Do Not Bash Muslims

[setst777]

If this is the doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam, then why aren't they practicing the type of Islam that you are describing?

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
You have to take that up with the
Islamic Scholars,
Islamic Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia,
Reliance of the Traveller
Qur'an
Sahih Hadith
on the use of abrogation and Jihad – world conquest for Islam. This is Islamic Doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:

<<
If this is the doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam, then why aren't they practicing the type of Islam that you are describing?
>>

Setst RE: Your question is a repeat that was already answered multiple times by myself in the previous post and others, and also by Joyousperson in numerous posts.

Most Muslims in the world are practicing their faith. Muslims that are a minority in foreign lands are practicing Taqyah, and reverting to the abrogated peaceful verses (in stages). As the Muslims in a foreign land gain population in that foreign land, then statistics show that 100% of the time the Muslims will become ever more bold and threatening (in stages) until Sharia becomes law.

The commands of Allah cannot be altered except by Allah himself. Sharia represents those commands in practice.

Regarding Jihad, the commands of Allah are clearly spelled out in Sharia – the immutable Law of Allah.

You cannot separate Islam from its politico/religious doctrine - Sharia.

That is the danger.

Many Muslims may presently appear to ignore Allah’s commands through His Messenger. However, as the Polls show, many Muslims do support or agree with those Muslims that do follow Allah’s commands, and only about one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism in Britain. Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

I will say seriously to you, just as I have been saying on this thread….

• As long as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira remain
• As long as Muhammad remains the last prophet

then:

• Islam (the religion and political system of Muslims) will continue to be founded in Sharia
• Islam will continue to be motivated to deal with religious politics by Sharia Jihad.
• Islam will continue to be a violent religious-political system

Many Muslims will continue to have evil thoughts about non-believers and their countries (infidels) founded upon Islam’s most sacred and reliable Scriptures, even though not actively carrying out acts of terrorism.

Muslims are not sheep without a shepherd. They have

• their Imams,
• their Mosques (infiltrated by fundamental Islam),
• their Schools,
• their sacred books,
• their Islamic leaders.
• their family
• their culture

The danger exists that other Muslims will carry out Jihad against unbelievers – politically, socially and physically.

We cannot say when acts of Jihad will be carried out, or for what perceived reason, but we know that they will happen. WHY? We have 1400 years of Islamic History to learn from.

Any Muslim we see could potentially be a terrorist motivated by the ideology of Sharia, or could turn into one at any time. That is the danger.

We will continue to see Mosques and Islamic Organizations in the West being infiltrated by classical and traditional Islam (through Sunni and Shia Islam) resulting in the support and re-indoctrination of millions of Muslims to understand what Allah and His Messenger expect of them in the performance and/or support of Jihad against unbelievers.

No Muslim want to go to Allah’s hell. Most Muslims want to be saved. Once they learn what Allah expects of them to be saved, they will support or become involved in Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates and blasphemers. This is a fact, because that is part of Sharia. The Polls I posted for you show that around half the Muslims in the world, actually more, want hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers held accountable by Sharia Law - a death penalty. More than half the Muslims in the world want Sharia.

We will continue to see revival in Islam to return to the foundation of their Faith – Sharia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

As soon as we (infidels) recognize the threat, the better position we will be in to prevent that Islamic threat from destroying our culture and way of life as we now know it, just as Islam has done in every land they have invaded since its inception.

setst777 said: ↑
According to the article and resulting poll you provided, violence (in general) is the topic of the poll – not terrorism.

setst777 said: ↑
My poll was based on Muslim terrorism. So naturally you are going to come to flawed conclusions because you are comparing two different polls that deal with two different topics. You are not looking at the context of those polls. No one would disagree that general violence in poor areas is greater than in better areas, and is not much influenced by ideological indoctrination. The problem with your poll is it does not deal with acts of terrorism.

Joseph responds: My poll and your poll are the same poll.

Setst RE: Yes, the polls appear to be the same source. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was surprised to learn this because the Wikipedia article was specifically about “Muslim attitudes toward terrorism;” yet, the poll only proves views on violence by government or civilians on civilians (nothing to do with terrorism). However, you appear to have been misled by the same poll I used for similar reasons - More on that shortly.

The Wikipedia topic from which I copied the poll results is called:

“Muslim attitudes toward terrorism”

The article continues to talk about terrorism, but later diverges from the topic to discuss violence. The poll they used had to do with violence, and not terrorism – specifically violence by government or citizens on citizens.

I agree that violence by government, or even civilians, on other civilians, can be justified to prevent acts of violence, or even terrorism, that is causing harm others. That is the Law. That is why we have police. That is why we have laws that justify civilians attacking other civilians to prevent harm, or continue harm, against themselves or others.

Apparently the Polls show that Muslims don’t like Government to be involved in fulfilling their duty to protect its citizens from other citizens who are harming others – perhaps because Muslims see this action as interfering with Jihad.

I was led to believe by Wikipedia that the poll was one of the proofs of Muslim attitudes toward terrorism compared to other groups; but instead, the poll dealt only with violence by government, in particular.

The difference between one’s view of violence against citizens by government or other civilians compared to one’s view of terrorism is very different.

Terrorism and Violence are two different things, even though violence itself exists in terrorism. Violence does not explain the motive for terrorism.

What is terrorism?

According to the Gallop Poll you quoted, terrorism is defines as follows:

For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Views of Violence

Since terrorism is politically motivated, and Muslims carry out most of the terrorist attacks, then Muslims are politically motivated to carry out acts of terrorism.

What is the political motive behind carrying out acts of terrorism by Muslims? The answer is the call to Jihad – defensive or offensive.

It looks like I was mislead by Wikipedia and the poll results they used. I expected a high quality of information from an objective open-source archive. I have learned that even objective open-source documents, and even the polls they quoted from, can be flawed, in that these polls are using trickery to mislead people into believing Muslims are peaceful and friendly, using polls on violence to prove Muslim views on terrorism. That is deliberate misinformation.

Joseph continues:
<<
Your source even dispels the myth that religion is what drives support for terrorism.

No Link Between Views of Violence and Importance of Religion

In addition to those who single Islam out, some pundits, most notably the "New Atheists," have accused religion in general of encouraging violence. Though the motivations of actual terrorists are beyond the scope of this brief, the evidence regarding public support for targeting civilians challenges this notion.

An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion.
The above coincides with the findings of MI5 in their research:
>>

Setst RE: Notice the Poll was about "violence" and not "terrorism."

You were apparently mislead into thinking violence is synonymous with terrorism in that poll, just as I was, as the Poll I used, and you referred to, only deals with violence – not terrorism.

Joseph continues:
<<
Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
>>

Set RE: The article expresses broad generalized statements about terrorism, as if terrorism is caused by “violent extremist activity.” Yet, in the same context, the article states that such terrorists are not zealots of their faith and just normal people.

Don’t you find that strange? I mean if the terrorist Muslim is not a religious zealot, then why is he called an "extremist?"

What makes him extreme if not for his religion?

Firstly: A Muslim does not have to be a radical or extremist or zealot to understand that the West are infidels and are evil, and that infidels are the lowest of creatures that walk the face of the earth. This is Sharia, and is taught in Mosques, and Islamic schools, throughout the USA and Europe.

Secondly: The majority of Muslims understands what Jihad is, and the performance of Jihad, as taught in the Mosques and schools throughout the world and in the Islamic countries. Jihad is the political motive for terrorism. So call it “political” or “religious,” the result is the same. Islam is a political-religious entity.

Thirdly: The article states that terrorist attacks are not committed by zealots or radicals, but rather everyday “Muslims.” The article doesn’t mention “Muslims” because that is a politically incorrect term.

But the whole article agrees with everything I have been saying all along… That Jihadist are not extremists or zealots. They are Muslims who terrorize. And terrorizing is politically motivated. Islamic politically motivated attacks are founded in Sharia – Jihad.

In contrast to the article, I provided the evidence which shows the better background from which terrorists are most common. The article, without proof, says that Terrorists are from low income backgrounds. Actually violence is by low income backgrounds, while terrorism is by those with better education and background.

The middle-class terrorists: More than 60pc of suspects are well educated and from comfortable backgrounds, says secret M15 file | Daily Mail Online

Islamic Terrorists not Poor and Illiterate, but Rich and Educated

Terrorism - Wikipedia [Heading: “Perpetrators”]

continued...

 

[setst777]

Once again, what are you talking about? Disagreeing with you and your interpretations of these Islamic sources does not equate to attacking Islamic sources.

Hi Joseph,

setst777 said: ↑
How Many Countries Has Islam Ruined So Far

Somalia 99% percent Muslim! Death is coming! It's black hawk down everyday. Yemen 99% percent Muslim will never get better 24/7 Allah akbar shouting and bombs going down. Nigeria-Half of it is ruined in the Muslim side. I said half of it the other have is doing great. That means 46% percent Muslim. The Muslim half is in chaos. Libya 97% percent I guess the chaos will never stop 2 more percent to go. Iraq-91% percent and chaos just wait for the last 9% percent to finish up. Syria 88% percent Muslim it's above 88 and slowly will reach the 99% percent mark and look at the chaos. Egypt-Majority Muslim but Egypt isn't in a chaos because it isn't 99% percent Muslim. That is good Afghanistan-Chaos everywhere because it's 99% percent Muslim

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
What do all of the countries listed above have in common besides majority Muslim populations?

“Terrorism Thrives in Regions of Conflict and War”
>>

Setst RE: Exactly my point! …

Question: The Regions of conflict and war are where?

Answer: Predominantly Islamic Countries – many sects of Islam warring against each other and everyone else.

We don’t see that scale of conflict, war and terrorism committed by Christians or Jews, or any other religion, no matter how poor or deprived they are.

Islam is the only religion on earth that is founded on the doctrine of Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates and blasphemers.

No other religion has such a hateful doctrine.

This should be easy to understand.

Joseph continues:
<<
In each one of those countries, terrorism and violence of all types was rare prior to 2001. Do you believe that people in those countries suddenly became religious, or that maybe something else led to the sudden and dramatic increase in violence in those countries?
>>

Setst RE: That does not matter. Revival in Islam occurs at various times in history. Any perceived activity that threatens Islam (the religion) is grounds for Jihad by any person or group of Muslims.

The point is that Islamic Doctrine is the driving force. Islamic doctrine calls Muslims to deal with such issues through terrorism, war and violence. That is Sharia.

Jihad is forever to be committed against:

• Non-Muslims in the whole world (infidels),
• Perceived Hypocrites (Muslims sects fighting Muslim sects),
• Apostates
• Blasphemers

This is common Sharia doctrine being taught in Islamic schools, Mosques and Islamic Organization that instruct Muslims in almost all countries where Muslims exist…

JIHAD الْجِهاد

Islamic EncyclopediaMon, 13 Oct, 2014

Literally, “extraordinary efforts”, “utmost exertion,” or to “strive hard;” but in strict Islamic terminology, fighting with arms, primarily to give ascendency to the Word of Allah, meaning, to establish His lordship on the earth, where none is worshipped but Allah, and none is obeyed but Allah:

A man went up to the Prophet and said, “A man fights for tribal (or national) honor, or to display his valor, or to show off, so which one of these is in the way of Allah?” He answered, “He who fought in order to achieve ascendency for Allah’s word, is in the way of Allah.”

“Whoever died without taking part in a jihad and without intending to do it, died on a branch of hypocrisy.”

He has predicted humiliation for the Ummah if it abandons Jihad. He said:

إِذَا تَبَايَعْتُمْ بِالْعِينَةِ وَأَخَذْتُمْ أَذْنَابَ الْبَقَرِ وَرَضِيتُمْ بِالزَّرْعِ وَتَرَكْتُمْ الْجِهَادَ سَلَّطَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ ذُلا لا يَنْزِعُهُ حَتَّى تَرْجِعُوا إِلَى دِينِكُمْ - سنن أبي داؤد

“When you begin to indulge in `Inah (a kind of trading involving disguised usury), take up to raising cattle, plowing the field and give up Jihad, then Allah will settle upon you a humiliation that He will not remove until you return (to your religion).”

He has also predicted that the Ummah as a whole will not abandon Jihad. He said,

لا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى الْحَقِّ ظَاهِرِينَ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ - صحيح مسلم

“A group of my Ummah will remain fighting for the cause of Truth, maintaining the upper hand, until the Day of Judgment.”

Purpose of Jihad

The purpose of Jihad is to remove the forces obstructing men from following the Way of Allah so that they may be able to serve Allah unhindered. It is done by subduing unbelief and rebellion against Allah. The foremost target of this struggle is one’s own self which always prompts rebellion against Allah’s commands. Therefore, Jihad was not a passing phenomenon in the history of the Ummah. Had it been so the Qur'an would not have devoted so much space, in its best parts, and in the style that it reserves for it; nor would the Sunnah have granted it so much attention. Nonetheless, Islam desires not its adherents to saunter in the streets and highways with a naked sword chopping off heads, as the concept is propagated by its adversaries. Given the realities of existence on this earth, the tendency of men to invade, destroy, plunder and enslave others, require that the Ummah adopts a realistic attitude towards Jihad, so that it does not remain talking of peace, while its enemies arm themselves to the teeth and begin to dictate terms and conditions (for peaceful co-existence!), or face humiliation, destruction and annihilation.
Islamic Pedia - Jihad الْجِهاد
>>

The Islamic Encyclopedia definition is completely in line with Islam’s sacred Books and most reliable sources:

• The Quran,
• The Hadith,
• The Sira,
• Reliance of the Traveller,
• Sharia of both Sunni and Shia Muslims.
• Traditional Islam
• Classical Islam
• The best Islamic Tafsir and Scholars
• Islamic History - 1400 years of terrorism and violence does not lie.
• contemporary Islamic revival.

In recent years, we are seeing a revival of knowledge and commitment to the sacred commands of Allah through His Prophet as taught in Islamic countries, and in Mosques, and Islamic Organizations throughout the world. See:
Islamic revival - Wikipedia
>>

setst777 said: ↑
All you have to stand on is your Sufii Islam evidence, which is not evidence at all.

Joseph responds:
<<
You are starting to sound silly. I've already told you where my education on Islam comes from and my life experiences.
>>

Setst RE: Here is what you wrote about your Sufii source:

Joseph writes (bolding is mine to emphasize):
<<
Context is everything.

Since you are having difficulty understanding the concepts of Shari'a I would like to recommend the following book as a companion to the Reliance of the traveler:

Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know About the Shariah, Feisal Abdul Rauf,
>>

In that quote, you said “context is everything” concerning Sharia. Then you list a source for me to read as a “companion to the Reliance of the Traveller” since I was having difficulty understanding.


Since you list that Sufii source as a credible companion of Reliance of the Traveller to help me understand the context, you obviously used that source yourself to show you the context of Reliance of the Traveller. So, you thought that was a great legitimate source explaining Sunni Sharia doctrine for me to read.

So, I see nothing silly about this. You are using a Sufii source to give you your contextual understanding of Sunni Sharia. Then you accuse me of not understanding the context of Sunni Sharia. Am I sounding silly?

Then, by your comments, you reveal that you actually know next to nothing about Sharia.

For instance,

You didn’t realize that Muslims dress the way they do because they are following Sharia.

You thought that millions of Muslims practicing Sharia in the West were practicing full Sharia Law.

You didn’t appear to understand that Sharia contains far more than rules for daily living – lifestyle

Due to all these facts, I realize that you have a faulty impression of what Sharia is. No doubt that is because you are reading a companion book for Reliance of the Traveller that is “Sufii” – a spiritualized version of Islam practice by 1% of Muslims.

setst777 said: ↑
I already gave you the source.

The Greatest Murder Machine in History

Islamic conquest 270 million - Video Search Results


Joseph responds:
<<
Those are not legitimate sources.
>>

Setst RE: Of course you are going to say that, just as you say I don’t understand the context of Sunni Sharia because it does not agree with your Sufii source.

No, we don’t know the exact numbers of those who were massacred in the Islamic Conquests by Islamic Jihad over 150 years after Muhammad by the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Muhammad’s closed companions).

However, the evidence I provided gives a knowledgeable estimate based on historical and archeological evidence.

Remember, that number includes the tens of millions of Africans who died on Islamic ships destined for the slave trade. Approximately 15% of those Africans lived through the ordeal of the terrible disease infested, cramped conditions those during transport on those ships. The rest of them died of disease, dehydration, and not sure what else.

The Islamic Slave trade was in full force hundreds of years before Europe got involved. And Islam sold millions of slaves to other Muslims and nations throughout Europe. The Slave trade is a Sharia Law, and can never be abolished, even though Islamic countries presently suspend this practice do to pressure from the West.

setst777 said: ↑
I have been describing basically Sunni Islam and Shia Muslim from their sources.

Joseph responds:
<<
Then why aren't Sunni and Shia Muslims practicing Islam the way you have been describing it here?
>>

Setst RE: Most Muslims in the world are practicing Islam. But since Muslims "here" in the US are a minority - less than 1% of the US population - they are practicing Takyah, temporarily following the abrogated verses (in stages) on peace until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA.

That is why I showed you research results of what happens in countries as Muslims gain greater population in a given foreign country.

Just because most do not carry out acts physical Jihad does not mean they do not support or approve of those that do. I gave you poll results showing this to be the case several times.

You refused to look at the evidence.

 

[JosephZ]

Jihad is forever to be committed against:
Non-Muslims in the whole world (infidels),
Perceived Hypocrites (Muslims sects fighting Muslim sects),
Apostates
Blasphemers
This is common Sharia doctrine being taught in Islamic schools, Mosques and Islamic Organization that instruct Muslims in almost all countries where Muslims exist…

What you are describing here is Wahhabism, not Shari'a

In recent years, we are seeing a revival of knowledge and commitment to the sacred commands of Allah through His Prophet as taught in Islamic countries, and in Mosques, and Islamic Organizations throughout the world. See:
Islamic revival - Wikipedia

I guess since violence in Islamic countries is currently much lower than western countries and acts of Islamic terrorism have declined by around 70% in the past five years we can conclude that this revival was short lived and appears to be coming to an end? Support for terrorism, specifically suicide bombings, has also been declining.

More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks and after hundreds of high profile attacks on civilians, the percentage of Muslims who say suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified has fallen in many of the countries surveyed. For instance, in 2002, 74% of Lebanese Muslims said suicide bombing was often or sometimes justified. But in the wake of well-publicized attacks, such as the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, support has fallen to just 29% today.

In Jordan, which experienced a devastating sequence of terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman in 2005, support for the tactic among Muslims has fallen from 57% before those attacks to 15% today. A similar trend is found in Pakistan, where suicide bombing was falling out of favor with Muslims even before the attack on former Benazir Bhutto which ended her life in 2007. A decade ago, 41% of Pakistani Muslims said attacks on civilians were justified, but that has fallen to just 3% today.

As recent as last year, 62% of Palestinian Muslims said that suicide bombing was at least sometimes justified, but that support has fallen 16 percentage points since 2013. This tracks with increased negative opinions toward extremist groups among Palestinians in the last year. Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the Rise in Middle East

It seems if there was a "revival" as you call it, Islamic related violence and terrorism would be on a continual and steady increase. Looking at the graphics below, the cause behind the rise of Islamic violent extremism globally is pretty obvious.

And here is a look at the countries where most terrorism occurred pre and post 9/11.

Data for the above graphics comes from Global Terrorism Database

It should be pretty obvious that the shift in global terrorism trends in recent years has nothing at all to do with religion.

In that quote, you said “context is everything” concerning Sharia. Then you list a source for me to read as a “companion to the Reliance of the Traveller” since I was having difficulty understanding. Since you list that Sufii source as a credible companion of Reliance of the Traveller to help me understand the context, you obviously used that source yourself to show you the context of Reliance of the Traveller. So, you thought that was a great legitimate source explaining Sunni Sharia doctrine for me to read.

No, I told you why I posted what I did.

You didn’t realize that Muslims dress the way they do because they are following Sharia... You thought that millions of Muslims practicing Sharia in the West were practicing full Sharia Law... You didn’t appear to understand that Sharia contains far more than rules for daily living – lifestyle... I realize that you have a faulty impression of what Sharia is. No doubt that is because you are reading a companion book for Reliance of the Traveller that is “Sufii” – a spiritualized version of Islam practice by 1% of Muslims.

Of course you are going to say that, just as you say I don’t understand the context of Sunni Sharia because it does not agree with your Sufii source.

I never read the book I linked to. I intentionally looked for one that taught about Shari'a and was written by an individual who represented a tiny minority in Islam. It was in an effort to try and find out why you dismiss one minority and choose to embrace another minority nothing more.

The Slave trade is a Sharia Law, and can never be abolished,

No it's not.

Islamic doctrine calls Muslims to deal with such issues through terrorism, war and violence. That is Sharia.

That is not Shri'a. Muslims have a much different understanding of Shari'a than you do.

Just because most do not carry out acts physical Jihad does not mean they do not support or approve of those that do. I gave you poll results showing this to be the case several times.

You refused to look at the evidence.

I looked at the polls you provided and responded with the following:

As for the polls, I couldn't find sources for hardly any of the statistics that were mentioned at the link you provided. The ones I did find were selectively chosen.

Most of the polls in that link you provided can't be sourced. I mentioned this to you in an earlier reply. The ones I could find the stats were very selective and left out a lot of information.

Now if you will do the same you will discover the same thing. You have to go beyond the headline found on the anti-Islamic propaganda sites you visit and go directly to the source. Once you do this, you will either find the poll doesn't exist at all, or that the results were selectively chosen to paing a negative picture of Muslims. A perfect example would be your earlier claim that one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism in Britain.

 

[JosephZ]

Most Muslims in the world are practicing their faith. Muslims that are a minority in foreign lands are practicing Taqyah, and reverting to the abrogated peaceful verses (in stages).

Most Muslims in the world are practicing Islam. But since Muslims "here" in the US are a minority - less than 1% of the US population - they are practicing Takyah, temporarily following the abrogated verses (in stages) on peace until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA.

In saying this, you are not only at risk of bearing false witness against your Muslim neighbors in the US, but also the vast majority of Muslims in the world.

Many Muslims may presently appear to ignore Allah’s commands through His Messenger. However, as the Polls show, many Muslims do support or agree with those Muslims that do follow Allah’s commands, and only about one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism in Britain.

Here is what the source for where the one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism comes from.

British Muslims are, on a whole range of issues, no different in their views and priorities than their non-Muslim neighbours. This simple fact will come as no surprise to some people – but to many others, I think it cannot be emphasised enough.

Religious devotion and social conservatism do not correlate to political radicalism. It is striking that British Muslims are more likely, as a group, to condemn various acts of political violence (and even non-violent political protest), than the UK population as a whole. 89% of Muslim respondents condemned the use of violence in political protest and 90% condemned terrorism; in both instances, just 2% of people expressed sympathy for such actions (for the population as a whole, the equivalent figures were 5% and 4%).

There is a belief among Britain’s Muslim population that Muslim themselves bear the primary responsibility for deterring radicalisation – and many are willing to accept that they could do more in this struggle. At the same time, this acceptance among many British Muslims that they could do more to combat radicalisation does not preclude an openness to government intervention and various initiatives. For the most part, such efforts are seen as mutually reinforcing and beneficial.

In a further question, respondents were asked to reflect on a concrete example: what they would do if they became aware, someone close to them was ‘getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria’. Whilst a slight majority (52%) said they would report it to the police, 26% said they would talk to the person directly to try and dissuade them, 20% said they would ‘look for help from family and friends’, and 17% said they would seek help from ‘religious community leaders’...

On the more pointed questions about either threatening, or committing terrorist actions, 90% of Muslims condemned these, and just 2% sympathised with such acts. By comparison, the equivalent figures from the control survey were 83% and 84% condemnation and 4% of respondents sympathised with these acts. Indeed it is striking that 18% of Muslim respondents even condemned ‘non-violent political protest’ – as compared to just 7% of respondents on our control survey. Such responses strongly suggest that on every index, Britain’s Muslim communities are more supportive of ‘law and order’ and less tolerant of protest than the population as a whole.


As you can see, the wording of the question was much different than asking if a Muslim will report an act of terrorism in Britain. It, like the previous one you brought up also dispels the myth that you keep pushing that religion is the primary factor in Islamic terrorism. Also, the results of the poll were very positive. If you go to the source of each of those polls you quoted you will find similar results.

Secondly: The majority of Muslims understands what Jihad is, and the performance of Jihad, as taught in the Mosques and schools throughout the world and in the Islamic countries.

Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Muslims obviously have a different understanding of jihad than you do. If not, then the world would be in utter chaos.

The Polls I posted for you show that around half the Muslims in the world, actually more, want hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers held accountable by Sharia Law - a death penalty. More than half the Muslims in the world want Sharia.

Once again, Muslims have a different understanding of Shari'a than you do.

Any Muslim we see could potentially be a terrorist motivated by the ideology of Sharia, or could turn into one at any time. That is the danger.

Actually this would be true of any individual regardless of their religious affiliation or ideology they adhere to.

I was surprised to learn this because the Wikipedia article was specifically about “Muslim attitudes toward terrorism;” yet, the poll only proves views on violence by government or civilians on civilians (nothing to do with terrorism). However, you appear to have been misled by the same poll I used for similar reasons

he Wikipedia topic from which I copied the poll results is called: “Muslim attitudes toward terrorism”

I was led to believe by Wikipedia that the poll was one of the proofs of Muslim attitudes toward terrorism compared to other groups; but instead, the poll dealt only with violence by government, in particular. The difference between one’s view of violence against citizens by government or other civilians compared to one’s view of terrorism is very different.

It looks like I was mislead by Wikipedia and the poll results they used. I expected a high quality of information from an objective open-source archive. I have learned that even objective open-source documents, and even the polls they quoted from, can be flawed, in that these polls are using trickery to mislead people into believing Muslims are peaceful and friendly, using polls on violence to prove Muslim views on terrorism. That is deliberate misinformation.

Setst RE: Notice the Poll was about "violence" and not "terrorism."

Setst RE: Notice the Poll was about "violence" and not "terrorism." You were apparently mislead into thinking violence is synonymous with terrorism in that poll, just as I was, as the Poll I used, and you referred to, only deals with violence – not terrorism.

The poll and the use of it in the Wikipedia article wasn't misleading. It is about terrorism and the use of military action against civilians.

What is terrorism?

According to the Gallop Poll you quoted, terrorism is defines as follows:

For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Views of Violence

Since terrorism is politically motivated, and Muslims carry out most of the terrorist attacks, then Muslims are politically motivated to carry out acts of terrorism.

...Rather than attempt to define "terrorism." The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which deal with the protection of civilians, informed our survey question about military attacks on civilians. The U.S. Department of State report on Patterns of International Terrorism guided our measurement of public attitudes toward individual or small group violence aimed at civilians.

The reason they worded the questions the way they did is because there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, it varies from country to country and among jurisdictions. Not all definitions limit terrorism to political reasons.

Below are a couple of examples from the US:

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The START Global Terrorism Database uses the following to define an act of terrorism:

"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

The UK:

Acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organization which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.

Germany:

Acts committed for political, religious, ethnic or ideological purposes suitable to create fear in the population or any section of the population and thus to influence a government or public body.

Terrorism is also not always politically motivated.

I agree that violence by government, or even civilians, on other civilians, can be justified to prevent acts of violence, or even terrorism, that is causing harm others. That is the Law. That is why we have police. That is why we have laws that justify civilians attacking other civilians to prevent harm, or continue harm, against themselves or others.

The poll was referring to non-combatants and innocent civilians not those intending to cause harm to others.

Apparently the Polls show that Muslims don’t like Government to be involved in fulfilling their duty to protect its citizens from other citizens who are harming others – perhaps because Muslims see this action as interfering with Jihad.

Here is the what the poll you referred to revealed about Muslims in the UK.

On the subject of extremism and radicalisation, British Muslims support a range of counter-measures, including those that require government intervention. Attempts to portray government policies – such as those associated with the Prevent agenda – as anti-Muslim initiatives rejected by the whole community, wildly misrepresent the views of British Muslims. In reality, they are comfortable with state-led intervention, which is seen as entirely compatible with efforts by Muslims themselves to do ‘more’ to tackle extremism (with almost half of British Muslims agreeing that they should do more).

Britain’s Muslim communities are more supportive of ‘law and order’ and less tolerant of protest than the population as a whole.

Don’t you find that strange? I mean if the terrorist Muslim is not a religious zealot, then why is he called an "extremist?" What makes him extreme if not for his religion?

Because they have an extreme interpretation of the religion they follow which is far different than that which is accepted by the majority.

A Muslim does not have to be a radical or extremist or zealot to understand that the West are infidels and are evil, and that infidels are the lowest of creatures that walk the face of the earth. This is Sharia, and is taught in Mosques, and Islamic schools, throughout the USA and Europe.

This is not Shari'a and that is not how Muslims believe.

The article states that terrorist attacks are not committed by zealots or radicals, but rather everyday “Muslims.” The article doesn’t mention “Muslims” because that is a politically incorrect term.

It doesn't mention Muslims because being a Muslim doesn't equate to being a terrorist.

But the whole article agrees with everything I have been saying all along… That Jihadist are not extremists or zealots. They are Muslims who terrorize. And terrorizing is politically motivated.

That article along with the other poll you referred to pretty much disagree with everything you have been saying.

I provided the evidence which shows the better background from which terrorists are most common. The article, without proof, says that Terrorists are from low income backgrounds. Actually violence is by low income backgrounds, while terrorism is by those with better education and background.

And here is the response I gave to you earlier regarding this.

Most of those studies deal with western homegrown terrorists. While it may be true that many Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia once attended school, received a higher level of education, or came from a middle class family, keep in mind that in most cases this was before war and conflict came to their homelands. A once wealthy family in those countries would no longer be wealthy if their homes and businesses were lost due to violent conflict. A perfect example would be the city of Marawi that I mentioned in my previous post. This city of more than 250,000 was one of the wealthiest in the region. Most of the young people attended and had graduated from universities and came from households with above average incomes compared to surrounding communities in the provinces that make up the Autonomous Muslim region. Two years latter these families and the young people are still displaced living with relatives or tent cities scattered throughout southern Mindanao. The only thing they own are the things they were able to carry when they fled the city. The terrorists looted their homes, banks, and financial institutions. Many Muslim families left behind vaults in their homes where their entire life's savings were kept. The schools and colleges were destroyed and most students still haven't returned to school to this day. These once successful and educated people have been reduced to the lowest class and have been living as such for more than two years now. These are the people the recruiters for the extremist groups are targeting now. These people are desperate and the recruiters are willing to pay large sums of money upfront and higher than average monthly salaries to those who join their ranks. they even offer to pay for the children's educations if they will commit a member of their family to their cause.

The above scenario has been played out in countless communities and cities in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

So while it may very well be true that many terrorists are well educated and come from comfortable backgrounds, the key word is background. What was once true in all likelihood was not the case when they decided to commit an act of terror or to join an extremist organization.

Predominantly Islamic Countries – many sects of Islam warring against each other and everyone else. We don’t see that scale of conflict, war and terrorism committed by Christians or Jews, or any other religion, no matter how poor or deprived they are.

You would if countries of other religious majorities were being bombed regularly, occupied by foreign powers, civilians being regularly killed, and infrastructure destroyed. The resulting hardship and poverty from these actions would lead to exactly what we are currently seeing in many Muslim majority countries in the world today. You need only look at Europe's violent and bloody past to see this. Almost all Islamic terrorism occurs in Muslim Majority countries that are in a state of war or conflict. Muslim countries that are not in conflict see very little if any terrorism. Once again violent extremism and terrorism thrive in regions of conflict and war.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
You have to take that up with the
Islamic Scholars,
Islamic Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia,
Reliance of the Traveller
Qur'an
Sahih Hadith
on the use of abrogation and Jihad – world conquest for Islam. This is Islamic Doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:

<<
If this is the doctrine in Sunni and Shia Islam, then why aren't they practicing the type of Islam that you are describing?
>>

Setst RE: Your question is a repeat that was already answered multiple times by myself in the previous post and others, and also by Joyousperson in numerous posts.

Most Muslims in the world are practicing their faith. Muslims that are a minority in foreign lands are practicing Taqyah, and reverting to the abrogated peaceful verses (in stages). As the Muslims in a foreign land gain population in that foreign land, then statistics show that 100% of the time the Muslims will become ever more bold and threatening (in stages) until Sharia becomes law.

The commands of Allah cannot be altered except by Allah himself. Sharia represents those commands in practice.

Regarding Jihad, the commands of Allah are clearly spelled out in Sharia – the immutable Law of Allah.

You cannot separate Islam from its politico/religious doctrine - Sharia.

That is the danger.

Many Muslims may presently appear to ignore Allah’s commands through His Messenger. However, as the Polls show, many Muslims do support or agree with those Muslims that do follow Allah’s commands, and only about one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism in Britain. Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

I will say seriously to you, just as I have been saying on this thread….

• As long as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira remain
• As long as Muhammad remains the last prophet

then:

• Islam (the religion and political system of Muslims) will continue to be founded in Sharia
• Islam will continue to be motivated to deal with religious politics by Sharia Jihad.
• Islam will continue to be a violent religious-political system

Many Muslims will continue to have evil thoughts about non-believers and their countries (infidels) founded upon Islam’s most sacred and reliable Scriptures, even though not actively carrying out acts of terrorism.

Muslims are not sheep without a shepherd. They have

• their Imams,
• their Mosques (infiltrated by fundamental Islam),
• their Schools,
• their sacred books,
• their Islamic leaders.
• their family
• their culture

The danger exists that other Muslims will carry out Jihad against unbelievers – politically, socially and physically.

We cannot say when acts of Jihad will be carried out, or for what perceived reason, but we know that they will happen. WHY? We have 1400 years of Islamic History to learn from.

Any Muslim we see could potentially be a terrorist motivated by the ideology of Sharia, or could turn into one at any time. That is the danger.

We will continue to see Mosques and Islamic Organizations in the West being infiltrated by classical and traditional Islam (through Sunni and Shia Islam) resulting in the support and re-indoctrination of millions of Muslims to understand what Allah and His Messenger expect of them in the performance and/or support of Jihad against unbelievers.

No Muslim want to go to Allah’s hell. Most Muslims want to be saved. Once they learn what Allah expects of them to be saved, they will support or become involved in Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates and blasphemers. This is a fact, because that is part of Sharia. The Polls I posted for you show that around half the Muslims in the world, actually more, want hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers held accountable by Sharia Law - a death penalty. More than half the Muslims in the world want Sharia.

We will continue to see revival in Islam to return to the foundation of their Faith – Sharia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

As soon as we (infidels) recognize the threat, the better position we will be in to prevent that Islamic threat from destroying our culture and way of life as we now know it, just as Islam has done in every land they have invaded since its inception.

setst777 said: ↑
According to the article and resulting poll you provided, violence (in general) is the topic of the poll – not terrorism.

setst777 said: ↑
My poll was based on Muslim terrorism. So naturally you are going to come to flawed conclusions because you are comparing two different polls that deal with two different topics. You are not looking at the context of those polls. No one would disagree that general violence in poor areas is greater than in better areas, and is not much influenced by ideological indoctrination. The problem with your poll is it does not deal with acts of terrorism.

Joseph responds: My poll and your poll are the same poll.

Setst RE: Yes, the polls appear to be the same source. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was surprised to learn this because the Wikipedia article was specifically about “Muslim attitudes toward terrorism;” yet, the poll only proves views on violence by government or civilians on civilians (nothing to do with terrorism). However, you appear to have been misled by the same poll I used for similar reasons - More on that shortly.

The Wikipedia topic from which I copied the poll results is called:

“Muslim attitudes toward terrorism”

The article continues to talk about terrorism, but later diverges from the topic to discuss violence. The poll they used had to do with violence, and not terrorism – specifically violence by government or citizens on citizens.

I agree that violence by government, or even civilians, on other civilians, can be justified to prevent acts of violence, or even terrorism, that is causing harm others. That is the Law. That is why we have police. That is why we have laws that justify civilians attacking other civilians to prevent harm, or continue harm, against themselves or others.

Apparently the Polls show that Muslims don’t like Government to be involved in fulfilling their duty to protect its citizens from other citizens who are harming others – perhaps because Muslims see this action as interfering with Jihad.

I was led to believe by Wikipedia that the poll was one of the proofs of Muslim attitudes toward terrorism compared to other groups; but instead, the poll dealt only with violence by government, in particular.

The difference between one’s view of violence against citizens by government or other civilians compared to one’s view of terrorism is very different.

Terrorism and Violence are two different things, even though violence itself exists in terrorism. Violence does not explain the motive for terrorism.

What is terrorism?

According to the Gallop Poll you quoted, terrorism is defines as follows:

For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Views of Violence

Since terrorism is politically motivated, and Muslims carry out most of the terrorist attacks, then Muslims are politically motivated to carry out acts of terrorism.

What is the political motive behind carrying out acts of terrorism by Muslims? The answer is the call to Jihad – defensive or offensive.

It looks like I was mislead by Wikipedia and the poll results they used. I expected a high quality of information from an objective open-source archive. I have learned that even objective open-source documents, and even the polls they quoted from, can be flawed, in that these polls are using trickery to mislead people into believing Muslims are peaceful and friendly, using polls on violence to prove Muslim views on terrorism. That is deliberate misinformation.

Joseph continues:
<<
Your source even dispels the myth that religion is what drives support for terrorism.

No Link Between Views of Violence and Importance of Religion

In addition to those who single Islam out, some pundits, most notably the "New Atheists," have accused religion in general of encouraging violence. Though the motivations of actual terrorists are beyond the scope of this brief, the evidence regarding public support for targeting civilians challenges this notion.

An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion.
The above coincides with the findings of MI5 in their research:
>>

Setst RE: Notice the Poll was about "violence" and not "terrorism."

You were apparently mislead into thinking violence is synonymous with terrorism in that poll, just as I was, as the Poll I used, and you referred to, only deals with violence – not terrorism.

Joseph continues:
<<
Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
>>

Set RE: The article expresses broad generalized statements about terrorism, as if terrorism is caused by “violent extremist activity.” Yet, in the same context, the article states that such terrorists are not zealots of their faith and just normal people.

Don’t you find that strange? I mean if the terrorist Muslim is not a religious zealot, then why is he called an "extremist?"

What makes him extreme if not for his religion?

Firstly: A Muslim does not have to be a radical or extremist or zealot to understand that the West are infidels and are evil, and that infidels are the lowest of creatures that walk the face of the earth. This is Sharia, and is taught in Mosques, and Islamic schools, throughout the USA and Europe.

Secondly: The majority of Muslims understands what Jihad is, and the performance of Jihad, as taught in the Mosques and schools throughout the world and in the Islamic countries. Jihad is the political motive for terrorism. So call it “political” or “religious,” the result is the same. Islam is a political-religious entity.

Thirdly: The article states that terrorist attacks are not committed by zealots or radicals, but rather everyday “Muslims.” The article doesn’t mention “Muslims” because that is a politically incorrect term.

But the whole article agrees with everything I have been saying all along… That Jihadist are not extremists or zealots. They are Muslims who terrorize. And terrorizing is politically motivated. Islamic politically motivated attacks are founded in Sharia – Jihad.

In contrast to the article, I provided the evidence which shows the better background from which terrorists are most common. The article, without proof, says that Terrorists are from low income backgrounds. Actually violence is by low income backgrounds, while terrorism is by those with better education and background.

The middle-class terrorists: More than 60pc of suspects are well educated and from comfortable backgrounds, says secret M15 file | Daily Mail Online

Islamic Terrorists not Poor and Illiterate, but Rich and Educated

Terrorism - Wikipedia [Heading: “Perpetrators”]

continued...

Great points, especially,

Sets777 wrote:
No Muslim want to go to Allah’s hell. Most Muslims want to be saved. Once they learn what Allah expects of them to be saved, they will support or become involved in Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates and blasphemers. This is a fact, because that is part of Sharia. The Polls I posted for you show that around half the Muslims in the world, actually more, want hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers held accountable by Sharia Law - a death penalty. More than half the Muslims in the world want Sharia.

We will continue to see revival in Islam to return to the foundation of their Faith – Sharia
Islamic revival - Wikipedia

As soon as we (infidels) recognize the threat, the better position we will be in to prevent that Islamic threat from destroying our culture and way of life as we now know it, just as Islam has done in every land they have invaded since its inception.
​

I had stated a Muslim is one who had entered into a contract [divine] with Allah to be saved, and is obligated to comply with the contracted terms as in the Quran supported by Ahadith.

Unfortunately the contracted terms contains loads of openly evil and violent elements and commands, i.e. 55% of the Quran and loads in the Ahadith.

To be saved, a true Muslim has no choice [else Islamic Hell] but to comply to commit those terrible evil and violent acts stipulated in the contracted terms.

 

[Joyousperson]

Once again, Muslims have a different understanding of Shari'a than you [Setst777] do.

What you are describing here is Wahhabism, not Shari'a

Somehow your view above is very obstinate despite the many repeated explanations.
What Setst777 described as Sharia is from the Reliance of the Traveler [plus elsewhere] for the Shafi'i Schools which is not Wahhabism at all.

Sharia is Allah's Laws abstracted by Muslims [humans] from the tenets, doctrine, dictates, commands within the Quran [supported by the Ahadith].
Note Sharia is is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its human scholarly interpretations.
Sharia - Wikipedia​

Note the STALEMATE Dilemma, i.e. no human can be the ultimate to judge what is the exact Allah's Law, so it is left to Muslims to interpret Allah's Law as close as possible to what is intended in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

According the Muslims of the Shafi'i School which adopt The Reliance of the Traveller for what they considered as Sharia Laws, their views on warring with non-Muslims is recorded in Book O: Section 9, which explain the details of how to attack the non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, etc;

BOOK O: (The Reliance of the Traveller]
o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
(2) ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
(3) ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);​

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';​

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''​

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)​

Note the above recommended as Sharia Law [i.e. Allah's Law] which Muslims are obliged to comply with.
In the above the supporting from the Quran and Ahadith are provided as grounds for Muslims to war against non-Muslims.
Note the hadith by Bukhari and Muslim which are very aggressive and violent!


The other sections on Jihad are;

The Obligatory Character of Jihad o9.1
A communal obligation o9.1
When it is personally obligatory 09.2
Surrender when overrun o9.3
Who Is Obliged to Fight in Jihad o9.4
Those who are not permitted to fight o9.5
Caliph's Permission Required If He Exists o9.6
Non-Muslim Allies o9.7
The Objectives of Jihad o9.8
Regarding Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians o9.8
Regarding others o9.9
Rules of Warfare 09.10
Those Unlawful to Kill in Jihad o9.10
Non-Muslims under a Muslim's protection o9.11
Those who enter Islam before capture 09.12
Women and children captives o9.13
Adult male captives o9.14
Destruction of enemies' trees etc. o9.15
Truces o9.16
Preserving the status quo is not a valid reason o9.16​

In the above exceptions are provided only when Muslims are in a weaker position, thus they have to hold back till they are in the upper hand.

From the above how can you insist what Sets777 stated is with reference to Wahabbism.

Note the above refer to the Shafi'i school. I have not read the Sharia basis from the other schools [madhhab] and I believe they would not deviate in terms of warring and killing non-Muslims because that is what is exhorted by Allah in the Quran.

Note the final authority of Islam and Allah is from the 6236 verses of the Quran [supported by Ahadith] and not the views of the various Maddhabs or any Muslim.

Note AGAIN, the Sharia notes/guide from the Reliance of the Traveller is not Wahhabism!

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

You are very deceptive in trying to dilute the terrible evil and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims in the name of Islam within the last 1400 years by conflating it with all types of terrorism.

Terrorism is a serious issue for humanity, but our discussion is only limited to terrorism committed by Muslims with obvious links to Islam, which is only one type of evil and violent acts by Muslims.

What is critical here is the whole gamut and range of terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims, not just terroristic acts.

Your supporting evidences from the various research sources to support your points, e.g. START are very shallow. These researcher never dig into the doctrines of Islam but merely listen to the Muslims' responses to the questions they asked.

Myself and Sets777 had demonstratred the acts of terrorism and all other evil and violent acts by SOME Muslims are driven by the words of Allah directly from the Quran and supported by the Ahadith.

Note I quoted directly from IS [previous posts] where they stated the foreign policies of non-Muslims are secondary. What is primary on why Islam hates and war against non-Muslims is because they disbelieve, i.e. as quoted from the Reliance of Traveller re Bukhari's hadith;

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
​

That is not Wahhabism but a general tenet of Islam directly from Muhammad's narration via authority of Allah that is applicable to all Muslims.

 

[setst777]

In saying this, you are not only at risk of bearing false witness against your Muslim neighbors in the US, but also the vast majority of Muslims in the world.

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
Jihad is forever to be committed against:

• Non-Muslims in the whole world (infidels),
• Perceived Hypocrites (Muslims sects fighting Muslim sects),
• Apostates
• Blasphemers

This is common Sharia doctrine being taught in Islamic schools, Mosques and Islamic Organization that instruct Muslims in almost all countries where Muslims exist…

Joseph responds:
<<
What you are describing here is Wahhabism, not Shari'a
>>

Setst RE: Suni Sharia Law was quoted to you repeatedly involving these things; yet, you call it “Wahhabist, not Shari’a.” All I can say is that ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.’ You say you had 30 years of schooling about Islam, and yet you are unfamiliar with the basics of Suni Sharia, and actually refuse to accept the evidence when quoted right in front of you.

setst777 said: ↑
In recent years, we are seeing a revival of knowledge and commitment to the sacred commands of Allah through His Prophet as taught in Islamic countries, and in Mosques, and Islamic Organizations throughout the world. See:
Islamic revival – Wikipedia

Joseph responds:
<<
I guess since violence in Islamic countries is currently much lower than western countries and acts of Islamic terrorism have declined by around 70% in the past five years we can conclude that this revival was short lived and appears to be coming to an end? Support for terrorism, specifically suicide bombings, has also been declining.
>>

Setst RE:
Regarding the poll results on Islamic Terrorism, I quote:

<<
In the early 2000s, most of the Islamic terrorist activity was linked to Al-Qaeda and the plots tended to involve groups carrying out co-ordinated bombings. The deadliest attacks of this period were the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed 193 civilians (the deadliest Islamist attack in Europe), and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, which killed 52.

There was a rise in Islamic terrorist activity in Europe after 2014.[1][2][3] The years 2014–16 saw more people killed by Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than all previous years combined, and the highest rate of attack plots per year.[4]

Islamic terrorism in Europe - Wikipedia
>> End of Quote.

Islamic terrorism is temporarily down from its high in 2017, but the trend is clearly up and far higher than it use to be. – Don’t let the short term decline fool you. Islam is stronger and more wide spread than ever.

Islam has its roots in the US and Europe like never before – political jihad (affecting or laws, politicians), and social Jihad (in our schools and universities, our social media channels), Mosques - which are re-indoctrinating Western Muslims, the growing Islamic Organizations that influence politics and our society, and Muslim population increasing.

Nothing like this has ever happened since Islam advance and dominance was stopped during WW2. The trend toward terrorism will only get worse in time as the Muslim population grows just as has, and is, happening in all other countries with Muslim populations – history repeats itself, only this time on a much grander scale.

You don’t see this, but Muslims are not ignorant of Islam’s advances in the West.

There is a big difference between racist acts of violence and global Jihad by Islam…

I quote:
<<
There are pockets of racists in the world, and individuals who engage in terrible acts of violence against innocent people. These are dangerous men, capable of doing tremendous damage. But no group threatens global peace the same way that political Islam does. None has its reach or material and theological support. None has created more mayhem and death in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Sri Lankan massacre is just another harrowing reminder.

[David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/22/islamic-terrorism-remains-the-worlds-greatest-threat-to-peace/]
>>

setst777 said: ↑
In that quote, you said “context is everything” concerning Sharia. Then you list a source for me to read as a “companion to the Reliance of the Traveller” since I was having difficulty understanding. Since you list that Sufii source as a credible companion of Reliance of the Traveller to help me understand the context, you obviously used that source yourself to show you the context of Reliance of the Traveller. So, you thought that was a great legitimate source explaining Sunni Sharia doctrine for me to read.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
No, I told you why I posted what I did.
>>

Setst RE: No???? I quoted your exact words to me when you offered your Sufii source to help me understand Sharia in context. Once I found out, you quickly tried to cover your tracks.

setst777 said: ↑
You didn’t realize that Muslims dress the way they do because they are following Sharia... You thought that millions of Muslims practicing Sharia in the West were practicing full Sharia Law... You didn’t appear to understand that Sharia contains far more than rules for daily living – lifestyle... I realize that you have a faulty impression of what Sharia is. No doubt that is because you are reading a companion book for Reliance of the Traveller that is “Sufii” – a spiritualized version of Islam practice by 1% of Muslims.

Click to expand...

setst777 said: ↑
Of course you are going to say that, just as you say I don’t understand the context of Sunni Sharia because it does not agree with your Sufii source.

Joseph responds:
<<
I never read the book I linked to. I intentionally looked for one that taught about Shari'a and was written by an individual who represented a tiny minority in Islam. It was in an effort to try and find out why you dismiss one minority and choose to embrace another minority nothing more.
>>

Setst RE: Easy to say after the fact to cover up. But your original words were loud and clear as anyone can see by reading what you actually stated.

Joseph writes (bolding is mine to emphasize):
<<
Context is everything.

Since you are having difficulty understanding the concepts of Shari'a I would like to recommend the following book as a companion to the Reliance of the traveler:

Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know About the Shariah, Feisal Abdul Rauf,
>>

And this makes sense, since your view of Sharia is almost identical to the spiritualized version of Sufii Sharia. You don’t even recognize what Sunni Sharia is. In actuality though, you appear to possess little knowledge about Sharia. For instance, you know how to spell it.

setst777 said: ↑
The Slave trade is a Sharia Law, and can never be abolished,

Joseph responds:
<<
No it's not.
>>

Setst RE: While Reliance of the Traveller does encourage freeing of slaves, this does not undue the Slave Trade under Sharia that Muhammad commanded…

I quote: “Reliance of the Traveller”
<<
Slavery in Islam k32.0(n

k1.0 SALE
(O:The legal basis for sale, prior to scholarly consensus (ijma'), is such Koranic verses as the word of Allah Most High,

"Allah has made sale lawful..." (Koran 2:275)

The more reliable of the two positions reported from our Imam (Allah Most High be well pleased with him) is that this verse is general in meaning, excluded by other evidence. For the Prophet (referring to all sales except those specifically). (Allah bless him and give him peace) forbade various sales but did not explain the permissible ones, his not doing so proving that the initial presumption for the validity of a sale is that it is lawful. This is also borne out by hadiths such as the one is which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked what type of earning was best, and he answered.

"The work of a man's own hand, and every pious sale."

Meaning sales free of cheating and deceit. Hakim related this hadith, which he classified as rigorously authenticated (sahih). Lexically, sale means to transact something for something else.

In Sacred Law it means to exchange an article of property for other property in a particular way. Its integrals are six:

(a) the seller;
(b) the buyer;
(c) the price;
(d) the article purchased;
(e) the spoken offer;
(f) and the spoken acceptance.)
(N: Sale (bay'), where ever it is used in the ruling below, refers to both exchanging goods for money and exchanging them for other goods (n: i.e. barter).)
>> End of Quote

Note: Sharia on the sale of slaves continues in detail for several pages, but not necessary to quote all this here.

Here is more Sharia on slaves that is relevant to the slavery, although far more exists (for instance, the use of slaves for sex even if previously married):

<<
o9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the
woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or
ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.
>>

setst777 said: ↑
Islamic doctrine calls Muslims to deal with such issues through terrorism, war and violence. That is Sharia.

Joseph responds:
<<
That is not Shri'a. Muslims have a much different understanding of Shari'a than you do.
>>

setst RE:
Yes, this is genuine Suni Sharia. You don’t know this because you never studied it. Your understanding is what some Muslims you met told you, just as you stated – no doubt from that Muslim Teacher who was a terrorist supporter using Takyah on you…

Joseph writes:
<<
You have to go beyond the headline found on the anti-Islamic propaganda sites you visit and go directly to the source.
>>

Setst RE:
Terrorism and violence are two different animals.

I don’t care what the reasons are for why Muslims wouldn’t turn in a terrorist. The poll shows that almost half would not turn in a terrorist. That is the issue.

Islamic Terrorism is the issue and the danger. And Islamic terrorism is about 10,000 times higher in the top Islamic controlled countries than anywhere else in the world.
Terrorism

Continued...

 

[setst777]

In saying this, you are not only at risk of bearing false witness against your Muslim neighbors in the US, but also the vast majority of Muslims in the world.

Hi Joseph

Since you want to talk about real sources, let us go directly to the source who should know what is happening in the West:

I call my main witness: Indonesia’s foremost influential Islamic leader,

Yahya Cholil Staquf
<<
Among Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders is Yahya Cholil Staquf, 51, advocates a modern, moderate Islam. He is general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which, with about 50 million members, is the country’s biggest Muslim organization. Yahya. This interview, notable for Yahya’s candor, was first published on Aug. 19 in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here are excerpts translated from the original Bahasa Indonesia into English.

Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor.

And Muslims and the state?

Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

How can that be accomplished?

Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.

Is it so elsewhere too?

Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.

There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.

They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.

I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

Who and what are responsible?

Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior … I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.

The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behavior has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behavior? What kind if impression does that make? Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.

I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

Marco Stahlhut is a Jakarta-based German academic and correspondent.

Contact us at editors@time.com.
Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar
>>

I call my second witness:

Saudi Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh:
<<
Saudi journalist: If Muslims despise ‘infidel’ West, why are they so eager to live there?

Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

By MEMRI

In his July 8, 2018 column in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Arab and African Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West and even risk their lives to reach it, yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

He criticizes in particular the ingratitude of mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are immigrants themselves, who abuse the democracy and free speech in their host countries by inciting against the West.

In light of this, says Aal Al-Sheikh, the European right’s opposition to immigration is justifiable, for it is only natural to oppose the influx of immigrants who are “steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.”

Following are excerpts from his article:

“Immigrants cast themselves into the waters of the Mediterranean knowing full well that the chance of reaching their destination, the northern shore, is slim. They nevertheless risk [the journey], taking advantage of the instability in Libya, which has become the [immigrants’] point of departure on their way to the European paradise.

But what is strange, and perhaps even embarrassing, is that, if you ask them about the infidel West, they will spew curses and invective, call it ignorant, and [express] contempt for it. So why do they cast themselves into its bosom and risk their lives to reach it? I truly fail to understand this reasoning, which is so warped, rotten and paradoxical that it seems sickening and ridiculous at the same time.


An acute embarrassment

“The embarrassment becomes even more acute when one hears certain mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are foreigners and immigrants themselves, abusing the democracy and free speech that are granted to everyone [in those countries] by becoming expert at directing curses and invective at the infidels using [various] skillfully-phrased expressions.

“When the populist right in Europe demands to stop and fight immigration, even by means of military force, this evokes cries of outrage from the Arabs and Muslims there. They accuse those who make this demand of racism and hatred for the other, and – most ludicrously – [claim] that the West is undemocratic. Let me say this loud and clear: I do not blame [the Europeans]. In fact, if I were European, I would not hesitate for a moment to oppose this immigration and reject these people, whose culture is based on the duty to hate the non-Muslim, and examples [of this] in their heritage are numerous and varied… The Arabs, and especially the extremist Muslims among them, are steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.

Is a psycho-social investigation in order?

“These conflicting sentiments – of hatred [for the West], but [a willingness] to risk one’s most precious possession, one’s life, in order to live among those hated societies and enjoy the comfort, security, stability and prosperity [they offer] – require a psycho-social investigation… Some people justify [this attitude], saying that [the Europeans] are racist xenophobes and are enemies of Islam and the Muslims. [But] for the sake of reason and honesty, put yourself in their place. Would any Arab country open its doors wide to Christian foreigners and [even] allow them to work in it? The answer is definitely not. So why do you demand that others treat [you] differently than you treat them?…

“All that is left to say is that the wave of populism currently sweeping the Western societies is justified, since it is [simply] a response in kind…”

https://worldisraelnews.com/saudi-journalist-if-muslims-despise-infidel-west-why-are-they-so-eager-to-live-there/
>>

I call my third Witness:
PM Benjamin Netenyahu

<<
Israel Hayom asked Netanyahu how he responds to attacks claiming Israel undermines stability in the Middle East.

“Once they also said that all the problems of the Middle East are a product of the Palestinian problem,” he said.

“Today, there is no one who seriously argues that. Even our sworn enemies are embarrassed to say it, because the struggle here is between the middle ages and modernism, between the tyranny of radical Islam and the forces of freedom. This is the struggle put simply. To stand against Islamic fundamentalism that wants to take over the Middle East first and then the entire world.”
https://worldisraelnews.com/netanyahu-israel-has-become-central-power-in-world/
>>

I call my fourth witness:
Prophet Muhammad

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy, because all unbelievers are enemies of Islam. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

I call my fifth witness – and you really should listen to everything she has to say:

Ex-Muslim Woman warns America

This is one person you really should listen to:

I call my sixth witness:

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill
IPT News
October 1, 2010

Including remarks by Manda Ervin, an American Muslim who fled Iran following the 1979 revolution, to a conference of Muslim moderates on Capitol Hill.”

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Once again violent extremism and terrorism thrive in regions of conflict and war.

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
Most Muslims in the world are practicing their faith. Muslims that are a minority in foreign lands are practicing Taqyah, and reverting to the abrogated peaceful verses (in stages).

setst777 said: ↑
Most Muslims in the world are practicing Islam. But since Muslims "here" in the US are a minority - less than 1% of the US population - they are practicing Takyah, temporarily following the abrogated verses (in stages) on peace until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
In saying this, you are not only at risk of bearing false witness against your Muslim neighbors in the US, but also the vast majority of Muslims in the world.
>>

Setst RE: There is nothing false in what I said. Muslims are a minority here. According to Sharia, Muslims are allowed to use Takyah to protect themselves from hostility, and they are presently using peaceful verses to show us they mean us no harm. What is false about that?

setst777 said: ↑
Secondly: The majority of Muslims understands what Jihad is, and the performance of Jihad, as taught in the Mosques and schools throughout the world and in the Islamic countries.

setst777 said: ↑
Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Joseph responds:
<<
Muslims obviously have a different understanding of jihad than you do. If not, then the world would be in utter chaos.
>>

Setst RE: The world is in chaos. Jihad is carried out in stages, as is taught in the best Islamic sources. If you want to see what happens when Muslims gain population and strength in a foreign land, then look at those nations that Islam has been, and is presently, invading or gaining control or dominance – there you will see escalating chaos and terror.

Even though Islam has been stopped by the West from its Islamic conquests, Islam is still expanding territory through Jihad - they have never stopped their mission:

Spread of Islam - Wikipedia
Expansion of Islam in the World

setst777 said: ↑

What is terrorism?

According to the Gallop Poll you quoted, terrorism is defines as follows:

"For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Joseph, you attempt to refute the definition, but I am just quoting the very definition that the Poll you quoted quotes as their evidence. Why are you now arguing against that quote that the Poll used?

setst777 said: ↑
I agree that violence by government, or even civilians, on other civilians, can be justified to prevent acts of violence, or even terrorism, that is causing harm others. That is the Law. That is why we have police. That is why we have laws that justify civilians attacking other civilians to prevent harm, or continue harm, against themselves or others.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
The poll was referring to non-combatants and innocent civilians not those intending to cause harm to others.
>>

Setst RE: Regarding military attacks on civilians, the poll did not define the civilians as non-combatants or innocent.

In fact, the article describing the poll places a disclaimer regarding the poll as follows:

“It is important to note that the questions specifically address the "targeting" of civilians, not simply their unintended harm as collateral damage.”

The part about non-combatants has to do with people who commit acts of violence on others:

“An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion.”

I would agree with that. However, regarding Islamic terrorism, violence against non-combatants definitely has religious/political motivation. The article even defines terrorism as being premeditated politically motivated acts of violence.

setst777 said: ↑
Don’t you find that strange? I mean if the terrorist Muslim is not a religious zealot, then why is he called an "extremist?" What makes him extreme if not for his religion?

Joseph responds:
<<
Because they have an extreme interpretation of the religion they follow which is far different than that which is accepted by the majority.
>>


Setst RE: Exactly! You prove my point. The article attempts to prove that religion plays no part in terrorism. The proof they used only deals with violence.

Joseph says:
<<
So while it may very well be true that many terrorists are well educated and come from comfortable backgrounds, the key word is background. What was once true in all likelihood was not the case when they decided to commit an act of terror or to join an extremist organization.
>>

Setst RE: The poll source you quoted said that the terrorists were not well educated and poor. The quoted post is not actually talking about the profile of a terrorist (as the poll defines a terrorist), but rather, is falsely using the definition of violence to profile the characteristics of a terrorist.

 

[JosephZ]

From the above how can you insist what Sets777 stated is with reference to Wahabbism. Note the above refer to the Shafi'i school... Somehow your view above is very obstinate despite the many repeated explanations.
What Setst777 described as Sharia is from the Reliance of the Traveler [plus elsewhere] for the Shafi'i Schools which is not Wahhabism at all.

I can insist that what Setst777 is referring to is Wahhabism because I have been living and working among Muslims who practice Sunni Islam according to the Shafi'i school for going on eight years now. That along with my extensive knowledge of Islam and interactions with Muslims in other parts of the world over the past 3+ decades is what makes it easy for me to differentiate between the extremists ideology of Wahhabism that Setst777 is describing and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Suni Sharia Law was quoted to you repeatedly involving these things; yet, you call it “Wahhabist, not Shari’a.” All I can say is that ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.’ You say you had 30 years of schooling about Islam, and yet you are unfamiliar with the basics of Suni Sharia, and actually refuse to accept the evidence when quoted right in front of you.

I quoted your exact words to me when you offered your Sufii source to help me understand Sharia in context. Once I found out, you quickly tried to cover your tracks.

And this makes sense, since your view of Sharia is almost identical to the spiritualized version of Sufii Sharia. You don’t even recognize what Sunni Sharia is. In actuality though, you appear to possess little knowledge about Sharia. For instance, you know how to spell it.

Yes, this is genuine Suni Sharia. You don’t know this because you never studied it. Your understanding is what some Muslims you met told you, just as you stated – no doubt from that Muslim Teacher who was a terrorist supporter using Takyah on you…

How many years of your life have been spent living and working with Muslims who practice Sunni Islam according to the Shafi'i school? How many different courses on Islamic studies have you taken and from which schools of thought have you taken such courses on Islamic studies from?

I don’t care what the reasons are for why Muslims wouldn’t turn in a terrorist. The poll shows that almost half would not turn in a terrorist. That is the issue.

This was the question asked of the participants in that poll:

Respondents were asked to reflect on a concrete example: what they would do if they became aware, someone close to them was ‘getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria’. Whilst a slight majority (52%) said they would report it to the police, 26% said they would talk to the person directly to try and dissuade them, 20% said they would ‘look for help from family and friends’, and 17% said they would seek help from ‘religious community leaders’...

There is a big difference between being asked if they would turn in a terrorist, and if they became aware, someone close to them was ‘getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria’ and how would they react. Personally I probably wouldn't go to the police right away if someone close to me started hanging out or got involved with people who support terrorism in Syria. I would first try to talk to them and remedy the problem without getting the authorities involved and only if that didn't work, then I would probably go to the authorities.

Islamic Terrorism is the issue and the danger. And Islamic terrorism is about 10,000 times higher in the top Islamic controlled countries than anywhere else in the world.

Islamic terrorism is higher in countries that are in conflict. There are many Muslim majority countries that see very little in the way of violence and terrorism.

Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.

Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism in most countries throughout the world. The ten countries with the highest impact of terrorism are all engaged in at least one conflict. These ten countries accounted for 84 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2017. When combined with countries with high levels of political terror the number jumps to over 99 per cent. Political terror involves extra-judicial killings, torture and imprisonment without trial.

In countries with high levels of economic development, factors other than conflict and human rights abuses are more strongly correlated with the impact of terrorism. Social alienation, lack of economic opportunity, and involvement in an external conflict are the major factors associated with terrorist activity in Western Europe, North America, and other highly economically-developed regions. (PDF)

Ninety-three per cent of all terrorist attacks between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries with high levels of state sponsored terror – extra-judicial deaths, torture and imprisonment without trial.

Over 90 per cent of all terrorism attacks occurred in countries engaged in violent conflicts.

Only 0.5 per cent of terrorist attacks occurred in countries that did not suffer from conflict or political terror.

Terrorism is more likely to occur in OECD member countries with poorer performance on socio-economic factors such as opportunities for youth, belief in the electoralsystem, levels of criminality and access to weapons. (PDF)

A five-month survey commissioned by the United States last year in four southern Muslim provinces that showed which issues were helping spark extremism and radicalization the most.

‘‘It’s not about religion; it is about living conditions. There is an economic component to this,’’ -- Denise Natali US Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict & Stabilization Operations

Most Muslims in the world are practicing Islam. But since Muslims "here" in the US are a minority - less than 1% of the US population - they are practicing Takyah, temporarily following the abrogated verses (in stages) on peace until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA.

So you are saying Muslims in America are liars?

There is nothing false in what I said. Muslims are a minority here. According to Sharia, Muslims are allowed to use Takyah to protect themselves from hostility, and they are presently using peaceful verses to show us they mean us no harm. What is false about that?

Most Muslims don't even understand the concept of taqiyya you are describing, much less practice it.

Secondly: The majority of Muslims understands what Jihad is, and the performance of Jihad, as taught in the Mosques and schools throughout the world and in the Islamic countries.

One of your witnesses had this to say.

Who and what are responsible?
Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior

This is basically what I have said on this forum in the past.

The root cause can be traced directly to Saudi Arabia and its practice and exporting of its extremist brand of Islam. The Saudi government indoctrinates its population and spends billions of dollars each year sending out missionaries, building schools and funding mosques in other parts of the world that promote an extremist ideology.

Once again, what you are describing in this thread is Wahhabism, not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

How many Muslims have you sat face to face with and discussed jihad with and what it means to them?

The world is in chaos. Jihad is carried out in stages, as is taught in the best Islamic sources. If you want to see what happens when Muslims gain population and strength in a foreign land, then look at those nations that Islam has been, and is presently, invading or gaining control or dominance – there you will see escalating chaos and terror.

How many countries like what you have described above have you personally visited?

you attempt to refute the definition, but I am just quoting the very definition that the Poll you quoted quotes as their evidence. Why are you now arguing against that quote that the Poll used?

I'm not. I was just telling you why they decided to word the questions the way they did.

Regarding military attacks on civilians, the poll did not define the civilians as non-combatants or innocent.

What leads you to believe that they are talking about combatants or those guilty of harming or intending to do harm to others?

In fact, the article describing the poll places a disclaimer regarding the poll as follows:

“It is important to note that the questions specifically address the "targeting" of civilians, not simply their unintended harm as collateral damage.”

The part about non-combatants has to do with people who commit acts of violence on others:

“An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion.”

That is not even close to what you have quoted is saying.

 

[Joyousperson]

I call my main witness: Indonesia’s foremost influential Islamic leader,

Yahya Cholil Staquf
<<
Among Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders is Yahya Cholil Staquf, 51, advocates a modern, moderate Islam. He is general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which, with about 50 million members, is the country’s biggest Muslim organization. Yahya.

Points:

Yahya Cholil Staquf Responded to Q.
Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

And Muslims and the state?
Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

How can that be accomplished?
Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.

Is it so elsewhere too?
Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.

There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.

They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.
I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

Who and what are responsible?
Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior … I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.

The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behavior has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behavior? What kind if impression does that make? Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.

I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.
And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.​

This is very revealing where a well known Islamic scholar acknowledges Islam itself is a part [actually a major] the problem, albeit he claimed that is orthodox Islam.

You, I and the so-called anti-Islam propagandists [JosephZ's labelling] had been providing evidence from the original sources of Islam to prove what Yahya Cholil Staquf is asserting. It is not Yahya, but many other Islamic experts has been asserting the same.

That Yahya Cholil Staquf is advocating a form of moderate Islam that is suited to the modern Nation States is very problematic.
As Erdogan and many has stated, there no orthodox nor moderate Islam, there is only ONE Islam;
Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge

The Quran is immutable and represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran as supported by the Ahadith.
As such there is no room for any Muslim contracted with Allah to ignore any of the verses, e.g. 9:5 and all those verses that exhort Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims.

Any spin in the interpretation of the 6236 verses of the Quran is a great sin [biddah]. No truer Muslims would dare to spin Allah's words especially when the Islamic Hell is a threat and the Muslim's eternal life in paradise is at stake.

I believe the majority of Muslims would not lean towards the evil and violent ethos of Islam despite it is Allah's words and they will be blind to it.

The term 'minority' is often not alarming in general, but not in the case of Islam, where 20% of Muslims as evil prone is 320 million!! It only took 18++ evil prone Muslims to do a 911.

It is so easy to influence the minority of the evil prone Muslims to commit evil and violence against non-Muslims. Just as them 'are you saved?' and if they want assurance of salvation, they must obey Allah and Muhammad to the 't' which will include compliance to all the evil violent verses in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

Indonesia was regarded as one of the most moderate Islamic nation and that is because the majority do not take their Islam seriously.
With our current internet and information technology, there is now an increasing trend of more and more Muslims gravitating towards the true nature of the Islamic ethos which is evil and violent driven. This is very evident in Indonesia and around the world.

Note this in Indonesia where such numbers of Muslim protestors were non-existent in the past.

It is not likely that Yahya Cholil Staquf's lament and plea for moderate Islam to prevail will ever succeed in view of the current increasing trend of the more zealous Muslims.

The only solution for Islam towards the future [50, 100 years?] is to wean it off and replace with the likes of pacifist religions like Christianity and others.

 

[Joyousperson]

I can insist that what Setst777 is referring to is Wahhabism because I have been living and working among Muslims who practice Sunni Islam according to the Shafi'i school for going on eight years now. That along with my extensive knowledge of Islam and interactions with Muslims in other parts of the world over the past 3+ decades is what makes it easy for me to differentiate between the extremists ideology of Wahhabism that Setst777 is describing and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Note there is a difference between the fundamental doctrines of the Shafi'i or other Maddhab and what is practiced by the majority of Muslims of the specific group.

You are too narrow in your views.
Saudi Arabia supposedly is in alignment with Wahabbism, but not all the 34+ million of Muslims war against and kill non-Muslims as what Wahhabism would insist they do.

You cannot inferred the fundamental principles and doctrines of a religion from the behaviors of its believers.
Note the basic dictum, "the believers must be separated from the ideology".

As such, Wahhabism is represented by the doctrines and teachings proposed by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

To understand what the Shafi'i school represent, you have to refer to the doctrine represented by Al-Shafi‘i;

The Shafi‘i (Arabic: شافعي‎ Shāfiʿī, alternative spelling Shafei) madhhab is one of the four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam.[1][2] It was founded by the Arab scholar Al-Shafi‘i, a pupil of Malik, in the early 9th century.
Shafi‘i - Wikipedia​

The most famous presentation of Shafi'i doctrines are from The Reliance of the Traveller, which among others echo and recommend the evil and violence of Jihad as in the Quran.
Note Book O: 19 Jihad from Reliance of the Traveller which exhorts Muslims to war against non-Muslims under various conditions of threat [fasadin] which are very flimsy.

Your observations of Muslims in the Southern Philippines in irrelevant to infer what the Shafi'i Maddhab actually teaches.
It is so basic, to understand what is Shafi'i school of thought, you need to refer to its Constitution, as expounded in the Reliance of the Traveller.

JosephZ wrote:
How many Muslims have you sat face to face with and discussed jihad with and what it means to them?​

Have you? i.e. discuss true Shafi'i doctrines with Shafi'i Muslims?
Here is a test,
Put The Reliance of the Traveller in the Philippine national language into a mobile act for all the Shafi'i Muslims to read. Do you think they will condemn the section on Book O: 09 re Jihad?
I believe upon the above, more than 20% will go into Jihad mode and you will be one of the target [as a threat to Islam].
In addition, discuss with the Imans and authority of Shafi'i in your area and let us know what are their views re The Reliance of the Traveller.


Note this from Reliance of the Traveller [Shafi'i School]

Book O: 08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.​

That is from the principles of the Shafi'i school.
Since the Muslims you mixed with are from the Sunni-Shafi'i school, then they should comply with the above.
Do you agree with the above? or
Are you denying the above is not an inherent Sharia Law and principle of the Shafi'i school?

Btw, your proselytizing to the Muslims of the Shafi'i to Christianity, thus apostatizing from Islam, imply you are contributing to their death sentence [apostates are to be killed re Book O: 08.1.]. Wow this is a serious moral issue on your part.

You may argue it is not happening, but the reality is, not yet!
When the majority the Sunni-Shafi'i are more well verse with their Shafi'i inherent Sharia Laws [Allah's Law] then you will see the real consequences of evil and violence on non-Muslims.

 

[Joyousperson]

Sets777 wrote:
Most Muslims in the world are practicing Islam. But since Muslims "here" in the US are a minority - less than 1% of the US population - they are practicing Takyah, temporarily following the abrogated verses (in stages) on peace until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA.​

JosephZ wrote:
So you are saying Muslims in America are liars?
​

Yes, a significant number of Muslims in America are liars on the truth of What Islam is about, i.e. inherently evil and violent, especially anti-semitism.

Note what happened the US Congress at present with just two new Muslim members, Ilhan Omar and Talib with their vociferous anti-semitics chants in the Congress of USA.

This is obviously in alignment with their Islamic religious duty to hate the Jews as exhorted in the Quranic verses and in the Ahadith. See the chart below where the anti-semitic elements in the Quran is worst than the Mein Kampf;

this is in line with what Sets777 stated above;

.. until they grow in sufficient numbers and gain more political and social power. As they gain greater dominance, then we will see Muslims do the SAME THING they have done in every country they invaded PER SHARIA​

The signs of the above are creeping in the USA Congress and elsewhere.

The critical point is 'when salvation is at stake' under the threat of Islamic Hell, Muslims will definitely strive to obey what Allah commanded, to ensure a place in paradise with eternal life and avoid hell. The drive may not be conscious but it is definitely subliminal.

 

[setst777]

Points:

Yahya Cholil Staquf Responded to Q.
Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

And Muslims and the state?
Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

How can that be accomplished?
Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.

Is it so elsewhere too?
Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.

There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.

They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.
I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

Who and what are responsible?
Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior … I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.

The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behavior has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behavior? What kind if impression does that make? Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.

I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.
And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.​

This is very revealing where a well known Islamic scholar acknowledges Islam itself is a part [actually a major] the problem, albeit he claimed that is orthodox Islam.

You, I and the so-called anti-Islam propagandists [JosephZ's labelling] had been providing evidence from the original sources of Islam to prove what Yahya Cholil Staquf is asserting. It is not Yahya, but many other Islamic experts has been asserting the same.

That Yahya Cholil Staquf is advocating a form of moderate Islam that is suited to the modern Nation States is very problematic.
As Erdogan and many has stated, there no orthodox nor moderate Islam, there is only ONE Islam;
Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge

The Quran is immutable and represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran as supported by the Ahadith.
As such there is no room for any Muslim contracted with Allah to ignore any of the verses, e.g. 9:5 and all those verses that exhort Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims.

Any spin in the interpretation of the 6236 verses of the Quran is a great sin [biddah]. No truer Muslims would dare to spin Allah's words especially when the Islamic Hell is a threat and the Muslim's eternal life in paradise is at stake.

I believe the majority of Muslims would not lean towards the evil and violent ethos of Islam despite it is Allah's words and they will be blind to it.

The term 'minority' is often not alarming in general, but not in the case of Islam, where 20% of Muslims as evil prone is 320 million!! It only took 18++ evil prone Muslims to do a 911.

It is so easy to influence the minority of the evil prone Muslims to commit evil and violence against non-Muslims. Just as them 'are you saved?' and if they want assurance of salvation, they must obey Allah and Muhammad to the 't' which will include compliance to all the evil violent verses in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

Indonesia was regarded as one of the most moderate Islamic nation and that is because the majority do not take their Islam seriously.
With our current internet and information technology, there is now an increasing trend of more and more Muslims gravitating towards the true nature of the Islamic ethos which is evil and violent driven. This is very evident in Indonesia and around the world.

Note this in Indonesia where such numbers of Muslim protestors were non-existent in the past.

It is not likely that Yahya Cholil Staquf's lament and plea for moderate Islam to prevail will ever succeed in view of the current increasing trend of the more zealous Muslims.

The only solution for Islam towards the future [50, 100 years?] is to wean it off and replace with the likes of pacifist religions like Christianity and others.

Hi Joyousperson,

Excellent followup to my post.

I quote you as follows:
<<
That Yahya Cholil Staquf is advocating a form of moderate Islam that is suited to the modern Nation States is very problematic.

As Erdogan and many has stated, there no orthodox nor moderate Islam, there is only ONE Islam;
Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge
>>

NOTE:
Turkey is a Suni Islamic country - not Wahhabist.

Yet, the Suni Leader of Turkey "Erdogan" is accusing Wahhabist Saudi Arabia of turning its back on Islam by claiming to be "moderate."

I think quoting this revealing article is in order.

Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has criticized the recent vow by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to make Saudi Arabia a bastion of “moderate Islam”

“Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing,” Erdoğan said in a speech at a program hosted in Ankara by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on women’s entrepreneurship on Nov. 9.

“Recently the concept of ‘moderate Islam’ has received attention. But the patent of this concept originated in the West,” Erdoğan said.

“Perhaps the person voicing this concept thinks it belongs to him. No, it does not belong to you,” he added, noting that he was “asked about ‘moderate Islam’ at meetings in the European Parliament many years ago.”

“They are now trying to pump up this idea again. What they really want to do is weaken Islam ... We don’t want people to learn about religion from foreign facts,” Erdoğan said, also criticizing the previous practice banning women from driving in Saudi Arabia. The ban was recently lifted with an order from King Salman requesting that driving licenses be issued to women.

“You say ‘moderate Islam’ but you do not allow women to drive. Is there any restriction in Islam banning women from driving? There is no such thing,” he said.

The Saudi Crown Prince had made his “moderate Islam” pledge at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on Oct. 25.

“Saudi was not like it is today before 1979. Saudi Arabia and the entire region went through a religious revival after 1979 ... But now all we will do is go back to what we were: A moderate Islam that is open to all religions, to the world, and to all traditions and people,” he said.

Meanwhile, President Erdoğan also blasted the OIC for “obstructing” certain plans that Turkey wants to implement to support women’s rights within the OIC.

“Turkey proposes a women’s platform within the OIC but some leaders of the organization do not agree,” he added.

 

[setst777]

That is not even close to what you have quoted is saying.

Hi Joseph,

Joseph writes:
<<
How many years of your life have been spent living and working with Muslims who practice Sunni Islam according to the Shafi'i school? How many different courses on Islamic studies have you taken and from which schools of thought have you taken such courses on Islamic studies from?
<<

setst RE: I will not get into a war of words with you about who thinks they are more qualified to speak on behalf of Islam. I use:

• there own leaders,
• their own Islamic sources,
• their own people,

as my evidence. The evidence I use far outweighs your limited knowledge of Islam, Sharia, Suni or Shia Muslims. You have repeatedly shown that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Sharia or Islam.

Joseph said:
<<
Islamic terrorism is higher in countries that are in conflict. There are many Muslim majority countries that see very little in the way of violence and terrorism.

Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.
>>

setst RE: All these so called "experts" know is that their is a correlation between terrorism and the events described. Correlation does NOT prove cause.

Those Islamic countries, such as Indonesia, are more peaceful because they have replaced Sharia with government laws. So, it's not because of Sharia that an Islamic nation is peaceful, but in spite of it.

Only in Islamic countries, or in countries where Islam is gaining dominance, do we see the poor and dangerous conditions that Sharia Ideology promotes, except in North Korea.

I quoted far more credible sources, including my six witnesses, to show that Islamic Sharia Ideology IS the major cause of the problems in theses ISLAMIC dominated countries.

These "experts" need to get their act together and stop pontificating. They need to:

• stop listening to Islamic organizations with ties to terrorism to tell them what Islam believes about terrorism and their causes,
• stop allowing Islamic organizations with ties to terrorism to help draw battle plans for US Policy on anti-terrorism.
• stop using politically correct terms that terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations demand our politicians to use to squelch any disagreement to their agenda.
• stop allowing terrorist supporting Islamic organizations to tell us what "hate speech" is or isn't.
• and start LISTENING to what genuine Islamic leaders, and those who are Muslims, actually are saying as a WARNING to the US -

What they are saying is that orthodox, traditional, classical Islam is the major cause of these problems in those countries.

And when you replace Sharia with government laws, the major problems go away - just as we see in Indonesia. But that is now changing.

Why?
Answer: Islam cannot be tamed. There will always be devout Muslims who will fight to make Sharia (Allah's Law) supreme in every land on earth. There is only one Islam. That Islam ruled by Sharia Law.

Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar

Joseph said
<<
So you are saying Muslims in America are liars?
>>

setst RE: All we know for sure is that is what their religion teaches them to do. And we are seeing in the news on a regular basis, in this country alone,

• how Muslims are using our own laws against us to promote Islam.
• how they are convincing naive US leaders to give into their demands to sensor and destroy those who show the truth about Islam.
• how they are quoting peaceful verses to "prove" they are peaceful while they spew hate against America and its values and promote Sharia.
• We are seeing how they are censoring and threatening those who speak the truth about Islam.
• We are seeing how, as Muslim populations increase in any foreign country, that the Muslims become bolder, intimidating, threatening, with more use of terror to get their way.

These are the cold hard facts that are taught in Sharia to promote Islam, and are actually happening in the real world for centuries.

Do all Muslims do this? I have repeatedly said "NO." However their voices are not heard. The spread of Islam in the West is being caused by Muslims who know their religion and are not afraid to stand up for it - Jihad against unbelievers until the world is one religion - Islam.

Jihad through:

• Social Media Channels
• our legal system
• our politicians
• terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations in our countries
• Mosques
• Universities and schools
• demonstrations
• violence and terrorism

Joseph then tries to take one quote out of context about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to try to prove he was correct.

From the beginning I have agreed that Mosques in the West are being infiltrated by Saudi Arabia and Iran - for over 50 years now they have been doing this. That is why Western Muslims are not as Naive as they lead you to believe.

What are these "experts" doing about it???

Answer: The "experts" are refusing to identify the real problem; so, nothing is being done. Instead they are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations to tell them what the problems are.

That is why Muslims in the West are not as naive as you think they are. Islam is invading America through many forms of Jihad and America is sleeping.

All the rest of your objections are frivolous and have already been responded to sufficiently.

 

[JosephZ]

As Erdogan and many has stated, there no orthodox nor moderate Islam, there is only ONE Islam;

I agree with that statement, and the one Islam Erdogan is talking about isn't what you are describing in this thread.

Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge NOTE: Turkey is a Suni Islamic country - not Wahhabist.
Yet, the Suni Leader of Turkey "Erdogan" is accusing Wahhabist Saudi Arabia of turning its back on Islam by claiming to be "moderate." I think quoting this revealing article is in order.

Erdogan was addressing the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, not the Wahhabist of Saudi Arabia. The Crown prince is trying to come across as some sort of reformer of Islam in the Arabian peninsula and Erdogan was accusing him of using the Western term "moderate Islam" which he feels weakens the religion of Islam and doesn't distance it enough from the extremists interpretations. You totally missed the point of the article and what Erdogan was saying.

I will not get into a war of words with you about who thinks they are more qualified to speak on behalf of Islam. I use:

• there own leaders,
• their own Islamic sources,
• their own people,

as my evidence. The evidence I use far outweighs your limited knowledge of Islam, Sharia, Suni or Shia Muslims. You have repeatedly shown that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Sharia or Islam.

Based on your posting history your understanding of Islam comes only from what you learned and read from anti-Islamic propaganda sites online. I will go with my personal real world experiences and education on this subject rather than someone on the internet with no formal education of Islam who parrots the talking points of anti-Islamic propagandists and uses them as sources to support their position. And no, when I say anti-Islamic propagandists, I'm not talking about the Islamic sources and texts that you repeatedly quote out of context.

setst RE: All these so called "experts" know is that their is a correlation between terrorism and the events described. Correlation does NOT prove cause.

You do realize that many of these experts spend a lot of time in the field conducting interviews with extremists. They are not just going on their personal feelings when it comes to determining what drives violent extremism and terrorism.

I quoted far more credible sources, including my six witnesses, to show that Islamic Sharia Ideology IS the major cause of the problems in theses ISLAMIC dominated countries.

What they are saying is that orthodox, traditional, classical Islam is the major cause of these problems in those countries.

I didn't get that from reading the sources you provided.

Answer: Islam cannot be tamed. There will always be devout Muslims who will fight to make Sharia (Allah's Law) supreme in every land on earth. There is only one Islam. That Islam ruled by Sharia Law.

Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar

Did you even read this article?

What are these "experts" doing about it???

Answer: The "experts" are refusing to identify the real problem; so, nothing is being done. Instead they are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations to tell them what the problems are.

Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?

 

[Joyousperson]

setst777 said: ↑
I will not get into a war of words with you about who thinks they are more qualified to speak on behalf of Islam. I use:

• there own leaders,
• their own Islamic sources,
• their own people,

as my evidence. The evidence I use far outweighs your limited knowledge of Islam, Sharia, Suni or Shia Muslims. You have repeatedly shown that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Sharia or Islam.​

Based on your posting history your understanding of Islam comes only from what you learned and read from anti-Islamic propaganda sites online. I will go with my personal real world experiences and education on this subject rather than someone on the internet with no formal education of Islam who parrots the talking points of anti-Islamic propagandists and uses them as sources to support their position. And no, when I say anti-Islamic propagandists, I'm not talking about the Islamic sources and texts that you repeatedly quote out of context.

From what I have read of Sets777 posts he relied on "their own Islamic sources" i.e. the Quran, Ahadith, which should carry 90% weightage in the arguments.

Those are critiques of Islam sites, even if you labeled them "anti-Islamic propaganda sites" that is not an issue as long as they had provided evidences from the original sources and they have done so.

There are few disputable points but 99% of the time I see no issues with their quotes.
In my case, I quote directly from the Quran to argue my points and if I refer to any external critiques, that is only for convenience to take advantage of what they have compiled from the original sources.

So far, your arguments are based on flimsy sources and your own observation of Muslims behaviors - which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. extremely subjective.
You hardly refer to the relevant, i.e. the doctrines from the Quran, Ahadith and others.

You do realize that many of these experts spend a lot of time in the field conducting interviews with extremists. They are not just going on their personal feelings when it comes to determining what drives violent extremism and terrorism.

Note the researchers at START admitted their data based on the empirical sources [news, etc.] and interviews are very limited.

Another limitations is most those researchers you mentioned spread their attention too wide to cover all types of terrorism while our discussion here is focused on the full range of Islamic based evil and violent acts [including Islamic terrorism].

What is worse is for their data on Islamic terrorists, those researchers did not dig into the doctrines of Islam as the root cause of Islamic-related terrorism despite they are loads of evidence many of the Islamic terrorists are shouting Allah-u-Akbar and quoting from the Quran and Ahadith to justify their terrorists acts as a religious duty.

Note the control point,
if there is no Islam, there will be no Islamic-related terrorist attacks on non-Muslims.

Examples, Hamas and others will continue to fight the Israelists but there is no way they can rely on a religion to get support from Muslims all around the world. No innocent people will be killed merely because they had drawn cartoons.​

Therefore the focus should be on weaning off Islam in a fool proof manner.

 

[setst777]

I agree with that statement, and the one Islam Erdogan is talking about isn't what you are describing in this thread.

setst777 said: ↑
Erdoğan criticizes Saudi Crown Prince’s ‘moderate Islam’ pledge NOTE: Turkey is a Suni Islamic country - not Wahhabist.

Yet, the Suni Leader of Turkey "Erdogan" is accusing Wahhabist Saudi Arabia of turning its back on Islam by claiming to be "moderate." I think quoting this revealing article is in order.

Joseph responds:
<<
Erdogan was addressing the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, not the Wahhabist of Saudi Arabia. The Crown prince is trying to come across as some sort of reformer of Islam in the Arabian peninsula and Erdogan was accusing him of using the Western term "moderate Islam" which he feels weakens the religion of Islam and doesn't distance it enough from the extremists interpretations. You totally missed the point of the article and what Erdogan was saying.
>>

Setst RE: I can see where you would get that idea without knowing any background of the situation. Erdogan is surely against using any term to describe Islam. However, attacking Crown Prince for using the words “moderate Islam” has a deeper meaning than you are aware of.

The key to understanding the depth of meaning to Erdogan’s rebuke has to do with his statement: “Islam is one.”

Islamic leaders and Muslims who live under the rule of various Islamic governments are well aware that the Sharia of Islam is improvised or replaced by secular law in Muslim countries.

In reality, Islam and Sharia are inseparable.

When you diminish or replace Sharia, you diminish or replace Islam in practice because Islam is founded on the immutable Law of Allah.

When Sharia is diminished or replaced then Islam is corrupted. Islam becomes “modernized” or “moderate” or “liberal.” As an Islamic country or group more strictly follows Sharia, then that country or group is said to be “conservative” or “traditional” or “classical” or “fundamental.”

Erdogan surely understands this distinction. So what does Erdogan mean by saying: “Islam is one?” My understanding comes from the history of Erdogan’s rule of Turkey and what he is now accomplishing to fulfill his ideal or Islam as one entity.

So I want to very briefly describe that history that could fill a book or two…

“The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed "Republic of Turkey" as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on 29 October 1923 in Ankara, the country's new capital.[91]” Turkey had become a parliamentary representative democracy."
Turkey - Wikipedia

Ankara successfully replaced Turkey’s Sharia based government with a democratic secular constitution.

Ankara’s reforms empowered Turkey to become a rich, modern and prosperous nation, despite the fact that they had not developed oil and gas resources during that time. This miraculous achievement is similar to Israel’s transformation after the formation of the new Jewish democratic state.

So far, my point in bringing this up is that Islam is one under Sharia, but Islamic countries like Turkey and Indonesia have been secularized – replacing Sharia with government constitution and laws to rule Turkey and its citizens. As we shall see, however, Erdogan considers this secularization of Sharia as a corruption of Islam.

Erdogan envisions Turkey – and all Islamic countries – as being one Islam under Sharia, and is working to achieve that dream.

Since the 1980’s, especially since 2002, Turkey is steadily replacing Ankara’s secular republic with an Islamic one. This Islamization of Turkey is especially powerful under Erdogan.

Wikipedia – Turkey – Politics
Supporters of Atatürk's [Ankara's] reforms are called Kemalists, as distinguished from Islamists, representing the two diverging views regarding the role of religion in legislation, education and public life.[128] The Kemalist view supports a form of democracy with a secular constitution and Westernized culture, while maintaining the necessity of state intervention in the economy, education and other public services.[128] Since its foundation as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism.[129]
However, since the 1980s, issues such as income inequality and class distinction have given rise to Islamism, a movement that supports a larger role for religion in government policies, and in theory supports obligation to authority, communal solidarity and social justice; though what that entails in practice is often contested.[128]
Turkey - Wikipedia

Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP has been described as becoming increasingly authoritarian.[130][131][132][133] Even before the constitutional referendum in 2017 the Council of Europe had noted the country's autocratic tendencies and warned of a "dramatic regression of [Turkey's] democratic order".[134][135][136] Many elements in the constitutional reform package that was approved with the referendum in 2017 have increased concerns in the European Union regarding democracy and the separation of powers in Turkey.[137][138][139][140]
Turkey - Wikipedia

As of 2017 the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index rates Turkey at 4.88 (on a 0–10 scale), classifying Turkey as a Hybrid Regime.[141] In 2018, Freedom House rated Turkey at 32 (on a 0–100 scale) as Not Free.[142]
Turkey - Wikipedia

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the incumbent President of Turkey, is the current party leader of the AKP.
Justice and Development Party (Turkey) - Wikipedia

Wikipedia – Turkey – Religion
The government of Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) pursue the explicit policy agenda of Islamization of education to "raise a devout generation" against secular resistance,[376][377] in the process causing lost jobs and school for many non-religious citizens of Turkey.[378]
Turkey - Wikipedia

And Erdogan’s Islamization of Turkey is just the beginning.

Erdogan, under the AKP is funding the Diyanet to build and control thousands of Mosques in Turkey and other countries – placing his own Imams in those Mosques. The objective for such expansion is to teach conservative Hanafi Islam, and a political Islam that Erdogan is attempting to establish as the One Islam.

In 2010-2011, Diyanet began its transformation to "a supersized government bureaucracy for the promotion of Sunni Islam".[4]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

The Diyanet drafts a weekly sermon delivered at the nation's 85,000 mosques and more than 2,000 mosques abroad that function under the directorate. It provides Quranic education for children and trains and employs all of Turkey's imams, who are technically considered civil servants.[3] It has been criticized for ignoring the Islamic creed of the 33–40% of Turkey's population that is not Hanafi Sunni Muslim.[4] Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Under the AKP government, the budget of the Diyanet quadrupled to over $2 billion by 2015, making its budget allocation 40 percent greater than the Ministry of the Interior's and equal to those of the Foreign, Energy, and Culture and Tourism ministries combined.[5] It now employs between 120,000[4] and 150,000 employees.[4][5][13] Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

By Svante Cornell
October 9th, 2015, The Turkey Analyst
Since 2010, the State Directorate for Religious Affairs has risen in prominence. Diyanet’s budget has quadrupled under the AKP, and the Directorate now issues fatwas on demand, as well as wading into political issues and backing up the AKP position. Moreover, Diyanet has drastically increased its provision of Quran courses for students of all ages. The Diyanet, originally created by the Turkish state to exercise oversight over religious affairs, is now firmly under the control of President Erdoğan, and has turned into a supersized government bureaucracy for the promotion of Sunni Islam.
https://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/463-the-rise-of-diyanet-the-politicization-of-turkey’s-directorate-of-religious-affairs.html

CONTINUED...

 

[setst777]

I agree with that statement, and the one Islam Erdogan is talking about isn't what you are describing in this thread.

History Continued:

Imam Hatip Schools

Reforms undertaken in the administration of the İmam Hatip schools in 2012 have led to what one Turkish commentator called “the removal, in practice, of one of the most important laws of the revolution, the Tevhid-i Tedrisat (unity of education)".[4][14]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Erdogan has said one of his goals is to forge a “pious generation” in predominantly Muslim Turkey “that will work for the construction of a new civilization.”

His recent speeches have emphasized Turkey’s Ottoman history and domestic achievements over Western ideas and influences.
Reviving Imam Hatip, or Imam and Preacher, schools is part of Erdogan’s drive to put religion at the heart of national life after decades of secular dominance, and his old school is just one beneficiary of a government program to pump billions of dollars into religious education.
With more Islamic schooling, Erdogan aims to reshape Turkey

In 2017, some argued that "Diyanet’s implication in Turkish domestic and foreign politics opens a new chapter on Erdoğan’s increasing authoritarianism".[20]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Fatawa

The Diyanet began issuing fatawa on request sometime after 2011, and their number has been "rising rapidly".[4] Among the activities it found forbidden (haram) in Islam over a one-year period ending in late 2015 were: "feeding dogs at home, celebrating the western New Year, lotteries, and tattoos".[4] (Although the Diyanet is a governmental body, its fatawa do not have the force of law in Turkey.)[4]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

In February 2018, Diyanet stated that using left hand for eating or drinking is not desirable, warning that “demons eat and drink with their left hand.” Diyanet added that people with physical disabilities could use their left hand if necessary.[28]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Why do I quote about fatawa? Such fatawa show how deeply into Sharia the Diyanet is taking Turkey – using the Qur’an, Sira and Hadith to define Sharia for all – even seemingly minor rules like eating with your right hand. For now these rules are not mandatory.

One of the more major rules under Hanafi Sharia regards Jihad:

The Al-Hidayah: A Classic Manual of Hanafi Law defines jihad as follows:
“Jihad is a communal obligation…Jihad is determined till the Day of Judgment…’Then shall ye fight, or they shall submit (Qur’an 48:16)’ When the Muslims commence battle, and they have surrounded a city or a fort, they are to invite the inhabitants to accept Islam…If they respond positively, they are to refrain from fighting them, due to the attainment of the purpose. If they refuse, they are to invite them to the payment of jizyah, and this is what the Prophet ordered the commanders of the armies to do for it is one of the consequences upon the conclusion of battle…if they reject the invitation, they are to seek the help of Allah and engage them in combat.”

With the approval of Erdogan, the Diyanet implements this political ideology within conservative Hanafi Sharia of the Turkish AKP party and employ imams trained in Turkey in thousands of mosques under its control in Turkey and other nations.

Jihad launched by 'conquest' prayers from 90K mosques
More than 90,000 mosques throughout Turkey held “conquest” prayers Saturday and Sunday for Muslim warriors to carry out jihad against infidels – in accordance to their Islamic holy book, the Qura
Jihad launched by 'conquest' prayers from 90K mosques

The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), abbreviated officially AK Parti in Turkish, is a conservative[18][19] political party in Turkey. Developed from the conservative tradition of Turkey's Ottoman past and its Islamic identity,[20] the party is the largest in Turkey.
Justice and Development Party (Turkey) - Wikipedia

As I mentioned earlier, Erdogan Islamization one-Islam goals is not just for Turkey, but everywhere else.

How Turkey Is Spreading Its Radical Islamist Agenda to Europe

Erdogan is building Mosques in Europe to spread political Islam

Germany and Sweden have uncovered Erdogan’s Islamic political agenda being taught in his Mosques in those countries, including Kosovo, and are now closing down many of Erdogan’s mosques and sending back Erdogan’s Imams.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/22/how-turkey-is-spreading-its-radical-islamist-agenda-to-europe/

Wikipedia - International

Germany

Main article: Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs
See also: Turks in Germany and Islam in Germany

The Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (German: Türkisch-Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion e.V., Turkish: Diyanet İşleri Türk-İslam Birliği), usually referred to as DİTİB, was founded in 1984 As of 2016, the DİTİB funds 900 mosques in Germany.[29] The headquarters of DİTİB is the Cologne Central Mosque in Cologne-Ehrenfeld.
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

The Netherlands

See also: Turks in the Netherlands and Islam in the Netherlands

Of the 475 mosques in the Netherlands in 2018, a plurality (146) are controlled by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). Diyanet implements the political ideology of the Turkish AKP party and employ imams trained in Turkey in mosques under its control. Critics of the Diyanet imams, some of whom do not speak Dutch, hinder the effective integration of Dutch-Turkish Muslims into the society of the Netherlands by promoting allegiance to the Turkish state while neglecting to promote loyalty to the Dutch state.[30]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Sweden

See also: Islam in Sweden and Turks in Sweden

According to Dagens Nyheter in 2017, nine mosques in Sweden have imams sent and paid for by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). Along with their religious duties, the imams are also tasked with reporting on critics of the Turkish government. According to Dagens Nyheter, propaganda for president Erdoğan and the AKP party is presented in the mosques.[31][32]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Kosovo

APRIL 9, 2018 2:28 PM – Building and remodeling mosques in Kosovo – a beacon of democracy in an Islamic nation.

Kosovo and Erdogan’s Dangerous Islamic Agenda

Lulzim Peci, the former Ambassador of Kosovo to Sweden and Executive Director of the Kosovo Institute for Policy Research and Development (KIPRED), is one of the most critical voices in Kosovo against Erdogan’s Islamist scheme. He agrees that the mosques built in Kosovo are political establishments meant to promulgate Erdogan’s vision. “
https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/04/09/kosovo-and-erdogans-dangerous-islamic-agenda/

What do we learn from this?

We learn that Erdogan is extremely intent in indoctrinating Turkey’s Islamic citizens – from school age to adult. This indoctrination of political Islam is being expanded to other countries.

In closing:

Erdogan does believe in one Islam under Sharia Law while also keeping economic secular law in place.

Erdogan is promoting this one Islam through schools and Mosques and the changing of laws in favor of Islamic Sharia.

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…” The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

What is the political Islam that Erdogan is teaching in these thousands of Mosques in Turkey and foreign lands that is so controversial to German and other countries?

Besides Jihad against unbelievers, Erdogan is preaching a political agenda – some of which is seemingly good. Only time will tell where this all leads. One thing is certain, Erdogan’s use of the phrase: “One Islam” has far deeper meaning than most people think, and has to do with bringing back Islam under Sharia.

"One Islam" is an Islam that is once again under Sharia. That is Erdogan’s dream.

So when Erdogan chastises the Crown Prince for using the phrase “moderate Islam” we must take into account Erdogan’s agenda – to create a one world Islam under Sharia. Erdogan does not believe in secularizing Islam’s Sharia.

Erdogan is working to correct this error, and sees the Crown Prince as going in the opposite direction that he is taking Islam into – a one Islam under Sharia.