thread for other stuff relating to islam

[squeezewax]

apparently there were around 500 people in sydney last night protesting about the way the pedo mohammad has been disrespected lately. 500 is a bit of a worry.

 

[dissolved]

apparently there were around 500 people in sydney last night protesting about the way the pedo mohammad has been disrespected lately. 500 is a bit of a worry.

1 is a worry as far as I'm concerned. Time for the logical free world to start giving a ___ at this 3rd world nonsense.

 

[Ruprecht]

apparently there were around 500 people in sydney last night protesting about the way the pedo mohammad has been disrespected lately. 500 is a bit of a worry.

Hizb ut-Tahrir. Tony wants to ban them.
Funnily enough, they've officially condemned ISIS for announcing Khilafa without meeting Islamic conditions (both locally and internationally). Even insinutating that it's a conspiracy against Islam and the formation of a "legitimate" caliphate. They've always claimed that the Caliphate would be established by non-violent means.
On the other hand, they've point blank refused to condemn ISIS actions, saying it's a justified resistance of, or reaction to, Western interference, and supported them on issues such as this and the Syrian revolution.
It seems that despite their theoretical, ideological and doctrinal views, they've been radicalised by the very existence of a group having a crack at the Caliphate.

 

[squeezewax]

interesting article on the two choices available to the west to fight islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/our-crucial-choice-of-the-war-on-terror/

 

[Zankou]

Hizb ut-Tahrir. Tony wants to ban them.
Funnily enough, they've officially condemned ISIS for announcing Khilafa without meeting Islamic conditions (both locally and internationally). Even insinutating that it's a conspiracy against Islam and the formation of a "legitimate" caliphate. They've always claimed that the Caliphate would be established by non-violent means.
On the other hand, they've point blank refused to condemn ISIS actions, saying it's a justified resistance of, or reaction to, Western interference, and supported them on issues such as this and the Syrian revolution.
It seems that despite their theoretical, ideological and doctrinal views, they've been radicalised by the very existence of a group having a crack at the Caliphate.

I've often said that people misunderstand the nature of Salafist criticism of Islamic State ... it's not that they get Islam wrong, it's that they are *illegitimate* and *too extreme*. Particularly in claiming caliphate authority, which is basically a slap in the face of the reigning Islamic authorities, demanding they recognize and submit to the caliph's authority.

A territorial spat. The major area where you see true religious disagreement between the modern Salafists and the Islamic State guys is over slavery, where the Islamic State guys take the same position that Muslims had almost universally held for 1250 years (slavery authorized by Mohammed/Qur'an) while the modern Salafists have mostly adopted the innovative modern position that slavery is unlawful, at least formally.

Your Aussie organization is a perfect example of this, those guys pretty much 100% agree with Islamic State theology, it's just they don't agree that the guys who set up Islamic State are the 'right guys,' or that their brutal campaign was the 'right way' to establish the caliphate. Although historically speaking, Islamic State again gets that right, as the historical caliphates were established with shockingly violent campaigns that typically ended with them crucifying and/or beheading their opponents ... certainly none of the early caliphates was ever established by a peaceful 'consensus of the Ummah'!!! Unless, I suppose, you include the mythical four rightly guided caliphs.

Incidentally, it's probably the case that Abd al Malik was the first Arab ruler, historically speaking, to claim the title of caliph.

 

[Ruprecht]

I've often said that people misunderstand the nature of Salafist criticism of Islamic State ... it's not that they get Islam wrong, it's that they are *illegitimate* and *too extreme*. Particularly in claiming caliphate authority, which is basically a slap in the face of the reigning Islamic authorities, demanding they recognize and submit to the caliph's authority.

A territorial spat. The major area where you see true religious disagreement between the modern Salafists and the Islamic State guys is over slavery, where the Islamic State guys take the same position that Muslims had almost universally held for 1250 years (slavery authorized by Mohammed/Qur'an) while the modern Salafists have mostly adopted the innovative modern position that slavery is unlawful, at least formally.

Your Aussie organization is a perfect example of this, those guys pretty much 100% agree with Islamic State theology, it's just they don't agree that the guys who set up Islamic State are the 'right guys,' or that their brutal campaign was the 'right way' to establish the caliphate. Although historically speaking, Islamic State again gets that right, as the historical caliphates were established with shockingly violent campaigns that typically ended with them crucifying and/or beheading their opponents ... certainly none of the early caliphates was ever established by a peaceful 'consensus of the Ummah'!!! Unless, I suppose, you include the mythical four rightly guided caliphs.

Incidentally, it's probably the case that Abd al Malik was the first Arab ruler, historically speaking, to claim the title of caliph.

Reading their criticism, it almost just seems like a matter of timing.
They support the Syrian rebellion, but think they shouldn't have declared Khilafa until they'd successfully gained control of the region.

The organization that has announced the Caliphate has neither authority, in either Syria or Iraq, nor did it achieve security and protection internally or externally, even more they have given allegiance (bayah) to a Khaleefah who is unable to declare himself even publicly rather his situation has remained hidden like the situation prior to the declaration of the State! And this is contradictory to what the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم did. Peace and Blessings upon him was permitted to hide in the Thawr Cave before the state, but after the state, he took care of affairs, led the armies, judged in disputes and sent envoys and received them publicly; thus the situation differed before and after the state... Thus the announcement by the organization of the Khilafah is mere rhetoric without any weight, it is similar to those who announced the Khilafah previously, without authenticity on the ground or components, rather to satisfy something within themselves, so there were some who declared themselves as a Khaleefah and others who declared themselves as a Mahdi, and so on ....without having the components, authority, security or protection!

 

[Nostromo]

Do you think its a result of active suppression? Probably more likely the West isn't terribly interested in anyone's history but our own

That's what college is for. You can learn all the foreign history you want there.

 

[squeezewax]

http://smithandfranklin.com/current...iolence-and-the-Power-of-Beliefs/9/14/74/html



Facebook begins censoring images of prophet Muhammad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-begins-censoring-images-of-prophet-muhammad/

 

[ShinkanPo]

I have a question, the muslims living in my area has increased in the last 10 years

They are also building a Mosque a block away

Just a few months ago a new Neighbor has move in and it happens to be Muslim should I be worried?

 

[LionExMachina]

I really enjoy discussing the Islamic Golden Age. I'm not genuinely interested in Islam as a personal doctrine, but I like discussing the history, schisms, and consequences of the Islamic Middle Ages. The subject intrigues me even more because Western curriculum tries desperately to keep it hidden.

Most of the historical stuff about Islam Ive learned, is from Sherdogs Grand Mufti, Zanku Al-Moddi.