The Winner in "Unintentional Humor...."

[Roudy]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

I remember years ago saying that the Democrats were becoming like Hamas.
You could never get the truth out of them.

And today, the Democratic Party is home to the Muslim Brotherhood and it's affiliates.

 

[Roudy]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

Said the cyber jihadi posting from abroad who doesn't know that a Democrat in the US also means you are a member of the Democratic Party.

 

[Challenger]

I love how the truth inflames the less than astute.

...and I love how the less than astute keep abusing the word "truth", when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

Let's check.

Are the Islamofascists psychopathic thugs whose doctrines mirror those of 7th century barbarians?


Truth?

Grammar and syntax are really not your strongpoints, are they?

"Islamofascist" is an invented word that is essentially meaningless although it makes a good sound-bite for consumption by the less astute. Islam and Fascism are mutually antithetical. Psychpathic thugs exist in all societies and by their very nature of being both "psychopaths" and "thugs", it is reasonable to assume they may, from time to time, act like archetypical "barbarians".

 

[Roudy]

I love how the truth inflames the less than astute.

...and I love how the less than astute keep abusing the word "truth", when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

Let's check.

Are the Islamofascists psychopathic thugs whose doctrines mirror those of 7th century barbarians?


Truth?

Grammar and syntax are really not your strongpoints, are they?

"Islamofascist" is an invented word that is essentially meaningless although it makes a good sound-bite for consumption by the less astute. Islam and Fascism are mutually antithetical. Psychpathic thugs exist in all societies and by their very nature of being both "psychopaths" and "thugs", it is reasonable to assume they may, from time to time, act like archetypical "barbarians".

You must be the honor student at the Madrassa, will they give you a suicide vest for graduation?

"Islamic fascism" (first described in 1933), also known since 1990 as "Islamofascism",[1][2] is a term drawing an analogy between the ideological characteristics of specific Islamist movements and a broad range of European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a Zone 2 forum. Don't see discussion of Metal Detectors ANYWHERE in the last 3 pages. Too much personal flaming. We will clean this ONCE, then people will be warned and it will close if it continues.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

I remember years ago saying that the Democrats were becoming like Hamas.
You could never get the truth out of them.

And today, the Democratic Party is home to the Muslim Brotherhood and it's affiliates.

And Obama gave billions to Iran before leaving office which will help fund Hamas and Hezbollah.
Nothing to see here....

But Trump talked to a Russian when he was a civilian so he must be in collusion with Putin.

 

[Darkwind]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

I do not. No sane person would support a Democracy.

I do support a representative constitutional republic, however.

 

[flacaltenn]

This one's closed. Apparently -- even the OP got tired of the title and the topic..