Britain jails radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary

[7by7]

7 hours ago, SgtRock said:

It matters not one iota what anyone says, from forum posters, to academics, the Quran, the Hadiths or any others in between.

 

What matters is the claims made by the various groups worldwide of  head choppers, suicide bombers, throwing gays off buildings, mass sexual assault and every other atrocity that I have not covered say.

 

And they all say the same thing. IT IS DONE IN THE NAME OF ISLAM AND MOHAMMED

 

The goal is one and the same. A WORLDWIDE CALIPHATE.

That may very well be their goal.

 

But that does not change the fact that it is not the goal of the majority of Muslims worldwide and the fact that these terrorists are widely condemned by Muslim leaders, religious and political, as well as ordinary Muslims across the world. That is what matters.

 

7 hours ago, SgtRock said:

Despite the procrastinations of certain forum members and the duplicity of those that are in power in the UK in their attempt to suppress certain information regarding Muslims in the UK

 

The truth is now starting to come out.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-popular-baby-names-2015-england-wales-muhammad-mohammed-mohammad-muhammed-a7222191.html

 

If take all the variations of Mohammed then yes, it is the most popular boy's name in England and Wales (not the UK as you implied!). But that ignores the variations of other names; John, Jon, Jonathon for example.

 

It also ignores that Muslims tend to choose the name of their children from a far smaller pool than non Muslims, especially Christians or those from a Christian background.

 

As it says in your link

Quote

The ONS treats the versions as separate names because it publishes them as they are spelled on official documents, applying the same policy to other variations like Sophia and Sofia, for example.

“To make a fair comparison either all names should be treated separately or all names on the list should be combined with names that have a similar spelling,” a spokesperson said.

“If the latter approach was taken it would make the lists look very different."

 

8 hours ago, SgtRock said:

As for Choudary. 5 years out in 2. Token gesture for services rendered 

 No; eligible to apply for parole after he has served half his sentence.

 

Of course, being eligible to apply doesn't mean he'll get it. For one thing he would have to show that his extremist views have changed!

 

Your last sentence doesn't make sense; care to explain?

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

I still have no idea how you came to the conclusion that anything I posted amounts to blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Maybe a case of Mom's "you hear what you want to hear"....

 

I have already explained why I came to that conclusion based upon what you posted.

 

I also apologised if that conclusion was incorrect.

 

I also asked you to enlighten me as to what you actually meant by said remarks. Still waiting.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I have already explained why I came to that conclusion based upon what you posted.

 

I also apologised if that conclusion was incorrect.

 

I also asked you to enlighten me as to what you actually meant by said remarks. Still waiting.

 

Entertaining the notion that you actually don't get it, rather than being spuriously argumentative, here's another try:

 

The leaders (or "people behind") of Islamic terrorist organizations are Muslims. Their followers are Muslim, most of their active and passive supporters are Muslim. It does not make all Muslims terrorists, nor does it make every Muslim a supporter. Following Islam is not a direct indication of someone being a bad person, nor a good one.

 

Learned academic and theological views denouncing them as not being "true" Muslims, or not following "true" Islam", are IMO largely  irrelevant. There are numerous instances of religious groups being denounced as not following a "true" faith (any faith, not just Islam). This is usually settled by history, rather than by contemporary proclamations.

 

Asserting that those following (and leading) ISIS and the like are not "true" Muslims is merely a point of view. As there is no general agreed upon Islamic doctrine upheld by all Muslims, saying these aren't "real" Muslims is simply off mark.

 

Your position seems to be an outright denial of any association between Islam and any wrongdoing carried out by believers. This is achieved by asserting that such people do not follow "true" Islam, and hence do not represent Muslims in general (something which I never claimed, btw). Other than being based on some clumsy assumptions, the trouble with this position is that it "protests too much". If taken to the extreme (and I'm not saying you actually put it this way), it would seem that there are no Islamic terrorist organizations, as these terrorists aren't "true" Muslims....

 

What I'm suggesting is, perhaps, a somewhat more realistic (or balanced) view, which accepts the existence of different ways in which Islam is being interpreted and observed and applied. this alleviates the need for wholesale denial of criticism leveled at Islam, as it allows for treating instances of Islam separately.

 

(and the usual disclaimer, Islam is mentioned as it relates to the topic, but the same holds for any religion or ideology).

 

[Ulysses G.]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

These are the people you put up as 'proof' that all of the Muslim scholars and religious leaders who denounce the terrorist as un Islamic are wrong; 

 

 

Deny, deny, deny. There are PLENTY of other examples - as you well know. See Morch's latest post for real enlightenment on the matter.

[Ulysses G.]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your position seems to be an outright denial of any association between Islam and any wrongdoing carried out by believers. This is achieved by asserting that such people do not follow "true" Islam, and hence do not represent Muslims in general (something which I never claimed, btw). Other than being based on some clumsy assumptions, the trouble with this position is that it "protests too much". If taken to the extreme (and I'm not saying you actually put it this way), it would seem that there are no Islamic terrorist organizations, as these terrorists aren't "true" Muslims....

 

 

Very well said. This describes his stance perfectly. It is totally unrealistic and denies reality.

[Ace of Pop]

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[SgtRock]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

Your position seems to be an outright denial of any association between Islam and any wrongdoing carried out by believers

 

Nailed it 

[7by7]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:12 PM, Morch said:

 

Entertaining the notion that you actually don't get it, rather than being spuriously argumentative, here's another try:

 

The leaders (or "people behind") of Islamic terrorist organizations are Muslims. Their followers are Muslim, most of their active and passive supporters are Muslim. It does not make all Muslims terrorists, nor does it make every Muslim a supporter. Following Islam is not a direct indication of someone being a bad person, nor a good one.

 

Learned academic and theological views denouncing them as not being "true" Muslims, or not following "true" Islam", are IMO largely  irrelevant. There are numerous instances of religious groups being denounced as not following a "true" faith (any faith, not just Islam). This is usually settled by history, rather than by contemporary proclamations.

 

Asserting that those following (and leading) ISIS and the like are not "true" Muslims is merely a point of view. As there is no general agreed upon Islamic doctrine upheld by all Muslims, saying these aren't "real" Muslims is simply off mark.

 

Your position seems to be an outright denial of any association between Islam and any wrongdoing carried out by believers. This is achieved by asserting that such people do not follow "true" Islam, and hence do not represent Muslims in general (something which I never claimed, btw). Other than being based on some clumsy assumptions, the trouble with this position is that it "protests too much". If taken to the extreme (and I'm not saying you actually put it this way), it would seem that there are no Islamic terrorist organizations, as these terrorists aren't "true" Muslims....

 

What I'm suggesting is, perhaps, a somewhat more realistic (or balanced) view, which accepts the existence of different ways in which Islam is being interpreted and observed and applied. this alleviates the need for wholesale denial of criticism leveled at Islam, as it allows for treating instances of Islam separately.

 

(and the usual disclaimer, Islam is mentioned as it relates to the topic, but the same holds for any religion or ideology).

 

 

I, too, will entertain the notion that you don't get it and are not being argumentative for the sake of it!

 

I have not denied that the members, followers and supporters of ISIS and similar believe themselves to be Muslims nor that they believe themselves to be following the true path of Islam.

 

The point I was trying to get across was that I believe the people behind these organisations are using the faith of those who follow them to obtain their own political goals and have perverted that faith in order to convince their followers that they are following the true path of Islam.

 

I'm not advocating the tin foil hat brigade's view that it's all down to the CIA; but whoever these people are, as the abstract to Dr Holbrook's article I linked to earlier says "The article concludes that application of the teachings of the Qur'an is altered and tailored in major militant Islamist treatises to match their political narrative."

 

You will find the same conclusion from many other academics and scholars, both Muslim and non Muslim, if you care to look.

 

You wont find it, though, on the likes of thereligionofpeace.com as, of course, their political agenda is to convince us that Islam is evil, the Koran is evil and therefore all Muslims are evil! Some have fallen for this propaganda, including certain members here.

 

Especially when people like Choudray are given so much free publicity by the Western media whilst the many more who denounce the terrorists get virtually none at all.

 

That ISIS etc. have been denounced for not being true Muslims, for being unIslamic by thousands of Islamic scholars, Imams etc. is very relevant as it discourages Muslims from joining the terrorists. Doesn't work for everyone, unfortunately; just as some non Muslims fall for the Islamophobe's propaganda, some Muslims fall for the propaganda of the terrorists. But how many more would have done so without this denouncement from so many Muslim scholars, Imams etc.? Rhetorical question, of course.

 

Yes, there are many examples from history of people being denounced for their views, especially religious views, only for those views to now be accepted.

 

For example, do you know why the British monarch has the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) which was bestowed upon Henry VIII by Pope Leo X? It was for Henry's denouncement of Protestantism and advocacy of the supremacy of the Pope. Of course, as any student of English history knows, Henry later changed his mind and the faith the British monarch is now the defender of is not Catholicism but Anglican!

 

History is, indeed, written by the winners. I sincerely hope for all our sakes that the winners will be us non Muslims together with the millions of Muslims who at best oppose, at worst simply ignore ISIS and their ilk rather than the relatively tiny minority who support them and the tiny minority of non Muslims who support the hate of the professional Islamaphobes.

 

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 9:08 PM, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 3:33 PM, 7by7 said:

These are the people you put up as 'proof' that all of the Muslim scholars and religious leaders who denounce the terrorist as un Islamic are wrong; that academics such as Dr Holbrook are wrong.

 

Pathetic.

Deny, deny, deny. There are PLENTY of other examples - as you well know. See Morch's latest post for real enlightenment on the matter.

 

You can bring up as many quotes from known terrorists, terrorist supporters and Islamaphobes as you like; there are many, many more examples of Islamic terrorism being denounced by Muslim religious leaders, Muslim political leaders, Muslim organisations and ordinary Muslims on social media and across the internet; as you well know but choose to ignore.

 

Perhaps you should all of read Morch's post rather than just the opening sentence; it doesn't say what you think!

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Perhaps you should all of read Morch's post rather than just the opening sentence; it doesn't say what you think!

 

I read it all. It says exactly what I think. You are the one that does not get it. 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[sotsira]

He called himself Andy back in his student days and did all the things that he now denounces 

as immoral for muslims.