UK will classify "Islamist extremism" as distinct ideology

I would like to post some links onto here to show you my information, but the last time I did so on a post the moderators deleted it. But I will give you some things to search.

GOOGLE keywords:
David Livingstone's Surrendering Islam
Balfour Declaration
USA created al-Qaeda
bin laden family USA
third world traveler website

On your way!

 

I can't say that I'm shocked that you would post this absurd propaganda considering that you are obviously an apologist for Islamic Imperialism and oppression, now allow me to give you an actual academic reading list, try googeling,

Sayyid Qutb
Milestones
Hassan al-Banna
Haj Amin al-Husseini
Wahhabism
Salafism

Radical Islam is not a Western invention nor is it the result of Western foreign policy or the existence of the state of Israel, radical Islam predates both the U.S. and Israel, in fact I suggest you study the Koran and the Hadith and then you will realize that the first radical Muslim was Mohammad who himself was perpetrated mass murder and ethnic cleansing against the Jews of the Arabian peninsula amongst others.

 

Yes, and the majority of Britons support English Law. What's your point? No, let me guess; you're doing your predictable vilification of Sharia because all you can think of is ritual amputations and beheading. Clearly you cherry-pick ancient texts and deduce that the behaviour of a tiny minority of idiots, who are using Islam as an excuse for their atrocities is typical of the majority, and painting all Muslims with the same stupid brush.
Sorry mate, everyone sees through you and your propaganda tactics, and they don't work.

You might need reminding that Sharia tribunals in Britain operate in the same way as Jewish Beth Din tribunals; they are community-centric 'courts' in place to arbitrate on domestic disputes, debt reconciliation and the like. You might also need reminding that, like Beth Din, attendance at a Sharia tribunal is a voluntary agreement between two parties, any agreement reached is not legally binding under English Law, and is always subject to final arbitration under English Law.

 

Well it does include that but my actual point is that support for Sharia is support for theocracy, which entails gender and sexual orientation inequality and religious apartheid.

Name the Shariah based state in which homosexuality is legal, leaving Islam is not a criminal offense, women enjoy equal rights, and where religious minorities enjoy equal rights.

No actually everyone sees through your laughable overt support for theocracy while simultaneously claiming to give a damn about human rights,

You must be taking the (*)(*)(*)(*) if you are honestly asserting that women are free to choose within their ethnically self segregated patriarchal enclaves. Furthermore; they have gone well past ruling on domestic disputes and have long ago ruled on actual domestic violence cases. Furthermore; your assertion that they are not legally binding is a blatant (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie as they are just as legally binding as any private arbitration tribunal which is to say entirely legally binding.

 

Right....Islamists murdering innocent civilians all over the world, in the US, Israel, Spain, France, Russia, India, Bali....it's not their fault, it's not the fault of their extremist violent ideology....they are not responsible for their views and their actions...whatever they do, whatever acts of genocide, murder and mayhem they may commit it's always the fault of the west, the UK, the US, Israel...not theirs. Your post is actually the best example of anti-muslim bigotry, i.e. the bigotry of low expectations.

 

Which version of Sharia Law?

That's much like saying that Jews support all Old Testament law regarding stoning.

 

Version 2013, the Violent edition

Jews not supporting Old testament law regarding stoning does not prove that muslims don't take their violent Sharia laws seriously, most do. Ever heard of Apostasy? How many muslims don't support harsh punishment for it?

 

Do you have any idea what apostasy means in Islam?

 

Sure, death sentence in worst case scenarios, harsh punishments, lengthy jail sentences, torture and humiliation in best case scenarios. Oh and lest we forget that this is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world, not just by "Islamic extremists"

 

No... apostasy means traitor.. It means you have committed a crime so egregious that you have betrayed the community and the faith.... like murder, rape, child molestation, drug trafficking or grand larceny with violence.

 

Exactly, mere conversion from Islam to another religion is equated to treason and is punishable by death in extreme cases...Thank you for confirming the barbarism, dear. And you dare compare it to Judaism or Christianity? Duh!

 

LOLOL.. There is no compulsion in religion.

When you are convicted of murder.. you are also convicted of apostasy... Muhammed said that in paradise he would be the enemy of anyone who killed people of the book or even pagans unjustly.

You should probably rethink your education.

 

When you are convicted of conversion from Islam to another religion (which is not a crime to begin with) you are sentenced as if you committed a murder...this is your Sharia law in action, this is as barbaric and extremist as it can ever be. When on the other hand a man rapes a girl chances are it will be regarded as her fault and/or he will be "sentenced" to marrying her. Here is another example of Sharia law in action.

 

Nope its not a crime.. just like stoning is not the penalty for adultery. Keep feeding your hatred with ignorance.

 

5 minutes earlier:

LOL

 

The hadith was written about a hundred years after the Muhammad's death, within the course of many years. Muhammad was said throughout his life never authorized any personal sayings of himself, and the Qur'an itself condemns the authorization of any other text except the Qur'an itself. If you want proof of this, I suggest reading this page known as "The History of the Hadith" from a website known as quran-islam.org (search it). Also, the Qur'an itself was developed from both the supposed life of Muhammad, and after Muhammad's life himself. I know because I have a copy of the Qur'an (translated by Mulauna Muhammad Ali), and in the explaining of the text, it shows a timeline of the composition and compiling of Qur'anic verses.

Also, I am not an apologist for Islam; I'm a Pantheist who promotes religious tolerance. The Islam that you're talking of is a violent brutal version, but there's another side to it that's beautiful, such as Sufism. There's also a folk-version of Islam where cultures from Africa, Polynesia, America, and even probably in the Middle East, where they blend their traditional cultures with Islam. Overall, there's a version of Islam in every culture, and there's the polar opposites in every one of them: extremism, and beauty.

And as for supporting "Islamic imperialism", you should realize that the golden days of Islam are gone, and have came to pass a long time ago. A reason why there's a rise in Islamic Fundamentalism is because it's a sign that the golden age of Islam is gone. The days are up and their stronghold on power lessens, which is why newer nations (ie. the West) rise up and take advantage of and exploit the problems in Islamic society.

 

So you're saying that Islam can only be violent, and that there was never a time period where Islamic societies were the bastion of science, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, etc.?

 

Come to that we are acknowledged as the bastion of science, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, etc. and yet we can be violent as all get-out. The traits are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm not talking of the religion of Islam itself being the bastion of that stuff; I said Islamic societies were. I was just showing someone that Islamic societies aren't always violent.

 

Of course they aren't. Most Islamic societies are composed of good people just trying to get by in life. But the bad aspect is very, very bad and there seems to be no curb on them or their activities.

 

I did not realize we were discussing medieval history Islam was indeed quite progressive...about 15 centuries ago. The progressive wing of Islam lost then, the orthodox, conservative wing of Islam won and today Islam is by and large still stuck in the 7th century... Claiming that Islamic barbarism, medieval mentality and violence is the fault of the West is absurd and frankly extremely patronizing....Stop treating them as if they are morons and imbeciles not capable of being accountable for their own actions.

 

I am not treating them like imbeciles; what I'm saying has nothing to do with that.

 

Provide said Sura, and in fact list me a single example of Islamic jurisprudence which denies the validity of authenticated Hadiths

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not Koran only Muslims they are in the bare minority and once again there is not a single major school of Islamic jurisprudence which subscribes to this approach towards the interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

There is not a single Muslim on the planet that will assert that the Koran in its entirety was not a revelation directly to Mohammad during his lifetime through the archangel Gabriel from god so I'm not really sure what your point here is exactly. I myself believe that Mohammad was a fictional character much like Jesus, however, this conversation has nothing to do with what I believe but with what the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe.

Except all you have done throughout this entire thread is be an apologist for Islam which explicitly demands death for leaving the faith, 2nd class citizen status for all Christians and Jews, and death or forced conversion for all other non-Muslims all the while you have simultaneously and laughably blamed the west for the rise of Islamic extremism.

Oh spare me, the Sufi's are A) a small minority, and B) supporters of the Sharia, now you may believe that support for the criminalization of homosexuality, apostasy, sex outside of marriage, and support for gender segregation and religious apartheid is "beautiful" I find it and its supporters disgusting and barbaric.

Please provide the school of Islamic jurisprudence which doesn't subscribe for the criminalization of homosexuality, apostasy, sex outside of marriage, and which supports gender and religious equality, I'll be waiting with baited breath.

\

There was never a "golden age" of Islam, this is a myth, this supposed golden age was stained red with the blood of millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus during this supposed "golden age" of Islam we had The battle of Tabouk and the battle of Mut'ah were offensive campaigns by the Muslims initiated against the peaceful lands of Christendom and they were just the first two of the many that were to come not only against Christendom but against all of dar al-Harb starting with the Umayyad Conquest of North Africa which started in around 600 A.D. the conquest of Hispania which occurred in the 700's, and the invasions of Southern Italy which occurred in the 800's, the crusades didn't start until 1000 AD.

The Rashidun first in engaged in the unprovoked war of aggression against the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire of Persia they conquered Persia and Mesopotamia between 633 and 656, they then conquered Syria in 637, then they conquered Armenia in 639, then they conquered Egypt in 639, then they conquered North Africa in 652.

Under the Umayyads they finished their conquest of North Africa in 665, then between 662 and 709 they conquered Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southwest Kazakhstan, then between 664 and 712 they conquered the Indian sub-continent, then between 711 and 718 they conquered the Iberian Peninsula of Hispania, they then laid siege to Constantinople between 717 and 718, then between 711 and 750 they conquered the Caucasus, they then conquered Tbilisi in 736, and they then conquered southern Italy in 827. In fact if the barbarian saracen hordes were not stopped at the Battle of Toulouse they would have conquered the entirety of Western Europe.

And let us not forget the massacres of the infidels because there are many, EG in 693 AD the Islamic hordes in their savage blood lust and unprovoked war against Christendom exterminated the whole city of Behnesa. In 712 following the capture of the port of Debal, the Islamic conquerors slaughtered the inhabitants for three days straight. From the letter of Hajjaj to his nephew Kassim upon the capture of Debal:

“… The great god says in the Koran [47:7]: “O True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads.” The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected…. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them..”

In 704, Caliph Walid rounded the nobles of Armenia into the Church of St. Gregory and in the Church of Xram and burned them to death. All who remained were crucified and their women and children put into bondage. In Egypt, in 722, the surveyor Usama b. Zaid sacked the convents and churches until stopped by Caliph Hisham, however, Caliph Marwan who ruled from 744 to 750 demolished numerous monasteries in Egypt while fleeing the Abbasid army.

In 853 the Abbassid Caliph Mutawakil ordered the destruction of all new churches. In 884 the Kalilshu convent in Baghdad was destroyed. Caliph al-Mutasimm in 838 during the pillage of Amorium in 838, had made so many Christians slaves that they had to be auctioned off in fives and tens. In 832 the Coptic Christians experienced a pogrom and ethnic cleansing in which their churches and properties were burned by their Islamic conquerors (not unlike the modern day actually).

There are many more examples which I can provide but for now let us move from the west and the conquest of Christendom to the slaughter of the Hindus and Buddhists on the Indian subcontinent.
During Islamic rule of the Indian sub-continent

The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459):

“ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. ”​

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Muslims.

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

The backward castes of Hinduism suffered worst. Monarchs (belonging to backward castes) such as Khusrau Bhangi Khan, Hemchandra and Garha-Katanga were knocked off their throne and executed. Backward caste saints like Namadeva[1] were arrested, while women like Kanhopatra were forced to commit suicide. Ghisadis have an “Urdu” title.[2]

Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. Even those Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune from persecution, which was illustrated by the Muslim Caste System in India as established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[3] where they were regarded as "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to severe discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes.[4]

By Arabs

Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent began during the early 8th century, when the Umayyad governor of Damascus, Hajjaj responded to a casus belli provided by the kidnapping of Muslim women and treasures by pirates off the coast of Debal,[5] by mobilizing an expedition of 6,000 cavalry under Muhammad bin-Qasim in 712 CE. Records from the campaign recorded in the Chach Nama record temple demolitions, and mass executions of resisting Sindhi forces and the enslavement of their dependents. This action was particularly extensive in Debal, of which Qasim is reported to have been under orders to make an example of while freeing both the captured women and the prisoners of a previous failed expedition. Bin Qasim then enlisted the support of the local Jat, Meds and Bhutto tribes and began the process of subduing and conquering the countryside. The capture of towns was also usually accomplished by means of a treaty with a party from among his "enemy", who were then extended special privileges and material rewards.[6] However, his superior Hajjaj reportedly objected to his method by saying that it would make him look weak and advocated a more hardline military strategy:[7]

“ It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man. ”​

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 of the defending forces.[8] The historian, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists:

“ When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and a half, the far-flung Hindu kingdom was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of its history. There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. At Debal, the Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care.[Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.[9] ​

”

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[22]​

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri,[23] Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

And by "bastion of science, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, etc" of course you mean that they raped and pillaged their way across North Africa, Western Europe, the Persian Empire, and the Indian Subcontinent and took which was invented and preserved by the Greek, Byzantine, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, translated it into Arabic and burned the originals along with the libraries and temples in which they were contained.

 

Oh come on , really ?

5th column