Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 30, 2016, 05:21:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95606 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam, theocratic politics, & political freedom
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Islam, theocratic politics, & political freedom  (Read 65324 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 959


« Reply #200 on: July 28, 2015, 02:38:14 PM »

MUSLIM MODERATES RALLY AGAINST TERROR IN IRELAND

All fifty of them.

July 28, 2015  Robert Spencer   

Everyone has been waiting for this for years, and at last it has happened. The historic happening took place in Ireland, a nation hitherto not distinguished for standing in the cultural vanguard, but all that will change now, thanks to a rally hosted by a group calling itself the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council, which has finally delivered to the world the desire of the ages: Muslims rallying against terrorism!

Surely tens of thousands of Muslims attended, right? You know, that vast majority of Muslims who abhor and reject terrorism? Those moderates upon whom the leaders of Western countries are betting the very futures of their nations turned out in droves, didn’t they?

Well, not exactly. RTE News reported this on Sunday about the blessed event: “Up to 50 people took part in a rally organised by the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council to protest over the actions of the so-called Islamic State.”

That’s right. I’m afraid the turnout was, uh, fifty people. Not fifty thousand. Fifty. And not only that, but according to the Irish Examiner, the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council “faced resistance from a few members of the Islamic community, while promoting the event.” Not just verbal resistance, either: “Organisers said that a member of the council was assaulted by someone at a mosque who claimed to support ‘ISIS’, while he was handing out leaflets to promote today’s protest against terrorism.”

So not only did the vast majority of moderate Muslims fail to show up, but the group protesting against jihad terror faced active resistance from other Muslims. When have we heard about a Muslim who wanted to join the Islamic State facing active resistance, even to the point of assault, from moderate Muslims? We have seen Muslims express bewilderment that they went, and anger at the government (whether of the U.S. or Britain) for not stopping them from going, but we have not generally seen Muslims doing anything themselves to prevent them from going.

What’s more, this is not the first time that attendance at a Muslim rally against terrorism has been decidedly underwhelming. In October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.”

And back in 2005, a group called the Free Muslims Coalition held what it dubbed a “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” intending to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.” In the run-up to the event it got enthusiastic national and international publicity, but it ended up drawing about twenty-five people.

Contrast those paltry showings to the thousands of Muslims who have turned out for rallies against cartoons of Muhammad or against Israel. Here are some headlines from the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in January 2015:

Chechnya: 800,000 Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons; protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere

Pakistan: 10,000 Muslims protest against Charlie Hebdo’s Muhammad cartoons

Australia: 1,000 Muslims rally against Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of speech

Kyrgyztsan: 1,000 Muslims rally: “I am not Charlie, I love my Prophet.”

But given a chance to show how Muslims overwhelmingly reject “extremism,” only a handful show up.

This is just the opposite of what the situation should be if the mainstream narrative about Islam and jihad were true. We should be seeing pro-jihad terror Muslims opposed strenuously within their own community. Instead, those who oppose jihad terror are the real “tiny minority of extremists,” hounded and opposed by their fellow Muslims.

You’d think that some of the non-Muslim analysts who have been confidently telling us that moderate Muslims will any day now rise up against their “extremist” brethren and take back their religion from those who have “hijacked” it would get a clue from all this, and realize that the moderates have had almost fourteen years now since 9/11 to rein in the “extremists,” and have not done so, and are not going to do so.

But they won’t. They will be out there with their pom-poms again to cheerlead for the next “moderate Muslim rally against terror” – and they’ll not have to strain their pocketbook all that much to buy a nice halal dinner for everyone who shows up.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #201 on: August 14, 2015, 10:21:56 PM »

I recall conversations where using the term "Islamofascism" was considered some sort of insulting sloganeering. And then I read a piece like this and wonder how folks who can get so worked up over a coined term that contains more than it's share of congruence to reality can't find a commensurate measure of outrage in face of information such as that found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=1
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13710


« Reply #202 on: August 14, 2015, 11:38:37 PM »

I recall conversations where using the term "Islamofascism" was considered some sort of insulting sloganeering. And then I read a piece like this and wonder how folks who can get so worked up over a coined term that contains more than it's share of congruence to reality can't find a commensurate measure of outrage in face of information such as that found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=1

Waiting for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims to leap into action anytime now.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #203 on: September 01, 2015, 12:26:00 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216627/Koran-Birmingham-thought-oldest-world-predate-Prophet-Muhammad-scholars-say.html

Apparently the Daily Mail is not considered a fully reliable source, so let's look for confirmation.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 959


« Reply #204 on: September 01, 2015, 03:46:02 PM »

This claim has been seriously challenged by more than one non-Muslim scholar, and I'll have to re-visit the details and post them here.
Further - there is serious doubt among non-Muslim scholars as to whether Muhammad actually existed as an historical figure.  See Robert Spencer's  superb book: "Did Muhammad Exist?"

www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/1610171330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441140289&sr=8-1&keywords=did+muhammad+exist

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #205 on: September 01, 2015, 07:38:58 PM »

Thank you Obj.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 959


« Reply #206 on: September 02, 2015, 03:26:42 PM »

As I mentioned earlier:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/scholars-catch-up-to-robert-spencer-realize-ancient-quran-challenges-islams-origins.html/

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #207 on: September 07, 2015, 01:02:21 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=446686175512153
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13710


« Reply #208 on: September 10, 2015, 01:07:38 AM »


Religion of peace.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #209 on: November 16, 2015, 10:25:58 PM »

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13710


« Reply #210 on: November 17, 2015, 04:26:12 AM »


Well, that explains why the vast majority of peaceful muslims rose up and crushed ISIS back in2014.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13710


« Reply #211 on: November 17, 2015, 07:59:48 AM »


"Somewhat controversial" per NPR.  rolleyes

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4055/exclusive-banned-cleric-outspoken-deputy-visits#

Exclusive: Banned Cleric's Outspoken Deputy Visits White House

by Steven Emerson and John Rossomando
IPT News
June 26, 2013


Radical Egyptian cleric Yusuf Qaradawi is considered so radical that the United States bans him from entering the country.

Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, has called for the killing of Jews and Americans.

That history makes the June 13 White House meeting with Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyah all the more inexplicable. Bin Bayyah is vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a group founded by and headed by Qaradawi. The IUMS has a long history of supporting Hamas –a top Hamas leader is an IUMS member – and of calling for Israel's destruction.

Bin Bayyah's website claims that he met June 13 with senior Obama administration officials at the White House.

Nonetheless, it was the Obama administration which sought the meeting with Bin Bayyah, his website's account said.

"We asked for this meeting to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars (another name used for the IUMS)," Gayle Smith, senior director of the National Security Council, reportedly said.

Bin Bayyah's June 13 account placed other senior officials in the meeting, including: Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri. But the account was later changed to delete the reference to Donilon's presence at the meeting.

Smith also thanked Bin Bayyah for "his efforts to bring more understanding amongst humanity" during the meeting, the Bin Bayyah account said.

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comments between June 14 and Tuesday.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

Bin Bayyah lobbied the White House to "take urgent action" to help Syrian rebels. "We demand Washington take a greater role in [Syria]," Bin Bayyah told Al-Jazeera. President Obama later announced plans to arm Syrian rebels.

In granting Bin Bayyah a visa, White House officials ignored his radical statements as well as his close connection to Qaradawi. The IUMS's hostility toward Israel, and its support of terrorists, is well documented. Bin Bayyah falls comfortably in line with that view.

For example, in a 2011 statement on his Arabic-language website, he criticized the West for placing Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others in the same category as al-Qaida:

"[P]lacing the Palestinian resistance, which defends internationally recognized rights, on an equal footing with intercontinental terrorist organizations (al-Qaida) is not based on any moral principle and would be detrimental to the cause of the fight against terrorism and mix the cards and raises questions to the world conscience and serves terrorists."

The IUMS welcomed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as a member in February 2012. The "Union will spare nothing in the service of the Palestinian people, praising the jihad of the Palestinian people with the leadership of the Hamas movement for resistance," Haniyeh's induction certificate said.

A 2004 fatwa, issued while Bin Bayyah was an IUMS board member, sanctioned "resistance," meaning attacks on American troops in Iraq as "a duty on every able Muslim in and outside Iraq."

Jamal Badawi, a longtime ISNA board member, also is listed as a member of the IUMS Board of Trustees. Badawi has repeatedly defended Palestinian terrorism including suicide bombings. His name appears on the first page of a 1992 telephone directory of Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, and he is listed as a fundraiser in records from the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas financing trial.

Badawi's radical views fit in well with the IUMS, which has issued numerous statements against peace with Israel, calling for the "liberation of Palestine" from Jewish control. Each statement has been unyielding in calling on Muslims to destroy Israel and in forbidding them from making peace with the Jewish state.

After a board of trustees meeting in December, the IUMS issued a communique calling on Hamas and Fatah to reconcile in the name of "the core Palestinian values (including the right of return and resistance until the liberation of Palestine and its capital Jerusalem) … Meanwhile, the union calls on the scholars of the nation to continue their religious role in enlightening the local and international public concerning the dangers that this Judaization policy in Jerusalem poses for the historic unity of the Palestinian territories which is religiously impermissible to give up one inch of it."

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, circled in red, is shown at the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) board meeting in Doha, Qatar in December. The trustees issued a concluding statement at the meeting calling for Israel's destruction and the return of Palestinians exiled after the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. (Photo:IUMS)

A photo on the group's website shows Bin Bayyah was present at the meeting.

In 2009, it issued a fatwa forbidding any normalization of relations with Israel. It came on the 42nd anniversary of the Six-Day War, and Israel's capturing of the Temple Mount.

"All political, economic, and cultural dealings and all forms of normalization with the Zionist entity are considered to be a form of supporting and sustaining the occupier in its occupation of land and holy places," the fatwa said. "Moreover, such actions are considered a form of loyalty to the enemy, which is religiously prohibited; as Allah (Exalted and Glorified be He) says: 'And if any amongst you takes them as Awliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), then surely he is one of them.'(Al-Ma'idah 5: 51). In conclusion, we call on all Muslims, rulers and citizens, to undertake their role, and embark on rescuing Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Blessed Land and freeing them from the clutches of the Zionist occupation."

Just last month, an IUMS-affiliated Egyptian cleric blamed the United States and Israel for driving Egyptian opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government. Khaled Kholif invoked the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as evidence of his argument, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch reported.

"America and Israel are pleased with [the Egyptian opposition] movements, which are led by the brainless," Kholif said during an appearance on Egypt's Al-Hafez television flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "They have said so in The Protocols. Let me tell you exactly what they said in The Protocols: 'We will strive to undermine security in the lands of the Gentiles, through reckless revolutions, led by the brainless.' It says so in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as translated by Khalifa Al-Tunisi.

"If you haven't read it," Kholif said of the Protocols, "you should."

Embraced by American Islamists

Bin Bayyah previously met with White House envoy Rashad Hussain when Bin Bayyah participated in a July 2012 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference in his native Mauritania.

His website also indicates he spoke at the ADAMS Center, a large northern Virginia mosque, while he was in Washington June 12.

In addition to his role as IUMS vice president , Bin Bayyah also is a member of the similarly anti-Semitic Qaradawi-founded European Council for Fatwa and Research and the OIC's International Islamic Fiqh Academy, the latter of which issued a resolution in January 2003 sanctioning Palestinian suicide bombings.

Qaradawi and Bin Bayyah show a keen mutual admiration of each other in their writing. Bin Bayyah notably referred to Qaradawi as "a mountain upon whose peak there is light" and as "a great reformer" who "spreads knowledge and wisdom" in a 2008 article published by Boston cleric Suhaib Webb. Qaradawi returned the favor three days later: "The reality is that the more I have come closer to him and got to know him better, the more I have loved him…"

That article also was published on Webb's site.

And like Qaradawi, Bin Bayyah claims Palestinian violence is acceptable under international law. Islamic law's approval is a given.

"He who adheres to international covenants can resist. The Palestinians. There are international conventions and there are international resolutions which give them rights but do not provide them with the means to obtain these rights. It is their right to resist," Bin Bayyah said during a 2010 Al-Jazeera broadcast. "So, that which says resistance, says kinds of resistance, including the use of weapons. So, international conventions do not stray too far from the interests Islamic Sharia oversees."

Bin Bayyah endorsed a push by Muslim intellectuals to get the United Nations to criminalize blasphemy against the Muslim prophet Muhammad and Islam, saying that it causes violence.

"To people of reason and understanding: We ask everyone to ponder the ramifications of provoking the feelings of over one billion people by a small party of people who desires not to seek peace nor fraternity between members of humanity," Bin Bayyah wrote in a post last fall. "This poses a threat to world peace with no tangible benefit realized. Is it not necessary in today's world for the United Nations to issue a resolution criminalizing the impingement of religious symbols? We request all religious and political authorities, as well as people of reason to join us in putting a stop to this futility that benefit no one."

Considering that this information is readily available on the Internet, it would not have been too difficult for White House officials to uncover that both Bin Bayyah and the IUMS support Palestinian terrorism and Israel's destruction. The White House visit also raises questions relative to the degree the Obama administration is willing to go to court the Muslim Brotherhood both at home and abroad.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #212 on: November 17, 2015, 01:42:30 PM »

Older piece from The Atlantic that speaks to current events:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8024


« Reply #213 on: November 18, 2015, 11:03:56 AM »

Older piece from The Atlantic that speaks to current events:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

BBG, Yes, a must-read to understand current events.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #214 on: November 19, 2015, 11:42:17 AM »

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #215 on: November 23, 2015, 02:51:56 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/EricAllenBell/videos/812261468851843/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #216 on: November 24, 2015, 09:30:08 AM »

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/refugee-resettlement-smart-way-defeat-isis
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #217 on: November 24, 2015, 02:01:25 PM »

Not a stupid piece but the far better call IMHO is to establish safe,no-fly zones over there and to keep them there.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #218 on: November 28, 2015, 10:49:27 AM »

Egyptian Cleric: ISIS Grows out of Islamic Mainstream
by Raymond Ibrahim  •  Nov 25, 2015
Cross-posted from Coptic Solidarity
http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/11/isis-byproduct
 
 
Share:   

Originally published under the title "Al Azhar and ISIS: Cause and Effect."
 
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr heads a group of former Al Azhar graduates who support a civil government.

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt's Al Azhar University—regularly touted as the world's most prestigious Islamic university—recently exposed his alma mater in a televised interview.

After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, Sheikh Nasr said:

It can't [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar's programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?

Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar. Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that "The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches... and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir's Beginning and End."
 
Al Azhar, which the New York Times calls "Sunni Islam's leading religious institution," refuses to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic.

Ibn Kathir is one of Sunni Islam's most renowned scholars; his Beginning and End is a magisterial history of Islam and a staple at Al Azhar. It is also full of Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, committing the sorts of atrocities that the Islamic State and other Islamic organizations and persons commit.

In February, Egyptian political writer Dr. Khalid al-Montaser revealed that Al Azhar was encouraging enmity for non-Muslims, specifically Coptic Christians, and even inciting for their murder. Marveled Montaser:

Is it possible at this sensitive time — when murderous terrorists rest on texts and understandings of takfir [accusing Muslims of apostasy], murder, slaughter, and beheading — that Al Azhar magazine is offering free of charge a book whose latter half and every page — indeed every few lines — ends with "whoever disbelieves [non-Muslims] strike off his head"?

The prestigious Islamic university—which co-hosted U.S. President Obama's 2009 "A New Beginning" speech—has even issued a free booklet dedicated to proving that Christianity is a "failed religion."

In short, the phenomenon known as "ISIS" is not a temporal aberration within Islam but rather a byproduct of what is considered normative thinking for Al Azhar—the Islamic world's most authoritative university.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #219 on: December 17, 2015, 09:55:59 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fb3kjD_UNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #220 on: January 20, 2016, 06:55:26 PM »


Hating Americans Is Official Saudi and Qatari Policy
by Raymond Ibrahim
The Daily Caller
January 18, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/5800/saudi-qatar-hating-americans

Jihadi hate for non-Muslims is not limited to the Islamic State, which U.S. leadership dismisses as neither a real state nor representative of Islam. Rather, it's the official position of, among others, Saudi Arabia — a very real state, birthplace of Islam, and, of course, "friend and ally" of America.
Saudi Arabia's Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas — which issues religious decrees that become law — issued a fatwa, or decree, titled, "Duty to Hate Jews, Polytheists, and Other Infidels." Written by Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1999), former grand mufti and highest religious authority in the government, it still appears on the website.

According to this governmentally-supported fatwa, Muslims — that is, the entire Saudi citizenry — must "oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him."

To prove this, Baz quotes a number of Koran verses that form the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity — the same doctrine every Sunni jihadi organization evokes to the point of concluding that Muslim men must hate their Christian or Jewish wives (though they may enjoy them sexually).

These Koran verses include: "Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your friends and allies" (5:51) and "You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger [i.e., non-Muslims] — even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred" (58:22; see also 3:28, 60:4, 2:120).

After quoting the verses, Baz reiterates:

Such verses are many and offer clear proofs concerning the obligation to despise infidels from the Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslims, as well as the obligation to oppose them until they believe in Allah alone.

Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

Despite documenting its official hatred for all non-Muslims (albeit on a website virtually unknown in the West), in the international arena, Saudi Arabia claims "to support the principles of justice, humanity, promotion of values and the principles of tolerance in the world," and sometimes accuses the West for its supposed "discrimination based on religion."
Such hypocrisy is manifest everywhere and explains how the Saudi government's official policy can be to hate Christians and Jews — children are taught to ritually curse them in grade school — while its leading men fund things like Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (the real purpose of which appears to be to fund influential "Christian" academics to whitewash Islam before the public).

Our other "good friend and ally," Qatar, also officially documents its hate for every non-Muslim — or practically 100 percent of America's population. A website owned by the Qatari Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs published a fatwa titled "The Obligation of Hating Infidels, Being Clean of Them, and Not Befriending Them."

Along with citing the usual Loyalty and Enmity verses, the fatwa adds that Christians should be especially hated because they believe that God is one of three (Trinity), that Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified and resurrected for the sins of mankind — all cardinal doctrines of Christianity that are vehemently lambasted in the Koran (see 5:72-81).

Incidentally, this same Qatari government-owned website once published a fatwa legitimizing the burning of "infidels" — only to remove it soon after the Islamic State justified its burning of a Jordanian pilot by citing several arguments from the fatwa.
In short, it's not this or that "radical," who "doesn't represent Islam," or isn't a "real state," that hates non-Muslim "infidels." Rather, it's the official position of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are presented to the American public as "friends and allies."

Thus, as American talking heads express their "moral outrage" at Donald Trump's call "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," perhaps they should first consider the official position of foreign Muslim governments — beginning with U.S. "friends and allies" — concerning Americans: unmitigated hate and opposition "until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5623


« Reply #221 on: January 21, 2016, 11:36:06 AM »

Inappropriate use of the word "phobia".  Such as Islamaphobia.  This connotes an IRrational fear of Muslims.  But protecting ourselves against a group of which a significant percentage want to enslave us or kill us is a rational response.   We are not neurotic we are rational. 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10801948/fox-news-muslims-threat
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37079


« Reply #222 on: May 11, 2016, 09:16:02 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/isis-threatens-muslim-preachers-who-are-waging-theological-battle-online.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!