Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)
- Thread starter George Wallace
- Start date
I just wanted to interject here on the wisdom of spreading western democracy. All political systems have strong points and weak points which makes them susceptible to corruption.
My position is that along with all the other recommendations that have been arising; Such as militarily neutralizing Daesh, help rehabilitate these destroyed countries etc... we export a version of the Islamic political system, complete with all checks and balances.
Now I'm open to debate on this, but I find most extremist, use religion as the excuse for recruitment and violence. So if we are exporting a version of Islamic political system that the 99% of Muslims will accept as suitable.. it may take the fire out of the fight potentially.
It may also stop the "white saviour" dilemna and slow down the bigotry against the west. If it was a war military might alone could win, it would be a different issue. But we have to wage war on a perverted ideology. I'll link an article on white saviour complex for those who are unaware.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-savior-complex-go-away
Now before anyone labels me an extremist, the Sharia Law that I follow and believe can coexist peacefully with Western nations.. these idiot terrorists version, not so much. The Islam I follow protects my rights and your rights, it honors women etc (just in case this isnt clear)
Ill provide some links about Caliphate and how they should act. If needed ill expand my position later, but the gist should be apparent (google didnt give a proper write up, but again I think the gist is apparent. I am looking at Muhammad sws at the first four caliphs in particular)
History
http://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
How the First Four caliphs acted
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Umar%27s_era
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_social_changes_under_Islam
So basically my point is there is a defined structure for the Sharia, such as elections of Caliphate etc and there are defined legal rulings as well. But there is loads of evidences that Muhammad sws and the first four Caliphs expanded the rights of people. They took really tough people and tried to reform them, so now we need to dodge a lot of issues here so why not give Muslims a legal and political system most of us want (albeit we have different interpretations). Then if we can revive the sunnah of our early leaders we can slowly expand the rights of our people as our people become ready for it.
We could set it up in the most basic form, then allow Muslims to solidify it and expand it slowly over time. And yes I know there is 50 million problems with this... But as of right now.. what do we have to lose? They are already slaughtering our women and children and extorting the world. Lets face them head on man to man, lets out fight them and out smart them.
Abdullah
My position is that along with all the other recommendations that have been arising; Such as militarily neutralizing Daesh, help rehabilitate these destroyed countries etc... we export a version of the Islamic political system, complete with all checks and balances.
Now I'm open to debate on this, but I find most extremist, use religion as the excuse for recruitment and violence. So if we are exporting a version of Islamic political system that the 99% of Muslims will accept as suitable.. it may take the fire out of the fight potentially.
It may also stop the "white saviour" dilemna and slow down the bigotry against the west. If it was a war military might alone could win, it would be a different issue. But we have to wage war on a perverted ideology. I'll link an article on white saviour complex for those who are unaware.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-savior-complex-go-away
Now before anyone labels me an extremist, the Sharia Law that I follow and believe can coexist peacefully with Western nations.. these idiot terrorists version, not so much. The Islam I follow protects my rights and your rights, it honors women etc (just in case this isnt clear)
Ill provide some links about Caliphate and how they should act. If needed ill expand my position later, but the gist should be apparent (google didnt give a proper write up, but again I think the gist is apparent. I am looking at Muhammad sws at the first four caliphs in particular)
History
http://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
How the First Four caliphs acted
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Umar%27s_era
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_social_changes_under_Islam
So basically my point is there is a defined structure for the Sharia, such as elections of Caliphate etc and there are defined legal rulings as well. But there is loads of evidences that Muhammad sws and the first four Caliphs expanded the rights of people. They took really tough people and tried to reform them, so now we need to dodge a lot of issues here so why not give Muslims a legal and political system most of us want (albeit we have different interpretations). Then if we can revive the sunnah of our early leaders we can slowly expand the rights of our people as our people become ready for it.
We could set it up in the most basic form, then allow Muslims to solidify it and expand it slowly over time. And yes I know there is 50 million problems with this... But as of right now.. what do we have to lose? They are already slaughtering our women and children and extorting the world. Lets face them head on man to man, lets out fight them and out smart them.
Abdullah
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Abdulllah, are you asking for Sharia law in Muslim lands? If so, I have no quibble with that.
If you're asking for it here in the West, then we shall disagree. We already have laws and in place, I don't and won't support a competing system to take root here. While in Rome, as they say. If I was to move to a Muslim country then I would expect to live in accordance and acceptance with the laws of that land.
If you're asking for it here in the West, then we shall disagree. We already have laws and in place, I don't and won't support a competing system to take root here. While in Rome, as they say. If I was to move to a Muslim country then I would expect to live in accordance and acceptance with the laws of that land.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
AbdullaD. You had my interest there in your proposal up to the mention of Sharia Law. Sharia Law should be an absolute non starter in western nations, at least those in North America, anyway.
As North American western world democracies go, I doubt our peoples would ever get collectively behind your proposal.
Societies will only function properly and somewhat fairly, if everyone lives by the the same simple, basic rules. The more man made amendments in play the more things go pear shaped.
As North American western world democracies go, I doubt our peoples would ever get collectively behind your proposal.
Societies will only function properly and somewhat fairly, if everyone lives by the the same simple, basic rules. The more man made amendments in play the more things go pear shaped.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=AbdullahD]
Now before anyone labels me an extremist, the Sharia Law that I follow and believe can coexist peacefully with Western nations.. these idiot terrorists version, not so much. The Islam I follow protects my rights and your rights, it honors women etc (just in case this isnt clear)[/quote]
It sounds like your version of Sharia Law would be a kindlier gentler version. For example I'm sure you wouldn't want to cut the hand off a thief (Quran 5:38) right?
The problem is, when you start drastically changing Sharia Law to be a more kindlier 2016 version, is it really still Sharia Law?
Here is a thief having their hand crushed for apparently stealing bread. You're going to have a hard sell trying to convince me something even remotely related to this can coexist with the west.
Or where a woman is raped, reports it and is then killed for committing adultery.
No thanks.
Now before anyone labels me an extremist, the Sharia Law that I follow and believe can coexist peacefully with Western nations.. these idiot terrorists version, not so much. The Islam I follow protects my rights and your rights, it honors women etc (just in case this isnt clear)[/quote]
It sounds like your version of Sharia Law would be a kindlier gentler version. For example I'm sure you wouldn't want to cut the hand off a thief (Quran 5:38) right?
The problem is, when you start drastically changing Sharia Law to be a more kindlier 2016 version, is it really still Sharia Law?
Here is a thief having their hand crushed for apparently stealing bread. You're going to have a hard sell trying to convince me something even remotely related to this can coexist with the west.
The most basic form to me seems to be all about cutting body parts off or stoning people to death.
Or where a woman is raped, reports it and is then killed for committing adultery.
No thanks.
- Reaction score
- 3,276
- Points
- 1,260
OK, then - who speaks to who?Kilo_302 said:
Looking at the U.K., or even Afghanistan, it's pretty clear who was fighting who. If an unrecognized "state" is fighting all comers, who speaks for all comers? Or, for that matter, for ISIS? And given their decentralized "hey, we inspire them, but we don't control them" system, how can they guarantee that the violence tap'll be turned off if even some of their demands are met?
There are examples out there of amputations carried out for theft. That said, for the record, according to Snopes.com ...Jarnhamar said:... Here is a thief having their hand crushed for apparently stealing bread ...
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Muslims that come to Europe want their own religious laws,but not the laws of their host nation.But they will take Europe's very generous healthcare and unemployment checks.I think allowing immigration at the expense of a national identity is sheer folly.Anyone who has been to Europe in the last year and comapre it to 15 years ago will see how much different it is and its not for the better.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,786
- Points
- 1,140
tomahawk6 said:
There can only be one law or set of laws for all. Once a nation starts giving specific groups to conduct their own trials, set their own rules etc....then that nation will fall.
What I don't understand is...
- You were allowed to practice your own laws, customs, ways of life, etc - in your home country. Your home country sucks because of it.
- You move to a new country, because your home country sucks. It sucks because of the oppressive, violent, medival bulls**t that is customary.
- You demand that the safe, financially stable, free, peaceful country that you just moved to changes itself to be more like the old country you couldn't wait to leave.
I just don't get it... :facepalm:
- You were allowed to practice your own laws, customs, ways of life, etc - in your home country. Your home country sucks because of it.
- You move to a new country, because your home country sucks. It sucks because of the oppressive, violent, medival bulls**t that is customary.
- You demand that the safe, financially stable, free, peaceful country that you just moved to changes itself to be more like the old country you couldn't wait to leave.
I just don't get it... :facepalm:
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=milnews.ca]
There are examples out there of amputations carried out for theft. That said, for the record..
[/quote]
Ah right you are, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out and keeping me honest, I should have been more careful.
I agree, there's still lots of examples of it, I just found a bunch of videos on youtube. Large crowds of onlookers cheering with their smartphones filming people getting their hands hacked and sawed off. Or stoned to death. Pretty gruesome stuff and I still say a cornerstone of Shaira Law.
There are examples out there of amputations carried out for theft. That said, for the record..
[/quote]
Ah right you are, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out and keeping me honest, I should have been more careful.
I agree, there's still lots of examples of it, I just found a bunch of videos on youtube. Large crowds of onlookers cheering with their smartphones filming people getting their hands hacked and sawed off. Or stoned to death. Pretty gruesome stuff and I still say a cornerstone of Shaira Law.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 29,109
- Points
- 1,160
Hamish Seggie said:
Canada has two sets of laws, right?
On a more sane note:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2016/03/islamic-terrorism-is-over-if-you-want-it.html
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Islamic Terrorism Is Over If You Want It
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
The National Intelligence Council has predicted that Islamic Terrorism will end by 2030. Around the same time we'll all be eating food pills, driving flying cars and living entirely in an imaginary world.
By 2034, the last murder will have taken place and by 2042, a scientific cure will be found for crime. By 2051, even bad thoughts will have been eliminated, and by 2062, work as we know it will be abolished and everyone will mediate all day on the serious questions of life. "Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? How can there be a National Intelligence Council so devoid of intelligence?"
In the real world, by 2030, there will be thousands of emirates, many no more than small terrorist groups, but some of which control sizable territories. Some of these emirates will pledge allegiance to a single Caliphate like ISIS. Others will try to get big enough to turn into their own Caliphate.
There will be a hundred miniature Afghanistans fought by international peacekeeping forces composed of a combination of local forces and NATO troops try to push out the bands of Salafi holy warriors, and their pirate camps, brothels and drug labs. There will be drones over the skies of a hundred deserts fighting Toyota pickup trucks with bands of hooded men firing machine guns. There will be wire transfers from a dozen Islamic finance institutions wending their way from the great oil economies of the Persian Gulf and American soldiers, who have never seen a conventional war fought in their lifetime, heading in on another rescue mission into the territory of a Terror Emirate.
The United States of 2030 will fight some of these emirates, ignore others and try to claim that some of them are moderate. Clinton tried to work with the Taliban. Obama backed the Brotherhood. By 2030, the smart men and women who got us into this will conclude that the best way to fight some of these caliphates and emirates is to pay them protection money to fight the other caliphates and emirates. We're already doing that in Syria. Eventually we'll begin doing it everywhere.
In Benghazi, Hillary Clinton was paying protection money to an Al Qaeda ally for security. Today, Europe decided to pay protection money to the state sponsors of terror in Turkey. By 2030, we'll stop pretending that it's foreign aid and start calling it what it is. Or maybe we'll go on lying to ourselves.
Western countries are already paying their Jizya as foreign aid, trading cash for the promise of stability. The United States and its allies have paid out fortunes to Afghan and Iraqi militias during the past two wars. And that doesn't even begin to take into account the sheer amount of money spent on development in the Muslim world. It is likely that the United States has spent more on Jizya, the traditional protection money payment of the non-Muslim Dhimmi to the Islamic State, than every other nation had throughout all of history. And that's just the down payment on the big bill.
Back when the Marines first saw action against the Barbary pirates, most nations found it easier to pay than fight. Jefferson's "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" set us apart. The Marines came into being because America decided to invest in defense instead of protection money. But defense today is so tangled with tribute that it's hard to tell the two apart.
There are countless such private deals that have been made already and there will be countless more made to allow Western countries, and their companies and NGOs to function in territory controlled by Islamist Emirates. And that territory will include international shipping lanes.
By 2030, most countries will have come to view Islamic terrorism as a strategic asset, the way that Saudi Arabia does. They will recognize that the only way to transform the strategic liability of Muslim terrorism into an asset is by funding it and aiming it at their enemies. Islamist militias, will gain valuable experience, training and weapons by serving as the barbarian armies of a decaying West that they will use to conquer the West, the way that the Goth ancestors of Westerners did.
The America of 2030 will spend nearly as much trying to buy off the Muslim world as it will spend on trying to kill terrorists. We will continue financing the terrorism that we are trying to prevent while appeasing our killers. American soldiers will be stationed around the world in a hundred little undeclared wars, building generators for sullen villages before coming under fire from them.
The war will be endless. Both sides will hate it and will perpetuate it anyway.
Imagine the conflicts of the Cold War if instead of Moscow, there had been a thousand decentralized Communist dictatorships across the world with no central enemy to fight, and if the Viet Cong were coming out of Oakland. Imagine the Drug War if the drug lords were aspiring feudalists fighting for a world government that would turn us into their serfs. Imagine World War II if the Nazis were a religion that anyone could convert to and immediately become a member of the master race with the right to rob, rape and kill anyone from the inferior breeds.
But you don't have to wait for 2030 to see that world. It's already here.
By 2030, Europe will be a police state fighting terrorism by eliminating privacy, deploying soldiers in every city and criminalizing dissent. The EU police state will be able to access the contents of any mobile device at a click. Even speech that is still permitted today will lead to prison sentences at worst or at best, mandatory reeducation at special centers organized to combat extremism.
The bombs will still keep going off, but they will be a nuisance. Europeans will learn to adapt to the occasional suicide bombing the way that Israelis have. A bomb will go off, the survivors will be carted away, the broken glass will be swept up and the television will praise the refusal to give in to extremism and hatred, while prominently featuring the half-hearted condemnation of a local cleric.
The No-Go Zones will grow and slowly turn into emirates. The authorities will make deals with the local gangs, who will act as Islamist militias. There will be lashes and honor killings in the formal setting of Islamic law and no one will pay attention. Urban and suburban enclaves will eventually become indistinguishable from Gaza. By 2030 the first crude homemade rocket, made with plans offered on the internet, may rise into the Parisian sky aimed at the Eiffel Tower.
But there will be immediate half-hearted condemnations.
Like Europe, the United States will operate a paranoid surveillance state that its critics decry, even while both the state and its critics support the migration that makes it mandatory. There will be terrorist attacks, some thwarted, some not, including possibly one big one, when an Islamic terror group finally gets its hands on chemical or nuclear weapons from one of the Islamic states.
The America of 2030 will sink half its intellectual capital into praising Islam while the other half will be spent trying to find more elegant ways to kill Muslim terrorists. Homo Americanus circa 2030 will be a veteran of two dozen wars in the Muslim world and of two thousand television programs, museum exhibits, books, movies and high school classes celebrating Islamic religion and culture.
Western leaders, like their ancient Roman counterparts, have come to admire the virtues of the savage more than the virtues of their own civilization. By 2030 it will be clearer than ever whether the outcome of their bloody halfhearted campaigns to civilize the savages with doses of democracy and civic institutions will have led to civilized savages or the savaging of civilization.
Is this world of 2030 inevitable? No, it's not. We don't have to live this way. We choose to.
In 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono put up billboards with the message, "War is Over! If you want it" to protest against the Vietnam War. Will terrorism end by 2030? It will if we want it to.
There are two sure ways to end a war; either by winning it or by losing it. The world's most famous cokehead and mental patient duo meant the latter when they offered their Viet Cong Christmas greeting, but winning wars is still an option. It just isn't the option that we've chosen.
The hearts and minds way of war will take us to the 2030 that I have described. And that 2030 will take us to a 2060 and a 2090 where the war is over because we lost.
If we want our civilization to end there, all we have to do is to keep on doing what we're doing.
We know how to win wars. We don't lack the tools or the skills. We lack the conviction. We aren't trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy because we know we're right. It's a strategy born of a lack of confidence. We don't believe in ourselves. We need the enemy to affirm our morality.
The United States does not lose wars except when it loses the conviction and unity of its purpose. To win, we have to believe that we have a nation, a culture and a people worth protecting. The enemy believes that. It believes that enough to destroy us. If we believed it, the war would already be over.
Islamic terrorism is over if you want it. We have the power and the skill to end it at any time. What we lack is the faith that we are worth fighting for.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2016/03/islamic-terrorism-is-over-if-you-want-it.html
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Islamic Terrorism Is Over If You Want It
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
The National Intelligence Council has predicted that Islamic Terrorism will end by 2030. Around the same time we'll all be eating food pills, driving flying cars and living entirely in an imaginary world.
By 2034, the last murder will have taken place and by 2042, a scientific cure will be found for crime. By 2051, even bad thoughts will have been eliminated, and by 2062, work as we know it will be abolished and everyone will mediate all day on the serious questions of life. "Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? How can there be a National Intelligence Council so devoid of intelligence?"
In the real world, by 2030, there will be thousands of emirates, many no more than small terrorist groups, but some of which control sizable territories. Some of these emirates will pledge allegiance to a single Caliphate like ISIS. Others will try to get big enough to turn into their own Caliphate.
There will be a hundred miniature Afghanistans fought by international peacekeeping forces composed of a combination of local forces and NATO troops try to push out the bands of Salafi holy warriors, and their pirate camps, brothels and drug labs. There will be drones over the skies of a hundred deserts fighting Toyota pickup trucks with bands of hooded men firing machine guns. There will be wire transfers from a dozen Islamic finance institutions wending their way from the great oil economies of the Persian Gulf and American soldiers, who have never seen a conventional war fought in their lifetime, heading in on another rescue mission into the territory of a Terror Emirate.
The United States of 2030 will fight some of these emirates, ignore others and try to claim that some of them are moderate. Clinton tried to work with the Taliban. Obama backed the Brotherhood. By 2030, the smart men and women who got us into this will conclude that the best way to fight some of these caliphates and emirates is to pay them protection money to fight the other caliphates and emirates. We're already doing that in Syria. Eventually we'll begin doing it everywhere.
In Benghazi, Hillary Clinton was paying protection money to an Al Qaeda ally for security. Today, Europe decided to pay protection money to the state sponsors of terror in Turkey. By 2030, we'll stop pretending that it's foreign aid and start calling it what it is. Or maybe we'll go on lying to ourselves.
Western countries are already paying their Jizya as foreign aid, trading cash for the promise of stability. The United States and its allies have paid out fortunes to Afghan and Iraqi militias during the past two wars. And that doesn't even begin to take into account the sheer amount of money spent on development in the Muslim world. It is likely that the United States has spent more on Jizya, the traditional protection money payment of the non-Muslim Dhimmi to the Islamic State, than every other nation had throughout all of history. And that's just the down payment on the big bill.
Back when the Marines first saw action against the Barbary pirates, most nations found it easier to pay than fight. Jefferson's "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" set us apart. The Marines came into being because America decided to invest in defense instead of protection money. But defense today is so tangled with tribute that it's hard to tell the two apart.
There are countless such private deals that have been made already and there will be countless more made to allow Western countries, and their companies and NGOs to function in territory controlled by Islamist Emirates. And that territory will include international shipping lanes.
By 2030, most countries will have come to view Islamic terrorism as a strategic asset, the way that Saudi Arabia does. They will recognize that the only way to transform the strategic liability of Muslim terrorism into an asset is by funding it and aiming it at their enemies. Islamist militias, will gain valuable experience, training and weapons by serving as the barbarian armies of a decaying West that they will use to conquer the West, the way that the Goth ancestors of Westerners did.
The America of 2030 will spend nearly as much trying to buy off the Muslim world as it will spend on trying to kill terrorists. We will continue financing the terrorism that we are trying to prevent while appeasing our killers. American soldiers will be stationed around the world in a hundred little undeclared wars, building generators for sullen villages before coming under fire from them.
The war will be endless. Both sides will hate it and will perpetuate it anyway.
Imagine the conflicts of the Cold War if instead of Moscow, there had been a thousand decentralized Communist dictatorships across the world with no central enemy to fight, and if the Viet Cong were coming out of Oakland. Imagine the Drug War if the drug lords were aspiring feudalists fighting for a world government that would turn us into their serfs. Imagine World War II if the Nazis were a religion that anyone could convert to and immediately become a member of the master race with the right to rob, rape and kill anyone from the inferior breeds.
But you don't have to wait for 2030 to see that world. It's already here.
By 2030, Europe will be a police state fighting terrorism by eliminating privacy, deploying soldiers in every city and criminalizing dissent. The EU police state will be able to access the contents of any mobile device at a click. Even speech that is still permitted today will lead to prison sentences at worst or at best, mandatory reeducation at special centers organized to combat extremism.
The bombs will still keep going off, but they will be a nuisance. Europeans will learn to adapt to the occasional suicide bombing the way that Israelis have. A bomb will go off, the survivors will be carted away, the broken glass will be swept up and the television will praise the refusal to give in to extremism and hatred, while prominently featuring the half-hearted condemnation of a local cleric.
The No-Go Zones will grow and slowly turn into emirates. The authorities will make deals with the local gangs, who will act as Islamist militias. There will be lashes and honor killings in the formal setting of Islamic law and no one will pay attention. Urban and suburban enclaves will eventually become indistinguishable from Gaza. By 2030 the first crude homemade rocket, made with plans offered on the internet, may rise into the Parisian sky aimed at the Eiffel Tower.
But there will be immediate half-hearted condemnations.
Like Europe, the United States will operate a paranoid surveillance state that its critics decry, even while both the state and its critics support the migration that makes it mandatory. There will be terrorist attacks, some thwarted, some not, including possibly one big one, when an Islamic terror group finally gets its hands on chemical or nuclear weapons from one of the Islamic states.
The America of 2030 will sink half its intellectual capital into praising Islam while the other half will be spent trying to find more elegant ways to kill Muslim terrorists. Homo Americanus circa 2030 will be a veteran of two dozen wars in the Muslim world and of two thousand television programs, museum exhibits, books, movies and high school classes celebrating Islamic religion and culture.
Western leaders, like their ancient Roman counterparts, have come to admire the virtues of the savage more than the virtues of their own civilization. By 2030 it will be clearer than ever whether the outcome of their bloody halfhearted campaigns to civilize the savages with doses of democracy and civic institutions will have led to civilized savages or the savaging of civilization.
Is this world of 2030 inevitable? No, it's not. We don't have to live this way. We choose to.
In 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono put up billboards with the message, "War is Over! If you want it" to protest against the Vietnam War. Will terrorism end by 2030? It will if we want it to.
There are two sure ways to end a war; either by winning it or by losing it. The world's most famous cokehead and mental patient duo meant the latter when they offered their Viet Cong Christmas greeting, but winning wars is still an option. It just isn't the option that we've chosen.
The hearts and minds way of war will take us to the 2030 that I have described. And that 2030 will take us to a 2060 and a 2090 where the war is over because we lost.
If we want our civilization to end there, all we have to do is to keep on doing what we're doing.
We know how to win wars. We don't lack the tools or the skills. We lack the conviction. We aren't trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy because we know we're right. It's a strategy born of a lack of confidence. We don't believe in ourselves. We need the enemy to affirm our morality.
The United States does not lose wars except when it loses the conviction and unity of its purpose. To win, we have to believe that we have a nation, a culture and a people worth protecting. The enemy believes that. It believes that enough to destroy us. If we believed it, the war would already be over.
Islamic terrorism is over if you want it. We have the power and the skill to end it at any time. What we lack is the faith that we are worth fighting for.
To clarify, I meant that this policy should be pursued within an already existing Muslim country. So instead of exporting western democracy, help export this. I did not in any way intend to mean Canada or western nations establish a dual or triple legal system with sharia as one of those systems.
Also the notion that the Islamic sharia is some brick wall, is an incorrect theological position.
For stealing alone I'll post a couple links to explain it is not a cut and paste, open and closed issue. (this also illustrates why only qualified people should interpert the Quran)
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336
https://m.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2j7dkp/to_muslims_was_caliph_umar_alkhattab_wrong_to/
Also this thing about the ladies who get raped get put to death, I can bluntly say that is not Sharia. It seems pretty obvious, but some people believe anything is Sharia due to the Media.
There are also many A-Hadiths about this, but it will derail the thread to much going into it.
Another point I'd like to make is we are already allies with Muslim Countries that have... strict views of the sharia (many things I disagree with them on) and are not even Islamic countries as far as political make up goes... So how can this be any worse?
Maybe my wording using simpler was wrong, but what I mean is truer and backed by authentic proofs.. that stand up to scrutiny. Which to me is simpler because you are not mixing in cultural baggage.
My last note, whenever people think of Muslim countries.. they seem to think of only the ones that get into the news... Which is sad...
http://www.travelerthoughts.com/question/765-Which_Middle_EasternArabicMuslim_countries_are_safe_for_a_white_American_to_travel_through_alone/
http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/westerners-travel-muslim-countries/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Anywho I hope I have clarified my ponderings a little bit
didnt mean to make you guys think I wanted Canada to adopt Sharia law. Sorry about that, I will try to be clearer in the future.
Abdullah
Also the notion that the Islamic sharia is some brick wall, is an incorrect theological position.
For stealing alone I'll post a couple links to explain it is not a cut and paste, open and closed issue. (this also illustrates why only qualified people should interpert the Quran)
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336
https://m.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2j7dkp/to_muslims_was_caliph_umar_alkhattab_wrong_to/
Also this thing about the ladies who get raped get put to death, I can bluntly say that is not Sharia. It seems pretty obvious, but some people believe anything is Sharia due to the Media.
There are also many A-Hadiths about this, but it will derail the thread to much going into it.
Another point I'd like to make is we are already allies with Muslim Countries that have... strict views of the sharia (many things I disagree with them on) and are not even Islamic countries as far as political make up goes... So how can this be any worse?
Maybe my wording using simpler was wrong, but what I mean is truer and backed by authentic proofs.. that stand up to scrutiny. Which to me is simpler because you are not mixing in cultural baggage.
My last note, whenever people think of Muslim countries.. they seem to think of only the ones that get into the news... Which is sad...
http://www.travelerthoughts.com/question/765-Which_Middle_EasternArabicMuslim_countries_are_safe_for_a_white_American_to_travel_through_alone/
http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/westerners-travel-muslim-countries/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Anywho I hope I have clarified my ponderings a little bit
didnt mean to make you guys think I wanted Canada to adopt Sharia law. Sorry about that, I will try to be clearer in the future.Abdullah
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
AbdullahD said:To clarify, I meant that this policy should be pursued within an already existing Muslim country. So instead of exporting western democracy, help export this. I did not in any way intend to mean Canada or western nations establish a dual or triple legal system with sharia as one of those systems.
Also the notion that the Islamic sharia is some brick wall, is an incorrect theological position.
For stealing alone I'll post a couple links to explain it is not a cut and paste, open and closed issue. (this also illustrates why only qualified people should interpert the Quran)
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336
https://m.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2j7dkp/to_muslims_was_caliph_umar_alkhattab_wrong_to/
Also this thing about the ladies who get raped get put to death, I can bluntly say that is not Sharia. It seems pretty obvious, but some people believe anything is Sharia due to the Media.
There are also many A-Hadiths about this, but it will derail the thread to much going into it.
Another point I'd like to make is we are already allies with Muslim Countries that have... strict views of the sharia (many things I disagree with them on) and are not even Islamic countries as far as political make up goes... So how can this be any worse?
Maybe my wording using simpler was wrong, but what I mean is truer and backed by authentic proofs.. that stand up to scrutiny. Which to me is simpler because you are not mixing in cultural baggage.
My last note, whenever people think of Muslim countries.. they seem to think of only the ones that get into the news... Which is sad...
http://www.travelerthoughts.com/question/765-Which_Middle_EasternArabicMuslim_countries_are_safe_for_a_white_American_to_travel_through_alone/
http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/westerners-travel-muslim-countries/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Anywho I hope I have clarified my ponderings a little bit
Abdullah
"The medium is the message" I don't like it anymore then you do. People, for the most part, will watch the news and take it as gospel.
Jed said:
Tis is, a fact of life. But the site seems pretty good on holding chaps to a high level of conduct and belief perse. i.e I cant be some ignorant arrogant troll
My wife and I, wish to make our children of those who don't believe everything they see or read without evidence and/or researching it.... So I am maybe making that habit spill over here... I have a lot of flaws, I want my kids to have fewer
Abdullah
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
AbdullahD, so if you are advocating "importing" a more moderate or "modernized" version of Islam into currently Islamic states (I want to be sure I am unserstanding you correctly here), how do *we* overcome the already present and entranched version of Islam already in that nation?
To use what is probably a poor example, imagine that I want to promote Sufi Islam in the Middle East becasue it is a quite moderate and non radical version of Islam. So how do you overcome the existing Shiite and Sunni cultures and get them to adopt Sufiism? For that matter, how would you be able to overcome the rather violent opposition of the more extreme leaders and followers (who are already at war with each other since they see Shiite or Sunni Islam as "apostate" and punishable by death?)
This is actually a serious question. The one example that most of us are familier with is when Europeans fought an extrememly violent and bloody series of wars between rival branches of Christianity, culminating in the 30 years war which devastated much of central Europe. There is already the beginnings of a similar conflict throughout the Middle East (look up the Pan Islamic Civil War thread), so unless the solution is to try to keep the fighting contained in the Middle East, then some very bold steps will ahve to be taken.
To use what is probably a poor example, imagine that I want to promote Sufi Islam in the Middle East becasue it is a quite moderate and non radical version of Islam. So how do you overcome the existing Shiite and Sunni cultures and get them to adopt Sufiism? For that matter, how would you be able to overcome the rather violent opposition of the more extreme leaders and followers (who are already at war with each other since they see Shiite or Sunni Islam as "apostate" and punishable by death?)
This is actually a serious question. The one example that most of us are familier with is when Europeans fought an extrememly violent and bloody series of wars between rival branches of Christianity, culminating in the 30 years war which devastated much of central Europe. There is already the beginnings of a similar conflict throughout the Middle East (look up the Pan Islamic Civil War thread), so unless the solution is to try to keep the fighting contained in the Middle East, then some very bold steps will ahve to be taken.
Thucydides said:
Aye, that is one of the many problems. I was just thinking it couldn't be any harder then exporting western democracy.
Ideally over hauling an already existing Islamic country to a more Sharia style model would be ideal. Yet, we also need to do it close enough to the trouble zone, in order to polarize the population into those who want a more correct version against the extremist version.
Using propaganda could work, consulting all the worlds Islamic Scholars, using them as representatives (like mp's) in the formation of a new state and then help in the recruitment for it. Maybe doing something similar to what they did for Israel.... There really is no quick, simple or easy answer for this. But I know many Muslims would be very intrigued in this, a proper functioning Islamic state that had a good foreign policy and support on the world stage.
Bringing up all the different flavours of Islam is a very valid question, I believe we would have to implement a middle road version that almost all Muslims could agree with or stomach at the very worst. Most Muslims are sunni and the extremist alleged they are sunnis as well... so establishing this for sunni Muslims may be ideal and then bolstering the Shia nations at the same time. So we have a nation for our shiite brothers and Sunni's as well. Also we would have to defeat the extremist militarily, but this would be the ideological side of the fight as well. god willing slowing down recruits or stopping them.
To be honest, it may just be a mess... I just dont think it can be any worse.. thats all. I hope I've covered my position.
Abdullah
p.s I refuse to think myself moderate or modern, I like to think im following the true fundamentals and these extremists are just a perversion of our faith. Semantics, I know lol
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,612
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=AbdullahD]
For stealing alone I'll post a couple links to explain it is not a cut and paste, open and closed issue. (this also illustrates why only qualified people should interpert the Quran)
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336
https://m.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2j7dkp/to_muslims_was_caliph_umar_alkhattab_wrong_to/
Also this thing about the ladies who get raped get put to death, I can bluntly say that is not Sharia. It seems pretty obvious, but some people believe anything is Sharia due to the Media.
[/quote]
"Only qualified people should interpert religion" is a recipe for disaster. It's a blank check for people to manipulate and abuse religion and it's benevolent members.
With regard to the treatment of women I did a quick search and found these.
You can say bluntly it's not Shaira law but I have't seen a lot of evidence of that. Women are not treated as equals under Sharia Law. In my opinion they're barely treated as humans. Rape victims are commonly punished.
For stealing alone I'll post a couple links to explain it is not a cut and paste, open and closed issue. (this also illustrates why only qualified people should interpert the Quran)
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336
https://m.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2j7dkp/to_muslims_was_caliph_umar_alkhattab_wrong_to/
Also this thing about the ladies who get raped get put to death, I can bluntly say that is not Sharia. It seems pretty obvious, but some people believe anything is Sharia due to the Media.
[/quote]
"Only qualified people should interpert religion" is a recipe for disaster. It's a blank check for people to manipulate and abuse religion and it's benevolent members.
With regard to the treatment of women I did a quick search and found these.
Which I'm lead to understand if a woman accuses a man of rape she must have 4 witnesses to prove she was raped. If she does not have any witnesses then she is lying and admitting to adultry
So a husband cannot rape his wife?
You can say bluntly it's not Shaira law but I have't seen a lot of evidence of that. Women are not treated as equals under Sharia Law. In my opinion they're barely treated as humans. Rape victims are commonly punished.
Jarnhamar said:
That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I do tend to find a lot of so called evidence, doesnt hold up.
It tends to come from people who take some Afghanistani Mulvi words as the truth and no one elses. If your desire is to confirm what you already think is right, is right then that is fine. I do believe I've already told people here quite bluntly that they cant just interpert Quran how they want, there is a system to it. Google will very easily supply no limit to proof you need to confirm your opinion, but then again it will also supply no limit of proof stating how christian men can sell their daughters as sex slaves, take multiple wives and beat them with a thumb thick stick. It also supplies proof proving africans are lesser humans.
Now it is your perogative to believe what you wish, but it is a fact Christian, Atheist, Jewish women were treated far worse before Islam. But until and unless you start interpreting the Sharia how the vast number of Muslims know it should be interperted, dont expect your opinion to hold weight. Your views on the culture of certain countries may hold a lot of weight, but your view on Islamic sharia does not.
Abdullah
Similar threads
- jollyjacktar
- International Defence and Security
