Oh yeah, the Woolwich murderer was quoted as saying

"We are forced by the Quran"

Still not a true Muslim aye?

Religion of peace.

Yeah exactly! Just like Muslims practice (freedom of religion) in extreme Islamic countries! They had no problems with the US impeding on their national (Afg/Irq) sovereignty so I don't see why Angola would have a problem with Muslim extremists strapping bombs to themselves and dishing our some reprisals...

One law for them, another for the rest...](*,) ](*,)

But it's different because they know they're right and everyone else is wrong. :oops:

Edited by zimbos_05: 28/11/2013 09:50:32 AM

I think you said something similar to me a couple years ago about some other verses. Still waiting. :-"

My thoughts exactly.

What annoys me though, is when Muslims blame the West for their issues. The West is slightly responsible, but on the whole it is the followers of Islam that make trouble for themselves.

They make their own bed, they sleep in it.

This Sharia Law movement in England bothers me a great deal. Labelling their local communities rife with "western decadence" and enforcing Sharia above the law...if they don't like western society, why don't they just fuck off back to their bomb-crater riddled homelands?

Did i? I am a very forgetful person. Excuse me. You might have to re-jog my memory on which ones?



I met quire a few muslims in England who would complain about their queen and thier government. Then i would say, why not get involved in your society then. Join a political party or go out and seek information on what is going on and then make informed decisions and become active. Then id just get a shrug and whole topic would be dropped.

I don't really remember either. I think it was verses about sex slaves and hitting women. But dont worry about it, I was probably just trolling like 433 is :p

Troll or not. I said i will look in to these and answer and this is what i have.

1) This verse was revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiya. Muslims had a stronghold in Medina. The non-muslims had established an autocracy and were persecuting muslims, in Mecca, preventing them from visiting their homes. It was intolerance and oppression against the Muslims who lived in Mecca. The treaty of Hudaibiyah was to uphold no bloodshed and that all would live in peace practicing the faith they chose. This treaty was broken by the pagans at the time. This verse was revealed for the time, not for all time.

2) I cant find much on this verse in particular. It is important to note that you can not take one verse out of the quran and expect to understand its true meaning. Many verses need to come together, that is why the Quran is split in to 30 chapters with 114 different, stories (surahs) if you will. From what i gather, this surah addresses the non muslims directly. It is inviting them to the religion, but also warning them should they reject Allah.

3) Once again, you have paraphrased the whole line (ayat) as it is in the Quran. Cant pick and choose words and expect to understand whats going on. I cant read two words from the first line of a novel and then 3 words of the next line, put them together and expect to understand what im reading. This surah is about war. Allah is saying to the angels, that he will grant the believers frimness and strength in war and cast fear in to the eyes of the enemies (at the time of war) and as war would have it, heads get chopped and fingers cut. Its explaining the vulnerable parts of a human to help the muslims in battle. If you cut off their fingers, they cant yield weapons, its a tactic of war.



Edited by zimbos_05: 28/11/2013 09:49:23 AM

I know what you mean have you seen this?

Sharia Zones in England

I can tell you right now ginger beard was born in the UK.

This should be taken seriously. These Shariah zones are a slap in the face to the law of the land. I wish offenders could be charged with the likes of treason as to spend a hell of a long time in prison for having such disrespect for British laws.

Gl with that in Australia :lol:

-PB

Shariah Zones not only break british law, but they break Shariah Law. The people who impose these zones and claim them as theres should be thrown out the country.

Edited by zimbos_05: 28/11/2013 03:10:18 PM

It's reassuring to know that of all of the different "flavours" of Islam, with all of the different interpretations of what is encouraged/acceptable/tolerated, by a happy stroke of luck you follow the real version, and can say with such absolute certainty that others have got it wrong. ;)


(Of course, this applies to any follower of any branch within any religion. Reminds me of this old joke...)

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.






NB: I agree with you to a degree about the political/legal side of this. I am of the opinion that anyone attempting to establish a new set laws in a country in opposition to the existing laws should, by definition, be charged with treason.

Salafis and Wahhabis should be banned, the nasty stuff that the Saudis export.

Those movements are a real threat to western society, ironically the U.S. are in bed with the Saudis.

Edited by iridium1010: 28/11/2013 05:24:36 PM

15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Saudi, as was Bin Laden himself.

Funny how few people know that.

Also on the topic of September 11, the master planner of the attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was allowed to live in safety and luxury in Qatar by Qatari government minister Abdullah bin Khalid Al Thani, a member of the Emir (King) of Qatar's Al Thani family.

I dont claim to be of the 'real version' as you put it. I follow the Hanafi school of thought and that is one of the 4 accepted schools of thought. There are these new schools of thought that have risen strongly in the last few decades and if you follow the Quran and Sunnah, you will know these schools of thought are wrong. Extremism is not a school of thought. It is a radical ideology that has no place in any religion, let alone Islam.

Shariah law stipulates that you should follow the laws and rules of the country within which you abide. It also states that imposing Shariah Law in non muslim countries is not allowed. Now these people who choose to impose Shariah Law are obviously not obeying Shariah Law, hence they fail to acknowledge and implement the first rule of Shariah Law in terms of living in a non islamic country.

I dont claim to be the only correct one on the topic of Islam. Like i said, there are four other schools of thought and each muslim follows one of the four, well at least should. I can only give you what i have been taught and what i understand and know. If you feel that what i spout is incorrect then so be it, but i highly doubt that anyone spouting radical extremist bull crap could be considered a good follower of any religion.

How do you define a non muslim country? If England is 51% muslim it is a muslim country?

No. As stated before, you cant impose your cultures, beliefs, and religious laws on a country. So if hypothetically a muslim was to become PM, he wouldnt be able to institute Shariah Law all of a sudden.

I find it amusing (and quiet sad) how valid and honest criticism can be interpreted as "trolling" (and by extension racist). Says alot about the world we live in.

1) Fair enough.

2) Playing the old context card again. :lol:

Your paraphrasing of the verse makes it seem alot more peaceful than it actually is. He is directly threatening non-believers to join or be killed. Hardly a peaceful and tolerant faith then?

3) More context :lol:

I didn't pick and chose my words, it is a direct quote. Besides, it is not about a war against an enemy, it is about a war against unbelievers.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid bigoted racist troll :roll:

I didnt call you a bigoted racist troll. I am actually just talking nicely and all chilled out.

2) Im not paraphrasing the verse. I have told you i do not have much information on the verse itself, but i am talking about the whole surah from which the verse comes from.

3) You actually missed out two lines in the beginning but never mind. It actually is about war against the enemy. The enemy at the time was the nonbelievers. Allah is addressing the angels regarding the battles of Badr and Uhud in which the muslims were heavily outnumbered and the angels asked, "how can the muslims win?" In addressing the angels, he indirectly addresses the people and gives them a tactic.

There are plenty of people who are trying to though. That's the worrying thing.

Thats true. It is worrying and quite sad. This is one of the things i hope to be able to do. Is learn enough so that i can be able to interact with such people and hopefully aim to change the way we do things and go about doing things.

Islam says that each muslim must spread the religion. So some take the extreme version and think they need to be all holy war and extreme and unless you muslim you must die infidel nonsense. But thats not the way to do it. The only way to do it, is through good action, good deeds, and compassion.

I understand Angola have come out and said they've never banned Islam.

Yeah I was going to post more articles of the denials from their Ambassadors but there's also new articles coming out from Angola saying it's going ahead, so believe who you want I guess.

This whole thing just gets more and more weird.

It seems that in Angola a religious organisation needs to have 100000 members to be officially recognized as a religion. There are less that 100000 Muslims in Angola, perhaps around 90000 only, so they do not meet the requirement of being an official religion.

Whether this constitutes a ban is another thing as it seems that the government usually allows unrecognized organisations to exist and practice.

According to this article, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/angola-accused-banning-islam-mosques, Islam was one of 194 organisations that had applications of the recognition rejected recently. So even if it is a ban on Islam it is also a ban on the other 193 organisations as well so it does not seem to be something specifically against Islam.