One Brave Muslim! Sir I Salute You!

[GHook93]

He condemns terror! A brave man of peace. I pray the Jihadists don't assassinate this brave man!

Sir I

Muslim scholar's fatwa condemns terrorism - CNN.com

London, England (CNN) -- A Muslim scholar has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that says suicide bombers are destined for hell.

Tahir ul-Qadri condemned terrorism and criticized Islamic extremists who cite their religion to justify violence.

Ul-Qadri's 600-page fatwa is "arguably the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date," according to the Quilliam Foundation, a London organization that describes itself as a counterterrorism think tank.

"Terrorism is terrorism," ul-Qadri said at a news conference hosted by the foundation. "Violence is violence. It has no place in Islamic teaching, and no justification can be provided to it ..."

Ul-Qadri is the founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran, an organization with hundreds of thousands of followers in South Asia and the United Kingdom, according to the Quilliam Foundation.

 

[GHook93]

Kalam and Sunni Man probably denouce this brave man as an Uncle Tom!

 

[Kalam]

Islam does not permit the slaughter of non-combatants, but Shaykh ul-Qadri may be mistaken if he's suggesting that all acts of martyrdom are forbidden.

 

[GHook93]

Islam does not permit the slaughter of non-combatants, but Shaykh ul-Qadri may be mistaken if he's suggesting that all acts of martyrdom are forbidden.

In other words you support jihad! Always knew you had the terrorist in ya!

 

[Kalam]

In other words you support jihad!

Of course I support legitimate jihad... hence my current avatar. I'm religiously obligated to do so, as is ul-Qadri and every other Muslim. Ul-Qadri and I happen to differ in opinion regarding what is permissible in jihad.

"There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered Jihad..." - Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri

 

[Si modo]

Terrorist sympathizers.

Good for the guy in the OP, though.

 

[Kalam]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

 

[Si modo]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

 

[Kalam]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

 

[elvis]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

I'd like to establish rock n roll rule in the United states.

 

[Kalam]

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

I'd like to establish rock n roll rule in the United states.

Rock n' Rule?

 

[Si modo]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

You assume too much.

 

[JW Frogen]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

This is the basic premis of any democratic civilisation, that your God poem, however beautiful to you or the many, can not be the poem of everyone or the state.

Indeed, those who try to impose their idea of God on the state, I posit have no faith in their God.

What true God needs the laws of men?

 

[Si modo]

What a convenient label to apply to any Muslim who isn't a cookie-cutter supporter of Western foreign policy.

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

This is the basic premis of any democratic civilisation, that your God poem, however beautiful to you or the many, can not be the poem of everyone or the state.

Indeed, those who try to impose their idea of God on the state, I posit have no faith in their God.

What true God needs the laws of men?

Or they are so insecure in their own faith that they feel the need for the laws of men.

 

[Kalam]

If religion was more important to me in politics, then I would leave my country because that is one of the strongest tenets of our system.

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

You assume too much.

To be honest, your post seemed a bit non-sequiturial to me. I don't really understand what you're saying. I apologize for being dense; it's late where I am and I'm getting tired.

 

[Kalam]

Indeed, those who try to impose their idea of God on the state, I posit have no faith in their God.

I agree to some extent. That's precisely why those who call for the establishment of Shari'ah in places like the US and Great Britain are foolish. Near-universal acceptance of Islam in an area is a necessary prerequisite for the formation of an Islamic society.

What true God needs the laws of men?

None. Men need the laws of the true God and must accept them without being coerced into doing so.

 

[Si modo]

Are you under the impression that I'm attempting to establish Islamic rule in the United States?

You assume too much.

To be honest, your post seemed a bit non-sequiturial to me. I don't really understand what you're saying. I apologize for being dense; it's late where I am and I'm getting tired.

You sympathize with Muslim terrorists. You mention that you don't like western foreign policy (I assume because you think that policy is oppressive to Muslims and you're a devout Muslim). Is that assumption correct?

 

[Kalam]

You sympathize with Muslim terrorists.

Such as...?

You mention that you don't like western foreign policy (I assume because you think that policy is oppressive to Muslims and you're a devout Muslim). Is that assumption correct?

Claiming that Western foreign policy is purposefully geared toward oppressing Muslims would be a stretch on my part. Western foreign policy tends to place securing Western interests above all other considerations, and this indirectly contributes to oppression through material support for Israel and corrupt Gulf regimes, etc. Why do you ask?

 

[Si modo]

You sympathize with Muslim terrorists.

Such as...?
....

You support jihad. Plus, not once have I seen you condemn terrorist acts toward innocent Israelis. If you have, perhaps you could link to it.

....

You mention that you don't like western foreign policy (I assume because you think that policy is oppressive to Muslims and you're a devout Muslim). Is that assumption correct?

Claiming that Western foreign policy is purposefully geared toward oppressing Muslims would be a stretch on my part. Western foreign policy tends to place securing Western interests above all other considerations, and this indirectly contributes to oppression through material support for Israel and corrupt Gulf regimes, etc. Why do you ask?

[Emphasis added] Of course it does. That is its purpose.

 

[Kalam]

You support jihad.

That's a bit broad. The government did as well during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Does resistance become "terrorism" upon acquiring an Islamic nature?

Plus, not once have I seen you condemn terrorist acts toward innocent Israelis. If you have, perhaps you could link to it.

I'm opposed to any bombing that targets innocents.

Let me be clear and say that I view all military and government installations as legitimate targets as long as care is taken to avoid civilian casualties.

[Emphasis added] Of course it does. That is its purpose.

Supporting Israel is more detrimental than beneficial to the West. Propping up it and other oppressive regimes seems to contradict the values that many Westerners tout as their claim to political superiority.