police dealing with incident on London bridge.,

[Leighgull]

Bin Laden's excuse for 9/11 dated back to crusades in the 16th century in Spain.

The "crusader" thing is a very interesting point when it comes to Islamic Jihadi theology. Most fail to realise that the Muslim expansionist "crusade" began in earnest in the 7th century and moved from its base in Mecca to eventually conquer the Arabian peninsula which, until then.p, was populated by Jews, Christians and Pagan Arabs. Having driven out or forcibly converted the indigenous people Mecca was declared as an exclusively Muslim capital barred to all other faiths and the Muslim armies marched on the rest of the Middle East absorbing Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, next in line for conquest was the near East and North Africa where hundreds of thousands of Pagans Christians and Jews were slaughtered enslaved or absorbed into Mohammedism. The Islamic crusade conquered the Holy Land and threw the locals off churches in Jerusalem and desecrated the holy of holies of The Jews and Christians. When the Muslims conquered Spain and moved aggressively on France...Muslim armies were finally confronted by the Christian Kings of France and Spain and driven from Europe..by this time Muslim "crusaders" had even got as far as Ireland but were finally driven out and their war of aggression in Europe was defeated. It is forgotten that the Christian Crusades to take back their lost spiritual lands lasted for 400 years in total while the Muslim crusades continue to this day.

Islam does not go in for the "hearts and minds" conversion strategy employed by Christians and Jews do not and never have, attempted to convert anyone. Islam converts by aggression and enslavement or forcible mass rape...their wars of conquest still rage from China to Indonesia and Africa.

Lets have it right.

 

[Leighgull]

Oh, and another thing...this morning the first of my challenges materialised with a bearded Imam was wheeled out by Charlie Stayt on BBC breakfast to issue the usual statement "Islam says that he who kills one man, kills all of humanity" which is a very long way from an honest interpretation of that Quranic verse which actually says any Muslim who kills another Muslim kills all of humanity.

Killing anyone else is encouraged.

 

[FatSuperman]

I'd love to see religion thrown out completely but of course that's a pipe dream so would be more than happy to settle for a situation where Islam could at least catch up with Christianity's nonsense filter. It wouldn't be perfect but at least we wouldn't have extremist murdering innocents every few days somewhere in the world.

Absolutely agree, I don't think religion is needed anymore, not in many countries around the world. I appreciate a lot of people will feel very differently to that, which is fine.

Your comment about Islam catching up with Christianity is something I often think when I read about the Middle East. Their attitudes toward women, gender, sexual persuasion etc are like Europe in the middle ages. They are centuries behind the general thinking in 'the West', however I don't see that they are on the path to enlightenment. Perhaps that's harsh as over time foreign influence may be having an impact, but I do worry that there is a lot more trouble to come before anything gets better. Uprisings in the 21st century feel like they are a hell of a lot less likely to succeed without foreign intervention than they did in the 19th century.

 

[whitelion]

Oh, and another thing...this morning the first of my challenges materialised with a bearded Imam was wheeled out by Charlie Stayt on BBC breakfast to issue the usual statement "Islam says that he who kills one man, kills all of humanity" which is a very long way from an honest interpretation of that Quranic verse which actually says any Muslim who kills another Muslim kills all of humanity.

Killing anyone else is encouraged.

Did Charlie Stayt point this out to the Imam?

 

[FatSuperman]

Oh, and another thing...this morning the first of my challenges materialised with a bearded Imam was wheeled out by Charlie Stayt on BBC breakfast to issue the usual statement "Islam says that he who kills one man, kills all of humanity" which is a very long way from an honest interpretation of that Quranic verse which actually says any Muslim who kills another Muslim kills all of humanity.

Killing anyone else is encouraged.

Not that I want to start a flame war, but there is a lot of uncertainty about both of those positions. Assuming you are talking about Qu'ran 5:32.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/If_Anyone_Slew_a_Person

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not that I want to start a flame war, but there is a lot of uncertainty about both of those positions. Assuming you are talking about Qu'ran 5:32.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/If_Anyone_Slew_a_Person

Are you saying a holy text could be misinterpreted!?

 

[Leighgull]

Not that I want to start a flame war, but there is a lot of uncertainty about both of those positions. Assuming you are talking about Qu'ran 5:32.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/If_Anyone_Slew_a_Person

I was referring to this interpretation of 5:32

.....Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people."

Jubayr is the interpreter who is most oft used by British mosques. The Oxford Islamic centre refers to his scholarship when discussing the Quran with non Muslims as he is seen as one of the more moderate interpreters.

The main point is that the Imam on TV this morning referred to a Quranic verse that, literally, does not exist in any version of the Quran.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

so is that what its come to....??....i'll wait for the usual suspects to amble along with their non-descript , placative, lipstick around the nipple , lefty , jizz swigging bollox.........lets not forget we have a vote on Tuesday....ring any bells.......??

I'm afriad it is what it has come to. What would you do. Keep lighting the candles everytime it happens.

Not quite sure what the vote on Tuesday's about. But it makes about as much sense to me to just sitting back and letting more attacks happen, then it would going out to vote on Tuesday!

 

[Leighgull]

The next verse 5:33 goes on to exhort the slaying of non Muslims...

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who believe not in Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Now. I'm not a Muslim scholar and I use the pictorial version of the Quran but it seems quite clear on this. There are at lest 110 verses in the Quran which exhort dreadful violence against Kuffar.

 

[Leighgull]

I'm afriad it is what it has come to. What would you do. Keep lighting the candles everytime it happens.

Not quite sure what the vote on Tuesday's about. But it makes about as much sense to me to just sitting back and letting more attacks happen, then it would going out to vote on Tuesday!

You'll be lonely then. The election is on Thursday.

 

[clarkey]

The next verse 5:33 goes on to exhort the slaying of non Muslims...

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who believe not in Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Now. I'm not a Muslim scholar and I use the pictorial version of the Quran but it seems quite clear on this. There are at lest 110 verses in the Quran which exhort dreadful violence against Kuffar.

Not the definitive translation of that verse though is it? Now, you may argue that 'wage war' can be interpreted in a hard way (military warfare) or a soft way (not believing, spreading the word of other Gods, spreading the virtue of cultures fundamentally at odds with their own), but I guess that's the nature of this particular beast.

Quran 5:33- “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Take them off the streets and place them where? If it is in prison then you run the risk of others in the institutions being radicalised and them meeting up with other militants, unless you keep them completely separate from others which requires major expenditure on prison infrastructure and staffing. The evidence of a link between prisons and terrorist acts is well established.

Alternatively you keep them under close surveillance hoping that this will lead you to others ensuring that you do this closely enough so that they don't fall off the radar.If they are obviously an immediate threat or actively involved in recruitment then you to take them off the street. This all requires money. I may be wrong on this but in fighting the IRA, the use of informers seemed a far more effective tool than internment. This is only a limited parallel as I think it would be a major task in turning a jihadi into an informer but it may highlight the benefits of intelligence-led methods. The problem with them is that they are by definition carried out by stealth which does not provide headlines.

Not prisons for a start. They need to be isolated. As I said, they are at war with us. We need to accept that.

I also think these attacks cannot be compared in any way shape for form to the IRA. The IRA were fighting for their country. Their land as they saw it, and it was very hard to argue that what they was fighting for was not justified. (Just not how they went about it)

But this new breed of terrorist are not fighting for land or their countries. They are fighting to destroy a way of life, so they are a completely different animal to the IRA and should be treated as such.

Keeping them under surveillance is no longer working effectively enough is it. All the time they are making bombs and involving others, you have a chance to stop them. But when they start using vans and kitchen knives, there is no way of stoping them, so the only solution in my opinion to remove them from the streets. It will be messy, but in the long term, it has to be the only thing that will work

 

[FatSuperman]

Are you saying a holy text could be misinterpreted!?

I suppose that's the very crux of the original point. Well played.

I vote we ditch all religions

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

You'll be lonely then. The election is on Thursday.

I'm aware of that. Read the quote I was answering. Seems one of the apologists is going out to vote on Tuesday though.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I vote we ditch all religions

Unfortunately, it's in mans nature to fight, so we'd only find another excuse.

 

[Leighgull]

Did Charlie Stayt point this out to the Imam?

Nope. It is exactly this that I keep referring to. Anyone who interviews a Muslim cleric who tries to employ these weasel words and wilful misinterpretations should be properly equipped to debate with them. What happens instead is we are fed a watered down version of Islam making us overlook the wicked reality of the teachings of Mohammed.

If Stayt was interviewing Diane Abbott or Tim Farron he would be armed with a list of killer questions...why is Islam afforded such an easy time? Surely the Muslim audience would not object to some proper scrutiny of their beliefs and teachings.

Oh...hang on....

 

[PeterOut]

The "crusader" thing is a very interesting point when it comes to Islamic Jihadi theology. Most fail to realise that the Muslim expansionist "crusade" began in earnest in the 7th century and moved from its base in Mecca to eventually conquer the Arabian peninsula which, until then.p, was populated by Jews, Christians and Pagan Arabs. Having driven out or forcibly converted the indigenous people Mecca was declared as an exclusively Muslim capital barred to all other faiths and the Muslim armies marched on the rest of the Middle East absorbing Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, next in line for conquest was the near East and North Africa where hundreds of thousands of Pagans Christians and Jews were slaughtered enslaved or absorbed into Mohammedism. The Islamic crusade conquered the Holy Land and threw the locals off churches in Jerusalem and desecrated the holy of holies of The Jews and Christians. When the Muslims conquered Spain and moved aggressively on France...Muslim armies were finally confronted by the Christian Kings of France and Spain and driven from Europe..by this time Muslim "crusaders" had even got as far as Ireland but were finally driven out and their war of aggression in Europe was defeated. It is forgotten that the Christian Crusades to take back their lost spiritual lands lasted for 400 years in total while the Muslim crusades continue to this day.

Islam does not go in for the "hearts and minds" conversion strategy employed by Christians and Jews do not and never have, attempted to convert anyone. Islam converts by aggression and enslavement or forcible mass rape...their wars of conquest still rage from China to Indonesia and Africa.

Lets have it right.

Yep, let's have it right.
Christianity has a long history over many centuries of attempting, and largely succeeding, in forcing others to accept Christianity, mainly through very violent means. See https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword/ as just one of many many references.

 

[Giraffe]

Not prisons for a start. They need to be isolated. As I said, they are at war with us. We need to accept that.

I also think these attacks cannot be compared in any way shape for form to the IRA. The IRA were fighting for their country. Their land as they saw it, and it was very hard to argue that what they was fighting for was not justified. (Just not how they went about it)

But this new breed of terrorist are not fighting for land or their countries. They are fighting to destroy a way of life, so they are a completely different animal to the IRA and should be treated as such.

Keeping them under surveillance is no longer working effectively enough is it. All the time they are making bombs and involving others, you have a chance to stop them. But when they start using vans and kitchen knives, there is no way of stoping them, so the only solution in my opinion to remove them from the streets. It will be messy, but in the long term, it has to be the only thing that will work

Spot on post. Completely agree.

 

[Leighgull]

Not the definitive translation of that verse though is it? Now, you may argue that 'wage war' can be interpreted in a hard way (military warfare) or a soft way (not believing, spreading the word of other Gods, spreading the virtue of cultures fundamentally at odds with their own), but I guess that's the nature of this particular beast.

Quran 5:33- “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

I think we're arguing over semantics. Waging war or not believing in Allah and his messenger amount to the same punishment. I guess my point is that the verse 5:32. Killing Muslims= bad and 5:33 killing non believers and "mischief makers" = good is the crux of this.

In any event I don't think that Mohammed was particularly friendly towards anyone other than Muslims. This is so often ígnored r allowed to go unchallenged that its painful to watch.

I watched one noxious Muslim after the Manchester little girl murders first on a vox pop on the streets of Salford and later on question time from the same town claiming very forcefully that Muslims are already doing more than their fair share of challenging extremism and that the authorities are the real culprits here, and going on to claim "I am Manchester" as he trotted out the usual claptrap about Islamophobia and demonisation of his "religion of peace" cue wild applause from the (mostly white middle class audience) as he waved his index finger at a startled looking dimbleby shouting "leave Islam out of this, we are the true victims"

Now clearly this guy s some sort of self appointed spokesman for Muslims but why do we, non Muslims, have to listen to this claptrap constantly? It is NOT our problem it is theirs.

Interestingly, in the same show a white middle aged bloke produced a load of literature he had been given to him on an open day visit to Didsbury mosque which stated "Islam is not compatible with the liberal values of te west and that the west must adopt Islamic principles" and that women should not e in the workplace. Of course this "racist" was shouted down by the faux offended audience.

 

[Leighgull]

Yep, let's have it right.
Christianity has a long history over many centuries of attempting, and largely succeeding, in forcing others to accept Christianity, mainly through very violent means. See https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword/ as just one of many many references.

Well done, you spotted the deliferate mistale. I meant Jews don't try to actively convert non Jews to Judaism. Christianity's preferred method has (mostly) been aggressive missionary tactics. The sword thing has rarely been used.

One thing unique to Islam is, of course, the death sentence for apostates and others attempting to leave Islam.

Oh, and btw. I'm an atheist so am inclined to laugh at all religion. I'm only scared of Islam though.