JTaylor

In error.

https://www.scoobynet.com/888939-hea...he-dark-2.html

Read the posts before #57 for context and the subsequent posts for clarity. My position is and always has been deeply critical of fundamentalism and my record attests to this. In lieu of sound argument you become a libeller.

JTaylor

I'll give you a chance to re-think this before I respond fully and waste my time pulling this absurd statement apart.

Mohammad and his followers disagree.

This is worth a read in my view:

http://www.meforum.org/541/coming-to...s-or-islamists

hodgy0_2

your posts speak for themselves

post 300 or so

https://www.scoobynet.com/888171-isr...l#post10044908

youi openly admit to admiring the iranian quest for WMD

and

"I actually get Islamism. If I were a sincere Muslim I'd want my homeland to be an Islamic emirate, not some sloppy secular state or sham democracy or an absolute monarchy where men, not Allah, are sovereign. Additionally, I'd have to consider violence as a means to achieve that goal. It worked for the French and Russian and American and Chinese revolutionaries over the last few centuries and they (alongside the British who had their own civil war) now make up the UNSC. I share some of the Islamists' criticism of gross materialism, too; their position is tenable."

I repeat

two sides - same coin (as I said over two years ago)

sorry but it is true - and deep down you know it

Luan Pra bang

Carry on a lets see you try and pull it apart.

Really you can speak for Mohammad and his followers ? All of them ? That is amazing considering I bet you cannot even understand Arabic.



Despite being written by a pro Israel, jew that article proves my point nicely thank you.

JTaylor

The only logical goal given the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the acquisition of nuclear arms. Their position is cogent and teneble from a starting point of Shia theocracy. You seem to be confusing my capacity to understand that with something else. When asked to elucidate in that thread you just disappear. I understand why planes were flown in to the twin towers and why Hitler murdered Freemasons and why Robespierre did his thing and attempted to understand Breivik's reasoning. As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." You'd do well to heed that advice.

JTaylor

Ok. Before I do that, can you let me know which word or words you would like me to use instead of Islamism?

All I have are the translated source texts and I must admit my Arabic is limited. Is it the case that one is excluded from discussing Islam unless one's fluent in Arabic?

That's quite alright. I posted it to demonstrate that I, alongside the pro-Israel, Jewish author, get your position.

hodgy0_2

spouting sh1te does not change anything

sorry

JTaylor

Next.

JTaylor

#8 and #10

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...-do-exist.html

#76

https://www.scoobynet.com/855681-isl...of-life-3.html

Ready when you are, Luan.

Luan Pra bang

That depends on what you are trying to say really doesn't it, you seem to be of the impression that Islam cannot be separated from extremism or fundamentalism which kind if limits your choices.



Claiming to have such a dominant unquestionable opinion on the meaning of the the Quran, and the opinions of every single Muslim in existence without even having read it in its native language seems a bit optimistic.

JTaylor

You seem to think extremism and fundamentalism are synonymous which rather implies that the fundamentals of Islam are extreme. Would you accept 'militant Islam'?

I don't claim either of those things, but I'm confident that the Rashidun Caliphs set the tone and adhered to the wishes of their master and that the restoration of the Caliphate is a key aim of today's militant/political/fundamental Muslims (Islamists) or Jihadists. I'm also confident I can know this and know that this is in the source texts without needing to speak fluent Arabic. You are familiar with the notion of translation, aren't you?

Luan Pra bang

I am confident in the existence of a giant invisible tea pot that floats around the earth but I guess I would need some quotes, or references for your to believe in my giant invisible tea pot. I am sure there are people that want to restore a caliphate but there are people who want to kill all the Muslims in England not sure what the relevance is, I have never claimed that militant Islam does not exist.

JTaylor

Are Russell's Teapot and Mohammad synonymous now? You're not painting a favourable picture of Islam here, Luan.

Because we're discussing Islamism/Militant Islam/Political Islam/Fundamental Islam/Jihadi-Muslim-Activists that are at the epicentre of events across South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Have you missed it?

You explicitly claimed in #29 that the restoration of the caliphate (Islamic emirate) was the goal of "only a few isolated nut jobs in the UK and a handful of rogue states". That blatantly understates the case. Interesting days in Egypt and Mali and Syria and Iraq and...

Luan Pra bang

The above statement is ridiculous, I used the teapot analogy to point point out how meaningless saying I believe 'x' is in a debate when no evidence is offered. This statement has no relevance to Mohammad or Islam and I have no idea how it makes Islam look bad. Especially given that I do not believe in religion or got.



So to cut this short what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think want to take over the world and what evidence do you have to support your claim ? Your general consensus has been that Islam leads inevitably to Militant Islam and you have yet to provide justification for that view.

JTaylor

This doesn't make any sense, you need to recast the sentence.

I don't know.

What claim?

There's absolutely nothing else that could possibly lead to militant Islam other than Islam. This is self-evident and as such formal logic justifies that view.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

So to cut this short what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think want to take over the world.
in simple terms what happens if you put a few bad apples into a barrel of good ones. the answer is obvious, after time even the good ones become infected to a certain point

Luan Pra bang

[QUOTE=JTaylor;10960733]This doesn't make any sense, you need to recast the sentence.[quote]

yep it did not make sense, it does now.



So what are you basing your assumptions on then

The claim that you can speak for what Mohammad and his followers believe in and think, all 1.7 billion of them.




Irrelevant, and in part wrong, all Muslim fundamentalists CLAIM to be Muslim not all Muslims are fundamentalist. It is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion.

JTaylor

It's remains barely comprehensible, but let's not get bogged down in that.

I've not made any assumptions.

I've not made that claim.

You state that what I've written is "irrelevant", yet if you read back through you'll discover that I responded, succinctly, to a point of order that you raised.

I agree with your second statement that "not all Muslims are fundamentalist"; I'd speculate that vast swathes of people who are Muslim by birth do not understand the fundamentals of Islam. As I say, this is only speculation.

Finally, the notion that "it is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion" needs examining. Non-political Islam is a religion, if one excludes religion as a cause, as you have done, one also excludes Islam. Therefore we're left with the proposition that militant Islam can exist without Islam as a precursor. I trust you're able to recognise why this is absurd.

Bubba po

Why the hell are they coming here? They haven't had a hit for decades.

Turbohot

Luan Pra bang

????

Luan Pra bang

I've not made any assumptions.[/quote]

You sure about that,



see post above for an example for your claims and assumptions



You are beginning to create stupid strawman arguments now and it is becoming a waste of time trying to establish key points if you keep making ridiculous statements.

JTaylor

Luan, you said:

and I said:

The Islamic State of the Caliphate was a constitutional ecclesiocracy. The constitution was the Constitution of Medina (written by Mohammad) and the Caliphate was ecclesiocratic (arguably theocratic) in that it was led by religious leaders (the first being Mohammad) according to religious (Sharia) law. That you believe this (the defining of a state on purely religious grounds) to be ridiculous is perfectly ok, but Mohammad and his followers disagree.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Defining a state on religious grounds is not exclusive to Islam though is it? You can take any one of several religions and they'll all have followers, who would happily have the state run in accordance with their respective religious beliefs. You will also have followers who don't want the link between the two. It's syllogistic to suggest that all muslims want this link. If you want a state defined purely on religious grounds in my opinion Israel is as good as an example as any.

Luan Pra bang

The thing about the constitution of Medina is that for starters an original copy has ever been found and the second is that it is commonly seen as a way to get the Muslims, Jews and Christians to live together with relative peace, I am not sure how you can classify that as a theocracy. This is especially true when it is made clear that the Medina constitution had elements of democracy when the world had very little of it and as far as I am aware Mohammad left very little information on how his succession should be handled.

JTaylor

No. In today's world we have two non-Islamic theocracies: the 110 acre Vatican City with its bulging population of more than 800 souls and the Tibetan administration who are in exile having failed to blow the Chinese over with their powerful mantras.

Ok, name the organisations, please, so that others and I can study their form.

OK.

Are you stating that Israel is a theocracy, Maz? If you are, I propose you start a thread entitled "Israel is a theocracy" where you can lay out your case. I assert that Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

JTaylor

Ok, well perhaps you should take that up with your local mosque.

You've not addressed the issue of dhimma within the constitution, Luan, and you appear to have ignored the nature of Sharia that dominated and persists in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan and Iran and Nigeria and Mauritania and Oman and Somalia and...

So is it your claim that the Caliphate was not theocratic?

finalzero

"Islamist" is derogatory word, designed to play on words that are already known such as "racist" and join the word Islam to it, creating association between the two words so people start assume one is the other...propaganda at it's finest.

Luan Pra bang

Well actually Dhimmi and the protected status they had was exactly what I was talking about, compare this with the persecution the Catholics were still suffering in England 400 years later kind of makes Islamic nations look very tolerant and progressive compared to other nations at that time. I am also intrigued by your obsession with the caliphate like it was homogenous, the actual problem with Khilafa's was that everyone took their own opinion and it split Islam into different groups.

Did you know that the Caliphate still exists ? The descendents of Mohammad are still there and Hazaar imam is still advising Muslims around the world on integrating modern culture and faith. He has told followers to adapt their religion to the culture of the countries they live in and to not expect things to happen the other way around, he also has no interest in terrorism. militancy or another of the other crap you associate with Islam but I guess you will only accept facts that fit your prejudice and not the other way around.

JTaylor

Were you put on the Nizari path when you were brought in to the World? No angle, just interested.