Mubarak stepping down.

[High_Gravity]

Come on Obama, just give Mubarak the season courtside Lakers tickets and let's be done with this.

Mubarak wants his own box, fuck the courtside tickets lol.

The delay in leaving and counter protestors lead me to believe he will get a box. Pine and slightly larger than his current height.

Mel Gibson had to give up his box, maybe Mubarak can have that.

 

[Trajan]

Mubarak will as I said earlier hang on if he can make it to Sunday…….And it is now time for the MB to start some shit, hes got to get past that.

Agent provocateurs get busy...they need to get the police and army shooting people in the streets or some such nationally motivating egregious offense.
They cannot afford to let democratic parties build censuses and establish a base before Mubarak steps down. Their njb would become infinitely harder.

And it is now time for the MB to start some shit, hes got to get past that.

annnd right on schedule.....


Clashes Erupt in Cairo Between Mubarak’s Allies and Foes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03egypt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss



of course its the "Mubarak" sppters. who have changed the paradigm.....this kind of false flag crowd provocativeness is not quite as old as wine and prostitution but its right up there....Mubarak sppters my ass.

still on board- if hes there sun up Sunday hes there till the end.

this may even be over quicker than Sunday.

 

[Ropey]

Of course the cause is broad as that complicates matters. Let's simplify. I will stay within your bounds although where I would really like to go has been bounded by your refusal to comment.

Let's even take your postulate since it seems likely that this is the case which is of course, why you bounded it.

By all means, "go." There's no harm in asking a question. I simply can't promise that I'll be able to answer..

I already asked a question. You responded with an answer regarding your bounds, and did not respond with an answer to this question.

So, I reiterate. This "sake of Allah", the "UN Blasphemy law" and "Pakistan killing over the Pakistan legislature regarding Blasphemy as underwritten by the UN with (I believe) more to die in future blasphemes. And much more regarding Blasphemy and Islam.

Is there a connection between this law and the "sake of Allah"?

There is a concern within the Muslim community of both Shia and Sunny regarding those true believers who are American and who are engaged in what is a political cause other than Shari'a. Germany is responding to Turkish Muslim identity and issues are in other countries as well, where the demand from "certain powerful scholars" who are in control of countries are doing acts that you disavow but who have yet to create one of their own true believer countries out of the 57 Moslem and improperly ruled countries that are currently in existence?

I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking...

My concern regards true believers fighting and supporting kafir causes that are against Islamic Shari'i.

So, given that the Turks (Muslims) who are not (after two generations) integrating well into German society. This is begging the question.

Is this because the integration is an act your scholars disavow?

This extends to many other acts that are occurring worldwide which follow this Muslim dictates from one Muslim country to the Muslims in another country.

Are unbelievers commanding laws over believers any different than a believer fighting for a kafir cause? Since the cause is the sake of Allah, where even blasphemy is enough for a Muslim indictment, is there any place truly safe for unbelievers?

So, he that fights so that Allah's Word should be superior. Superior against what?

"Against whichever non-Shari'i system is used to rule over the land in which he or she is fighting."

So, anything that is not Shari'a then. Your law on one side and all else on the other?

"The one Ring to rule them all?"

I beg your pardon?

You're saying that I think Hamas disseminates them for that purpose? I'm under no such delusion.

I find it funny that you criticize people for reading Protocols when this tripe meets your standards of credibility.

Tripe? You disavow it all. Yet you speak to a higher purpose of Shari to be superior to all other words since the purpose of Shariah Law is to supersede the words of Allah over all others. So then, how could those other words be worthwhile?

Of course you disavow it all Kalam. There is only one source for true words and one can find a connection between any of the three books and any proposal.

So, that means of course it's all tripe to you since there can be only one superior with all others falling to some form of jihad if one even attempts to even find equality. Superior even negates equality when turned to war or jihad.

I read the information before examining the background of its author.

And disavowed it as Zionist Jewish tripe with not even a response to the information.

Contempt prior to investigation often leads to contempt whilst investigating and yields contempt alone.

It's not hard to see that your labeling of PC's cites in her post as "tripe" proves that contempt.

Of course not -- it has been instituted before. It simply doesn't prevail in any of those countries at the moment.

Then it is simply up in the air yet. You protest, but those you support are not in control of any country in the Muslim world. Flimsy. Tenuous are the words that come to mind.

but you and yours are hard at work to get it some momentum.

Me? I'm just a student.

But you are all warriors for Shari'a? No?

And that's not rather up in the air to you Kalam?

When the movement has clear aims and plans and is making significant progress internationally? The Pakistani military has been infiltrated and everybody knows it; a coup will happen sooner or later. The Khilafah Conference in Indonesia filled a 100,000-person stadium to capacity. Even in the many countries that proscribe these movements the sheer number of arrests reported in the "crackdowns" indicate high levels of support for the cause. Would the powers that be "crack down" if they didn't feel threatened?

This brings us back to the inaccuracy of the claim regarding 57 "Islamic states." Uzbek President Islam Karimov had some members of Hizb ut-Tahrir arrested and tortured until they signed documents renouncing their faith. Those who refused were finally killed by being boiled to death. Is this the behavior of an Islamic country? Are we supposed to be content with this?

So, not up in the air, just not in control of anything. Even the Muslim countries are all run by no goodniks?

Only your powerful group, sitting in the background are the true, true believers wanting to install the true, true Shari'ah over the Muslim world?

And that's not rather up in the air? Well Kalam, I'll believe it more when one of these 57 countries actually espouse what you claim.

Until then, Well I'll just say OK, if you say so.

 

[saveliberty]

Oops! Time for the black helicopter into Cairo. Another couple of hours til dark.

 

[Ropey]

Oops! Time for the black helicopter into Cairo. Another couple of hours til dark.

Conspiracy forum proposals?

 

[mdn2000]

If Sharia law disappeared tomorrow would anyone miss it. If all Moslem governments failed tomorrow would anyone miss Islamic rule.

For us in the USA it would mean little, for the people who suffer under Islam, they would refoice.

Its time to give freedom to all people on earth, Islamic rule and Sharia law must go.

 

[Kalam]

I already asked a question. You responded with an answer regarding your bounds, and did not respond with an answer to this question.

So, I reiterate. This "sake of Allah", the "UN Blasphemy law" and "Pakistan killing over the Pakistan legislature regarding Blasphemy as underwritten by the UN with (I believe) more to die in future blasphemes. And much more regarding Blasphemy and Islam.

Is there a connection between this law and the "sake of Allah"?

Abu Hanifah (RA) regarded blasphemy as a capital offense for Muslims since is is tantamount to apostasy, but not for dhimmyeen since laws regarding apostasy aren't applied to them. The other three Imams (RA) viewed it as a capital offense in all cases as far as I know, but other perspectives have probably evolved within each school over the centuries. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to determine which is the soundest position so I'll take the default stance and side with my madhhab.

As for the UN, it's not an Islamic organization and membership in it involves the implicit elevation of contrived standards of governance and "human rights" above the word of Allah. An Islamic society would not seek membership in this organization or others of its nature such as the IMF, Arab League, AU, etc.

My concern regards true believers fighting and supporting kafir causes that are against Islamic Shari'i.

So, given that the Turks (Muslims) who are not (after two generations) integrating well into German society. This is begging the question.

Is this because the integration is an act your scholars disavow?

No? There is nothing in Shari'ah that forbids learning another language, dressing in whatever style of clothing you choose (so long as it meets standards of modesty), etc. Muslims took refuge in Christian Abyssinia before the hijra and the establishment of the state in Madinah.

This extends to many other acts that are occurring worldwide which follow this Muslim dictates from one Muslim country to the Muslims in another country.

Such as?

Are unbelievers commanding laws over believers any different than a believer fighting for a kafir cause?

As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with this unless the laws are imposed by an invading power (ie Russia) or interfere in the right of Muslims to worship freely.

Since the cause is the sake of Allah, where even blasphemy is enough for a Muslim indictment, is there any place truly safe for unbelievers?

See above. I'm not even sure that it applies to you.

So, anything that is not Shari'a then. Your law on one side and all else on the other?

"The one Ring to rule them all?"

Non-adherence to Islam and Shari'ah is not sufficient grounds for treating another nation as an enemy. Various trade, travel, diplomatic, and other sorts of agreements and pacts can be established with other countries provided that they aren't hostile.

Tripe? You disavow it all. Yet you speak to a higher purpose of Shari to be superior to all other words since the purpose of Shariah Law is to supersede the words of Allah over all others. So then, how could those other words be worthwhile?

Of course you disavow it all Kalam. There is only one source for true words and one can find a connection between any of the three books and any proposal.

So, that means of course it's all tripe to you since there can be only one superior with all others falling to some form of jihad if one even attempts to even find equality. Superior even negates equality when turned to war or jihad.

This characterization is inaccurate; refer to my responses to your points above.

And disavowed it as Zionist Jewish tripe with not even a response to the information.

Contempt prior to investigation often leads to contempt whilst investigating and yields contempt alone.

It's not hard to see that your labeling of PC's cites in her post as "tripe" proves that contempt.

Are you implying that "Prophet of Doom" and similar weblogs are scholarly sources?

Then it is simply up in the air yet. You protest, but those you support are not in control of any country in the Muslim world. Flimsy. Tenuous are the words that come to mind.

Describe the situation with whichever words please you most.

But you are all warriors for Shari'a? No?

I am not and never have been involved in any sort of political violence or terrorism, nor have I ever given any sort of material support to any of those who are.

And that's not rather up in the air to you Kalam?

Certainly less so than a Jewish state was in 1896.

 

[Ropey]

I already asked a question. You responded with an answer regarding your bounds, and did not respond with an answer to this question.

So, I reiterate. This "sake of Allah", the "UN Blasphemy law" and "Pakistan killing over the Pakistan legislature regarding Blasphemy as underwritten by the UN with (I believe) more to die in future blasphemes. And much more regarding Blasphemy and Islam.

Is there a connection between this law and the "sake of Allah"?

Abu Hanifah (RA) regarded blasphemy as a capital offense for Muslims since is is tantamount to apostasy, but not for dhimmyeen since laws regarding apostasy aren't applied to them. The other three Imams (RA) viewed it as a capital offense in all cases as far as I know, but other perspectives have probably evolved within each school over the centuries. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to determine which is the soundest position so I'll take the default stance and side with my madhhab.

As for the UN, it's not an Islamic organization and membership in it involves the implicit elevation of contrived standards of governance and "human rights" above the word of Allah. An Islamic society would not seek membership in this organization or others of its nature such as the IMF, Arab League, AU, etc.

Yes, that is clear since it is not of Allah or the 'sake of Allah'? Once again, this enlightened stance of yours is not part of territorial control in the entire Muslim world?

OK

My concern regards true believers fighting and supporting kafir causes that are against Islamic Shari'i.

So, given that the Turks (Muslims) who are not (after two generations) integrating well into German society. This is begging the question.

Is this because the integration is an act your scholars disavow?

There is nothing in Shari'ah that forbids learning another language, dressing in whatever style of clothing you choose (so long as it meets standards of modesty), etc. Muslims took refuge in Christian Abyssinia before the hijra and the establishment of the state in Madinah.

As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with this unless the laws are imposed by an invading power (ie Russia) or interfere in the right of Muslims to worship freely.

Again, in your enlightened view, which has control over no territory in the Muslim world. Now Erdogan says it differently Kalam and he is in control of a large Muslim country.

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army."

So, what about assimilation Kalam. Do your scholars disavow assimilation?

Non-adherence to Islam and Shari'ah is not sufficient grounds for treating another nation as an enemy. Various trade, travel, diplomatic, and other sorts of agreements and pacts can be established with other countries provided that they aren't hostile.

That's not what bin Laden says.

I know. I know Kalam. These enlightened ones believe what you espouse, but sadly they are not in control of anything that corresponds to territory or control of that territory. 57 Muslim countries which support a perverted form of Islamic Law and all you have is what exactly?

This characterization is inaccurate; refer to my responses to your points above.

Are you implying that "Prophet of Doom" and similar weblogs are scholarly sources?

I am implying that they have their place. I have never said they are scholarly sources. They have their questions rooted and need to be addressed.

Scholarly sources is food for discussion, but do not address simply what is happening on the ground Kalam. Doubly so when the cause you support has NO territory.

But you are all warriors for Shari'a? No?

I am not and never have been involved in any sort of political violence or terrorism, nor have I ever given any sort of material support to any of those who are.

You did not answer the question. Are all true believers warriors for the sake of Allah?

And that's not rather up in the air to you Kalam?

Certainly less so than a Jewish state was in 1896.

Our desire to recreate Israel is thousands of years deep Kalam. (Jews have recreated Israel three times and who knows, maybe a fourth. It is not on your time or my time.
)

Nice try though. You have yet to create one and you have 57 models to attempt a reworking?

To my view, that's rather a poor showing Kalam.

Describe the situation with whichever words please you most.

That is commensurate with discussion Kalam. That is like saying that the olive tree has a branch. You will describe the situation with whichever words please you the most.

In discussion, that's called padding in an attempt to...

 

[mdn2000]

Excuse me if I interupt, Kalem, just curious if your still using Wikepedia and describing the Russian Empires Ambassador to Persia as a "Western Traveller.

Actually on a serious note, why do all the people suffering in the Islamic countries desire to live in the USA. Why do they only find peace amongst the Christians, why is it that Moslems are only safe when Christianity exists.

Why is it that Moslems of the entire Middle East came by the thousands to the charity of Christians rebuilding in Israel, why is it that was the only place in the entire Arab World that all Arabs could get there children cured of a disease that led to blindness.

The only problem in Islam is Islam itself, how many years of history must we be slapped with this hard fact before it stings enough that we quit appeasing Islam.

Islam and the Moslem faith failed a long time ago, pumping oil profits by the Trillions into the religion only goes so far. Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, I could name all the countries, there is zero examples in the last 100 years of history of successful Islamic rule.

Trillions of dollars in profits though, that's an awful big crutch that carries the cripple only so far.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Mubarak will as I said earlier hang on if he can make it to Sunday…….And it is now time for the MB to start some shit, hes got to get past that.

Agent provocateurs get busy...they need to get the police and army shooting people in the streets or some such nationally motivating egregious offense.
They cannot afford to let democratic parties build censuses and establish a base before Mubarak steps down. Their njb would become infinitely harder.

And it is now time for the MB to start some shit, hes got to get past that.

annnd right on schedule.....


Clashes Erupt in Cairo Between Mubarak’s Allies and Foes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03egypt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss



of course its the "Mubarak" sppters. who have changed the paradigm.....this kind of false flag crowd provocativeness is not quite as old as wine and prostitution but its right up there....Mubarak sppters my ass.

still on board- if hes there sun up Sunday hes there till the end.

this may even be over quicker than Sunday.

Protesters contended there were plainclothed police among their attackers, showing police ID badges they said were wrested off them. Others, they said, were paid by the regime to assault them — a tactic that security forces have used in the past.

Chaos in Cairo as Mubarak backers, opponents clash - Yahoo! News

 

[Ropey]

Does anyone think that the fight for a Democratic freedom would be nonviolent? The people. Will they continue to revolt or will they acquiesce? Why would anyone fight for them if they are not willing to fight and die to overthrow the regime? They are going to have to do it themselves. Not the MB, not parties, but the people. The people must gain the power. It will not be given or bestowed.

Time will tell if they have the wherewithal. I hope so...

 

[Annie]

Turning violent now:

Print Story: Mubarak backers attack foes with firebombs, bricks - Yahoo! News

Mubarak backers attack foes with firebombs, bricks
By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI and SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Hadeel Al-shalchi And Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press 1 min ago

CAIRO – Thousands of supporters and opponents of President Hosni Mubarak battled in Cairo's main square Wednesday, raining stones, bottles and firebombs on each other in scenes of uncontrolled violence as soldiers stood by without intervening. Government backers galloped in on horses and camels, only to be dragged to the ground and beaten bloody.

At one of the fighting's front lines, next to the famed Egyptian Museum at the edge of Tahrir Square, pro-government rioters blanketed the rooftops of nearby buildings and dumped bricks and firebombs onto the crowd below — in the process setting a tree ablaze inside the museum grounds. Plainclothes police at the building entrances prevented anti-Mubarak protesters from storming up to stop them.

The two sides pummeled each other with hurled chunks of concrete and bottles at each of the six entrances to the sprawling plaza, where the 10,000 anti-Mubarak protesters tried to fend off the more than 3,000 attackers who besieged the square. Some on the pro-government side waved machetes, while the square's defenders filled the air with a ringing battlefield din by banging metal fences with sticks.

The protesters accused Mubarak's regime of unleashing a force of paid thugs and plainclothes police to crush their unprecedented 9-day-old movement demanding his ouster, a day after the 82-year-old president refused to step down. They showed off police ID badges they said were wrested off their attackers...

 

[Valerie]

The violence needs to be universally denounced.

There is NO justification for the urgency at this point.

 

[High_Gravity]

Does anyone think that the fight for a Democratic freedom would be nonviolent? The people. Will they continue to revolt or will they acquiesce? Why would anyone fight for them if they are not willing to fight and die to overthrow the regime? They are going to have to do it themselves. Not the MB, not parties, but the people. The people must gain the power. It will not be given or bestowed.

Time will tell if they have the wherewithal. I hope so...

Its hard though, you really find out what your made of though when the riot police smash your head open with a baton or shoot at with water hoses.

 

[Ropey]

Does anyone think that the fight for a Democratic freedom would be nonviolent? The people. Will they continue to revolt or will they acquiesce? Why would anyone fight for them if they are not willing to fight and die to overthrow the regime? They are going to have to do it themselves. Not the MB, not parties, but the people. The people must gain the power. It will not be given or bestowed.

Time will tell if they have the wherewithal. I hope so...

Its hard though, you really find out what your made of though when the riot police smash your head open with a baton or shoot at with water hoses.

Indeed.

America was birthed in Democracy with no real previous governing, and they needed a civil war that killed more Americans than WWII or Vietnam.

It's bound to be painful. I just hope that the people are up to the pain.

The urgency is between the groups at the moment who would like to control the people and this includes Mubarak as well as the MB and other splinter groups. So the fighting will increase.

Mubarak has shown who controls the army. Now he is taking care of others that he deems trouble to the Armed forces control of Egypt. Which is where he wants this to go.

 

[Kalam]

Yes, that is clear since it is not of Allah or the 'sake of Allah'? Once again, this enlightened stance of yours is not part of territorial control in the entire Muslim world?

OK

What you're trying to say here is unclear. If you're attempting to downplay the significance of Hanafi fiqh then doing a bit of background research may be in your interest.

Again, in your enlightened view, which has control over no territory in the Muslim world. Now Erdogan says it differently Kalam and he is in control of a large Muslim country.

This is a form of red herring unless you can point to specific examples of his supposed discouragement of assimilation. His quest for Turkish EU membership would seem to suggest that this isn't the case at all. Additionally, the quote isn't his. It's something that he repeated.

So, what about assimilation Kalam. Do your scholars disavow assimilation?

I've answered this question. If you're dissatisfied with the answer I gave then feel free to say so or ask something more specific...

That's not what bin Laden says.

Usama bin Laden was a student of business. I see no reason to lend credence to the fatawa of someone with such deviant views when that person has no scholarly credentials.

I know. I know Kalam. These enlightened ones believe what you espouse, but sadly they are not in control of anything that corresponds to territory or control of that territory.

I don't know why you mock me with talk of enlightenment when I've never described myself in this way. In any case, your view of power is rather one-dimensional if territorial control is the only measure you use to quantify it.

57 Muslim countries which support a perverted form of Islamic Law and all you have is what exactly?

Imaan

I am implying that they have their place. I have never said they are scholarly sources. They have their questions rooted and need to be addressed.

Scholarly sources is food for discussion, but do not address simply what is happening on the ground Kalam. Doubly so when the cause you support has NO territory.

Ah, yes, works with a shred of academic credibility are useless when it comes to analyzing history and current events, especially compared to laughably inaccurate scandal sheets distributed over the internet by unsuccessful businessmen.

If anyone here discovers that they're utterly incompetent when it comes to work that actually requires intelligence or some sort of practical skill, remember that you can make bank by printing lies that seem to grant legitimacy to the irrational fears of Americans.

You did not answer the question. Are all true believers warriors for the sake of Allah?

You'll have to define your terms.

Our desire to recreate Israel is thousands of years deep Kalam. (Jews have recreated Israel three times and who knows, maybe a fourth. It is not on your time or my time.)

And the modern entity has remarkably little in common with its namesake...

Nice try though. You have yet to create one and you have 57 models to attempt a reworking?

What's this you say? Perhaps you'd like to think about this for a moment.

 

[Ropey]

Yes, that is clear since it is not of Allah or the 'sake of Allah'? Once again, this enlightened stance of yours is not part of territorial control in the entire Muslim world?

OK

What you're trying to say here is unclear. If you're attempting to downplay the significance of Hanafi fiqh then doing a bit of background research may be in your interest.

I need a clearer define to this "sake of Allah". It seems to encompass much more than I had thought from your previous posting.

Again, in your enlightened view, which has control over no territory in the Muslim world. Now Erdogan says it differently Kalam and he is in control of a large Muslim country.

This is a form of red herring unless you can point to specific examples of his supposed discouragement of assimilation. His quest for Turkish EU membership would seem to suggest that this isn't the case at all. Additionally, the quote isn't his. It's something that he repeated.

So are your prayers repeated. Does yesterday's prayers from a book that someone else wrote make less meaning Kalam. You obfuscate.

The European public and European leaders reacted with concern when the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan opposed assimilation of Turks in Europe, specifically Germany. In 2008 Erdogan said:

I repeat... assimilation is a crime against humanity

I've answered this question. If you're dissatisfied with the answer I gave then feel free to say so or ask something more specific...

No, you've simply trailed the question onto a source that is not in control anywhere. That's rather tenuous is what I said and I maintain that.

Usama bin Laden was a student of business. I see no reason to lend credence to the fatawa of someone with such deviant views when that person has no scholarly credentials.

I don't know why you mock me with talk of enlightenment when I've never described myself in this way. In any case, your view of power is rather one-dimensional if territorial control is the only measure you use to quantify it.

Let me be clear here Kalam. I am asking you and you are granting me.

Now back to the discussion. Once again, you may see no reason...

But those who are blowing themselves up do see a reason and they are being financially supported by some of those selfsame 57 Muslim countries who have territorial command and the ability to increase their fight. Whilst the ones you support are in control of no territory.

So, once again, I will take their actions over your words. I do not mock you Kalam. Enlightenment is a beautiful thing. Perhaps this invigoration of Islam that you speak to will be a good thing. I think likely you are correct. There is no mock Kalam. I apologize if you think I meant to mock you. I mean to belittle it until it shows itself out of simple discussion. Let's see some works Kalam. That's all I am saying. You talk the talk. The enlightenment to which you speak sounds far better than the current backwards states of Islam in the Muslim world.

I say good. Let's see it already. Then we will have acts to tie to your words. That's what I want. I'm not mocking. I'm asking for physical proof.

Ah, yes, works with a shred of academic credibility are useless when it comes to analyzing history and current events, especially compared to laughably inaccurate scandal sheets distributed over the internet by unsuccessful businessmen.

If anyone here discovers that they're utterly incompetent when it comes to work that actually requires intelligence or some sort of practical skill, remember that you can make bank by printing lies that seem to grant legitimacy to the irrational fears of Americans.

And you decide what are lies and truth? I have read some of your posts from your earlier days here when you posted the same drivel requiring others to state positions. They did more often than you do. You just disavow the fear. Your choice Kalam. You mock them though, and then look to my calling your understanding of life enlightened a mockery?

Our desire to recreate Israel is thousands of years deep Kalam. (Jews have recreated Israel three times and who knows, maybe a fourth. It is not on your time or my time.)

And the modern entity has remarkably little in common with its namesake...

Any modern entity has remarkably little in common with their ancient times, that is if they have ancient times. That's why Islam is back there and has little in common with concern for its people! It has not yet modernized.

I thought that's what those who you espouse were trying to create? A modern Islamic society?

Nice try though. You have yet to create one and you have 57 models to attempt a reworking?

What's this you say? Perhaps you'd like to think about this for a moment.

I am saying that Israel had to recreate itself from nothing. Those you espouse for this "correct" version of Islam can't even do it with one of the current 57 Muslim countries?

That's what I say.

Nu?

 

[Kalam]

You refuse to define to this "sake of Allah". I am asking a clear definition.

Incorrect. If the answer I provided didn't live up to your standards of clarity then please help me by pointing out which part you didn't understand.

So are your prayers repeated. Does yesterday's prayers from a book that someone else wrote make less meaning Kalam. You obfuscate.

I pointed out an inaccuracy on your part. Had that been all I said in response, you'd be correct. But it wasn't and you aren't.

In a speech delivered in Cologne earlier this month, Erdoğan said Turks there should learn German but not give up their Turkish identity, highlighting differences between Turkish and German leaders concerning integration. The prime minister also called assimilation a "crime against humanity."

...

On Friday Germany's Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, a key supporter of Merkel, said the meaningful translation of the Turkish word used by Erdoğan should have been "forced assimilation." (from Today's Zaman)​

In his full quote he notes the difference between integration and what has been translated as "assimilation." Moreover, he was discussing Turkish cultural identity and not Islam. But your reliance on biased weblogs tells me that you're far more interested in advancing an agenda than you are in presenting facts accurately.

No, you've simply trailed the question onto a source that is not in control anywhere. That's rather tenuous is what I said and I maintain that.

Then say what you'd like for me to do.

Again, you see no reason. But those who are blowing themselves up do see a reason and they are being financially supported by some of those selfsame 57 Muslim countries who have territorial command and the ability to increase their fight. Whilst the ones you support are in control of no territory.

Still you cling to this naive notion that territorial control somehow equates to power...

Which country does your man Usama control?

So, once again, I will take their actions over your words. I do not mock you Kalam. Enlightenment is a beautiful thing. Perhaps this invigoration of Islam that you speak to will be a good thing. I think likely you are correct. There is no mock Kalam. I apologize if you think I meant to mock you. I mean to belittle it until it shows itself out of simple discussion.

The difference being...?

Let's see some works Kalam. That's all I am saying. You talk the talk. The enlightenment to which you speak sounds far better than the current backwards states of Islam in the Muslim world.

I say good. Let's see it already. Then we will have acts to tie to your words. That's what I want. I'm not mocking. I'm asking for physical proof.

Frankly, it doesn't make much of a difference to me whether or not you believe reform will occur.

And you decide what are lies and truth?

I point out what is reliable and what is not. If you contend that this blog is a reliable source of information, please explain why.

I have read some of your posts from your earlier days...

...And hopefully realized that many of the positions I've taken and things I've said in the past have no bearing on our present discussion and that engaging in this sort of ad hominem nonsense is not something I'm interest in.

You mock them though, and then look to my calling your understanding of life enlightened a mockery?

You admit that your intention was to belittle and now you imply that it was a genuine compliment? Shenanigans.

Any modern entity has remarkably little in common with their ancient times, that is if they have ancient times. That's why Islam is back there and has little in common with concern for its people! It has not yet modernized.

Most who want to see it "modernized" really want to see it neutered and reduced to a meaningless set of once-a-week rituals like much of today's Western Christianity. The religious commandments themselves are static because they're the revelations of God and it isn't our place to change them to conform to ever-changing and meaningless human notions of "modernity." Technology advances and changes over time and we adapt to this. The Truth is always the Truth.

I thought that's what those who you espouse were trying to create? A modern Islamic society?

Again, "modern" in what sense?

I am saying that Israel had to recreate itself from nothing. Those you espouse for this "correct" version of Islam can't even do it with one of the current 57 Muslim countries?

That's what I say.

Nu?

Islam has had a caliphate for most of its history. Yet we're now supposed to believe that reviving this institution is impossible since one doesn't presently exist...

 

[Ropey]

I'm only saying what I would do but you are right I don't know much about Mubarak, I should read more.

And for you, you are right.

For me?

I will be buried in Israel. After all, I lost some of a lung and stomach there. I didn't have to go there. I could have lost all of me there. Or found all of me there?

For Hosni Mubarak? He will do his best to stay in Egypt. If forced out, then he will be buried in Egypt when he dies. He does not want to leave Egypt at all.

But your heart belongs in Canada?

No. My love belongs to Canada. My love was created by Canada. I know, you don't understand Jos.

 

[Jos]

No. My love belongs to Canada. My love was created by Canada. I know, you don't understand Jos.

Ah so there is no truth to the rumor that your actual heart is a replacement one taken from goyim?