Also in the news

[StanSP]

40 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

If my front door comes off one morning and armed police are here to arrest me I do EVERYTHING they ask me to do. If I’m innocent or guilty it matters not, if they say get bollock naked and do 20 press ups, I do it as requested. Reason being they have got guns and there is potential (possibly small) for me to get shot. Same with a police dog, I do everything they say because I might get bitten.

Now I’m sure American citizens are aware they live in a country where there police are armed, For this reason I’m always amazed they don’t do the same. Not commenting on the rights or wrongs of it but a bit of self preservation should kick in. 

 

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

As would I, and as would many people, most likely.

 

However, the point is (which seems to be being missed with unfortunate regularity here) that if you do that or not, it shouldn't matter at all - unless you post a deadly threat, you still shouldn't be getting shot by the fuzz and if you do, that's on them, and nothing to do with you.

Pretty sure there have been instances where citizens do what the police tell them to - hands up, kneel on the floor, no threat when they're surrounded by police with rifles/guns - they still get shot. 

[ozleicester]

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

 what?!

 

Aye, I bet they saw him shoot 3 people and thought, decent, white lad doing the killing. Get off to bed and we'll sweep it under the rug.

 

 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 what?!

 

Aye, I bet they saw him shoot 3 people and thought, decent, white lad doing the killing. Get off to bed and we'll sweep it under the rug.

 

 

Well, probably not.

 

But hyperbole aside, they may well have not treated it in the same way as they would have if the same offence had been committed by a person of colour, which is why he's still alive and wasn't apprehended until a while afterwards. Dylan Roof got Burger King after tearing up a black church, after all.

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, probably not.

 

But hyperbole aside, they may well have not treated it in the same way as they would have if the same offence had been committed by a person of colour, which is why he's still alive and wasn't apprehended until a while afterwards. Dylan Roof got Burger King after tearing up a black church, after all.

And they may have treated it exactly the same way. I'm sure there are plenty of shootings from people of colour where the end result was the person was arrested after a short period of time, not just shot dead on sight. 

[urban.spaceman]

23 hours ago, the fox said:

You can't separate Islam from Muslims, it's what defines them as people. And I, as a Muslim, do not in the smallest part, appreciate the term "Islamic terrorism" because there is not 1, not a single part of Islam that backs the ideology of those killers.

 

 

90+% of their victims are Muslims. 

 

And which Muslims exactly are critical of Islam and Qur'an? 

 

 

 

In Algeria, 100000s of people fell victim to terrorism in the 90s. And as time past, people have found out that most of those "Islamists" were hired assassins who were brought from many countries, financed by governments or from military who wanted nothing but for the people of Algeria to suffer, taste bitter poison, drop dead. and for the country's natural resources to be drained. You know, like what's happening in Libya and Syria but less publicized because almost everyone has a camera now so the second best option is for those countries to declare their involvement publicly but under the banner of "peace and democracy". and those hired assassins and military-traind individuals were told to grow beards and slaughter civilians. 

 

 

 

There is a square, about a 30 minute walk from where I live and in the 90s, people would wake up to the display of decapitated heads of innocent civilians by terrorists, not as a warning, but as a display of power, a statement that screams "nobody is safe". What have the people done to deserve such an ending? And what about the people who were tortured? Murdered in cold blood! Thrown in a river, flouting like dead fish. Or what about the people who are still missing to this day? What type of torture befell them? Did the killers at least save them a grave? All that just because we wanted to escape the invisible shackles of modern slavery where countries who have next to no natural resources keep magically getting richer yet we are somehow, with all those resources are getting poorer and poorer. They keep sucking our land dry. Dehumanizing us by the thing that they created and called "Islamic terrorists organizations" (bin laden was getting military equipments from the USA). So when a person sees the civilians in Muslim countries being bombed, they can fool themselves in believing that the 12 year old kids who were blown to bits were terroriest. Terrorists killing civilians from one side, and foreign governments from the other side. And the civilians are the evil ones in this scenario? What a joke.

 

The Iraq war was started because of fales information about WMDs, yet somehow people don't even search for who provided them. It's partially because Saddam wanted to go against the petrodollar (and many other things). They were financing Iraq AND Iran in the golf war because they wanted to weaken Iraq and make it ripe for the picking. And if Iraq falls, than naturally, Syria and Libya (al Gaddafi wanted to go against the petrodollar too) were next. All the parts so conveniently falling in place. What was the nationality of the pilots of the 9/11 plain again? A lot of them from an American Allie. And Saddam was blamed for that too. Weird, right? You see how systematically Muslims are being dehumanised? Muslims are in concentration camps in China in the millions and the sympathy for them is almost nonexistent. The former Egyptian president (Morsi), who was democratically elected by the way (but not the kind of "democratically elected" that the US liked) wanted to go against them and help his people, so they made sure that their agents in the Egyptian government and military turn against him(Egypt receive more than a billion dollars in aid annually from America and it's time for that investment to come in play), put him in prison until he died do to poor medical care, didn't even let his family attend. and made sure the new president will Cripple the already shaky economy by signing the right for Ethiopia to build a dam that will significantly decrease the Egyptian water portion of the Nile river as one of his first actions as a president as a punishment for the Egyptian people for daring to think for themselves. And let us not talk about the gold mines, the gas and oil reserves that were signed off to foreign agents on deals that are least described as disastrous to the natives. The donations that USA presidential candidates get from interested parties from the Arab countries who want to get on the good side of the next American president.  And the list goes on. I could write pages about how the Arabs were/are being exploited. Those are merely examples.

 

 

Don't believe me? Go ahead and search. Google is your friend. It's all on the internet. Petrodollar warfare, African gold (a currency that al Gaddafi wanted to use as a currency to replace the dollar), Saddam wanting to replace the dollar also in 2000. And we can go back even further, like how Laurence of Arabia was whispering in tribe leader's ears to revolt against the Othman empire in exchange for independence (which is a promise not kept as usual), how some of the flags of Arab countries were designed, how the partition of lands there was made so the tribes will always fight each other (putting opposing tribes in the same territory), how Palestine was sold, how it was seen as the end of the crusades to finally get the holly land back. How there was forceful recruitment to the WWs in exchange for the independence of the colonies which ended like the last promise the Arab tribes got. People were used as meat shields in WWs (again, all is documented).

 

People want to hear the story about why the west hates Iran so much and is etching for a war with them (it goes back to the 50's actually)?. To make a long story short, Britain was sucking the oil out of Iran, an Iranian change in leadership happened, kicked the British out, the USA came with arms to help Britain, but now Britain has to share the oil with the USA, but it didn't last for long and the new Iranian regime. kicked them out and that's I think pretty much were the feud started. Again, you can Google it if you want. Nationalization of oil in Iran in 1954, Britain launching a trade war and using the CIA against the Iranian government because Iran dared to think that they own their own oil. And it goes on and on and in.

 

. You know the protest in Algeria last year to remove the president? Certain agents were etching to slaughter Algerians if the protests turned violent. You know what would happen if Algerians went out and started breaking stuff like the Americans did this year? Another Libya situation. Talking about Libya, isn't it weird that any party who is calling for election and letting the Libyans decide for themselves is kicked out of the table of negotiations regarding "peace in Libya"? The Libyan oil is such high quality that it doesn't cost much to process it. And the gas? The gas is aplenty. 

 

Anyways, back to the subject.

 

It's forbidden to kill yourself (like blowing yourself up), it's forbidden to kill the innocent(Muslim or not), it is forbidden to give a country your word that you want cause harm than cause harm anyways, the terrorist do those things yet it's the Muslims fault. 

 

 

I will finish my post talking about the grooming gangs because it was mentioned here. I thought that people like tommy were telling some kind of joke. Where they somehow managed to link a religion that punishes sexual immortality to grooming gangs but it seems their motives are more sinister than I first thought. Their claim is some kind of dog whistle to say that Muslims can rape girls as long as the girls are not Muslim(which is not true but I have to clarify because some may think it's true. Sad times). It took time for me to figure it out tbh. 

 

I mean what kind of reaction do people expect to get exactly? "I know your religion forbids sexual immortality but do you think it encourages grooming gangs?" What kind of stupid question is that?

Thanks for the really, really detailed response. (I'm working 24/7 at the minute so haven't had the chance to reply till now) I appreciate you have a completely different viewpoint from me, mainly from firsthand experience, and I agree with a lot of what you say on the real agitators in the ME. I also understand that this can be an extremely sensitive subject for some people, but I also believe it's important that different viewpoints are shared on such issues, no matter how offensive it might be. I'm speaking exclusively from the viewpoint of an English atheist but I hope I can help shine a light on what's been happening here.

 

To the points highlighted - at the beginning you say you can't separate Muslims and Islam, but you also list a number of things that are forbidden within Islam. It's almost like you're suggesting that they're not - or can't be - real Muslims if they do something "forbidden"? Just because they're forbidden doesn't mean people don't do it and still consider themselves Muslim. There's thousands of things forbidden in the Bible but you'll still find even the most devout Christians transgressing on something. You can't just disown the people within your religion who don't follow your exact interpretation. I'm sure they'd accuse you of not following their exact interpretation too, and they'd be able to find justification in the texts too.

 

Channel 4 in the UK had a documentary called The Jihadis Next Door in 2016, which followed a number of hate preachers who organised rallies in the UK, explicitly planned murders of innocent people and tried to convert more people to their cause. One went on to join ISIS as one of their main beheaders, another was one of the terrorists at London Bridge in 2017. There's thousands of examples of ordinary British Muslims who have become radicalised through contact with extremists - Anjem Choudary was a leader of many proscribed groups, is linked to the killers of Lee Rigby and the 2019 London Bridge terrorist, and has been convicted under the Terrorism Act. There's plenty more.

 

Someone you should check out is Maajid Nawaz. He's English born and bred, but due to racism he suffered for being Pakistani-English and the Bosnian genocide, he was radicalised and joined Hizb ut-Tahrir, which led him to being imprisoned in Egypt. He's since renounced extremism and as a broadcaster in the UK is extremely vocal about problems with Islamist extremism and the grooming gang issue.

 

Speaking of which, when the data of paedophile activity in the UK is broken down into particular categories (a friend of mine is a Met Police DI in this area) - the vast, vast majority of activity of individual criminals is indeed white British - i.e family members or friends - which is what you'd expect. However, data on actual grooming gangs, who prey on vulnerable girls - the data suggests 84% are Asian, most of whom are Pakistani Muslim. That's a huge overrepresentation. I strongly urge you to look into this issue closer.

 

There's also a growing number of liberal Muslims and people leaving Islam because of vocal extremism and issues listed above - not just in the UK but everywhere around the world. The other day was Apostasy Day - check out the hashtag twitter for people's experiences. It's still taboo in many places but the number of people converting to other religions is growing.

 

On 25/08/2020 at 18:28, LiberalFox said:

It's only my interpretation. It read as though there was an implication that Muslims hold some responsibility for the actions of other Muslims. Finnaldo's reply seems to indicate he also holds this view though he applies it to other groups such as "White Brits". I'll take you at your word though. I think anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK is fairly endemic and when something is tolerated to a large degree it's not necessarily a fault to be part of that. 

This is what I find most frustrating these days - not having a go at you in particular - but these days people tend to react to something that hasn't been said. As in, they take the worst possible interpretation of what someone's said and argue against it. I've been very explicit that I'm not criticising or being bigoted towards Muslims. I'm simply criticising aspects of the religion. It's crucial that people can do the latter without being accused of the former. You can and must separate the believers from the religion if you're going to critique it. This is why I have a problem with the word Islamophobia. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

The treatment of white suspects compared to black is just astonishing yet not surprising. 

Notice the lack of interest into exactly how the ****ing hell a 17 year old got hold of an actual ****ing AR-15. 

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

And they may have treated it exactly the same way. I'm sure there are plenty of shootings from people of colour where the end result was the person was arrested after a short period of time, not just shot dead on sight. 

Perhaps so, but empirical evidence suggests not. Which, really, is the source of this whole problem in the first place.

[ealingfox]

Sounds good!

 

 

[peach0000]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

I can't stand it when people use two completely unrelated situations like this to make this point. Yes things need to change, yes racism is inherent in society and needs to be changed, yes people should be on the street protesting and making as much fuss as possible to try and get the authorities to listen. 

 

However people making points like this does more harm than good to the cause as anyone with half a brain can see straight through this argument. The issue needs to be articulated way better as things like this are just divisive because of its inaccuracy and obvious flaws in the point made. 

[Dr The Singh]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks for the really, really detailed response. (I'm working 24/7 at the minute so haven't had the chance to reply till now) I appreciate you have a completely different viewpoint from me, mainly from firsthand experience, and I agree with a lot of what you say on the real agitators in the ME. I also understand that this can be an extremely sensitive subject for some people, but I also believe it's important that different viewpoints are shared on such issues, no matter how offensive it might be. I'm speaking exclusively from the viewpoint of an English atheist but I hope I can help shine a light on what's been happening here.

 

To the points highlighted - at the beginning you say you can't separate Muslims and Islam, but you also list a number of things that are forbidden within Islam. It's almost like you're suggesting that they're not - or can't be - real Muslims if they do something "forbidden"? Just because they're forbidden doesn't mean people don't do it and still consider themselves Muslim. There's thousands of things forbidden in the Bible but you'll still find even the most devout Christians transgressing on something. You can't just disown the people within your religion who don't follow your exact interpretation. I'm sure they'd accuse you of not following their exact interpretation too, and they'd be able to find justification in the texts too.

 

Channel 4 in the UK had a documentary called The Jihadis Next Door in 2016, which followed a number of hate preachers who organised rallies in the UK, explicitly planned murders of innocent people and tried to convert more people to their cause. One went on to join ISIS as one of their main beheaders, another was one of the terrorists at London Bridge in 2017. There's thousands of examples of ordinary British Muslims who have become radicalised through contact with extremists - Anjem Choudary was a leader of many proscribed groups, is linked to the killers of Lee Rigby and the 2019 London Bridge terrorist, and has been convicted under the Terrorism Act. There's plenty more.

 

Someone you should check out is Maajid Nawaz. He's English born and bred, but due to racism he suffered for being Pakistani-English and the Bosnian genocide, he was radicalised and joined Hizb ut-Tahrir, which led him to being imprisoned in Egypt. He's since renounced extremism and as a broadcaster in the UK is extremely vocal about problems with Islamist extremism and the grooming gang issue.

 

Speaking of which, when the data of paedophile activity in the UK is broken down into particular categories (a friend of mine is a Met Police DI in this area) - the vast, vast majority of activity of individual criminals is indeed white British - i.e family members or friends - which is what you'd expect. However, data on actual grooming gangs, who prey on vulnerable girls - the data suggests 84% are Asian, most of whom are Pakistani Muslim. That's a huge overrepresentation. I strongly urge you to look into this issue closer.

 

There's also a growing number of liberal Muslims and people leaving Islam because of vocal extremism and issues listed above - not just in the UK but everywhere around the world. The other day was Apostasy Day - check out the hashtag twitter for people's experiences. It's still taboo in many places but the number of people converting to other religions is growing.

 

This is what I find most frustrating these days - not having a go at you in particular - but these days people tend to react to something that hasn't been said. As in, they take the worst possible interpretation of what someone's said and argue against it. I've been very explicit that I'm not criticising or being bigoted towards Muslims. I'm simply criticising aspects of the religion. It's crucial that people can do the latter without being accused of the former. You can and must separate the believers from the religion if you're going to critique it. This is why I have a problem with the word Islamophobia. 

Great post.

[Dr The Singh]

On 26/08/2020 at 14:05, leicsmac said:

Because he had no obligation to comply even if he did in fact have a criminal record and the last time I checked such lack of compliance without presenting a capital threat (real, as opposed to assumed) to the police wasn't justification for taking seven to the body. So I don't really see how it's relevant at all other than an attempt to deflect from what the fuzz have done here.

This what gets me, he had his kids in the car, he was not really a threat

[the fox]

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks for the really, really detailed response. (I'm working 24/7 at the minute so haven't had the chance to reply till now) I appreciate you have a completely different viewpoint from me, mainly from firsthand experience, and I agree with a lot of what you say on the real agitators in the ME. I also understand that this can be an extremely sensitive subject for some people, but I also believe it's important that different viewpoints are shared on such issues, no matter how offensive it might be. I'm speaking exclusively from the viewpoint of an English atheist but I hope I can help shine a light on what's been happening here.

 

To the points highlighted - at the beginning you say you can't separate Muslims and Islam, but you also list a number of things that are forbidden within Islam. It's almost like you're suggesting that they're not - or can't be - real Muslims if they do something "forbidden"? Just because they're forbidden doesn't mean people don't do it and still consider themselves Muslim. There's thousands of things forbidden in the Bible but you'll still find even the most devout Christians transgressing on something. You can't just disown the people within your religion who don't follow your exact interpretation. I'm sure they'd accuse you of not following their exact interpretation too, and they'd be able to find justification in the texts too.

 

Channel 4 in the UK had a documentary called The Jihadis Next Door in 2016, which followed a number of hate preachers who organised rallies in the UK, explicitly planned murders of innocent people and tried to convert more people to their cause. One went on to join ISIS as one of their main beheaders, another was one of the terrorists at London Bridge in 2017. There's thousands of examples of ordinary British Muslims who have become radicalised through contact with extremists - Anjem Choudary was a leader of many proscribed groups, is linked to the killers of Lee Rigby and the 2019 London Bridge terrorist, and has been convicted under the Terrorism Act. There's plenty more.

 

Someone you should check out is Maajid Nawaz. He's English born and bred, but due to racism he suffered for being Pakistani-English and the Bosnian genocide, he was radicalised and joined Hizb ut-Tahrir, which led him to being imprisoned in Egypt. He's since renounced extremism and as a broadcaster in the UK is extremely vocal about problems with Islamist extremism and the grooming gang issue.

 

Speaking of which, when the data of paedophile activity in the UK is broken down into particular categories (a friend of mine is a Met Police DI in this area) - the vast, vast majority of activity of individual criminals is indeed white British - i.e family members or friends - which is what you'd expect. However, data on actual grooming gangs, who prey on vulnerable girls - the data suggests 84% are Asian, most of whom are Pakistani Muslim. That's a huge overrepresentation. I strongly urge you to look into this issue closer.

 

There's also a growing number of liberal Muslims and people leaving Islam because of vocal extremism and issues listed above - not just in the UK but everywhere around the world. The other day was Apostasy Day - check out the hashtag twitter for people's experiences. It's still taboo in many places but the number of people converting to other religions is growing.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the other side of the story, man. I will try to answer your questions as precise as possible.

 

The words failed me regarding the bit about the highlighted part of the discussion. What I meant is, the actions of those terrorists aren't related to the teachings of Islam so trying to separate Islam and Muslims as a way to say "Muslims are fine, it's Islam that's the problem" is the bit that I mined. The Muslims that I was talking about are the ones who follow the the correct path. They follow the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him. So, I should've said "Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't". So in a way, I was wrong in the way I phrased it and I do apologize. There are Muslims who drink alcohol, that doesn't mean that Islam allows it. If I had to write the post again, I would've said that " what some Muslims do isn't a representation of Islam". 

 

To the second point, those people are on clear misguidance. They have nothing to stand on. Let's put Qur'an and Sunn'ah as a judge between us and let's see. They don't have justification in the text. They quote a verse (or a bit of that verse) out of context and say "see! It fits our agenda".

 

I will give you an example.

 

Person number 1: Allah said that the believers shouldn't pray.

 

Person number 2: what are you on about?

 

P1: it says in the Qur'an Surah 4 verse 43 "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer"

 

P2: eh? It says that, but you should read  the whole verse in context. Because it says: "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.

 

 

See how the sick of heart work? They twist and misquote scripture to suit their own desires.

 

 

They, time and time again, get ruined by Sunni scholars yet they seem to lack the smallest bit of shame. Anjem choudhary and his followers are right-wing media's favourite Muslims. I don't get those folk, are they stupid, crazy, or just ignorant? They scream "we want Sharia in England", do they not know that Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim majority country according to Islam? England is what's called a land of peace according to Muslim scholars. And in a land of Peace, you are to comply with the laws of that land and pay taxes as long as it doesn't go against Islam (example, Muslims aren't killed there because of their religion by the authority, they aren't forced to eat pork, drink alcohol, and deal in usury..etc). "Sharia in England" statement has no validity to it because England isn't a majority-muslim country. There's not a country in the world that's following Sharia in the world IMO so how are they going around wanting Sharia in England of all places? Those people get refuted by Muslims in England all the time. (A quick part that I want to add, Jewish people in a Muslim country under Sharia are allowed to hold their own court and judge between themselves according to their Jewish sharia whilst Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim countries . Which brings me to another point, Sharia means Law. Saying sharia law is like saying "the Sahara desert", Sahara means desert)

 

Another thing about the terrorists in England. They are committing treason by attacking English civilians and going against Islam. When they come to England and get their nationality/residency, they are signing a contract that says that they will not cause harm, causing harm is them breaking the treaty unjustly(which is forbidden). Now some people will ask, "what if, for example, England starts a war against Morocco and start killing their civilians, can a Moroccan living in England attack English soldiers in England?" And the answer is NO! What he does according to Islam is, go to English authorities, hand over his nationality/residency and ask them to fly him to Morocco. The moment he leaves English soil and land in his homeland, is the moment the treaty is broken the right way. And notice how I said "English soldiers" and not "English people". Because even in war, you are forbidden to kill the innocent. 

 

I don't get English media sometimes, why do they have to pick two sides of the extreme and compare them? It's either people like Anjem choudhery and his followers or this new movement of left-wing, liberal Muslims (like madjid Nawaz, which I will talk about in a second). Why not pick a proper Sunni Muslim scholar and let him explain. I know very little and those Scholars can explain much better than me the misconception that English folk have about Islam. But I don't think the media will because it has to be " right-wing narrative vs left-wing narrative" in almost everything these days.

 

 

Now to Mr Madjid Nawaz. I had him on my recommendation many times on YouTube. After reading your post I went and searched him, the first video starts as him answering the question about "are Judges right to separate UK law from Sharia" and he answered "yes". And I was satisfied with the answer. That goes inline with what Islam teaches. (Even though I think poisons to society like gambling, Drugs and alcohol, usury..etc should be baned for the good of the people, a few things that the English people could benefit from) But to my horror, the man wants a "reform" to Islam, which implies that he knows more than the Creator about what's best for creation. Quite the Muslim role module he is. But I say hey, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt and see what his argument is, and behold, he comes up with 2 misconceptions that people on the EDL use against Muslims.

 

I don't mind an argument, but what I do mind is ignorance. I can forgive a non-muslim if he believes those misconceptions because he doesn't know. But someone who calls himself Muslim? What a joke.

 

The first is wife beating and the second is " a male can inherit  twice as much as females ". I will address both those misconceptions. 

 

The verse in Surah 4 verse 34 says "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

 

 

 

 

 

Some will say, "so it's like baseball with the 3 strikes rule. You advise them, then forsake them in bed, than you can beat them up, right?". No. Because it says " strike" but the verse doesn't say what are the limits to the striking. And like any Muslim who studies just a little bit will know that Allah said that the prophet PBUH will explain in detail what are the limits in some subjects. So now we have to go to hadith (the sayings of the prophet) and see what has he said about the verse. He said that when a person strikes his wife he shouldn't strike the face, leave bruises, or cause pain. Can't hit the face, can't cause pain or bruises, Which in conclusion says, Islam forbids wife beating. The striking, scholars say, is lightly hitting a place like a shoulder with a tiny stick signifying that their difference are about to go public and the families of the husband and  wife will be involved and it could end up in a divorce. Hopefully the first misconception has been explained.

 

 

As for the inheritance part, Madjid should've done his research. There are many cases were a female gets the same portion as a male, and even other cases where the portion a female gets is more than the male's.

 

But that still leave us with the bit about a male taking more than a female. You remember the first part in verse 4:34, where it says that men are in charge of women. When a female gets her piece of inheritance, she can do whatever she wants with it and is under no obligation to spend her share helping the household financially, but the male is ordered to spend from his own wealth and inheritance on her and on the household.

 

 

Imagine two people living together and they get £6000, the first person gets 4000 and the second gets 2000, but the person who got the 4000 has to take care of rent, buy medicine and food, and just spend his part of the money on the household whist the second person who got 2000 is under no obligation to contribute to living expenses. All the financial responsibility is on the person who got the £4000.

 

 

I have seen the figures and Muslims are always condemning terrorism and grooming gangs. It is a cultural problem when it comes to grooming gangs and iT should be dealt With harshly. I condemned both those groups on this forum before. 

 

There is no such thing as liberal Muslim. God commanded and he know more about his own creation than what humans know about themselves. You see most of the people who leave Islam aren't knowledgble enough and think that Islam condones domestic viloince when not even 200 years ago, the hierarchy in the cultures that they so idolize ranked the man first, the family donkey second, and maybe after that you can find women. 1400 years ago, Islam gave Women the right to vote, own property, have inheritance, and even divorce the man if her reasons are valid (a women can even ask to be divorced if she feels that her husband isn't satisfying her in bed because that's her right).

 

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam is very limited yet a lot of people who convert to Islam are usually people who are welloff financial, from stable environment and made the choice based on intellect. Islam if one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest in the world. And I want to know what kind of religion they are converting to. 

 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

6 minutes ago, the fox said:

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the other side of the story, man. I will try to answer your questions as precise as possible.

 

The words failed me regarding the bit about the highlighted part of the discussion. What I meant is, the actions of those terrorists aren't related to the teachings of Islam so trying to separate Islam and Muslims as a way to say "Muslims are fine, it's Islam that's the problem" is the bit that I mined. The Muslims that I was talking about are the ones who follow the the correct path. They follow the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him. So, I should've said "Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't". So in a way, I was wrong in the way I phrased it and I do apologize. There are Muslims who drink alcohol, that doesn't mean that Islam allows it. If I had to write the post again, I would've said that " what some Muslims do isn't a representation of Islam". 

 

To the second point, those people are on clear misguidance. They have nothing to stand on. Let's put Qur'an and Sunn'ah as a judge between us and let's see. They don't have justification in the text. They quote a verse (or a bit of that verse) out of context and say "see! It fits our agenda".

 

I will give you an example.

 

Person number 1: Allah said that the believers shouldn't pray.

 

Person number 2: what are you on about?

 

P1: it says in the Qur'an Surah 4 verse 43 "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer"

 

P2: eh? It says that, but you should read  the whole verse in context. Because it says: "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.

 

 

See how the sick of heart work? They twist and misquote scripture to suit their own desires.

 

 

They, time and time again, get ruined by Sunni scholars yet they seem to lack the smallest bit of shame. Anjem choudhary and his followers are right-wing media's favourite Muslims. I don't get those folk, are they stupid, crazy, or just ignorant? They scream "we want Sharia in England", do they not know that Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim majority country according to Islam? England is what's called a land of peace according to Muslim scholars. And in a land of Peace, you are to comply with the laws of that land and pay taxes as long as it doesn't go against Islam (example, Muslims aren't killed there because of their religion by the authority, they aren't forced to eat pork, drink alcohol, and deal in usury..etc). "Sharia in England" statement has no validity to it because England isn't a majority-muslim country. There's not a country in the world that's following Sharia in the world IMO so how are they going around wanting Sharia in England of all places? Those people get refuted by Muslims in England all the time. (A quick part that I want to add, Jewish people in a Muslim country under Sharia are allowed to hold their own court and judge between themselves according to their Jewish sharia whilst Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim countries . Which brings me to another point, Sharia means Law. Saying sharia law is like saying "the Sahara desert", Sahara means desert)

 

Another thing about the terrorists in England. They are committing treason by attacking English civilians and going against Islam. When they come to England and get their nationality/residency, they are signing a contract that says that they will not cause harm, causing harm is them breaking the treaty unjustly(which is forbidden). Now some people will ask, "what if, for example, England starts a war against Morocco and start killing their civilians, can a Moroccan living in England attack English soldiers in England?" And the answer is NO! What he does according to Islam is, go to English authorities, hand over his nationality/residency and ask them to fly him to Morocco. The moment he leaves English soil and land in his homeland, is the moment the treaty is broken the right way. And notice how I said "English soldiers" and not "English people". Because even in war, you are forbidden to kill the innocent. 

 

I don't get English media sometimes, why do they have to pick two sides of the extreme and compare them? It's either people like Anjem choudhery and his followers or this new movement of left-wing, liberal Muslims (like madjid Nawaz, which I will talk about in a second). Why not pick a proper Sunni Muslim scholar and let him explain. I know very little and those Scholars can explain much better than me the misconception that English folk have about Islam. But I don't think the media will because it has to be " right-wing narrative vs left-wing narrative" in almost everything these days.

 

 

Now to Mr Madjid Nawaz. I had him on my recommendation many times on YouTube. After reading your post I went and searched him, the first video starts as him answering the question about "are Judges right to separate UK law from Sharia" and he answered "yes". And I was satisfied with the answer. That goes inline with what Islam teaches. (Even though I think poisons to society like gambling, Drugs and alcohol, usury..etc should be baned for the good of the people, a few things that the English people could benefit from) But to my horror, the man wants a "reform" to Islam, which implies that he knows more than the Creator about what's best for creation. Quite the Muslim role module he is. But I say hey, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt and see what his argument is, and behold, he comes up with 2 misconceptions that people on the EDL use against Muslims.

 

I don't mind an argument, but what I do mind is ignorance. I can forgive a non-muslim if he believes those misconceptions because he doesn't know. But someone who calls himself Muslim? What a joke.

 

The first is wife beating and the second is " a male can inherit  twice as much as females ". I will address both those misconceptions. 

 

The verse in Surah 4 verse 34 says "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

 

 

 

 

 

Some will say, "so it's like baseball with the 3 strikes rule. You advise them, then forsake them in bed, than you can beat them up, right?". No. Because it says " strike" but the verse doesn't say what are the limits to the striking. And like any Muslim who studies just a little bit will know that Allah said that the prophet PBUH will explain in detail what are the limits in some subjects. So now we have to go to hadith (the sayings of the prophet) and see what has he said about the verse. He said that when a person strikes his wife he shouldn't strike the face, leave bruises, or cause pain. Can't hit the face, can't cause pain or bruises, Which in conclusion says, Islam forbids wife beating. The striking, scholars say, is lightly hitting a place like a shoulder with a tiny stick signifying that their difference are about to go public and the families of the husband and  wife will be involved and it could end up in a divorce. Hopefully the first misconception has been explained.

 

 

As for the inheritance part, Madjid should've done his research. There are many cases were a female gets the same portion as a male, and even other cases where the portion a female gets is more than the male's.

 

But that still leave us with the bit about a male taking more than a female. You remember the first part in verse 4:34, where it says that men are in charge of women. When a female gets her piece of inheritance, she can do whatever she wants with it and is under no obligation to spend her share helping the household financially, but the male is ordered to spend from his own wealth and inheritance on her and on the household.

 

 

Imagine two people living together and they get £6000, the first person gets 4000 and the second gets 2000, but the person who got the 4000 has to take care of rent, buy medicine and food, and just spend his part of the money on the household whist the second person who got 2000 is under no obligation to contribute to living expenses. All the financial responsibility is on the person who got the £4000.

 

 

I have seen the figures and Muslims are always condemning terrorism and grooming gangs. It is a cultural problem when it comes to grooming gangs and iT should be dealt With harshly. I condemned both those groups on this forum before. 

 

There is no such thing as liberal Muslim. God commanded and he know more about his own creation than what humans know about themselves. You see most of the people who leave Islam aren't knowledgble enough and think that Islam condones domestic viloince when not even 200 years ago, the hierarchy in the cultures that they so idolize ranked the man first, the family donkey second, and maybe after that you can find women. 1400 years ago, Islam gave Women the right to vote, own property, have inheritance, and even divorce the man if her reasons are valid (a women can even ask to be divorced if she feels that her husband isn't satisfying her in bed because that's her right).

 

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam is very limited yet a lot of people who convert to Islam are usually people who are welloff financial, from stable environment and made the choice based on intellect. Islam if one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest in the world. And I want to know what kind of religion they are converting to. 

 

 

 

It s a great post, but you haven't answered the paradox of what particular individuals are saying about about Islam, throughout history has shown islamic people to be should you say unislamic.  Is this human nature or is this because Mohammed himself had failures, and the Qur'an itself has many aspects that people today consider very controversial?

 

I have had many debates on this forum, with serial themes, I need you to show real perspective and honesty, for a response.

[Dr The Singh]

50 minutes ago, the fox said:

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the other side of the story, man. I will try to answer your questions as precise as possible.

 

The words failed me regarding the bit about the highlighted part of the discussion. What I meant is, the actions of those terrorists aren't related to the teachings of Islam so trying to separate Islam and Muslims as a way to say "Muslims are fine, it's Islam that's the problem" is the bit that I mined. The Muslims that I was talking about are the ones who follow the the correct path. They follow the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him. So, I should've said "Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't". So in a way, I was wrong in the way I phrased it and I do apologize. There are Muslims who drink alcohol, that doesn't mean that Islam allows it. If I had to write the post again, I would've said that " what some Muslims do isn't a representation of Islam". 

 

To the second point, those people are on clear misguidance. They have nothing to stand on. Let's put Qur'an and Sunn'ah as a judge between us and let's see. They don't have justification in the text. They quote a verse (or a bit of that verse) out of context and say "see! It fits our agenda".

 

I will give you an example.

 

Person number 1: Allah said that the believers shouldn't pray.

 

Person number 2: what are you on about?

 

P1: it says in the Qur'an Surah 4 verse 43 "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer"

 

P2: eh? It says that, but you should read  the whole verse in context. Because it says: "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.

 

 

See how the sick of heart work? They twist and misquote scripture to suit their own desires.

 

 

They, time and time again, get ruined by Sunni scholars yet they seem to lack the smallest bit of shame. Anjem choudhary and his followers are right-wing media's favourite Muslims. I don't get those folk, are they stupid, crazy, or just ignorant? They scream "we want Sharia in England", do they not know that Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim majority country according to Islam? England is what's called a land of peace according to Muslim scholars. And in a land of Peace, you are to comply with the laws of that land and pay taxes as long as it doesn't go against Islam (example, Muslims aren't killed there because of their religion by the authority, they aren't forced to eat pork, drink alcohol, and deal in usury..etc). "Sharia in England" statement has no validity to it because England isn't a majority-muslim country. There's not a country in the world that's following Sharia in the world IMO so how are they going around wanting Sharia in England of all places? Those people get refuted by Muslims in England all the time. (A quick part that I want to add, Jewish people in a Muslim country under Sharia are allowed to hold their own court and judge between themselves according to their Jewish sharia whilst Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim countries . Which brings me to another point, Sharia means Law. Saying sharia law is like saying "the Sahara desert", Sahara means desert)

 

Another thing about the terrorists in England. They are committing treason by attacking English civilians and going against Islam. When they come to England and get their nationality/residency, they are signing a contract that says that they will not cause harm, causing harm is them breaking the treaty unjustly(which is forbidden). Now some people will ask, "what if, for example, England starts a war against Morocco and start killing their civilians, can a Moroccan living in England attack English soldiers in England?" And the answer is NO! What he does according to Islam is, go to English authorities, hand over his nationality/residency and ask them to fly him to Morocco. The moment he leaves English soil and land in his homeland, is the moment the treaty is broken the right way. And notice how I said "English soldiers" and not "English people". Because even in war, you are forbidden to kill the innocent. 

 

I don't get English media sometimes, why do they have to pick two sides of the extreme and compare them? It's either people like Anjem choudhery and his followers or this new movement of left-wing, liberal Muslims (like madjid Nawaz, which I will talk about in a second). Why not pick a proper Sunni Muslim scholar and let him explain. I know very little and those Scholars can explain much better than me the misconception that English folk have about Islam. But I don't think the media will because it has to be " right-wing narrative vs left-wing narrative" in almost everything these days.

 

 

Now to Mr Madjid Nawaz. I had him on my recommendation many times on YouTube. After reading your post I went and searched him, the first video starts as him answering the question about "are Judges right to separate UK law from Sharia" and he answered "yes". And I was satisfied with the answer. That goes inline with what Islam teaches. (Even though I think poisons to society like gambling, Drugs and alcohol, usury..etc should be baned for the good of the people, a few things that the English people could benefit from) But to my horror, the man wants a "reform" to Islam, which implies that he knows more than the Creator about what's best for creation. Quite the Muslim role module he is. But I say hey, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt and see what his argument is, and behold, he comes up with 2 misconceptions that people on the EDL use against Muslims.

 

I don't mind an argument, but what I do mind is ignorance. I can forgive a non-muslim if he believes those misconceptions because he doesn't know. But someone who calls himself Muslim? What a joke.

 

The first is wife beating and the second is " a male can inherit  twice as much as females ". I will address both those misconceptions. 

 

The verse in Surah 4 verse 34 says "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

 

 

 

 

 

Some will say, "so it's like baseball with the 3 strikes rule. You advise them, then forsake them in bed, than you can beat them up, right?". No. Because it says " strike" but the verse doesn't say what are the limits to the striking. And like any Muslim who studies just a little bit will know that Allah said that the prophet PBUH will explain in detail what are the limits in some subjects. So now we have to go to hadith (the sayings of the prophet) and see what has he said about the verse. He said that when a person strikes his wife he shouldn't strike the face, leave bruises, or cause pain. Can't hit the face, can't cause pain or bruises, Which in conclusion says, Islam forbids wife beating. The striking, scholars say, is lightly hitting a place like a shoulder with a tiny stick signifying that their difference are about to go public and the families of the husband and  wife will be involved and it could end up in a divorce. Hopefully the first misconception has been explained.

 

 

As for the inheritance part, Madjid should've done his research. There are many cases were a female gets the same portion as a male, and even other cases where the portion a female gets is more than the male's.

 

But that still leave us with the bit about a male taking more than a female. You remember the first part in verse 4:34, where it says that men are in charge of women. When a female gets her piece of inheritance, she can do whatever she wants with it and is under no obligation to spend her share helping the household financially, but the male is ordered to spend from his own wealth and inheritance on her and on the household.

 

 

Imagine two people living together and they get £6000, the first person gets 4000 and the second gets 2000, but the person who got the 4000 has to take care of rent, buy medicine and food, and just spend his part of the money on the household whist the second person who got 2000 is under no obligation to contribute to living expenses. All the financial responsibility is on the person who got the £4000.

 

 

I have seen the figures and Muslims are always condemning terrorism and grooming gangs. It is a cultural problem when it comes to grooming gangs and iT should be dealt With harshly. I condemned both those groups on this forum before. 

 

There is no such thing as liberal Muslim. God commanded and he know more about his own creation than what humans know about themselves. You see most of the people who leave Islam aren't knowledgble enough and think that Islam condones domestic viloince when not even 200 years ago, the hierarchy in the cultures that they so idolize ranked the man first, the family donkey second, and maybe after that you can find women. 1400 years ago, Islam gave Women the right to vote, own property, have inheritance, and even divorce the man if her reasons are valid (a women can even ask to be divorced if she feels that her husband isn't satisfying her in bed because that's her right).

 

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam is very limited yet a lot of people who convert to Islam are usually people who are welloff financial, from stable environment and made the choice based on intellect. Islam if one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest in the world. And I want to know what kind of religion they are converting to. 

 

 

 

Can I ask you a question, of all of Mohammad's conquests, how many of those women had a choice of who there husband's were?

 

It is well known and documented, Mohammed had first pick, however you will use evidence on the contract and divorce etc BUT really this women are slaves and had no choice.

[Dr The Singh]

As always expect no response

[the fox]

5 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

It s a great post, but you haven't answered the paradox of what particular individuals are saying about about Islam, throughout history has shown islamic people to be should you say unislamic.  Is this human nature or is this because Mohammed himself had failures, and the Qur'an itself has many aspects that people today consider very controversial?

 

I have had many debates on this forum, with serial themes, I need you to show real perspective and honesty, for a response.

Not all. Many Muslim leaders showed that they have ruled justly. People are still people, and you can't expect everyone throughout history to be strict in following the rules(that doesn't excuse them, if they have done something wrong, than I would say they did). The more the Muslim leaders got further away from the religion, the weaker they've become. But the actions of people that go against the teachings of the religion aren't related to Islam.

 

 

I've done nothing but be honest with my answers. I have no reason to lie because there's nothing to hide. When I saw what the terrorists have done, I condemned them. When I've seen what the grooming gangs have done, I've condemned them. (Like most Muslims do) And in both cases, I see harsh punishment to be what they deserve. 

 

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had no failures. He delivered the message in full. He showed us what to do to be the best Muslims we can be. Every Angle of life, Islam had touched upon. Now it's for the people to choose to follow the rules. And the people's actions will be judge by God. Be it the good or the bad. It's free will after all, and every group of people have black sheep that don't represent them.

 

 

People can find anything to be offended about. It was "Islam giving women too many Rights" 200 years ago when women were treated like dirt and didn't even have the right to ask for a divorce, and now it's "Islam oppresses women" because it says that women should be modest in their dress. The opinions keep swaying yet Islam's teachings are still the same. IMO, people always found a reason to dislike Islam. But what good are the principles that get swayed by the smallest of breezes. Maybe one day when degeneracy hit a new law and the new consensus is that an adult male can have a sexual relationship with his own biological father because "love is love", they can add that to the reasons why they dislike Islam. You can't stand firmly on shaky principals. And that's why Islam is so hated. Most other religions are full of genocide and rape, racism and the superiority of a tribe over another. Their scriptures say," kill everyone, man women and child, slaughter the babies alive" and the people from other religions dare to criticize Islam because it says that women should dress modestly and sexual immortality is forbidden. Or better yet, atheists who believe that morality is based on the total agreement of a specific group of people. So what another group of people see morally correct is of no business to them and they have no leg to stand on when discussing morality.  And anyone reading this, just know that if I had something to hide, I wouldn't be writing those words. So check whatever question you are wanting to ask, it possibly could be another misconception like "wife beating" and "Males always inherite twice as females". And after this, I will address another misconception about the honorable wives of the prophet peace be upon him.

 

4 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Can I ask you a question, of all of Mohammad's conquests, how many of those women had a choice of who there husband's were?

 

It is well known and documented, Mohammed had first pick, however you will use evidence on the contract and divorce etc BUT really this women are slaves and had no choice.

" conquests"? Hhmmm, I guess we will find out below.

 

 

I will give you a brief example of the character of the prophet peace be upon him. Before he had the revelation, he was known as " the honest and the trust worthy". When people used to travel for months, they would leave their most treasured belongings with him. He was the judge between people when they disagreed. He did different jobs from herding to judging between people. Helping to remove the stigma of social classes even after he became a prophet. He was of such high character that our mother (we call all the wives of the prophet "our mother"), the richest women in Mecca at the time,  khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) wanted him to marry her and he excepted even though she was older than him(he was 25, she was almost 50). Helping to remove the stigma of a man marrying an older female.

 

A little info on Mecca before Islam because it will help make my point. It was a pagan place with people worshiping statues. Polytheists used to do pilgrimage to that place so a lot of the residents used to make money off selling statues of their Gods. They can buy the small and medium sized Gods to decorate their houses. And the big statues for festivals I think. So, people can imagine that a person who preaches monotheism isn't seen as good for their business.

 

Anyways, when he began his prophethood, the polytheists came to the prophet after a time and asked him to stop his preaching. They couldn't kill him because his uncle was a head of one of the biggest tribes in mecca. They asked him "do you want money", but he has no need for it, plus, he was married to the richest women in Mecca and can work to get money. They asked him " do you won't stature", what does he need it for? He had the best character and his uncles were the custodians of al Kaaba. Which man had his character? So, they asked him, "women, beautiful virgins?". As if he wanted women, he couldn't get them without having to endure 13 years of them calling him all types of names, killing his companions, and forbbiding people to do business with muslims and kicked him and his companions out in the desert to die. 13 long years of that because he wanted women? Come on, people should do better. 

 

He wasn't interested in such things. All those things that people accuse the prophet peace be upon him of doing, he could've done without needing to suffer.  They kept asking him and it was about to be a war because the polytheists wanted him dead or enslaved and his uncle, who was the head of a big tribe was protecting him. He said to his uncle, : "O my uncle! by God if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until God has made me victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it."

 

 

This narrative that the prophet was so infatuated with young, beautiful women is news to me, because from his 11 wives, only one of them was virgin. And the rest (10) were either widows or divorced and not exactly young(after his first wife died, he married again from another Muslim women, she was old in age and the prophet didn't want her to be left alone with the unbelievers so he took her as his wife. And his 3rd wife, Aisha, was the only virgin he married, she was suggested to him and because she was the daughter of his closest companion, he took her as his wife when she became a women). He married some because he wanted to shelter them, because their family members died, or because of their character.

 

All of them were more than happy to be his wife. Google is your friend.

 

  A far cry from what your post suggest, right? 

 

When people can't have a go at the Qur'an, they go after the prophet peace be upon him. There is not a man of past eras who was documented as much as him yet not a single blemish could be found. People wrote about what he wore, what he ate, how he ate. What he said, how he said it. How he walked, how he talked, which hand he used to eat. Every small detail and there is nothing to hold against him. Just like the Qur'an, people result to lying and spreading fales information because they couldn't find a thing to hold against the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him.

 

And yeah, show me the documents because people will want to get them off your hand. There are a lot of people who are anti-Islam that would love to have the supposed documents that surfaced to existence after 1400 years. All the fake claims will be refuted.

 

To save people time because people will ask "but Mohammed was a warlord who killed people". The prophet never ordered the killing of innocents. Even after 13 years of peaceful preaching were he had seen nothing but hate and prosecution from most of the polytheists, he survived the desert and came back with an army. Did he kill them all like many stories from other religions where even the babies and cattle were slaughtered? NO. he asked the people to seek shelter if they don't want to fight his army, and step forth if they wanted to fight. And the examples go on and on. he made treaties some of them (even though a lot of the polytheists gone back on them but that can take a full post on itself)

 

If people wonder why Muslims are so devout, my last few post should answer people's questions. If I was following another religion (thankfully I don't), I would be ashamed to publicize it. The atrocities, the racism, the tribalism contained in their scripture.  But here I am, answering people's questions thanks to Allah. We are ashamed of nothing and neither do we hide stuff. I testify to Allah, that the more I search about my religion, the more I feel at peace.

 

So, any more misconception (if not lies) need to be answered?

 

What I know I share, and people should decide for themselves. I only share what the media refuses to.

 

2 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

As always expect no response

I think you mistake Islam for those other religions that have skeletons. We have answers to please the needy (or displease the people who don't like Islam).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

35 minutes ago, the fox said:

Not all. Many Muslim leaders showed that they have ruled justly. People are still people, and you can't expect everyone throughout history to be strict in following the rules(that doesn't excuse them, if they have done something wrong, than I would say they did). The more the Muslim leaders got further away from the religion, the weaker they've become. But the actions of people that go against the teachings of the religion aren't related to Islam.

 

 

I've done nothing but be honest with my answers. I have no reason to lie because there's nothing to hide. When I saw what the terrorists have done, I condemned them. When I've seen what the grooming gangs have done, I've condemned them. (Like most Muslims do) And in both cases, I see harsh punishment to be what they deserve. 

 

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had no failures. He delivered the message in full. He showed us what to do to be the best Muslims we can be. Every Angle of life, Islam had touched upon. Now it's for the people to choose to follow the rules. And the people's actions will be judge by God. Be it the good or the bad. It's free will after all, and every group of people have black sheep that don't represent them.

 

 

People can find anything to be offended about. It was "Islam giving women too many Rights" 200 years ago when women were treated like dirt and didn't even have the right to ask for a divorce, and now it's "Islam oppresses women" because it says that women should be modest in their dress. The opinions keep swaying yet Islam's teachings are still the same. IMO, people always found a reason to dislike Islam. But what good are the principles that get swayed by the smallest of breezes. Maybe one day when degeneracy hit a new law and the new consensus is that an adult male can have a sexual relationship with his own biological father because "love is love", they can add that to the reasons why they dislike Islam. You can't stand firmly on shaky principals. And that's why Islam is so hated. Most other religions are full of genocide and rape, racism and the superiority of a tribe over another. Their scriptures say," kill everyone, man women and child, slaughter the babies alive" and the people from other religions dare to criticize Islam because it says that women should dress modestly and sexual immortality is forbidden. Or better yet, atheists who believe that morality is based on the total agreement of a specific group of people. So what another group of people see morally correct is of no business to them and they have no leg to stand on when discussing morality.  And anyone reading this, just know that if I had something to hide, I wouldn't be writing those words. So check whatever question you are wanting to ask, it possibly could be another misconception like "wife beating" and "Males always inherite twice as females". And after this, I will address another misconception about the honorable wives of the prophet peace be upon him.

 

" conquests"? Hhmmm, I guess we will find out below.

 

 

I will give you a brief example of the character of the prophet peace be upon him. Before he had the revelation, he was known as " the honest and the trust worthy". When people used to travel for months, they would leave their most treasured belongings with him. He was the judge between people when they disagreed. He did different jobs from herding to judging between people. Helping to remove the stigma of social classes even after he became a prophet. He was of such high character that our mother (we call all the wives of the prophet "our mother"), the richest women in Mecca at the time,  khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) wanted him to marry her and he excepted even though she was older than him(he was 25, she was almost 50). Helping to remove the stigma of a man marrying an older female.

 

A little info on Mecca before Islam because it will help make my point. It was a pagan place with people worshiping statues. Polytheists used to do pilgrimage to that place so a lot of the residents used to make money off selling statues of their Gods. They can buy the small and medium sized Gods to decorate their houses. And the big statues for festivals I think. So, people can imagine that a person who preaches monotheism isn't seen as good for their business.

 

Anyways, when he began his prophethood, the polytheists came to the prophet after a time and asked him to stop his preaching. They couldn't kill him because his uncle was a head of one of the biggest tribes in mecca. They asked him "do you want money", but he has no need for it, plus, he was married to the richest women in Mecca and can work to get money. They asked him " do you won't stature", what does he need it for? He had the best character and his uncles were the custodians of al Kaaba. Which man had his character? So, they asked him, "women, beautiful virgins?". As if he wanted women, he couldn't get them without having to endure 13 years of them calling him all types of names, killing his companions, and forbbiding people to do business with muslims and kicked him and his companions out in the desert to die. 13 long years of that because he wanted women? Come on, people should do better. 

 

He wasn't interested in such things. All those things that people accuse the prophet peace be upon him of doing, he could've done without needing to suffer.  They kept asking him and it was about to be a war because the polytheists wanted him dead or enslaved and his uncle, who was the head of a big tribe was protecting him. He said to his uncle, : "O my uncle! by God if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until God has made me victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it."

 

 

This narrative that the prophet was so infatuated with young, beautiful women is news to me, because from his 11 wives, only one of them was virgin. And the rest (10) were either widows or divorced and not exactly young(after his first wife died, he married again from another Muslim women, she was old in age and the prophet didn't want her to be left alone with the unbelievers so he took her as his wife. And his 3rd wife, Aisha, was the only virgin he married, she was suggested to him and because she was the daughter of his closest companion, he took her as his wife when she became a women). He married some because he wanted to shelter them, because their family members died, or because of their character.

 

All of them were more than happy to be his wife. Google is your friend.

 

  A far cry from what your post suggest, right? 

 

When people can't have a go at the Qur'an, they go after the prophet peace be upon him. There is not a man of past eras who was documented as much as him yet not a single blemish could be found. People wrote about what he wore, what he ate, how he ate. What he said, how he said it. How he walked, how he talked, which hand he used to eat. Every small detail and there is nothing to hold against him. Just like the Qur'an, people result to lying and spreading fales information because they couldn't find a thing to hold against the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him.

 

And yeah, show me the documents because people will want to get them off your hand. There are a lot of people who are anti-Islam that would love to have the supposed documents that surfaced to existence after 1400 years. All the fake claims will be refuted.

 

To save people time because people will ask "but Mohammed was a warlord who killed people". The prophet never ordered the killing of innocents. Even after 13 years of peaceful preaching were he had seen nothing but hate and prosecution from most of the polytheists, he survived the desert and came back with an army. Did he kill them all like many stories from other religions where even the babies and cattle were slaughtered? NO. he asked the people to seek shelter if they don't want to fight his army, and step forth if they wanted to fight. And the examples go on and on. he made treaties some of them (even though a lot of the polytheists gone back on them but that can take a full post on itself)

 

If people wonder why Muslims are so devout, my last few post should answer people's questions. If I was following another religion (thankfully I don't), I would be ashamed to publicize it. The atrocities, the racism, the tribalism contained in their scripture.  But here I am, answering people's questions thanks to Allah. We are ashamed of nothing and neither do we hide stuff. I testify to Allah, that the more I search about my religion, the more I feel at peace.

 

So, any more misconception (if not lies) need to be answered?

 

What I know I share, and people should decide for themselves. I only share what the media refuses to.

 

I think you mistake Islam for those other religions that have skeletons. We have answers to please the needy (or displease the people who don't like Islam).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I ask the question again, did those women that were won in conquest or wherever PBUH had to destroy villages/towns, agree as of there free will to be concubines or wives to there masters/husband's, a Yes or No answer is suffice, a example would be nice.

 

I would like to understand the method upon this was done, I'm sure you will talk about times were different etc, but religion and treatment of people is timeless, any prophet would do what is right not what the era dictates.

 

As always I these discussions, said people avoid the question

Edited 28 August 2020 by Dr The Singh

[spacemunky]

13 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Notice the lack of interest into exactly how the ****ing hell a 17 year old got hold of an actual ****ing AR-15. 

Back to school sale at the local Walmart?

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, spacemunky said:

Back to school sale at the local Walmart?

Praly just said he hates blacks and needs  a gun

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53943758

 

Hopefully a person less inclined to repeat the mistakes of the past that nationalism so often leads to will replace him.

[yorkie1999]

21 hours ago, ealingfox said:

Sounds good!

 

 

It's the less accurate bit i'd be more worried about because we all know where the electrode bits are going to end up sticking in

[the fox]

On 28/08/2020 at 00:53, Dr The Singh said:

So I ask the question again, did those women that were won in conquest or wherever PBUH had to destroy villages/towns, agree as of there free will to be concubines or wives to there masters/husband's, a Yes or No answer is suffice, a example would be nice.

 

I would like to understand the method upon this was done, I'm sure you will talk about times were different etc, but religion and treatment of people is timeless, any prophet would do what is right not what the era dictates.

 

As always I these discussions, said people avoid the question

Oh, I thought you were talking about just the wives of the prophet (who all agreed willingly, there were even other women who wanted to be his wives).

 

Anyways, does a women have a saying on who her husband is? Of course. There is no marriage without the agreement of the women. An example: 2 of the prophet's wives were captives of war. He freed them, prompting many Muslims to free many other captives. And they both agreed to marry him as free women. 

 

The prophet didn't go around burning villages for servants. The wars weren't unprompted. People didn't want to keep treaties (they wouldn't have signed them in the first place if they were in a position of power and they would've killed every Muslim if they had the chance) or pay Jizya. They wanted to fight Muslims, kill them so he had to fight back.

 

Talking about Jizyah, here's another misconception about Islam.

 

Jizyah is a tax for the people of the book (Jews and Christians). Muslims also pay taxes called Zakhat. But wait, even though that sounds Fair (way more fair than the terms the Christians and the Jews would offer the Muslims if the roles were reversed). It gets even fairer because we have to know who pays Jizyah.

 

And the answer is : only adult males who are healthy and can fight.

 

So, the people who don't need to pay Jizyah are, women, children, men who can't work, the sick, the blind, the old, the poor, the crazy, the handicapped, and the monks and priests. the poor are to be given money from the treasury as help. And every Christian and Jew is relieved from military service. They have their money, houses, honer, and places of worship protected from inside and outside threats. Plus, they have the right to do business across the Muslim land. (All of this is according to Sharia) There was a time were Jews sought refuge and went to Muslims. They lived amongst Muslims and survived the Catholic church and grew wealthier and more knowledgeable of their history. It lasted the best part of 1300 years. People have to wonder what caused the relationship to turn bad.

 

Back to the main subject.

 

 

 

 

There were treaties between many tribes and the tribes have gone back on them, betraying the prophet so the only outcome left is war. The fighting wasn't unprompted. They were called to convert and they refused so they were signing treaties and breaking them, aiding enemies against the prophet even though they gave their word to fight besides the prophet against any outside threat. (Another story for another post).

 

So, what's the alternative for the captives of war? Put to the sword? What have the women and children, the sick and the old. done to deserve death? (Even the men who fought, they surrender and the only ones who were killed were the one who wanted to keep fighting Muslim) It was not their fault. Or, should they be thrown in the desert to die (like what the polytheists did to the prophet and his companions). Or should the women sell their bodies to men for food and for boys to do hard labor and the sick and the old to die of poor conditions. That, if they even had the chance to do so? The prophet said that the captives are like brothers, they should eat what the Muslims eat and dress with what the Muslims wear. If they were mistreated, they should be freed. If they were told to do a job, the job has to not be too hard for them and their holders should help them. They shouldn't be hit in the face. It's a command to treat them well. They are described as "whom the right hand possess" and they are to be treated justly according to Qur'an surah 4 verse 36: "Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.". 

 

 

 a lot of servants were freed. The servants can buy their freedom with their own money, or they can be freed if they were mistreated or if their holders wanted to free them according to the law. 

 

As for the female servant (called a'mah or Jariyah), she is to only share the bed with one man. So if she's already married, her holder has no right to bed her, force her husband to divorce her or stop him from sharing her bed. And if she wasn't married, she is not to sleep with 2 or more men or be forced to sell her body or do more than her ability allows her to or practice unlawful things, if she sleeps with strange men, her punishment is only half of the punishment of a free women. If she birth children from her holder, her children are legitimate and her holder can't sell her or give her away because she became the mother of his children. And if he dies, she becomes a free women and have the right to inherit or marry. The prophet encouraged people to free and marry them. 

 

 

That's justly treatment. 

 

My responses were long and detailed. It was your part to ask questions, so can I ask some?

 

Like you mentioned, prophets of God have to do what's best if the means are available. And your questions don't seem like they come from a Christian or Jewish background. So, Sikh I guess? So my question is, (if you are Sikh), why do you think Sikhism is right and what are the standards to judge who's a prophet and who's not. And why do you think what the Gurus preached was right. Because anyone can claim to be a prophet.

 

We can move to the religion thread if you want to answer my questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 29 August 2020 by the fox

[leicsmac]

This is not verified, but it is believable. Also utterly insane. Long read but worth it.

 

 

[st albans fox]

Its very ‘un nerving’ to read serious posts from  @Dr The Singh 

 

has he been kidnapped ???