News1 min ago
Reality Of Political Islam
56 Answers
interesting and informative for the curious about islam..
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'll offer a VE précis:
1. Islam means "submission".
2. The "submission" is to God's Law (God, not "the people" - blasphemous concept - is sovereign).
3. It is every Muslim's duty to work to spread Islam.
4. This struggle ("jihad") can be waged peacefully through emigration ("hijra") and advocacy ("dawah"), or, if ordered by a legitimate successor of Mohammed, by force of arms.
I suggest there is not a single imam in the UK who could contest my summary, only the extent (point 2) to which a Muslim is obligated to obey man-made law when living in the "House of War", i.e. any country not living under the sharia.
1. Islam means "submission".
2. The "submission" is to God's Law (God, not "the people" - blasphemous concept - is sovereign).
3. It is every Muslim's duty to work to spread Islam.
4. This struggle ("jihad") can be waged peacefully through emigration ("hijra") and advocacy ("dawah"), or, if ordered by a legitimate successor of Mohammed, by force of arms.
I suggest there is not a single imam in the UK who could contest my summary, only the extent (point 2) to which a Muslim is obligated to obey man-made law when living in the "House of War", i.e. any country not living under the sharia.
thank you for posting this
I am not sure if everyone here has such a short attention span.
this is a Christian talking about Islam
I am not sure if he has read the Quran.
His views on Turkey are sort of interesting - Muslims conquered it in 1453 and didnt sort of outbreed them
His views of Spain and the Reconquest are also interesting.
20m - Irish history can be looked on as white racist - altho neither party seems to realise that the constitution does not give the Roman Ccatholic Church the status of state religion.
I am not sure if everyone here has such a short attention span.
this is a Christian talking about Islam
I am not sure if he has read the Quran.
His views on Turkey are sort of interesting - Muslims conquered it in 1453 and didnt sort of outbreed them
His views of Spain and the Reconquest are also interesting.
20m - Irish history can be looked on as white racist - altho neither party seems to realise that the constitution does not give the Roman Ccatholic Church the status of state religion.
vetuste - // I suggest there is not a single imam in the UK who could contest my summary, only the extent (point 2) to which a Muslim is obligated to obey man-made law when living in the "House of War", i.e. any country not living under the sharia. //
Thanks for the summary.
I am always intrigued by the Western perception that each and every Muslim must (and indeed does!) interpret every call to violence offered by the Koran as a blueprint by which they must live.
That seems to sit oddly, when no-one suggests that a nominally Christian society like ours, is equally obligated to live by the violence suggested in the Bible - "If they right eye offend thee, pluck it out …" and similar.
The simple fact common to both faiths is that both are governed by books from which believers take the bits that fit, and ignore the bits that do not fit with they way they want to live.
That allows the huge majority of Muslims to live peaceful lives as it does for Christians.
The problem arises when a psychotic minority twist the messages into something they can hide behind.
It allows Islamists to pretend that they are carrying out Allah's message, because it is more acceptable to them than to look in the mirror and see a 'warrior for Islam', instead of what is really there, the reflection of someone who likes hurting and killing innocent strangers because they are mentally deranged.
Thanks for the summary.
I am always intrigued by the Western perception that each and every Muslim must (and indeed does!) interpret every call to violence offered by the Koran as a blueprint by which they must live.
That seems to sit oddly, when no-one suggests that a nominally Christian society like ours, is equally obligated to live by the violence suggested in the Bible - "If they right eye offend thee, pluck it out …" and similar.
The simple fact common to both faiths is that both are governed by books from which believers take the bits that fit, and ignore the bits that do not fit with they way they want to live.
That allows the huge majority of Muslims to live peaceful lives as it does for Christians.
The problem arises when a psychotic minority twist the messages into something they can hide behind.
It allows Islamists to pretend that they are carrying out Allah's message, because it is more acceptable to them than to look in the mirror and see a 'warrior for Islam', instead of what is really there, the reflection of someone who likes hurting and killing innocent strangers because they are mentally deranged.
//His views on Turkey are sort of interesting - Muslims conquered it in 1453 and didnt sort of outbreed them//
Him being Warner? Presumably a deliberate and jokey misrepresentation of the man if it's being suggested that he doesn't know about about 1453. Or about 1924, for that matter.
On demography you might consider the proportion of Christians as a percentage of population in Turkey today following Attaturk, the Armenian genocide and the mutual "repatriation" of Turkey's and Greece's Christian and Muslim populations respectively.
On the same demographic issue the attack by Erdogan on secularism and the shift to sharia is almost certainly to do with the differential birth rates of the peasant hinterland and Rumelian Turkey with its embrace of Western values like democracy, secularism, and, of course, the popular culture which includes football hooligans and female pop stars getting null points for the song , but douze points for sex appeal at the Eurovision Song Contest (in the days they entered it).
Him being Warner? Presumably a deliberate and jokey misrepresentation of the man if it's being suggested that he doesn't know about about 1453. Or about 1924, for that matter.
On demography you might consider the proportion of Christians as a percentage of population in Turkey today following Attaturk, the Armenian genocide and the mutual "repatriation" of Turkey's and Greece's Christian and Muslim populations respectively.
On the same demographic issue the attack by Erdogan on secularism and the shift to sharia is almost certainly to do with the differential birth rates of the peasant hinterland and Rumelian Turkey with its embrace of Western values like democracy, secularism, and, of course, the popular culture which includes football hooligans and female pop stars getting null points for the song , but douze points for sex appeal at the Eurovision Song Contest (in the days they entered it).
no I take issue at pt 4
I dont think there is a legitimate successor at present
whether or not an imam would argue with pts 1-4 I dont think they represent what he is thinking
I rather lost concentration at 20m when he said
ah am from the deep sarth and ma daiddy used to say
[ and thereafter there was some awful red neck crap]
I dont think there is a legitimate successor at present
whether or not an imam would argue with pts 1-4 I dont think they represent what he is thinking
I rather lost concentration at 20m when he said
ah am from the deep sarth and ma daiddy used to say
[ and thereafter there was some awful red neck crap]
//no I take issue at pt 4
I dont think there is a legitimate successor at present//
Then you obviously overlooked the if[i in the clause, Peter. (Remind me, that's the [i]apodosis], isn't it? Or is the prostrate? Pedantry is us - must create a blog.)
The famous "renunciation" of ISIS by the Al-Azhar fatwa made exactly that point: Baghdadi appointedquote[himse] to the role. Followed by a load of deceit about why the Koranic endorsement of sexually slavery and the Koranic mandated tax on dhimmis were illegitimate.
I dont think there is a legitimate successor at present//
Then you obviously overlooked the if[i in the clause, Peter. (Remind me, that's the [i]apodosis], isn't it? Or is the prostrate? Pedantry is us - must create a blog.)
The famous "renunciation" of ISIS by the Al-Azhar fatwa made exactly that point: Baghdadi appointedquote[himse] to the role. Followed by a load of deceit about why the Koranic endorsement of sexually slavery and the Koranic mandated tax on dhimmis were illegitimate.
I’ve watched a bit of each video (hopefully I’ll see the rest later), but Christopher Hitchens said something that should aid the confused here who think its book can be read selectively, or that it aligns in any way to other creeds, to greater understanding. He said that Islam is ‘total’ – that word the beginning of ‘totalitarian’ – and he’s right. That’s exactly what Islam is. Some might choose to wage murderous jihad, others to attempt to ingratiate themselves by entering into business or politics, and some may choose simply to nurture future generations, but ultimately each and every Muslim lives his/her life with Islam the foundation and the purpose. Working to proliferate Islam is incumbent upon all Muslims, regardless of gender, status, or nationality. The OP’s video is entitled ‘Reality of Political Islam’ and the reality is that Islam is a religion that is wholly political. It recognises no borders and it entertains no compromise. It is totalitarian.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.