• Islam in Britain
    328 replies, posted
I almost forgot! Happy birthday Muhammad!
I'd go down in a guns blazing glory battle if this happens to my country
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466416]Jihad is only Valid, if you were oppressed in the first place, also, war against Non-Muslims is counted as Lesser Jihad, while to strive oneself to a better Muslim is Higher Jihad. By the way, The crusades happened because the pope wanted all of the spoils of controlling Jerusalem for himself. I think you will not even read this and continue to ramble, because you are truly to thick in your head.[/QUOTE] The Crusades were a response to 450 years of unchecked Islamic aggression. From the death of Muhammad in 632, Muslim armies struck out from the Arabian peninsula and in the next 4 centuries conquered Christian Mesopotamia, the Levant, Maghreb and Spain, and Zoroastrian Persia, all at the point of a sword. Entire cultures were wiped out. Muslims occupied Sicily for 75 years and even sacked Rome. They invaded Anatolia and hassled Christian traders and pilgrims. This is what the Crusades were a much belated response to. Being a bunch of medieval fundamentalists, the Crusades were obviously abhorrent and excessive, but that doesn't change the fact that they were a response to Muslim violence, not unchecked and unprovoked aggression. You must also remember that if you compress together the time spent by Christian warriors fighting in each Crusades (all 15-20 of them) you get a combined total of about 20 odd years of military campaigns, whereas Islamic military campaigns against the dar al harb have continued relatively unabated for centuries, only taking a pause during the past few centuries during the colonial era, because they were too weak to do so. As for Jihad: Jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools (Ja'afari, Ismaili, Imami, Zaidi, Naqshbandi, Chishti, Qadiriyyah, etc) These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: [B]“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution?.[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[/B] Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: [B]“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[/B] The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:[B] “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them.” [/B](Hidayah) The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) agrees, saying that if unbelievers [B]“refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them?”[/B] All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveler), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.”[B] It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,”[/B] and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “[B]the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” [/B] The greater Jihad hadith is weak. It doesn't appear in either of the 2 main authenticated Hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), nor the four other hadiths considered most accurate (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan ibn Majah). It appears in weak hadith collections whose authority has been rejected by a consensus of Islamic theologians on the basis that it has a weak and disreputable chain of isnad.
[QUOTE=heatsketch;21466982]So mchapra, I'm guessing you are an authority on Islam? So that means you're familiar not only with the Qur'an, but also the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim ahadiths, the various other Hadiths that are of lesser import, the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq and other Sirahs, the various schools of Fiqh, whether Sunni, Shi'a or Sufi, and the teachings of all notable fiqah of the Ulema, both ancient and modern? You are aware of the exegesis and isnad of such influential commentators as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzzay, Ibn Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali, Qatadah ibn al-Nu'man, Malik ibn Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam, Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Ibn al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah and the other notable Ulema and Sahaba? If you are, you have a weird way of showing it.[/QUOTE] I am familiar with some of the things you mentioned(Quran, Bukhari and Muslim) , But I am in no means an authority on Islam, But I do know this Jihad has 5 different forms, if all of my teachers and mother are to be believed. Jihad Bin Nafs: Jihad of Mind (Abstain from Dark thoughts in the minds) Jihad Bin Maal: Jihad of Wealth (Saving Money for charity not for personal Luxury) Jihad Bin Kalam: Jihad of the Pen (Using your Pen as a tool of wisdom) Jihad Bin Lisan: Jihad of the tongue (Fighting, With your words, Not Fists) Jihad in the way of Allah: This is the one that is about fighting, but with a condition, you have to only resort to it as method of self defense, Now before you go, "Turrists R also Muslims and dem be doing this", No, Those people in My eyes, and in the eyes many Muslims are NOT Muslims, they were but after breaking this rule of self defense, they already lost the way of Allah. Now if I recall My 3rd Grade Teacher correctly, She said that, Nafs, Mall, Kalam and Lisan are considered to be a very High form of Jihad, The Last one though is only on the basses of self defense, therefore it is Not Jihad to Strike the first blow. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21466909]1. This is proof that you have ignored all my posts 2. You did far from that 3. Doesn't know what this word means[/QUOTE] 1. I did read some of them. 2. Above the quote. 3. Well I am not familiar with the English Language Much. Please consider the stuff above the quote, I listed about all the types of jihad, before you start to randomly bash me.
Look what your talking about is very complicated and I respect you for the taking the time to explain but there are some you don't have the level of knowledge you have. Please can you summarize your views within a 2-4 page document so some of the younger members of the forum can understand what you are trying to say Critical Thought.
[QUOTE=hypern;21467410]Look what your talking about is very complicated and I respect you for the taking the time to explain but there are some you don't have the level of knowledge you have. Please can you summarize your views within a 2-4 page document so some of the younger members of the forum can understand what you are trying to say Critical Thought.[/QUOTE] No, go back to colouring and playing with blocks. There will be plenty of time for you to hate Islam when you grow up.
I'm muslim, but I don't want to take over Britain ;(
[QUOTE=heatsketch;21467142]The Crusades were a response to 450 years of unchecked Islamic aggression. From the death of Muhammad in 632, Muslim armies struck out from the Arabian peninsula and in the next 4 centuries conquered Christian Mesopotamia, the Levant, Maghreb and Spain, and Zoroastrian Persia, all at the point of a sword. Entire cultures were wiped out. Muslims occupied Sicily for 75 years and even sacked Rome. They invaded Anatolia and hassled Christian traders and pilgrims. This is what the Crusades were a much belated response to. Being a bunch of medieval fundamentalists, the Crusades were obviously abhorrent and excessive, but that doesn't change the fact that they were a response to Muslim violence, not unchecked and unprovoked aggression. You must also remember that if you compress together the time spent by Christian warriors fighting in each Crusades (all 15-20 of them) you get a combined total of about 20 odd years of military campaigns, whereas Islamic military campaigns against the dar al harb have continued relatively unabated for centuries, only taking a pause during the past few centuries during the colonial era, because they were too weak to do so. As for Jihad: Jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools (Ja'afari, Ismaili, Imami, Zaidi, Naqshbandi, Chishti, Qadiriyyah, etc) These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: [B]“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution?.[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[/B] Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: [B]“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[/B] The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:[B] “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them.” [/B](Hidayah) The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) agrees, saying that if unbelievers [B]“refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them?”[/B] All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveler), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.”[B] It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,”[/B] and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “[B]the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” [/B] The greater Jihad hadith is weak. It doesn't appear in either of the 2 main authenticated Hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), nor the four other hadiths considered most accurate (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan ibn Majah). It appears in weak hadith collections whose authority has been rejected by a consensus of Islamic theologians on the basis that it has a weak and disreputable chain of isnad.[/QUOTE] 1. Sorry About the Crusades Comment, I was quoting from an history book, probably biased. 2. "Let There be No Compulsion in religion" [2:256] Which I recall correctly that if a Non-Muslim Lived in a Muslim enviroment he would not be forced to leave his faith, the Jyzia Tax was a subject to some controversy so the Mughals and Many Muslim rulers stoped circulation of this unfair tax, outside of the Middle East.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21467571]2. "Let There be No Compulsion in religion" [2:256] Which I recall correctly that if a Non-Muslim Lived in a Muslim enviroment he would not be forced to leave his faith, the Jyzia Tax was a subject to some controversy so the Mughals and Many Muslim rulers stoped circulation of this unfair tax, outside of the Middle East.[/QUOTE] This has already been refuted.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21467579]This has already been refuted.[/QUOTE] Please Explain.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21467303]I am familiar with some of the things you mentioned(Quran, Bukhari and Muslim) , But I am in no means an authority on Islam, But I do know this Jihad has 5 different forms, if all of my teachers and mother are to be believed. Jihad Bin Nafs: Jihad of Mind (Abstain from Dark thoughts in the minds) Jihad Bin Maal: Jihad of Wealth (Saving Money for charity not for personal Luxury) Jihad Bin Kalam: Jihad of the Pen (Using your Pen as a tool of wisdom) Jihad Bin Lisan: Jihad of the tongue (Fighting, With your words, Not Fists) Jihad in the way of Allah: This is the one that is about fighting, but with a condition, you have to only resort to it as method of self defense, Now before you go, "Turrists R also Muslims and dem be doing this", No, Those people in My eyes, and in the eyes many Muslims are NOT Muslims, they were but after breaking this rule of self defense, they already lost the way of Allah. Now if I recall My 3rd Grade Teacher correctly, She said that, Nafs, Mall, Kalam and Lisan are considered to be a very High form of Jihad, The Last one though is only on the basses of self defense, therefore it is Not Jihad to Strike the first blow. [/QUOTE] Jihad is the act of fighting in the cause of Islam, in order to make Allahs religion superior. It doesn't have to be violent. We can see the Saudi's waging wealth Jihad, spending their petrodollars to establish mosques and madrassahs not only in other Islamic nations but also throughout the west. Dissemblers like Tariq Ramadan engage in Jihad of the Pen, using smooth talking Taqiyya and Ketman to lull kufr into a false sense of security. Jihad of the Tongue is similar. Jihad is Jihad. None of the eminent scholars I quoted said that Jihad is only defensive. In the past offensive Jihad could only be invoked by the head of the Islamic state, the Caliph. Since there is currently no Caliph, the distinction is blurry. Also, you must remember the definition of "defensive" that people like Osama use. The Saudi government invited American troops to Saudi Arabia. Osama (and any other similarly devout Muslim) considers the presence of infidels in dar al-Islam who have not willingly submitted and paid Jizyah as an attack against Islam. This is why he launched terror attacks like 9/11, the cole attack and the African embassy bombings. Unbelievers don't necessarily have to do anything violent to the Islamic world to be considered attacking it. Verbally insulting Muhammad is considered by many Muslims enough to wage "defensive Jihad", as we can in modern the case of Theo van Gogh, those Danish cartoons, and in the ancient cases of Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Kab bin al-Ashraf, Ibn Sunayna, and a couple of unnamed people, all of whom Muhammad himself is recorded as personally having executed or assassinated simply for mocking or disagreeing with him and his religion. So Muhammad himself ordered the assassination of critics, and people wonder why Muslims riot and kill people over naughty pictures and words. They are only emulating the al-Insan al-Kamil. It doesn't matter what you believe or what you think (without evidence) most Muslims believe. What matters is what is taught by the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or Madh'hab, about which I have already explained. [editline]06:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rago;21467512]I'm muslim, but I don't want to take over Britain ;([/QUOTE] No one here, at least that I have seen, has said all Muslims want to do anything.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21467665]Please Explain.[/QUOTE] I already did: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=21451189&postcount=206[/url]
[QUOTE=mchapra;21467665]Please Explain.[/QUOTE] You obviously didn't read my earlier posts about the chronology of the Qur'an, and abrogation (or naskh) contained therein. Nor did you read Critical Thought's initial response to the "no compulsion in religion" claim. [editline]06:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=mchapra;21467571]1. Sorry About the Crusades Comment, I was quoting from an history book, probably biased. 2. "Let There be No Compulsion in religion" [2:256] Which I recall correctly that if a Non-Muslim Lived in a Muslim enviroment he would not be forced to leave his faith, the Jyzia Tax was a subject to some controversy so the Mughals and Many Muslim rulers stoped circulation of this unfair tax, outside of the Middle East.[/QUOTE] The Jizya tax never went out of style. Some mughals may not have charged it, that doesn't mean it wasn't a mainstay of many Islamic cultures. Islamic empires as recent as the Ottomans charged Jizya. Even without the Jizya, People of the Book could not openly worship or proselytize, they could not have their pork or alcohol displayed openly (sometimes not at all), their testimony in court and other such situations was worth nothing if stacked against a Muslims (if a Muslim assaulted a Dhimmi, and there were no Muslim witnesses willing to back the Dhimmi, then the Muslim would not be punished). The level of cruelty and harrassment involved in dhimmitude varied depending on time and place, but it was always far below today's standards of religious freedom.
Well, I give up, I don't know why I got into the argument in the first place, I looked at my earlier posts and I looked like an ass, so yeah, I Apologize, I'll Believe what I want to Believe and you believe what you want to believe, I am truly sorry for worsening the situation, though I know this, I will not and Never Stand in the lines of those Extremists, again I am really sorry.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21468061]Well, I give up, I don't know why I got into the argument in the first place, I looked at my earlier posts and I looked like an ass, so yeah, I Apologize, I'll Believe what I want to Believe and you believe what you want to believe, I am truly sorry for worsening the situation, though I know this, I will not and Never Stand in the lines of those Extremists, again I am really sorry.[/QUOTE] You believe what you want to believe, by all means. I have no problem with Muslims who aren't crazy. My whole point is that while most Muslims may be good people, so long as Islam exists in it's current form, the fundamentalists can and will be able to justify their violent actions by pointing to Islamic dogma, and the peaceful and tolerant Muslims will not be able to argue with them from a purely theological perspective, because the theology, as interpreted by all orthodox schools of Madh'hab, falls on the side of the Jihadists. No need to apologize for anything. [editline]06:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=starpluck;21462224]9:5 explained. The first paragraph in "HISTORY" really debunked the theory of "All non Muslims are condemned for death!" [release] Muslims are often questioned, "[I]Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?[/I]" [U]The answer is absolutely not![/U] Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5). There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is [I][B]historical[/B][/I]. The second is related to the [I][B]nature of the Quran[/B][/I] itself. [B]HISTORY:[/B] When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents. That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does [B]not [/B]mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert. Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people [U][B]are[/B][/U] Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.) The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..." I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims. I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did [U][B]not[/B][/U] find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers. What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel": Main Entry: [B]in·fi·del [/B] Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del Function: [I]noun [/I] Etymology: Middle English [I]infidele, [/I]from Middle French, from Late Latin [I]infidelis [/I]unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from [I]in- + fidelis [/I]faithful -- more at [URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/dictionary/fidelity"]FIDELITY [/URL] [B]1: [/B][U][I]one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity [/I][/U] [B]2 a[/B][B]: [/B]an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion [B]b [/B][B]: [/B]one who acknowledges no religious belief [B]3[/B][B]: [/B]a disbeliever in something specified or understood - [B]infidel [/B][I]adjective [/I] [B]Two remaining points: [/B] (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes This statement tells us much more about the [URL="http://www.islamophobia.org/"]Islamophobes[/URL] themselves than about Muslims, however. (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam. (A relevant link this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.) [B]THE QURAN: [/B] (1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in[URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/096.asp"][B]chapter (surah) 96[/B][/URL]][B]. [/B] (2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good. (3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" 2:194also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" 41:34]). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the [I][B]situational[/B][/I] and [I][B]contextual[/B][/I] factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#194"]]2:194][/URL]) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse 16:126 gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text. (4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190]). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims [B]can [/B]and [B]should [/B]co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256) (5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "[I]But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.[/I]" One of the main concerns of [I]Chapter (Surah) [/I]9 of the Quran (a [I]Surah [/I]is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts. (6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse 9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "[I]So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/I]" Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5"]9:5[/URL]), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#6"][]9:6[/URL]), "[I]If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.[/I]" Understanding the verses' [B][I]historical[/I][/B] context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/008.asp#61"][8:61][/URL]), "[I]And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.[/I]" The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of [B]all [/B]available Quranic evidence. A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)[/release] [URL]http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp[/URL] Islamic rulers welcomed Judaism, Christianity and other various beliefs into their nation. For example; when Spain was ruled by the Muslims. But when Spain was ruled by the Christians, they only allowed Christians to enter. So tell me, which religion is the hostile one here that refused to acknowledge other religions?[/QUOTE] I missed this. You obviously didn't read any of my posts. Historical context does not abrogate the clear and explicit commands to "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." If historical context can abrogate the word of Allah, then the word of Allah isn't eternal, and therefore not omnipotent and therefore Allah cannot be divine. You also obviously ignored Critical Thoughts post, here: [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=21452049&postcount=211[/URL] where he demonstrates what the Ulema think about Surah at-Taubah. They overwhelmingly agree that the imperialist commands contained within stand for all time, rather than being confined to that particular pagan tribe.
[QUOTE=ZapDing;21465129]I'm fucking SICK and TIRED of fucking Muslims or fucking immigrant dickheads coming in without the correct paperwork and getting a house, a car, a fucking £300 week dole and all paperwork filled out with them, FUCK asylum, FUCK illegal immigrants, FUCK the government. I want the BNP to change their rules to not "Get every nigger out the country" to "Get every fucking [B]ILLEGAL[/B] immigrant out of this country. God damn fucking country, government, here's a tip - Stop fucking sucking the thumb of immigrants - LISTEN TO YOUR PEOPLE. FUCK![/QUOTE] Hear that Griffin? you gotta answer to zapding's racist throw down. [editline]09:05PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21465458]As long as Labour is out of power it's an improvement[/QUOTE] Thatcher, a fuck up, was Conservative. [editline]09:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21466217]I already posted this, but the Crusades were a retaliatory response to centuries of Muslim aggression and encroachment. And if you're so opposed to the Crusades than why are you in support of Jihad?[/QUOTE] for example? you don't know what a jihad is lol [editline]09:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=heatsketch;21466531]I never said Christianity isn't vile. I said that Christianity doesn't involve permanent warfare against unbelievers until the world is only for God and Jesus. Nothing you quote here commands that. What you need to do is compare the people the members of each faith seek to emulate. Jesus was celebate, while Muhammad fucked a 9 year old girl.[/QUOTE] The whole kill all non-believers thing kinda points towards that. Joe fucked a 12 year old, what's your point? [editline]09:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21467493]No, go back to colouring and playing with blocks. There will be plenty of time for you to hate Islam when you grow up.[/QUOTE] lol yes, we get it, you can google. [editline]09:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rago;21467512]I'm muslim, but I don't want to take over Britain ;([/QUOTE] whoa, slow down bro, have you read clinicalthought's posts? of course you do and you want to kill everyone
Funny we can get the Muslim to admit defeat but not the non-Muslim, who at this point is just shit posting.
[QUOTE=heatsketch;21467726] No one here, at least that I have seen, has said all Muslims want to do anything.[/QUOTE] your little buddy said they wanted to kill him btw [editline]09:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21470523]Funny we can get the Muslim to admit defeat but not the non-Muslim, who at this point is just shit posting.[/QUOTE] what Muslim admitted defeat?
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21470551]your little buddy said they wanted to kill him btw[/QUOTE] I don't feel like sifting through 8 pages of quotes, please show me. [editline]08:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Not Tishler;21469880] The whole kill all non-believers thing kinda points towards that. Joe fucked a 12 year old, what's your point?[/QUOTE] I guess you missed the part where I explained that verse from the bible: [quote]It's referring any heathens within the biblical land of Israel and Judea, not the world at large. That's the difference. If you were correct, then Zionism would be a globalist rather than regional phenomenon (some people do believe Zionism is a globalist phenomenon. they are known as "national socialists")[/quote]Godwin's law ;) That Muhammad fucked a 9 year old girl is relevant, you would realize that if you had actually read any of what I wrote.
We aren't being "bred out". "They" aren't "taking over". People who believe that Islam is trying to systematically take over are being ridiculous - no more credible than those who believe in a "Jewish banking conspiracy". The videos in the OP are xenophobia at it's finest. Nothing but extremist propaganda in itself. The footage of the gatherings can be taken from anything - some of it could be of a protest march, or some other noble cause, edited together with other clips from different news stations to place Muslim communities in a bad light.
I said I am marked for death in an increasingly Muslim world. If the world were Muslim, I would be put to death.
[QUOTE=dirty harry;21471113]We aren't being "bred out". "They" aren't "taking over". People who believe that Islam is trying to systematically take over are being ridiculous - no more credible than those who believe in a "Jewish banking conspiracy". The videos in the OP are xenophobia at it's finest. Nothing but extremist propaganda in itself.[/QUOTE] Except that the Qur'an and Sunnah, and all schools of Madh'hab that interpret them, are very clear on what they command: eternal warfare to subjugate the infidel. The idea of global jihad is based on Islamic texts and Islamic teachings, not proven hoaxes created by agents of the Russian tsar, or gibberish written by Henry Ford. But have you studied the texts and precepts of Islam? Did you read a single thing that I wrote? Talking about being bred out is politically incorrect, but if you knew anything about demographics you would understand that it is a legitimate concern. White Europeans are having children at rates that see their populations halfing every generation, whereas Muslim families have, on average, 2 or more children. Do the math.
Also, statistics pulled from arses: [QUOTE]The fact that the Muslims are breeding ten times faster than us[/QUOTE] What is his source?
[QUOTE=dirty harry;21471269] What is his source?[/QUOTE] I can vouch for that, its just common human motive. Poor people have more children, that's fact. Arabians/Pakistanis etc usually come from a poor background and thus have more children than say a White British couple who are well off. Some move here and still have more kids, its part of the culture. As they will get richer (or their children) they will be less likely to have more children - that's just common practice. Why do you think people in Africa have so many children? It is hope that one might become successful. Its not them trying to take over, rather its just a human motive that's conflicting with a fear. But its pretty obvious the poor are the majority and they say what goes, as the British public get more rich and successful we need workers to do the jobs we don't, thus immigration comes into play, these come from anywhere from Pakistan to Poland, thus they will become majority over the years as the classical British working class man dies, the culture shifts and so does opinion and belief - thus the law is changed. That's common fact and you have to accept that as the future goes on, I for one accept it even if don't really like the idea. However, that is just human fear of change.
European Total Fertility Rates ([I]UN TFR number 2010[/I], [B]CIA TFR number 2009[/B]): Ireland [I]1.95[/I]/[B]1.85[/B] (Catholics lol) France: [I]1.9[/I]/ [B]1.98 [/B](Almost there!) Norway [I]1.85[/I]/[B]1.8[/B] Finland [I]1.8[/I][B]/1.7[/B] Denmark [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.75[/B] Sweden [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.7[/B] Serbia [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] UK [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Netherlands [I]1.7[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Luxembourg [I]1.65[/I]/[B]1.8[/B] Belgium [I]1.65[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Estonia: [I]1.5[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Portugal [I]1.45[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Macedonia [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.6[/B] Switzerland [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.45[/B] Italy [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Austria [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Spain [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Moldova [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Malta [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Germany [I] 1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Croatia [I] 1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Russia [I]1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Greece [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Bulgaria [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Romania [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Latvia [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Hungary [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.35[/B] Slovenia [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Lithuania [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Slovakia [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.35[/B] Czech Rp. [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Poland [I]1.2[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Ukraine [I] 1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Bosnia [I]1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Belarus [I] 1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Monaco [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.75[/B] EU [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Liechtenstein [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Andorra [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Note that some nations, like France, Norway, Sweden and Denmark have experienced minor increases in TFR between 2005 and 2010 (I didn't post the 2005 numbers, you can look them up yourself). The TFR surveys do not take ethnicity, religion or national status into account. The nations that experienced the increase are also the nations with the most Islamic immigration (and the idea that immigrant birth rates automatically reduce to the same as the host nations is laughable). These Islamic immigrants are the ones responsible for the minor increase in TFR. France in particular has an Islamic population of around 10%. Nations with little or no Islamic immigration, like Switzerland, Moldova, Malta, Balkan states, Romania, remain static or suffer a drop. Germany, with steady levels of Islamic immigration, has remained about even at a dangerously low 1.35. The only European nation where the indigenous population has a total fertility rate above the population regeneration rate of 2.1 is Albania, the majority of ethnic Albanians being Muslim. Bosnia and Herzegovina has an extremely low TFR of 1.2, but it is less than half Muslim, and the Serbs committed gendercide against the Bosnians during the balkan conflicts, resulting in a birth dearth. [editline]09:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=dirty harry;21471269]Also, statistics pulled from arses: What is his source?[/QUOTE] The UN and the CIA. I didn't know that such large organizations could exist in my ass. It's pretty tight, ya know. The same source as above gives the TFR for the following Islamic countries who's citizens regularly immigrate to Europe as follows: Afghanistan [I]7.0/[/I][B]5.6 [/B]Somalia [I] 6.0[/I] /[B]6.5[/B] Pakistan [I]3.5[/I]/[B]3.4[/B] Morocco [I]2.4[/I]/[B]2.3[/B] Bangladesh [I] 2.8[/I]/ [B]2.75[/B] Turkey [I]2.1[/I]/[B]2.2[/B] Jordan [I]3.1[/I]/[B]3.4[/B] Egypt [I] 2.9[/I]/[B]3.0 [/B]Oh, and no one said "The fact that the Muslims are breeding ten times faster than us", so stop paraphrasing in a way that twists what people say.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21471115]I said I am marked for death in an increasingly Muslim world. If the world were Muslim, I would be put to death.[/QUOTE] I didn't even have to swift through quotes, thanks Clincalthought.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21472161]I didn't even have to swift through quotes, thanks Clincalthought.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and I said that no one here said anything about "all Muslims". If the world was under Shariah law, unless Critical Thought paid Jizya and felt willingly subdued, he would be marked for death, so what he says is accurate. No where did he say "all Muslims want to kill me". You are paraphrasing and putting words in his mouth just like dirty harry is doing with me.
[QUOTE=heatsketch;21471947]European Total Fertility Rates ([I]UN TFR number 2010[/I], [B]CIA TFR number 2009[/B]): Ireland [I]1.95[/I]/[B]1.85[/B] (Catholics lol) France: [I]1.9[/I]/ [B]1.98 [/B](Almost there!) Norway [I]1.85[/I]/[B]1.8[/B] Finland [I]1.8[/I][B]/1.7[/B] Denmark [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.75[/B] Sweden [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.7[/B] Serbia [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] UK [I]1.8[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Netherlands [I]1.7[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Luxembourg [I]1.65[/I]/[B]1.8[/B] Belgium [I]1.65[/I]/[B]1.65[/B] Estonia: [I]1.5[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Portugal [I]1.45[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Macedonia [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.6[/B] Switzerland [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.45[/B] Italy [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Austria [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Spain [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Moldova [I] 1.4[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Malta [I]1.4[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Germany [I] 1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Croatia [I] 1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Russia [I]1.35[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Greece [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Bulgaria [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Romania [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.4[/B] Latvia [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Hungary [I] 1.3[/I]/[B]1.35[/B] Slovenia [I]1.3[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Lithuania [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Slovakia [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.35[/B] Czech Rp. [I]1.25[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Poland [I]1.2[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Ukraine [I] 1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Bosnia [I]1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Belarus [I] 1.2[/I]/[B]1.25[/B] Monaco [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.75[/B] EU [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Liechtenstein [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.5[/B] Andorra [I]N/A[/I]/[B]1.3[/B] Note that some nations, like France, Norway, Sweden and Denmark have experienced minor increases in TFR between 2005 and 2010 (I didn't post the 2005 numbers, you can look them up yourself). The TFR surveys do not take ethnicity, religion or national status into account. The nations that experienced the increase are also the nations with the most Islamic immigration (and the idea that immigrant birth rates automatically reduce to the same as the host nations is laughable). These Islamic immigrants are the ones responsible for the minor increase in TFR. France in particular has an Islamic population of around 10%. Nations with little or no Islamic immigration, like Switzerland, Moldova, Malta, Balkan states, Romania, remain static or suffer a drop. Germany, with steady levels of Islamic immigration, has remained about even at a dangerously low 1.35. The only European nation where the indigenous population has a total fertility rate above the population regeneration rate of 2.1 is Albania, the majority of ethnic Albanians being Muslim. Bosnia and Herzegovina has an extremely low TFR of 1.2, but it is less than half Muslim, and the Serbs committed gendercide against the Bosnians during the balkan conflicts, resulting in a birth dearth. [editline]09:45PM[/editline] The UN and the CIA. I didn't know that such large organizations could exist in my ass. It's pretty tight, ya know. The same source as above gives the TFR for the following Islamic countries who's citizens regularly immigrate to Europe as follows: Afghanistan [I]7.0/[/I][B]5.6 [/B]Somalia [I] 6.0[/I] /[B]6.5[/B] Pakistan [I]3.5[/I]/[B]3.4[/B] Morocco [I]2.4[/I]/[B]2.3[/B] Bangladesh [I] 2.8[/I]/ [B]2.75[/B] Turkey [I]2.1[/I]/[B]2.2[/B] Jordan [I]3.1[/I]/[B]3.4[/B] Egypt [I] 2.9[/I]/[B]3.0 [/B]Oh, and no one said "The fact that the Muslims are breeding ten times faster than us", so stop paraphrasing in a way that twists what people say.[/QUOTE] Compare Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco etc. to the other countries... It's not a hell of a lot you racist twit. [editline]10:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=heatsketch;21472192]Yeah, and I said that no one here said anything about "all Muslims". If the world was under Shariah law, unless Critical Thought paid Jizya and felt willingly subdued, he would be marked for death, so what he says is accurate. No where did he say "all Muslims want to kill me". You are paraphrasing and putting words in his mouth just like dirty harry is doing with me.[/QUOTE] If the world followed ANY Abraham law, a hell of a lot of people would be put to death. Probably more so Christianity then Islam. btw, Shariah law =/= the Quran.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21472238]Compare Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco etc. to the other countries... It's not a hell of a lot you racist twit. [editline]10:55PM[/editline] If the world followed ANY Abraham law, a hell of a lot of people would be put to death. Probably more so Christianity then Islam. btw, Shariah law =/= the Quran.[/QUOTE] You obviously haven't read any of what I have written before those statistics. Shariah law came about through the exegesis of the Sunnah, which is the words and deeds of Muhammad as related by the Sahaba (authenticity determined by the chain of isnad) and the biography of Muhammad (the Sirat). The Qur'an, not being written in chronological order and containing many non sequiters, is very hard to decipher without the aid of the Hadith, and almost every mainstream school of Islam, especially the Sunni madh'hab, subscribe to the Sunnah as an inseperable part of Islam. There are indeed Qur'an Alone Muslims, but they are rejected by mainstream, orthodox schools of Madh'hab as hypocrites or apostates. And how is pointing out the difference in fertility rates "racist"? Moroccans, who immigrate mainly to central European nations like Germany, have a birth rate above the PRR, compared to the ethnic German rate of 1.35 or less (probably less considering 1.35 includes TFR, not just indigenous birth rates). 2.3/4 is alot more than 1.35, especially when you multiply it by generation (evidence that younger, 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants in Europe are being more radicalized than there parents, who for the most part just wanted freedom, doesn't help things). I mean, seriously, it's basic math. A rate of less than 2.1 means that the population decreases with each generation, in Germany it's almost halfing. Whereas the Moroccan immigrants have birth rates that increase their population over time. Unless these trends drastically reverse, the outcome is obvious and inevitable. Can you do basic math?
[QUOTE=heatsketch;21472932]You obviously haven't read any of what I have written before those statistics.[/quote] because your word is infallible? [quote] Shariah law came about through the exegesis of the Sunnah, which is the words and deeds of Muhammad as related by the Sahaba (authenticity determined by the chain of isnad) and the biography of Muhammad (the Sirat). The Qur'an, not being written in chronological order and containing many non sequiters, is very hard to decipher without the aid of the Hadith, and almost every mainstream school of Islam, especially the Sunni madh'hab, subscribe to the Sunnah as an inseperable part of Islam. There are indeed Qur'an Alone Muslims, but they are rejected by mainstream, orthodox schools of Madh'hab as hypocrites or apostates.[/quote] you DO realize there are different sects of Islam, right? [QUOTE] And how is pointing out the difference in fertility rates "racist"? Moroccans, who immigrate mainly to germany, have a birth rate above the PRR, compared to the ethnic German rate of 1.35 or less (probably less considering 1.35 includes TFR, not just indigenous birth rates). [/QUOTE] It's not that great of a increase lol compare it to the Irish Immigrating. They bred like flies so far the Irish haven't killed everyone who isn't Catholic. [quote]2.3/4 is alot more than 1.35,[/quote] 2 is greator then 1? fuck me, since when? [quote] especially when you multiply it by generation (evidence that younger, 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants in Europe are being more radicalized than there parents, who for the most part just wanted freedom, doesn't help things).[/QUOTE] so... a slight increase in fertility means you're all going to die? what exactly is your point? [editline]11:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=heatsketch;21472932] I mean, seriously, it's basic math. A rate of less than 2.1 means that the population decreases with each generation, in Germany it's almost halfing. Whereas the Moroccan immigrants have birth rates that increase their population over time. Unless these trends drastically reverse, the outcome is obvious and inevitable. Can you do basic math?[/QUOTE] uh, what's your point? Does being a racist come with the arrogant fucker package?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.