User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Delusional. Lacking in proof and stupid enough to think that this is anything but a slagging match.
I am not under any delusions that I am going to be rewarded for this as is just slinging mud.
I dont need to propagandise, I don't need to have an agenda. You do. One that has been soundly rejected by everyone. Ask yourself this, why do your views have such resonance with groups like the EDL and less resonance with Muslims?
Also ask yourself why do you expect all Muslims to automatically disagree with your views? If they were normal in any way, surely you would wit for people to disagree before arguing back, but you know deep in your heart that they ahvbe been rejected and maybe even you yourself deep down under all the layers of anger and pride and arrogance know that they are wrong.
As someone who has allegedly got a masters in philosophy, you should be able to think about all this and see where the flaws are.
Instead you are here in a mud slinging competition and it is all because your pride has been hurt. Arrogance has been shown up.
I accept this for what it is and I will continue with it as this place has and can do good, but it requires people who are not disingenious and while you have been on here, people have been afraid to discuss Islamic stuff because they feel you will just jump on them in order to feel fake supremacy.
What you are desiring is an ego stroking and it has nothing to do with commanding good and forbidding evil and you know that.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If you understood it you would not have attacked it as it is a simple application of this principle. But maybe it hit a raw nerve in your childhood that you had to attack it!
And you make things up as you go! Here's evidence I provided to state national identities are kufr - you were unable to refute it, citing evidences that permit someone to be called a brummie or mirpuri or alegerian to indicate where they come from, but providing no evidence to prove nationalism can be used as a common socio-political bond!
Allah revealed to the Prophet his way of life, directly via Quran and via Sunnah.
- Whatever the Prophet did or approved was the new way of life.
- Whatever Allah revealed was the new way of life, whether obligation/prohibition/recommendation/disrecommendation etc
- At the end of 23 years we have a complete way of life that can answer all answers to all issues - labelled Islam.
- It is a unique system that contains a creed, rituals and worships, morality, sociopolitical transactions, culture and institutions
The characteristics of the Meccan system had:
- some characteristics overlapping with Islam (marriage, rituals, morals, treaties etc) and
- many that did not (infanticide, idolatry, tribal warfare, concentration of wealth, plural leadership, sociopolitical bonds of tribalism etc)
These characteristics defined the Meccan system.
The difference in the permutation of key characteristics distinguishes the two systems - Islam and the Meccan system.
However one can reconcile the two systems applying your logic and say the Meccan system is Islamic by:
- Maintaining similarities of marriage, morals, rituals, trade etc
- Dumping differences and contradictions
- Adding the innovations of Islam (eg azan, jummah, eid, zakat, kharaj, jizya etc)
- Concluding that we can accept the Meccan system and it is the same as Islam
The process simply recreates Islam out of the old system! You've ditched those characteristics that are problematic and added those bits missing and kept the overlap - so the resulting system is called Islam - it is no longer the Meccan system.
Doing the same with democracy:
- Similarities include some rights, administration systems, accountability etc
- Differences include popular sovereignty, majority legislation, plurality in leadership, transfer of seovereignty to representatives etc
- These characteristics define the democratic system.
you simply ignore the differences, legislate according to Quran and Sunnah and state Allah is sovereign and introduce zakat etc and we have a system compatible with Islam - you don't! You have Islam and not democracy. Why claim the result is democracy??? It is not! You don't really agree with democracy - it is a system that is different to the system of Islam.
Likewise, national identities are identities constructed to bind society together by identifying commonalities across all peoples who live together - British national identity contains:
- a homeland being the british isles
- a history or collective memories being that of its kings and queens, enlightenment, victorian period and modernity with figures like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Churchill, Chaplin, Newton, Einstein, Beckham etc
- culture being the pub, skirts, bowler hats, union jack, english, egg and bacon, christmas, bank holidays, easter etc
- political authority being with parliament, laws being man made, courts enforcing man made laws, troops fighting for queen and country, loyalty to the country and its laws etc
It is very difficult to do a similarity/difference analysis - as the differences are so major...
I have yet to meet a Muslim who accepts that this is his social identity. Ask him what his nationality is - British as he has a passport (no probs!) or ask him where he's born - Britain (no probs!) - but his identity is not British.
Let's compare this with the Islamic socio-political identity:
- homeland - dar al-Islam (that used to stretch from Andalus to China - divided by the colonialists!)
- history being that of Adam(as) to the Prophet, Khulafah Rashida, Ummawiyyah Khilafah, Abassiyya Khilafah, Uthmani Khilafah with figures like Umar(ra), Abu Hanifa, Bukhari, Ghazali, Salahadin, Tariq bin Ziyad, Suleiman etc
- culture being halal/haram food, hijab/jilbab, white flag with shahadah in black, arabic language, the mosque, Eid, Ramadhan etc
- political authority being sovereignty with Allah, authority with people, unitary leadership with one Caliph, shariah laws, qadi based judiciary enforcing sharia, troops fighting jihad for Allah's sake, one ummah, loyalty to Allah etc
- beliefs - Allah, day of judgement, angels, heaven/hell etc
The two identities are different - Islam orders us to bond together as a community according to the Islamic creed and not according to foreign man made identities - to say one adopts the British identity as there are some areas of overlap (eg fish and chips being halal) is absurd! Our identity is Islam as is our way of life.
No amount of mental gymnastics will make the british identity Islamic - and if you do chop and change it, it becomes changed to such a degree that it is no longer the British identity - but an Islamic identity that you are dealing with!
How is this any different to tribal memories? If tribes are allowed...
Except that not everyone instrinsically accepts thema s righteous and we also have memories going back to the Muslim world.
There is no contradiction here and this can be proved by the hadith about the girls who were singing when Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) tried to stop them but the prophet
allowed them to continue - they were singing about events that had happened before islam had arrived in Madinah.
and this is somehow troublesome and anti Islamic? You cannot just state that without proving it to be the case. Besides, its not a prison - people can move if they so wish.
and we simply remove the haraam from this as you mentioned was done to the Meccan system.
For the christian events, the heritage of teh UK is christian, so you cannot ask them to forsake their past. You do not need to participate in the religious ceremonies though and many don't.
We have the opportunity to change the laws of this place by participating.
AS this is not a place that is majority Muslim, the laws covering the Non Muslims would not be the same as islamic laws even if this was in an Islamic state.
and I think we can abd do criticise foriegn and domestic foriegn policy when it is seen as unethical or wrong. That is precisely what is allowing you to blow hot air too.
I agree. However they are not mutually opposing or even on the same levels. While Islam compels to not do what is haraam, while haraam acts are allowed in the UK, they are not compelled - people do not have to drink or fornicate and neither of those are the core of british culkture (some would argue that they are the heart of a new yob culture that is taking over from British culture...)
Something you have failed to prove. You even quoted when some sahabahs tried to call to identities - the ansaar and muhajiroon - and while the prophet
rebuked the people for their actions, he did not tell them there is no ansaar and no muhajiroon. Such identities were allowed to exist and did exist. They were not seen as troublesome.
When you consider identities kufr ideology, you are in effect saying that the sahabahs were wrong here, that they were following kufr ideology and that shows how wrong you are.
None is needed - jsut use qur'an and sunnah. However plenty is needed to reject all other identities outright as the qur'an and sunnah both point towards identities - such as ansaar and muhajiroon mentioned above, and tribes themselves are mentioned in the qur'an.
Please dont reject the qur'an and sunnah just because they present the truth that is counter to your arguments. is it worth winning an argument so much that you are willing to reject what is in the qur'an and sunnah?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The prophet forbade pride asabiyyah in kufr ancestors etc That's the difference!
Cite the authentic hadith you are using with the specific wording - I doubt you've even bothered reading it!
Homeland for the Muslim is dar al-Islam - not the British Isles where part of the land is aggressively occupying other people's land through force!!!
Oh so there is haram that you finally accept! Subhanallah!
This is where your argument collapses - trying to remove haram from a system of thought changes that system of thought to something else - thus you are not british you are something else! It's like saying there is haram in the hindu thought system - let's just change it - the result is not hinduism and that is why you have a problem being called a hindu despite cleansing it of haram and kufr!!!
An identity does not ask you to partake in any of its elements - it asks you to accept the commonality it states and be bound to the rest of society according to it.
Either you accept it or you don't - you can't say I personally don't do it and I am british! It means you don't understand what is going on!
I've cut out the rest of your replies that argue the same flawed argument!
You contradict yourself - you state they contain haram which we can cut out or not participate in and then state they are not mutually opposing! Get your argument together!
I have proven it - you have missed it!
The Prophet(saw) called everyone to the Islamic creed and his state had citizens whose identity was Islam - not medinites, not abyssinians, not romans, not muhajireen, not ansar, not men, not women, not workers, not warriors, not arabs, not khaleejites...
No evidence is needed as the volume of evidences is overwhelming - your shallow examples of labels and identities all fail as not one was used across society.
The British identity (as are any nationalistic identity) are used across society in a similar fashion. You wish to dumpt what the prophet brought and used in his political society in Arabia and replace it with kufr nationalistic normative ideologies!
If you actually knew what you were talking about I'd say you were an apostate! It's probably fortunate you don't - as is clear by your comments above!
Nope - you have to change the identities above to confirm to Islam - thus they are no longer the original identity and something else. Thus one can say you are lying when you say you follow these identities when you don't! Doublespeak!
You should follow the prohibition of the prophet regarding asabiyah.
None of your examples permit a socio-political identity - they also interestingly miss out kufr identities like shirk, nifaaq, yahuudi etc so your asertion that identities are allowed is wrong - some are allowed some are not. However the only socio-political identity across society the prophet brought was Islam and nothing else as you seem to pretend by citing terms like muhajireen or ansaar or abyssinains - these were never used by the prophet across society!
Please tell me, when the girls were singing to Hadhrat Aisha and hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) tried to stop them, but the prophet allowed them to continue, what were they singing about? I would think you will find your own research on this matter more satisfying than me just telling you.
Here is the thing - you lack balance and in your view of the world you seem to reject a lot of qur'an and hadith.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I knew this would be the response - you have no idea of what exactly they were singing about, was it Allah's assistance in the battle, was it to express condemnation of warfare, was it something else... Yet you make conclusions on the acceptability of pride in the histories of kuffar from this hadith which actually goes on to talk about musical instruments and provides no detail of what they were singing about, and ignoring hadith that clearly forbid pride asabiyah in kufr ancestors!
That is the levels you are having to stoop in twisting the hadiths - and once again you are caught out but refuse to accept you have not bothered to find out what they were singing about! Disgusting and shame on you! FEAR ALLAH!
I notice you have not refuted my refutations - no doubt you will lie again in future posts how I don't provide evidence or refutations of your crazy views and I am unreasonable - I'm surprised you've not already labelled me a witch and asked for me to be burnt in accordance with your medieval British Identity beliefs (which are kufr by the way!) But following the govt version of Islam I doubt that's a problem! LOL
Oh, so me asking you about a hadith/situation where the singers in the presence of the prophet
were singing about a madinan battle from pre islamic times is not a refutation?
Please tell me, which university did you study your masters in philosophy?
Just in case you need it spelt out, if you combine the ahadith to find the combined position, it would most probably be taking pride in kufr/ancestors in acts which were wrong - the exact thing that assabiyya itself is banned for even in non-ancestral situations.
As Muslims we are supposed to choose solidarity with righteousness, thus if someone or group or thing does something wrong, we are meant to acknowledge it and fight the injustice, even if it means calling people we identify with to account.
Since you are not God or a prophet, you need to provide evidence for such things.
I provided my evidence that identities are allowed. hadhrat Salman Farsi, Hadhrat Bilal habashi, The Muhajiroon, the Ansaar, the quranic acceptance of tribes. Even the prophet
being told by God to remind people that he is a man like them when preaching to the mushrikeen in makkah.
Quite the list there, yet you will reject it because it does not fit into your argument.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
So you don't know what was being sung about the war - more assumptions eh? Mr Google can't help you on that one eh? As I thought, another fabrication to try justifying your argument. LOL Another fabricated opinion for the bin!
Regarding your assertion that "identities are allowed" your argument is flawed:
- Citing some selective examples of identitites, labels, and bonds whilst concealing other identities, labels and bonds is dishonest
- Citing Mohammed being a man does not support the conclusion that a society wide identity based on kufr culture/history/politics/land is permitted.
Until you address these flaws your argument fails.
Additionally, when discussing a COMMON society wide bond, evidences for labelling activities (helpers, migrants) is not relevant evidence. Nor is evidence that mohammed is a man like them when discussing the message$. Nor is evidence that individuals can be identified in terms of their geographic origins.
You are trying to conclude something with evidences which talk about a different subject matter. That is your problem. Furthermore, ahadith forbid bonds of asabiyyah citing pride of kufr ancestors which you struggle to refute as do you in relation to the bonds of brotherhood and Islam that the Prophet(saw) introduced in his society.
Otherwise via your logic, you could sleep with your mother, sister or daughter - as the Prophet(saw) slept with a 9 year old, a 40 year old and women in between. However the flaw as I have pointed out in this argument, is that the evidences are specific to subject matter of marriage and cannot be extended to other subject matters unless you have illah. Furthermore, texts prohibit marriage with said subject matters.
Answering
and
It was a war from the madinan people's history and has been mentioned as such.
Since it was in the presence of the prophet (saw), we can safely assume it was not praising them for acts that were anti Islamic principles.
However we can also assume that since it was about ancestors, that mentioning them, showing links etc in itself is not disallowed, that something more is needed.
or do you conveniently decide to ignore this aspect? You have to take all the ahadith together to find out what is required, not take one out of context and then apply your own meanings to terms such as assabiyah to suit your needs.
You have to prove your assertions. I have shown you the proof for my position. reject it all you like, but the proof has been presented.
You are not God or a prophet - you cannot simple make something into kufr. You have to provide evidence that that is the case.
What is it with you and incest? Keep your fantasies to yourself!
your hormones and desires stop you from seeing the truth in your fantasies because they have obvious flaws.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Your assumptions are problematic - mentioning ancestors is allowed and Allah does it in Quran so this evidence isn't even needed for that. What was mentioned about them is unclear as you refuse to provide any details - so any assumptions about "showing links etc" is problematic as you not only do that you take your assumptions further and say that they show links existed and we can use those links to bind ourselves which is not tenable. You need evidence further evidence as that is clearly not concludable from this tradition.
I don't ignore any aspect - I do consider all evidences before concluding nationalism is kufr. You sadly don't and conflate evidences from different subjects which is what I find objectionable to your argument.
Cite one relevant evidence - the closet one you have cited that even talks about social bonds is the verse of Alah creating tribes. Here tribes bind themselves with social bonds so it has some relevance. The problem here is that this evidence along with others in the seerah permit family life - not political organisation of society. The two are different notions. Binding people across a diverse society with the commonality of families is incorrect for firstly, people don't have common families, and secondly, the prophet(saw) did not use this - he bound them according to bonds of faith. And what the prophet(saw) does in response to an order of Allah (fahkum baynahum bimaa anzalallah...) is fard unless shown otherwise.
LOL I show refutations of your alleged proof and you respond by saying I have to prove my assertions.
I have already done so and you have agreed - the hindu identity is kufr as is that of shirk, nifaaq, ancestoral pride etc All these identities and bonds are forbidden and haram. You even accepted aspects of the British identity are haram and need to be cleansed! And the second point simply states your conclusion does not follow from the assertion mohammed is a man like others - how then do you conclude a socio-political bond is permitted on something called "man" especially when most of society are women and children and have no commonality with this term and the fact the prophet(saw) did not use it as a bond to bind his society?
You intentionally or unintentionally seem to miss the references back to what the prophet(saw) said or did not say, did or did not do etc and repeat this cheap slogan - it adds nothing to the discussion.
If logic used in one argument is not transferrable to other examples which are categorically known and cannot be manipulated, the logic is problematic.
I see that you evade the argument that undermines your logic and raise an irrelevant question about incest.
If you believe incest is haram, why cannot it be made halal doign exactly what you are doing by selectively picking some narrations that show Mohammed(saw) having sex with women of different ages and concluding sex is allowed just as your claim that identities are allowed?
I am not the one who picks and chooses between narrations or rejects them when it does not suit me.
I show how there are more than one and how combined the overall message is different from what you claim it to be.
It is strange that you always need to jump to strange analogies or fantasy situations of your minds makings in order for you to try and make a point...
Those are not refutations - they are just words that you have uttered, along the lines of "I don't agree" but without proof or evidence from the qur'an and sunnah as to why your disagreement has any validity. The laws are laid down and its not about then going "I disagree" - evidence needs to be shown, something you rarely do.
Once again, you have to prove it, not merely assert it. Qur'an and sunnah. without ignoring the bits that you find inconvenient.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
How is the polytheistic religious Hindu doctrine being compared to British citizenship? Did they change the laws when I wasn't looking?
Each identity has components that are forbidden in Islam - the Hindu creed, its scripture, its caste identities etc British Nationalism reveres exploits of kuffar, expects loyalty and reverence for its laws and political institutions, its symbols, its culture which is contradictory to Islam.
It is sadly being argued that if we just chop and change a few things in the British identity we can cleanse it and make it compatible with islam thus calling ourselves British Muslims.
I pose the question, why can't you do the same with the Hindu identity and call yourselves Hindu Muslims too?
Unfortunately, there is no rational reason why one can't do that and in response I get abuse, evasive answers for me to prove things, and a stubborn indifference to provide a reasoned response.
There is a problem when one "cleanses" a normative belief system - it becomes a new belief system and it is incorrect to use the original label. But becuase the british govt is pushing us to integrate and Muslims want to integrate, they want to use the label, change its meaning and call themselves british - but as there is no similar push for the hindu identity, they find it offensive if people say you can have a cleansed version and call yourselves hindus.
You need to prove tribal bonds can be used for sociopolitical bonds as the quranic verse does not state it - it states their purpose is to allow us to recognise/know each other. So how do you conclude it is a socio-political bond?
I have carefully explained why your reasoning is wrong - instead of countering each of my points you have just used a blanket "prove it". No discussion can progress with such arguments and i cannot respond to your point unless you respond with carefully elaborated reasons to each of my points that explain why your argument is flawed.
you have not provided any reasoning.
Socio-political is an interesting term... Socio from social. political - was that even separate from social in the beginning, or did that only happen later?
When the tribes came to Islam and accepted collectively, were they treated as one entity or not? What about those that did not accept Islam but had to pay Jizya instead? what about the towns and cities?
Go further and look at the treaty of hudaibiyah and you will see Makkans returned to Makkah even if they had accepted Islam!
You keep making assertions that have no proof and no basis in reality.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Please cite examples, this doesn't add up. Obviously Hinduism is a religion.
Because Hinduism is a different creed, it isn't possible to believe in both Hindu and Muslim tradition, whereas Britain isn't a religion and there are many Indian Muslims. If they don't like India there are now Muslim states in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as across the Middle East, and of course If Hindus don't like those places there is a Hindu place in India. And if they do like those places then great, I don't think anyone will object to nice people.
The discussion is of belief systems - not citizenship - I think you've not followed the argument. It will be worth revewing it as I have posted it in detail above.
For Muslims to follow or adopt any belief system, one needs to ensure it is permitted in Islam and importantly does not negate any aspect of Islam.
Only a very naive Muslim would entertain that one can adopt a different religious identity.
Likewise, only someone politically naive could accept Muslims can accept non-Islamic identities - the prophet gave us a socio-political identity of islam with bonds of Islam (brotherhood) binding the early Muslim community into one political community - he did not use geography (even though individuals used that to identify where they came from), he did not use titles (though groups used them to identify themselves, eg bedouin, muhajir, arab, quraysh etc) nor did he use history of kufr ancestors (which the Arab tribes used to use before Islam). To replace these sacred Islamic bonds with a kufr British national identity and bonds that emerge from it is forbidden as per many ahadith that forbid asabiyah.
The Islamic belief system requires loyalty to Allah and his Messenger above all matters, the supreme laws to come from Quran and Sunnah, our culture based on things like hijab, halal food (excluding pork/alcohol), our history of Islam/companions, our belief that the homeland of Islam and Muslims is dar al-Islam, the flag of the Prophet to be our flag etc, the British identity requires our loyalty to nation/nation state, respect and adherence to british laws, political institutions like parliament to be supreme, culture to include british flag, pork, alcohol, miniskirts, clubs, permissive sexual relations, history of exploits of kuffar etc
The two systems of belif are incompatible - to ask a Muslim to use the latter system of belief as one that binds him with others in society, a source of commonality which all should respect is unacceptable.
Thus one either has to re-engineer it (which the govt will not allow or do!) or reject it. Some muslims think we can personally cleanse it and label ourselves with the result of whatever we come up with - failing to realise it is a social construct and an individual cannot reengineer a social construct which he binds himself with others without getting others to accept the reengineered result. Just like one cannot reengineer hinduism and call oneself hindu, one cannot do the same with the british socio-political identity.
Hopefully that helps to clarify...
Are you making a statement or do you want some help on the history of the term socio-political or the concept it is defining?
The discussion is on what the socio-political bond should be and not its history. Unless you are asserting some problem or issue with its history - please elaborate if you are and I will address it.
Not sure if you want a history lesson or whether you are making a point here. Your question is so vague with no mention of what tribes you are referring to and what towns and cities in what era.
And what is your point in relation to this term in a treaty?
How does it negate what I have said in relation to what socio-political bonds should be in a society?
Being british is not to follow a specific belief system.
I thought we had clarified this when you used to love bringing up the treaty of Westphalia, until you were told it actually did the opposite as to what you had siggested before hand.
Except that people will always define and redefine what being British is. If people a century ago compared the current people to what they believe in, they would reject many things. Even less so, people 20 years agow ould too, people in 5 and ten years time will also have their own definition jsut as many have different ones now.
You always try to build a false strawman in order to knock it down. You compare against non existant frames of reference in your arguments are ignore reality.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I am questioning your understanding of the very basics.
The history also matters as it is only then you can make sure you are comparing apples to apples and not to some other random thing, like you tend to do.
Any towns and cities conquered in the rashidun era or even the prophet (saw)s. Use whatever frame of reference as you would like. Also any tribe that decided to pay jizya or accept Islam. use whichever ones you like. You will see many bonds being used.
Were not Muslims returned to Makkah, even though they had the ultimate boind of Islam?
[/quote]How does it negate what I have said in relation to what socio-political bonds should be in a society?[/quote]
and you claim you have a masters in philosophy? SUrely that should mean that you are able to think? or don't they bother with such basics in uni any longer?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Well if you understood the basics we would not be having this argument.
If this is not just a tiered old cliche and means anything, explain how history will ensure "apples are being compared" - I honestly haven't a clue what you are on about! You seem to have given up putting forward meaningful statements - to you they may make sense but I doubt any reader can make any sense of what you are on about.
Please stick to the discussion at hand - it is not about bonds - it is about socio-political bonds.
The Prophet(saw) and the ijma al-sahaba are the only sources of law - they used no other bonds. What other Muslims did or did not do on the subject do not make it halal or haram and as such have no evidential value other than historic interest.
How does it negate what I have said in relation to what socio-political bonds should be in a society?[/quote]Muslims who left Mecca were returned to Mecca - their return does not negate or prove any bond that may exist or may not exist with Muslims. It shows how one must honour treaties. What are you concluding? That there was no bond - that kufr bonds can be used? These Muslims somehow followed the tribal bonds of jahilliyah? OR something else?
Your example seems to me like citing the example of Muslims who lived in Medina being stoned to death for adultery and trying to draw conclusions on what socio-political bonds should be from this. I can't see the logic to be honest.
Yes, it is possible to be so disloyal to Britain that you fight against it and that is where Britain draws the line, very sensibly. If that conflicts with your religious beliefs then good luck finding somewhere more tolerant!
Yes. You have to keep the laws of whatever country in the world you find yourself. I understood Islam said the same thing but again, if it doesn't, you are in the wrong place, you ideally need to find a place where everyone agrees on everything - but fortunately you can live in Britain and disagree as loudly as you like as long as you do keep the laws.
The supreme national law-making body, yes. Every country has one. We vote for this one so as to have some representation. Otherwise, say a bunch of fanatical Hindus were in charge, we would probably not be free to worship as we please. None of the main parties represents a religious view and they are all bound to protect the freedoms we have here, to be Muslim, or Christian, or to be total hedonists, or kindly humanitarians, or whatever.
There is no basis for saying that what you observe some people (a minority on most of those) do in their free time is some kind of national mandate. In your free time you go to mosque, perhaps, and that doesn't mean I have to. British law has nothing to do with all that, and it would not work for British law to become any less tolerant in line with your views either because on Hizb ut Tahrir and the like would want that, but they don't believe in the public vote, they are all oppressive and arrogant hypocrites.
IF YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY HERE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE OF MAKING THE MAJORITY CONFORM. IF THAT MAKES YOU UNHAPPY, PLEASE EMIGRATE. I HAVE NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER WITH IMMIGRANTS, FOREIGNERS AND PEOPLE OF DIFFERING CREEDS SO DON'T EVEN TRY THAT ONE AGAIN.
Precisely - a treaty that meant that a Makkan would be returned to Makkah even if the person was Muslim.
It held the bond of being Makkah very highly. It did not have to - the prophet
copuld have walked away without a treaty.
Why do you always jump to such illogical extremes? All I am showing you is that there are a multitude of bonds and that they are all valid on some level. You on the other hand suggest that their mere existence is following kufr ideology.
Astaghfirullah, have you no shame?
Are you comparing people accepting Islam and becoming Muslims/sahabis with adultery?
La haula wa laa quwwata illa billaa.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
How do you conclude it held the bond of mecca being held highly?
Which text are you relying on?
The prophet(saw) could have walked away without a treaty as the companions wanted but Allah ordained it. How are you trying to understand allah's reasons and motivations and which texts are you using?
If that is your point it is wrong - bonds of polytheism are wrong thus your assertion that they are ALL valid on some level collapses. Unless you can explain why not?
You should read the narrations of where the Prophet(saw) stoned Muslim women of Medina. It may shock you but Muslims of medina were stoned to death! Yet they had the right bonds with other muslims (from other evidences) and one cannot conclude anything on that subject from such texts - as what you appear to be doing!`
Yes, miss the bit where you compared people accepting Islam with adultery...
You were trying to show the Sahabahs who were returned to Makkah as per treaty to be like adulterers.
Have some shame.
Are you even Muslim?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
[quote=Joie de VivreIF YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY HERE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE OF MAKING THE MAJORITY CONFORM. IF THAT MAKES YOU UNHAPPY, PLEASE EMIGRATE. I HAVE NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER WITH IMMIGRANTS, FOREIGNERS AND PEOPLE OF DIFFERING CREEDS SO DON'T EVEN TRY THAT ONE AGAIN.[/quote]
Do you have to repeat simplistic platitudes? If one doesn't like the system, intelligent people around the world work to change it - otherwise following your advice they would perpetually keep emigrating from one country to another - something you don't do yourself as the advice is bogus!
You miss the point of the discussion of identity - it refers to a common belief system which people must opt into and believe and respect. People are not expected to follow every detailed aspect of it in order to be characterised with it or to accept it. The question is that is it acceptable and can a muslim feel comfortable imposing this identity or belief system on himself to create commonality with others in society?
I would suggest no and normatively it is prohibited... some might think yes - but when they are questioned, they start reengineering major parts of it (Islamicising it!) before accepting it... is the result a british identity as they claim or an islamic identity?
Your mutterings are becoming increasingly unintelligible...
Do you understand even the serious of the words you are typing?
Comparing the Makkans accepting Islam and trying to move to Madinah with adultery is seriously twisted. Disgusting.
I will ask once again, are you Muslim?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Do you have to repeat simplistic platitudes? If one doesn't like the system, intelligent people around the world work to change it - otherwise following your advice they would perpetually keep emigrating from one country to another - something you don't do yourself as the advice is bogus!
You miss the point of the discussion of identity - it refers to a common belief system which people must opt into and believe and respect. People are not expected to follow every detailed aspect of it in order to be characterised with it or to accept it. The question is that is it acceptable and can a muslim feel comfortable imposing this identity or belief system on himself to create commonality with others in society?
I would suggest no and normatively it is prohibited... some might think yes - but when they are questioned, they start reengineering major parts of it (Islamicising it!) before accepting it... is the result a british identity as they claim or an islamic identity?[/quote][/quote]
I think I have brought that up with you only once before, what you accused me of repeating, and then you said I was obviously just a racist, so I have added the caveat. I am not a one-trick pony.
You did not answer the points I made, you simply bundled up your beliefs into "working to change the system", as if you cared at all about the British. If people hostile to British liberties are "working to change the system" I don't suppose you can have any issues with the system fighting back. But you raise issues anyway and tell Muslims it was their fault.
Pages