Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
QUOTE]
Israel takes a back seat to our own governments and, in my mind at least, Chechnya.
The goal of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to establish the caliphate in the Muslim world. As far as I'm aware, the only "expansion" into non-Muslim countries this entails is taking the North Caucasus from Russia -- which is undoubtedly a legitimate and righteous struggle -- East Turkestan from China, and Kashmir from India. In all of these cases, Muslims are oppressed and resistance movements have already been active for years.
The Muslim world is expanding. Darfur and many flash points through out the world show the expansion and violence.
This is why Russia is moving towards a new alliance with the West. It is why China will bankroll dissension in Africa until it is time to take it over.
But as you said, this encroachment that has been off and on for many hundreds of years is back on. You couch the encroachment as legitimate and righteous struggles.
I've heard this before. Nothing new here. Nothing enlightening. Sadly, it just shores up my views more to the right.
The cult of Islam believes that the entire world belongs to allah.
In every case, the word of God was abandoned or changed until Muhammad (SAWS) served the function of the final messenger and revealed Islam as we know it today through the Qur'an and through his own example.
The goal of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to establish the caliphate in the Muslim world. As far as I'm aware, the only "expansion" into non-Muslim countries this entails is taking the North Caucasus from Russia -- which is undoubtedly a legitimate and righteous struggle -- East Turkestan from China, and Kashmir from India. In all of these cases, Muslims are oppressed and resistance movements have already been active for years.
The Muslim world is expanding. Darfur and many flash points through out the world show the expansion and violence.
This is why Russia is moving towards a new alliance with the West. It is why China will bankroll dissension in Africa until it is time to take it over.
But as you said, this encroachment that has been off and on for many hundreds of years is back on. You couch the encroachment as legitimate and righteous struggles.
I've heard this before. Nothing new here. Nothing enlightening. Sadly, it just shores up my views more to the right.
Both the oppressors and the oppressed in the Darfur situation identify themselves as Muslims -- the struggle there is primarily economic and fueled by tribal and ethnolinguistic differences; it does not have an Islamic character except, perhaps, on the part of the anti-government JEM. The Sudanese government is simply another pseudo-Islamic oppressor that will ultimately be dismantled.
Islam in the North Caucasus predates Russia's rule of the region and all 300-odd years of that rule have been characterized by oppression and brutality on the part of the Russians, including the Tsarists as well as the Soviets and the most recent regime. Atrocities committed by Russia over the past 20 years have been of such an extreme nature that even the West condemned the Russians during the height of the conflict. The only encroachment has been by the Russians.
The PRC is universally acknowledged as highly discriminatory against non-Han Chinese and its oppression of places like East Turkestan and Tibet is of such an obvious nature that there is no need to discuss that conflict at length. Even from a purely secular viewpoint, the righteousness of these struggles is completely evident. Excluding ideological differences, our disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
Excluding ideological differences, our disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
And you're free to do so provided you aren't in the Muslim world. Israel is, unfortunately.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kalam
Both the oppressors and the oppressed in the Darfur situation identify themselves as Muslims
I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Not at all.You make my argument back to me.
Arabians performed a conquest of North Africa in ~600CE. They have been using that arena for a long time. Now they want the resources and land and are killing the ones that they subjugated and converted to Islam. Economic reasons? Of course, but be clear, it's not the blacks who are indigent who will see any of this at the rate their tribes are being deleted and Arabian (yes Sunni) tribes are springing up in their places.
Arabians are killing their own converted black brethren and taking the land. We can't stop them now, because they came over too long ago and they have so many of their own born there now.
Hmmm..
Like Israel?
You make my point back to me. Thank you.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kalam
disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
After the Ottoman conquest in 1516-17...Palestine was no longer used by Muslims, for whom it had never meant more than an administrative sub-district, and it had been forgotten even in that limited sense. In the final phase of this rule before the British conquest, Palestine was part of Beirut. The Palestine entity, formally established and defined by Britain, was formaly abolished in 1948 with the termination of the Mandate.
For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [Syria]. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point
The Palestinian Arabs' basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or -- for some -- Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after 30 years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine.
Not at all.You make my argument back to me.
Arabians performed a conquest of North Africa in ~600CE. They have been using that arena for a long time. Now they want the resources and land and are killing the ones that they subjugated and converted to Islam. Economic reasons? Of course, but be clear, it's not the blacks who are indigent who will see any of this at the rate their tribes are being deleted and Arabian (yes Sunni) tribes are springing up in their places.
Arabians are killing their own converted black brethren and taking the land. We can't stop them now, because they came over too long ago and they have so many of their own born there now.
Hmmm..
Like Israel?
You make my point back to me. Thank you.
You're focusing exclusively on the ethnic components of two separate conflicts and attempting to ascribe some significance to the fact that Arabs are involved in both. This means nothing to me as a non-Arab who supports the black JEM and your post here doesn't echo anything I've said; it contradicts it.
You're also implicitly conflating Arabs with the Islamic religion by conflating Arab Sudanese encroachment with Islamic "encroachment", downplaying the fact that both parties in the conflict are Muslim peoples. Islam is not an Arab religion and there were black Muslims in positions of importance before most Arabs had converted. Israel is another issue entirely that I won't discuss in detail unless you'd like to do so.
Excluding ideological differences, our disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
Not so. You said Israel was the problem and you are correct. With Islam, the problem is a non subjugated country in their midst. So, with that extension of yours, even a peace with the Arabians who call themselves Palestinians would not be a true peace. It would be a Hudna until you could complete your aim of subjugation.
Not at all.You make my argument back to me.
Arabians performed a conquest of North Africa in ~600CE. They have been using that arena for a long time. Now they want the resources and land and are killing the ones that they subjugated and converted to Islam. Economic reasons? Of course, but be clear, it's not the blacks who are indigent who will see any of this at the rate their tribes are being deleted and Arabian (yes Sunni) tribes are springing up in their places.
Arabians are killing their own converted black brethren and taking the land. We can't stop them now, because they came over too long ago and they have so many of their own born there now.
Hmmm..
Like Israel?
You make my point back to me. Thank you.
You're focusing exclusively on the ethnic components of two separate conflicts and attempting to ascribe some significance to the fact that Arabs are involved in both. This means nothing to me as a non-Arab who supports the black JEM and your post here doesn't echo anything I've said; it contradicts it.
You're also implicitly conflating Arabs with the Islamic religion by conflating Arab Sudanese encroachment with Islamic "encroachment", downplaying the fact that both parties in the conflict are Muslim peoples. Islam is not an Arab religion and there were black Muslims in positions of importance before most Arabs had converted. Israel is another issue entirely that I won't discuss in detail unless you'd like to do so.
Excluding ideological differences, our disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
Not so. You said Israel was the problem and you are correct. With Islam, the problem is a non subjugated country in their midst. So, with that extension of yours, even a peace with the Arabians who call themselves Palestinians would not be a true peace. It would be a Hudna until you could complete your aim of subjugation.
Conflicts don't play out according to my desires. Many or Most of the Arabs you're fighting are genuine proponents of "solutions" that allow for the continuation of Zionist rule, including (as of 2009) the leadership of Hamas in spite of their charter. It could very well be that you all arrive at some sort of solution involving two separate political entities, and this state of affairs may prevail until some point in the very distant future. We were given no specific indication of when just rule would prevail again; we were only told that it would. As we both know, it's ultimately not in any of our hands.
Excluding ideological differences, our disagreement seems to start and end with Palestine.
Not so. You said Israel was the problem and you are correct. With Islam, the problem is a non subjugated country in their midst. So, with that extension of yours, even a peace with the Arabians who call themselves Palestinians would not be a true peace. It would be a Hudna until you could complete your aim of subjugation.
Conflicts don't play out according to my desires. Many or Most of the Arabs you're fighting are genuine proponents of "solutions" that allow for the continuation of Zionist rule, including (as of 2009) the leadership of Hamas in spite of their charter. It could very well be that you all arrive at some sort of solution involving two separate political entities, and this state of affairs may prevail until some point in the very distant future. We were given no specific indication of when just rule would prevail again; we were only told that it would. As we both know, it's ultimately not in any of our hands.
Not at all.You make my argument back to me.
Arabians performed a conquest of North Africa in ~600CE. They have been using that arena for a long time. Now they want the resources and land and are killing the ones that they subjugated and converted to Islam. Economic reasons? Of course, but be clear, it's not the blacks who are indigent who will see any of this at the rate their tribes are being deleted and Arabian (yes Sunni) tribes are springing up in their places.
Arabians are killing their own converted black brethren and taking the land. We can't stop them now, because they came over too long ago and they have so many of their own born there now.
Hmmm..
Like Israel?
You make my point back to me. Thank you.
You're focusing exclusively on the ethnic components of two separate conflicts and attempting to ascribe some significance to the fact that Arabs are involved in both. This means nothing to me as a non-Arab who supports the black JEM and your post here doesn't echo anything I've said; it contradicts it.
You're also implicitly conflating Arabs with the Islamic religion by conflating Arab Sudanese encroachment with Islamic "encroachment", downplaying the fact that both parties in the conflict are Muslim peoples. Islam is not an Arab religion and there were black Muslims in positions of importance before most Arabs had converted. Israel is another issue entirely that I won't discuss in detail unless you'd like to do so.
The root? No, Islam was never an Arab religion. It was treated as one by the Umayyads, whose theft of power from the Rashidun and transformation of the caliphate into a hereditary institution ushered in a millennium of mostly unjust rule.You say Islam is not an Arabic religion. Then there is a great chance for your kind to modernize the interpretations when the war comes to the middle east. For by that statement you distance yourself from the root, and that is where the problem lies.
I avoid it as much as it's possible for one to avoid usury in the West.Islam can coexist with the world. If it overtakes the world, then it was meant to be. If it doesn't, then it wasn't.
That's likely the best thing I have read you post by the way.
A question for you. What do you think of usury? I know the Uyghur are some fine little accountants.
The only legitimate interpretation of Islam is that which is based entirely on the Qur'an and the Sunnah; innovation in religious matters is forbidden.
Now, with present interpretation, that's a chilling reminder of Islam's intractability.
So, the Uyghur also do not practice Islam correctly if they institute usury? In its purest form? The one you so conveniently hold?
The one that supersedes all others?
Wait!
I've heard this before. ...
How would you deal with "Palestinians" who refused your offer?There are Jewish fanatics as well who say that they should have a greater Israel. Both sides of fanatics are winning at the moment. The difference is that his side's leaders are those selfsame fanatics and the Democracy that is Israel still is able to marginalize our fanatics.
.
I must be a fanatic then because to me Jordan is the so-called "Palestinian" state. Judea and Samaria should be annexed and with all the money being wasted on the "Palestinians" they could be relocated to Jordan.
Probably not, Ropey.Do you look forward to the Land of Israel extending from the Nile to the Euphrates?A "greater Israel"? You mean, like the 51 member-states of the League of Nations that established the Jewish homeland in the greater Israel, including Jordan?
Seems the Muslims have the greater Middle East. Like, 99.9% of the Middle East. And, north Africa, too.
No. But you only ask questions. You don't seem to answer them, and you pull statements out of context to ask your own questions.
Do you consider that civil George?
