have a frank and perhaps uncomfortable discussion about it
The crusades took place in the 11th century.
Its now the 21st century, but this ideology still thinks killing because some silly book written in the 6th century says so.
Backward thinking , as is throwing up the crusades as some sort of logical argument in this case.
Nor is the death is death simplistic argument valid imo. Yes as the top level that is true.
Here in australia this past week we had two real world examples, one a toddler killed by a driver backing down a driveway, another where a drongo being chased by police drive through a yard killing the 17month old girl playing in it.
Two examples, and yes looked at with the minimum resolution dead is dead, but the devil is as always in the detail. Simplistic logic simply cant reconcile these two events as being equal. And the courts will do just that
In one case charges were laid in the other they were not.
Toddler dies after being run over in driveway - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Man charged with manslaughter over fatal police pursuit in Sydney's west - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
At the simplistic level dead is dead in both cases. To use that argument is to suggest the gunmen who murderd 12 in paris or the gunman responsible for the death of two in Sydney, is no worse a criminal than the person who backed over and killed a child in Brisbane.
Neither the courts nor any reasonable person would see it that way
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
By educating others around me... very much as Mike has put it.
Fact is Charlie those in power are not going to do a damned thing about it until the general population demand that they do very vocally. Politicians are populists and will not do anything unless it is worth the political gain to them personally and that in part is why I do not vote for the useless scum bags.
Richard Hawkins
Paranormal Adept
All religious fanatics are dangerous and in my opinion bad evil people there murders had nothing to do with false flags or conspiracy and a lot to do with evil and a culture of evil