British moslems say terrorism justified!!!

Anything can be funny.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL


As the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it's revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: "If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens."


This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.


There has been no widespread backlash against the Muslim community. Quite rightly, the majority of us can only extend sympathy to those who must feel mortified that, within their vast numbers, lurks a bunch of lunatics with one shared ambition - to bring about the destruction of our democracy.


Except, of course, that many Muslims are in an even greater state of denial than the rest of us about terrorism: "It's hyped up", "The government hates Muslims and so does Tony Blair" and "Muslims feel like there is an underlying agenda against us," are a selection of comments from Walthamstow in East London, the neighbourhood targeted by anti-terror raids last week.


Anyone would think they'd forgotten the banners at a demo, just a few miles down the road, last February which read: "Europe You'll Come Crawling When Mujahedeen Come Roaring".


I find it hard to believe any decent Muslim shares such extremist beliefs but it's equally hard to argue these views aren't held by "radicalised" youths or whatever name you want to give the murderous minority who preach jihad.

It's unfashionable to say it, but some of us are beginning to find the Muslim victim culture a little tiresome.


And Dr Pasha's words have not helped. If you were cynical you might even believe he was trying to provoke a fight.


Ditto the group of prominent Muslims who penned an open letter suggesting Muslim youths are alienated by Britain's foreign policy, so it should be changed.


Why exactly? To placate a handful of home-grown terrorists and terrorist sympathisers?


In other words the rest of us can only be safe if THEY get a foreign policy that suits them. The Mafia would call this extortion. Give us what we want and we'll do our best to stop the baddies blowing you up.


Muslim leaders should know better but let me remind them: Britain's foreign policy is decided by a democratically-elected government (a rarity in the Muslim world).


If the public does not approve of this policy, it is perfectly free to vote one lot out and put another in. In short, we favour the ballot box over the bomb. And let's not forget, Tony Blair's party won an election after the decision to invade Iraq.


Just as Islamic fundamentalism had taken root before 9/11. Back in 1994 Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, spoke on a platform bedecked with a banner proclaiming: "Death To The Enemies Of Islam."


That sentiment is as true now as it was then, the borders have allowed more preachers of sedition to infiltrate Britain with the consequence that some mosques have been run by fundamentalist clerics.


If this government can be accused of anything - apart from a ludicrously out of control immigration policy - it is permitting, in the name of multi-culturalism, ghettos of hate to flourish in our inner-cities.


Ghettos which embrace mosque schools where Muslim pupils spend much of the day learning the Koran and Islamic tradition, but little of British values.


There are enough wedges between us without introducing more in the form of Sharia Law or Muslim Bank holidays.


Nor should we feel it necessary to beat ourselves up because willing recruits, who happen to be born here, have signed up to become human bombs.


Some people, John Reid reminded us last week "just don't get" the seriousness of the threat facing the West.


What will it take to understand? Ten planes destroyed and thousands of innocents dead while the family of the perpetrators weep into the cameras and say, "he wouldn't do a thing like that".


Oh yes he would. And believe me, he will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its no joke it was in a book written by salman rushdie. They refer to an event in Muhammad's life which is recorded and accepted as authentic by the earliest Islamic scholars: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari
While Muhammad was in Mecca he tried to persuade the Quraysh (Meccans) to accept Islam. They were not receptive to him and made life difficult for him and his followers, and so Muhammad's desire to see his people accept him and Islam was unfulfilled. This was until Muhammad recited the following verse.

Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq [3] whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)

Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now Muhammad accepted the idols and recited that their "intercession is approved". The Islamic explanation as to why Muhammad accepted the idols is that Satan put these words on Muhammad's lips.

Satan ... put upon his (Muhammad's) tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved". (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)
Muhammad recited these words as if they were from God when in fact they were from Satan. This is what is meant by the phrase, the Satanic Verses: they are verses from Satan that Muhammad recited as if they were from God. Now that Muhammad had recited that the idols were acceptable the Quraysh accepted him

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And...?

 

You can just paste the link.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I totally agree. The British should not give in.

If they want a holiday on Friday, they can move to Saudi Arabia.

Frankly I do NOT believe in "special treatments"; they are divisive and harmful in the long run.

 

The Quraysh accepted Muhammad because he had accepted their gods and idols. However, after some time Muhammad realised the error of what he had said. The Islamic explanation is that angel Gabriel rebuked Muhammad and held him accountable for what he had said.

Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said , "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166)
Muhammad now said that God had now told him to speak against the idols and to reject them. What Muhammad recited now changed. Previously it had been:

Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq [3] whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)
Now the verse became:

Have you considered El-Lat and El-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other? What, have you males, and He females? That were indeed an unjust division. They are naught but names yourselves have named, and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. (Qur'an 53:19-23, Arberry)
This final form of the verse is what is now in the modern Qur'an.

The Quraysh noticed that Muhammad had now changed his message:

When the annulment of what Satan had put upon the prophet's tongue came from God, Quraysh said: "Muhammad has repented of what he said about the position of your gods with Allah, altered it and brought something else." (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166-167)
Muhammad now had to explain both to his followers and to the Quraysh why he had changed his mind about their idols and no longer accepted them. The reason he gave was the following verse of the Qur'an.

Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. (Qur'an 22:52, Dawood)

Muhammad's explanation was that his momentary acceptance of the idols was because Satan had tampered with his wishes and given him words that he thought were from God, but that God had now removed these verses and corrected the whole situation.

Such an event as Muhammad speaking the words of Satan and momentarily accepting idolatry and polytheism demand some comment. Aren't Prophets supposed to work for God?

 

This Ibn Ishaq?

 

doesn't the hadith also records several other occasions where verses of the Quran were modified, changed or deleted?
It was not only Ibn Ishaq but Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari who recorded and accepted the details of this event as well. If this story was told by people opposed to Islam then it would be fair to question whether they had invented this story as a way of discrediting Muhammad. But it is inconceivable that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari would invent a story about Muhammad accepting idols.

 

Muhammed died 632

Ibn Ishaq died 773

Ibn Hisham died 834

Ibn Sa'd died 845

Al Tabari died 923

Hisham, Sa'd and Tabari quoted Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq's original work itself has not survived.

But anyway all this is moot because...

[15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

 

and your point...?

 

Just that what you have is the the translation of the quote from an original (written 100 years after the original, which itself we do not know was or was not the original) which is missing and was written from oral traditions which the author himself declared he did not verify (i.e. no direct line of evidence, as in Hadith, which is why Ibn Ishaq is not included in the Hadith) and which was written around 140 years after the fact.


This is evidence of what?

 

yes Indy, true, Islam does mean submit to the will of God, but all this proves is that all the Quranic/biblical prophets including Mosses, Abraham and Jesus (PBUT) followed Islam. So all the prophets were muslim and therefore preached Islam

 

Unbelievable.

You muslim automatons never cease to amaze me. Wake up man, we're in the 21st Century!

 

Good Morning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They all stem from the so-called Abrahamic religious heritage.

Both Christianity and Islam, for example, accuse Judaism of stubbornly refusing to accept later revelations that modify and update its original truths. Both Judaism and Islam accuse Christianity of a kind of idolatry in claiming that God begat a son who as actually a form of God and who walked the earth in human form. Both Judaism and Christianity argue that God did not give a special, final revelation to Muhammad. In each case these religions have looked at one another and said that, despite elements of deep commonality, there exist also fundamental heresies.

As each religion developed, it sought the support of government. It often sought to be the government. Truth was to be reinforced by power. Basic competition over spiritual and philosophical truths spilled over into competition also for tax monies, office, land, and public acceptance of specific ritual and architectural symbols, and suppression of opposition. When they could, these religions marched through the world armed. The idea that the state and religion should be separated appeared as early as Augustine; but until recently, in the lands where these three religions predominated, the state and religion were usually intimately bound up with one another, and in many places, the religion of the leader of the state was excepted to be accepted as the religion of his subjects, or at least to be given preferred treatment over others.

Religions with less insistence on doctrinal correctness, such as Hinduism, and Buddhism, have had less, and less bitter, religious warfare

The need for continuous assurance and verification fo doctrinal writings only goes to shows the vunerability of the religon as it moves into a era where people are free to question these discripancies.

 

we do our best my friend!!!!

However what i say is true.

If you asked Jesus or any of the prophets (PBUT) whether they submit to the will of God then they will say yes.

 

Were not Automaons some baddies in Dr Who

 

i am of the jewish faith, and i dont see a problem with muslims thinking this.

why do other people? ill tell you why: ego.
it is no different than me saying that these prophets were teaching "green elephantism doctrine"...in other words, it doesnt matter what we call it, if the teachings ring true.

 

in judaism, the most important law of all is to observe the words on idolatry. this is the reason for the division between modern christians and jews.

in judaism, we believe that the age of prophecy ended, and we are now to live by the teachings that were given before. this is the difference between muslims and jews.

there is no reason that a believer in any religion cannot learn from another belief system.

it is possible for a jew to be a christian, by the strictest definition of the term. in fact, most jews are more christian than christians.

it is possible for a jew to practice islam, as well. to be honest, most of the differences between judaism and islam are purely cultural. i consider myself to be a jewish muslim christian buddhist, for the most part.

in other words, labels serve no purpose other than to divide "us" from "them", and have no benefits to society at large.

 

Vega, very good post, but people have been questioning the Catholic Religion since it was established, and they were declared heretic, the one that I am most familiar with is Martin Luther, and his Nailing the 95 Theses to the Door of the Castle Church, which by the way is a legend, but the Theses set in motion the event which lead to the The Imperial Diet of Worms, and a complete break from the Catholic Church, and on going back to the relationship of man to God, and the focus on salvation that came only from the final act of submission by Gods Son on earth to pay the final blood sacrifice for the world, and that the church was no longer needed to intercede between man and God.