The term refers to "allegiance and disassociation"--namely, whom a believer associates with and allies themselves with; and whom they disassociate from and oppose. While the concept has basis in the Qur'an and Sunna, it is promoted (through narrow, negative definition and understanding) by many of radical or intolerant ideologies to create a danger attitude of enmity towards any "other"--whether Muslims who don't fit a narrowly-defined mold of "right understanding and conduct" or non-Muslims in general. This intolerance and negativity is far from the guidance and example of our Beloved Messenger Muhammad.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=15939&CATE=1
Perhaps I am a little over-optimistic, but I found the talk given by a group affiliated to East London Mosque strangely reassuring, rather like listening to an old-fashioned fire and brimstone sermon, which Christians no longer go in for, and which I have only read about. I really don't think these beardies and burqaed ladies want to blow us up. They just want to change us and make us better than we are.
Already aware that "strict segregation will be enforced" I was not surprised or resentful to be politely told by a rotund and bearded man to sit at the back, which was where I wanted to sit anyway.
"We will pray. That will take 10 minutes and then we will begin our talk", he informed me.
Then, they left in a group for about 5 minutes before returning, and may have discussed me and what to say or not say with an impressionable kuffar in their midst.
Soon, the ladies mostly in burqas shuffled in. They all had English accents. There were a few African-types who only covered their heads. A boy, about 5, pointed and laughed at my kuffar appearance and clothing and was shushed, but to no effect, because he did it again a bit later. (I was not wearing a burqa as the woman in charge of him was.)
Chairs were folded and leaned against the wall, shoes were shed. The boy could not contain his mirth at my incongruity.
More latecomers shuffled in during prayers accompanied by a pleasantly musical recitation.
Prayers finished, the sermon began.
"Moderates" - what does this mean?" asked the big bearded man's bearded slimmer companion. "These are the government-appointed scholars, the Muslims recruited by MI5, the Army, the police. In short, those cursed by Allah!
The Muslim Council of Britain and Ed Hussein of the Quilliam Foundation were high on the hate list. His name was Muhammad, but started calling himself "Ed", just to fit in with the kuffar, we were told.
The subject of the sermon, ie whom and what to hate and love in the name of God, was expanded upon.
The brothers who demonstrated in Luton and insulted the returning soldiers by calling them rapists and babykillers were declared to have understood this and praised. The moderate Muslims who denounced those brothers were in turn denounced for their cowardice and hypocrisy. Those were the Muslims who only wanted to enjoy their religion in peace, without wishing to spread the word, as is their Islamic duty.
All true Muslims would want sharia law, wherever they are. It is just a Muslim thing to want. There are however no countries in any part of the world that implement sharia law as it is meant to be.
A rather distasteful analogy was drawn. If a liquid was 99.9% milk but 0.1% urine, would you drink it? Sharia must be 100%!
"Don't sit with the homosexuals." There is the Camp of Imam and the Camp of Kuffar. One is sharia and the other is shit. (At least that was what I thought he was saying until I realised later that he may have meant shirk - which means ascribing partners to God, which includes the religion of prophet-worship known as Christianity, as well as others forms of idolatry.)
"There is no such thing as being in the camp in between." (Bush: "You are either for us or against us!")
"Although I hate you, I will never be unjust to you" (is what you could say to reassure any kuffar you may alarm).
"We believe in discrimination" (presumably meaning that he wished to be able to discriminate between the moral equivalent of urine in milk and between what is sharia and what is not).
Distinguish yourselves from the kuffar. If they wear their watch on their right hand, you wear it on your left; if they eat with their left hand, you eat with your right; if they write the question mark in one way, you write it the other way. (The last one aroused bemused laughter.)
"Nationalism is a disease." (I waited for his rant about the wickedness and racism of the BNP, but they were not mentioned at all. Instead he railed against Pakistanis thinking themselves better than Bengals, and the divisiveness of this sort of ideology.)
"Even atheists follow something, though they claim not to. They wear lucky charms."
"We don't celebrate Mother's Day or Father's Day or birthdays. We must be different! We will grow our beards long, if it is their practice to trim theirs. We will grow beards, if it is their custom to be clean-shaven!"
"We hate drunkenness, drugs, alcohol, pornography."
"The Islamic system is superior simply because it is divine."
Apparently, 8000 laws have been enacted against Muslims by the Labour government.
The Muslim who protested against the Danish cartoons with a "Down Down Denmark" placard apparently received 6 years, recently reduced to 4.
"Democracy is hypocrisy." (In the form we currently have, there is no denying this.)
"Laws have been used to define terrorism. Yet what is a terrorist or an extremist but a Muslim, according to those laws?"
"For true Muslims, an extremist is one who goes beyond the sharia or who does not come up to its standards."
"According to UK law, you are an extremist if you condemn homosexuals. Your also an extremist if you condemn British soldiers in Muslim lands."
Another analogy is drawn: "Think of your sister raped, your father killed and your house bombed. And they expect us to be grateful when they later mend the kitchen sink?!"
"The MCB say the soldiers were just doing their job. Can we also say that bin Laden was just doing his job?"
There is a vacuum in the Muslim community, of those who will agree to anything the government says just to be left in peace to pray and fast. They are the Chocolate Muslim, who melt when the going gets tough.
The caliphate should be implemented as soon as possible for the good of all.
"Bright light hurts your eyes only if you have been in the dark for too long."
"The future is not orange. It is Islam." Sharia law is being agitated for, apparently, from Xinjiang to Chechnya to the UK.
On the ignorance of the some Muslims: "Bosnia? Isn't that a washing machine?"
"Muslims have a duty to implement Sharia."
The Covenant of Security was mentioned. This is explained at
http://www.islam4uk.com/about-us
Covenant of Security
As Muslims living in the UK we abide by a Covenant of Security, which prohibits us from violating the life and property of all non-Muslims here in Britain. We do not encourage any forms of terrorism on this website whatsoever and furthermore believe if any Muslim were to break this Covenant of Security that it would be a violation of the Sharee’ah.
There are 4 ways an Islamic State can come about:
- a Muslim state is established, eg Somalia.
- Non-Muslims accept the invitation that is dawah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah
- "they surrender"
- "fighting" (He did not say the J word, but was perhaps more specific in that he must have meant the R word.)
Questions were taken after the sermon.
The most interesting question posed was how to answer people who say: "Go move to a Muslim land then if you hate it so much here."
Surprisingly, this question was acknowledged to be a good question, and a rather quaint old-fashioned English phrase used, ie "What are we to say to them when they tell us to sling our hooks?" (The delightfully villainous Captain Hook of an Abu Hamza comes to mind. But poor Abu Hamza! Why was his hand cut off? And what did he steal?)
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/29/messages/1070.html
"The whole world belongs to Allah!" was the glib answer.
There was laughter after a joke about claiming benefit, which I did not quite catch because the little boy who found my presence so amusing was now throwing paper planes, and did not cease and desist his distracting activities even when many bearded men turned crossly to glare at him.
Then, rather poignantly, the following points were made, points which might not be out of place in a BNP meeting:
"They way to kill a man is to cut him off from his own roots."
"We forget ourselves when we forget our own history."
The oppression secularism and capitalism was also mentioned.
Since supporters of both are motivated by the same pain, caused by the lack of an identity that they can be proud of, the following extracts are illuminating.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001671.php
Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as "verbal diarrhoea".
"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."
Although unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community."
http://www.islam4uk.com/non-muslims/62-non-muslims/123-the-race-problem
Racism is not just a black thing or brown thing but something that affects us all regardless of our colour. Yes, even white people can be the victims of racism.
[This is just so BNP that I am beginning to wonder if these Muslims are fishing in the same waters and also reaching out to the disgruntled white proletariat. There is even a photograph on their webpage of a white nationalist by an England flag looking young white and proud. Is there an intentional subliminal message that says "Islam also understands your pain, white boy, and welcomes you, too"?]
"Victory is not driving a luxury car. It is sharia!"
"And ... struggle with your women!" was the final exhortation.
This made a few of us at the back giggle, me included. I do not remember the men laughing. Perhaps they had no women to struggle with, or did not regard struggling with women as a laughing matter ...
I was handed a card by a lady with kind brown eyes (for that was all I could see of her in her burqa) in charge of paper plane-throwing, obstacle course-running and door-slamming boy, who suggested that this meeting may be too advanced for me, because it was for the hard core (not her words). Saturdays between 2 and 5 at the East London Mosque when they have their New Muslim Circle ("Kuffar Converts"?), would be more my thing, she thought.
The card announces an event on 27th March 2009 further details may be found at http://www.islam4uk.com/:
We see them in prisons, being tortured, persecuted and extradited. We
also see them on the run and being chased by authorities.Who are they?
They are the scholars .... the likes of Sheikh Abu Qatadah, Sheikh Abu Hamza have been imprisoned while others like Sheikh Omar and Sheikh Faisal have been demonised and driven out.
What are they wanted for?
The only crime they have committed is that they believe in Allah and fearlessly speak the truth and carry the message of Islam. Simply these scholars have the vanguard of light and righteousness, radiating the party of Islamic monotheism (tawheed) and exposing the evil corrupted beliefs and actions of polytheism (shirk). These are they who dare to speak the truth at a time when people are afraid .... Just like the Prophets were persecuted for spreading the truth, the scholars today are similarly prosecuted. How many a prophet was vilified by his people, jailed ... or driven out and mocked .... Pharaoh killed babies to stop the spreading of the truth so he could remain in power. Today the pharaohs have changed but the tactics remain the same. It is a sad fact that scholars continue to be kidnapped, imprisoned, exiled or even worse, for no crime except believing in Allah and His Deen [Islamic ideology] and speaking in defence of the Ummah in the face of a brutal war waged by non-Muslims against Islam.
What is the importance of these scholars? What are their characteristics?
"Verily the Prophets did not leave behind dirhams and dinars, but rather they
left behind knowledge." .... They are those who do not seek any worldly gain nor
to appease the rulers.What is our duty?
We must support them with our wealth and our tongues. We must expose the evil propaganda from the media of the present day pharaohs and we must absolve them from the lies attributed to them.
My conclusion is that these people are not dangerous. (A concerned friend who knew where I would be going warned: "Do be careful. These people are dangerous and Oxford House is infamous for being a seedbed of Islamist radicalism!") I now believe they are merely segregationists who speak exactly what is on their mind and who do not wish to be contaminated by the decadence and sin of Soddom & Gemorrah New Britain. There may well be a few of them who will take things to extremes, but then the BNP have their Combat 18, and Sinn Fein now have their Real IRA.
They have an unfortunate way of expressing themselves on the subjects of
manual amputation -
http://www.islam4uk.com/non-muslims/62-non-muslims/119-british-legal-system-vs-shariah "The Islamic Judicial System: Burglars will have their hand cut off, provided they fulfil the seven conditions for this punishment. They are not permitted to have it surgically replaced."
This seems rather harsh and extreme because the verse dealing with thieves explicitly says you are to forgive them if they express remorse. It is beyond the Koran in terms of punishment and not up to Koranic standards of forgiveness, since it is unimaginable that any thief caught red-handed would not express remorse. Allah is stated to be oft-forgiving, and this means it is certainly possible that a thief could be forgiven more than once.
5: 38:
As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deed and exemplary punishment from Allah amd Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.5:39:
But if the thief repent after his crime, and amend his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
adultery -
Anjem Choudary has said "we" want to stone adulterers while their website appears to approve of fornication being punished by flogging (100 lashes), the deterrent value of adultery and homosexual fornication being both punished by public execution, even though the Koran does not prescribe this.
"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."
(Qur'an 4:15-16)
Their position is incoherent and inconsistent and therefore not to be taken seriously, methinks.
The accents I heard were without exception local, ie local London and English. They, the brown dispossessed, have something in common with the white dispossessed, both of whom are having their faces stamped on by the boot of political correctness.
While BNP supporters seek succour in being white and proud, these Muslims seek to be Muslim and proud. Successive governments have not been able to give us - and I mean all of us who are citizens in this once great country - the means to be positively British and proud, because they lack the vision to conceive it, the words to articulate it and the courage and competence to implement it.
Those reading who are Islamophobes may well be comforted by the fact that middle class and affluent Muslims are more hated for their spinelessness than the kuffar. They may also be comforted to know that these alienated Islamic youth will not succeed in their jihad to make Islam attractive, nor turn Britain into an Islamic state until and unless they moderate their language, and cease using language that antagonises their elders and the kuffars.
In the long run, modest Islamic tact will work far better than fiery Islamist rhetoric. This is something that youth - and they were all without exception young - in its defiance refuses to acknowledge. But youth will one day make way for maturity, and bluntness concede to discretion. In this way do we who are older and wiser (of all races and religions) submit to the Realities of Life ...
12 comments:
This form of youth-driven Islam will probably not make way for maturity. It has been around for quite a while in the East End, as Ed Husain has documented.
Husain himself turned away from it - he turned informer, so to speak, by alerting mainstream society to the existence of this kind of extremism - earning opprobrium from other Islamists as a result.
Meanwhile others of Husain´s generation (now in their 30s) became local councillors, especially for the Respect Party, and began to act like responsible citizens instead. One way or another they grew up - and left this strident nonsensical form of radical Islam behind.
Perhaps this will happen one day to the young people at this meeting too, and a new generation of firebrands will rise up and take their place.
What will not happen though, is that the ideology itself will grow up in any way. It is destined to remain forever locked in adolescence.
And what a farrago of total adolescent nonsense it is.
Painful & boring to read, how much worse it must have been to have actually been at this meeting.
There are many things one might comment on - but I shall stick to the supposed similarity between people like this and the BNP.
First, a correction - the BNP do not ´have their Combat 18´. The latter group began as a security operation for the BNP nearly 20 years ago and was subsequently infiltrated by the State. If it still exists at all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the BNP.
One lack of similarity between this lot and the BNP is that the BNP is, of course, nationalist, whereas these Muslims are actually attacking nationalism. Most of those at the meeting would have been second- or third-generation Bangladeshis - yet they were being encouraged to overlook their genuine roots & connections they possessed to their mother country in favour of a religious ideology.
I do agree that modest Islamic tact will work better than fiery rhetoric. Unfortunately for the Islamists, the fiery young rhetoricians are unlikely to go away in a hurry. And as you pointed out, they hate spineless middle class Muslims even more than the Kuffars. Not much chance of the two groups successfully working together then.
Which brings me to a last point of difference between this gang and the BNP - the BNP are now a relatively moderate & reasonable nationalist party and they have positioned themselves quite well to win middle-class votes.
By contrast, this lot will never win the confidence of any fully-grown, mature adult.
I'm no scholar, just a simple Muslim convert of almost three years. I wanted to say that perhaps the verses you mentioned have been abrogated by other verses. The revelation of the Quran was revealed over a period of 23 years. And some legislative aspects of the Quran were in stages. E.g. - Alcohol: The consumption of alcohol was allowed for a time, then the first verse of three was revealed (paraphrasing).. "and do not pray whilst drunk". Effectively cutting down the consumption, but still allowed. Then the second verse "... there are benefits in alcohol, but the harm outways the benefits.." The last verse to be revealed concerning alcohol ".. don't even go near alcohol".
Thank you, Dean, for your comment. However, whether or not one thinks alcohol is absolutely prohibited or not, the point is that moderation is to be used at all times. There is even a verse that says the vine is a gift of God.
If one were to accept a gift of God that happens to be wine, then it behoves us to sip it delicately, savouring it respectfully rather than downing it in one!
How are you finding life after your reversion, Dean?
Al walaa wal baraa is a religiously inspired hatred of "the other". Al walaa wal baraa is hating "the other" for the sake of Allah. "The other" has committed the thought crime of not thinking Mohammed is a real prophet. He deserves to die. It is mercy to live him as a slave under Muslims. That is pure al walaa wal baraa. There is no doctrine so firmly supported by Islam's primary texts. Any Muslim who disagrees with the above is an innovator and should be executed. Islam has painted Muslims into the corner with no way out.
Al walaa wal baraa makes it impossible for a Muslim to live by the Golden Rule. A Muslim may never give genuine love or genuine friendship to the kufaar who are so najis Allah hates them "greatly".
Al walaa wal baraa is totally unacceptable in the 21st century.
If one is asked to love what is good, then one must hate what is evil. I assumed that this was what they meant.
I am in any case entirely against the British way of tolerating low standards of behaviour and low standards of education. I HATE the supineness of those who worship the God of Expediency, and am proud to do so.
For this reason I found the exhortation to hate what is objectionable enough to do something about it as entirely rational.
These young men have repeatedly declared that they are not violent and that their religion forbids them to commit acts of terrorism under the Covenant of Security.
I too feared these Muslims before I attended this meeting, but no longer do.
Their act of revolution is merely to loudly and repeatedly declare, in the face of outrage and hatred, that it would be better for non-Muslims to submit to Allah and His laws.
I have no objection to this form of political activism.
The purpose of all political supremacy is to suppress "the Other".
Al Walaa wal Baraa is the philosophical justification for global Islamic supremacism. No political consultation of the "Other" will ever be required once the global Islamic state is installed. From that point on, no infidel will possess any civil right, but will be accorded privileges not to be persecuted by the state if they remain compliment to state edicts promulgated by one-man rule. All power will be concentrated in the president-for-life...the kalipha chosen by a junta.
If this is what you want, you are the sworn enemy of all the freedoms for which millions shed rivers of blood in the wars of the 20th Century.
You are a supremacist totalitarian. Unfortunately, you have never lived as a minority under such a system. Pity. You would not want it if you had. The people of Iran have tried it for the last forty years, hate it and want to be free of it.
Totalitarian is inherently unjust since it is based on unjust, supreamacist doctrines like al Walaa wal Baraa.
May I just point out that totalitarianism could potentially exist in ANY ideology?
The Koran actually says "There is no compulsion in belief."
2:256
Al Walaa Wal Baraa refers to "allegiance and disassociation"--namely, whom a believer associates with and allies themselves with; and whom they disassociate from and oppose.
There is nothing wrong in working out what and whom you should oppose in the same way that you should always work out what is good and what is evil simply because opinions differ.
Whether you get that right, only time and history will tell.
In itself it is a very useful concept and a moral and philosophical exercise.
Dear Andromeda,
My point is that totalitarianism appears in the absence of the Golden Rule.
Since Islam contains no Golden Rule, Islam has never recommended following the Golden Rule. Islam has many exhortations to "hate" the "other". We are now talking about dehumanzing other human beings, calling them sons of pigs and monkeys, "dirty", "the worst of animals". This is very worrisome. In the last week, mullahs in Pakistan told their followers to "make mincemeat of the Christians". Eight innocent people were burned to death because of such bigotry. The point of hating others is to "purify" society for "my kind of people" and "purge" the "other"...as if they were some sort of poisoned imprecious metal...not people with nerves who can writhe in agony as they burn to death.
Are you ashamed of the mobs in Pakistan. Is that what you think Islam is about?
Islam is both a political system of governance under a world-dominating Caliph and a series of religious rites and practices. The practices are proclaimed by the mullahs and enforced by the Caliph who at present is absent and much lamented by about three quarters of all Muslims.
"Forcing" people to live by the rules of someone else's political system without representation is called "totalitarianism". It is refreshing that you admit that is your political philosophy...that you believe in depriving "the other" of freedom of expression...Please note, freedom of expression means the right to say something you will not like to hear.
I must draw your attention to the fact that liberal democracy has the opposite point of view to Islamic totalitarianism: There must be representation and all people must have freedom to disagree. You oppose all that it seems.
I am glad you have the courage to say so.
Dear Andromeda,
My point is that totalitarianism appears in the absence of the Golden Rule.
Al-Baraa is not just "opposing"...it is active "hatred" and a religious form of apartheid. Al-Baraa means:
- To Hate
- To keep distance from
- To be enemy to
- To desert
- To decline to help
- To disrespect
- To put down
- Not to ally with
- Not to support
Al-Walaa wal-Baraa is a perfect example of tribalism, the philosophy which supports "my group" at the expense of all others. This is the beginning of totalitarianism and it can only occur if the Golden Rule is ignored or non-existent...as it is in the Koran. Allah left it out.
Since Islam contains no Golden Rule, Islam has never recommended following the Golden Rule. Islam has many exhortations to "hate" the "other",because Allah hates them. We are now talking about something very dangerous: we are talking about dehumanzing other human beings, calling them "sons of pigs and monkeys", "dirty", "the worst of animals", "the party of Satan", etc. Angry words like these are very worrisome...especially if one is not part of the group making the hate speech.
In the past week, mullahs in Pakistan told their followers to "make mincemeat of the Christians". Eight innocent people were burned to death because of such bigotry and forty homes were burned out. The point of hating the "other" is to "purify" society for "my kind of people" and "purge" the "other"...as if these people were some sort of poisoned imprecious metal...not dear people with nerve endings and loving families who can writhe in agony as they burn to death.
Are you not ashamed of the mobs in Pakistan? Is that what you think Islam is about? This is an example of totalitarianism. You do not want to admit that the violent speech in the Koran and Ahadith lead directly to violent acts.
Islam is both a political system of governance under a world-dominating Caliph and a series of religious rites and practices. The practices are proclaimed by the mullahs and enforced by the Caliph who at present is absent and much lamented by about three quarters of all Muslims.
"Forcing" people to live by the rules of someone else's political system without representation is called "totalitarianism" and it is the opposite of the Golden Rule. It is refreshing that you admit that is your political philosophy...that you believe in depriving "the other" of freedom of expression...Please note, freedom of expression means the right to say something you will not like to hear.
I must draw your attention to the fact that liberal democracy has the opposite point of view to Islamic totalitarianism: There must be representation and all people must have freedom to disagree. You oppose all that it seems.
I am glad you have the courage to say so.
Dear Andromeda,
My point is that totalitarianism appears in the absence of the Golden Rule.
Al-Baraa is not just "opposing"...it is active "hatred" and a religious form of apartheid. Al-Baraa means:
- To Hate
- To keep distance from
- To be enemy to
- To desert
- To decline to help
- To disrespect
- To put down
- Not to ally with
- Not to support
Al-Walaa wal-Baraa is a perfect example of tribalism, the philosophy which supports "my group" at the expense of all others. This is the beginning of totalitarianism and it can only occur if the Golden Rule is ignored or non-existent...as it is in the Koran. Allah left it out.
Since Islam contains no Golden Rule, Islam has never recommended following the Golden Rule. Islam has many exhortations to "hate" the "other",because Allah hates them. We are now talking about something very dangerous: we are talking about dehumanzing other human beings, calling them "sons of pigs and monkeys", "dirty", "the worst of animals", "the party of Satan", etc. Angry words like these are very worrisome...especially if one is not part of the group making the hate speech.
In the past week, mullahs in Pakistan told their followers to "make mincemeat of the Christians". Eight innocent people were burned to death because of such bigotry and forty homes were burned out. The point of hating the "other" is to "purify" society for "my kind of people" and "purge" the "other"...as if these people were some sort of poisoned imprecious metal...not dear people with nerve endings and loving families who can writhe in agony as they burn to death.
Are you not ashamed of the mobs in Pakistan? Is that what you think Islam is about? This is an example of totalitarianism. You do not want to admit that the violent speech in the Koran and Ahadith lead directly to violent acts.
Islam is both a political system of governance under a world-dominating Caliph and a series of religious rites and practices. The practices are proclaimed by the mullahs and enforced by the Caliph who at present is absent and much lamented by about three quarters of all Muslims.
"Forcing" people to live by the rules of someone else's political system without representation is called "totalitarianism" and it is the opposite of the Golden Rule. It is refreshing that you admit that is your political philosophy...that you believe in depriving "the other" of freedom of expression...Please note, freedom of expression means the right to say something you will not like to hear.
I must draw your attention to the fact that liberal democracy has the opposite point of view to Islamic totalitarianism: There must be representation and all people must have freedom to disagree. You oppose all that it seems.
I am glad you have the courage to say so.
Perceptor, I don't know why you should think that I would approve of violence in Pakistan.
I am not in fact a Muslim and am an atheist interested in religion.
Islam is a more coherent and better-structured religion than Christianity.
I do not deny that many Musims distort their religion and pervert it according to their own preferences.
It is not exactly unknown for people of the same faith to fight and kill each other.
As you must love the things that are good, so must you hate the things that are evil.
To know the difference we must exercise our Reason.
The Koran is a better guide than The Bible. It is a shame that quite often Muslims themselves do not know it very well.
I couldnt think you are more right!!!
Post a Comment