qutuz and Islam

[manfred]

@Qutuzistan ,
Oh, speaking of "dehumanising"....

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "A believer eats in one intestine, and a kafir (unbeliever) or a hypocrite eats in seven intestines."

http://www.guidedways.com/book_display- ... er-304.htm

Qur'an2:65-66 And you know well the story of those among you who broke Sabbath. We said to them: "Be apes—despised and hated by all." Thus We made their end a warning to the people of their time and succeeding generation, and an admonition for God-fearing people.

5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."

Qur'an 3:110: “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had Faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have Faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.”

Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

And when I say that this man is not a bad person but not a good match, I am "dehumanising"?

Now, what part of Islamic teachings I mentioned earlier do you dispute?

This is also a trait you may have noticed, Newmember1973, a Muslim is always a "victim". (Except of course, life is not like that)

[Qutuzistan]

@Qutuzistan ,
Oh, speaking of "dehumanising"....

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "A believer eats in one intestine, and a kafir (unbeliever) or a hypocrite eats in seven intestines."

http://www.guidedways.com/book_display- ... er-304.htm

Qur'an2:65-66 And you know well the story of those among you who broke Sabbath. We said to them: "Be apes—despised and hated by all." Thus We made their end a warning to the people of their time and succeeding generation, and an admonition for God-fearing people.

5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."

Qur'an 3:110: “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had Faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have Faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.”

Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

And when I say that this man is not a bad person but not a good match, I am "dehumanising"?

Now, what part of Islamic teachings I mentioned earlier do you dispute?

This is also a trait you may have noticed, Newmember1973, a Muslim is always a "victim". (Except of course, life is not like that)

First of, that is some verses within the Qur'an. Some which contradict other verses within Qur'an and some which are historically contextual. They might have played a role in the past. But today, they aren't to the letter followed by every Muslim, because it's unfeasible and unnecessary. Hence why in legislation, even in theocratic Muslim countries, equal rights are given to non-Muslims, and are guaranteed in the constitution. This is the problem with Islam critics, they don't separate literature from practice. They understand Islam and the Qur'an the same way a modern day Wahhabi does, by taking everything within it literally and believe that every single quote is applied in real. The fact that god turned Jews into pigs and apes for disobeying him, does not necessarily mean that Qur'an states that all Jews that ever were in existence were morally irreprehensible

Neither does this quote:

Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

mean that people of the book will go to hell. Which makes no sense, since Islam assumes that the people of the book follow valid scriptures ordained by god. Perhaps they mean that heresy or on taking beliefs that contradict Christianity, and the Islamic understanding of Christianity, means them going to hell. Like I said the Qur'an does contradict itself. What you can ascertain however is that not all Muslims are hostile to non-Muslims. A small minority are. And those are the violent people you see on TV. The people who take the interperate violence within Islam too far. Personally I can speak for myself, and i don't agree with violence against non-Muslims without just-cause or unnecessarily cruel punishments on those who break sharia. But that is my interpretation of the Islamic faith. And you may well disagree with me.

You're dehumanizing Muslims, because you reduce them to your monolithic image of muslims. As if there is no such thing as individuals within Islam. And that every Muslim is one and the same. It's unreasonable. Only with islam can you get away with collectivizing the entire group. Every other group in the world are viewed as diverse. Only muslims have to carry the burden with being equated with the al-aqaeda and saudi-arabia. Is it irrational of me to assume that muslims are individuals manfred? Or is that too irrational?

[enceladus]

(snip)

The fact that god turned Jews into pigs and apes for disobeying him,....

Really? This is a "fact", you say?

Can you prove it? Or is your reply simply going to be "it must have happened because it is in the Quran"?

You have as much "proof" that this is a fact - none - as I do if I state that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Simply because the statement appears in a nonsensical book is not "proof" that it happened.

You *believe* that it happened. That is a whole different thing.

I would point you to this quote -
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott

What a "coincidence" that Muslims hate Jews and so does their alleged-to-exist "god".
- enceladus

[manfred]

Qutuzistan,

it seems that you are picking and choosing what aspects of Islam you think is right for you and what aspects are not. Personally I think this an excellent start as you are evaluating, and not simply accepting. Good for you, there is hope yet.

However, you will agree with me that this not something most Muslims approve of. The Qur'an is literally the word of Allah, and you may not question it. That is what your Imam would tell you. Historical context, limiting a verse to a particular time? In Allah's final word for all mankind and all time? How did that get there?


You comments also confirm another simple rule you see over and over: The more a person begins to think about Islam the less of it is really accepted. A "good" Muslim accepts all and sundry and never questions. A "bad Muslim" has begun to have a good close look at the whole thing.

Maybe, in a different thread we should have a look at some of the things in the Qu'ran, to see what you make of it all.

[Qutuzistan]

(snip)

The fact that god turned Jews into pigs and apes for disobeying him,....

Really? This is a "fact", you say?

Can you prove it? Or is your reply simply going to be "it must have happened because it is in the Quran"?

You have as much "proof" that this is a fact - none - as I do if I state that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Simply because the statement appears in a nonsensical book is not "proof" that it happened.

You *believe* that it happened. That is a whole different thing.

I would point you to this quote -
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott

What a "coincidence" that Muslims hate Jews and so does their alleged-to-exist "god".
- enceladus

Here is the verse from the english translation of sahih.

"Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."

It doesn't say which or what people angered god. Only that they angered god and thus he cursed them and turned them into pigs and apes and slaves of taghut(idolators). It's not clear what offense they committed. But obviously god favored the "people" of the book over the idolators. Hence why he became angry when they committed an offense, and hence turned them into slaves of people who're considered spiritually lesser. The idolators. That doesn't mean god cursed jews forever. Only that he punished them at one practicular time in the world. Basically it encourages muslims to not become corrupted like this historical group of jews, who were favored, only to be cast out for their offense. This is also in line with the old testament with the story about god punishing jews for almost adopting polytheism. There are no doubt some parts that are clearly against jews. But when have they endorsed and fully practiced by all muslim states in history? When have they been interperated as ultimate principles within islam by muslims?

The overwhelming majority of muslims, have better things to do, than to obsess about non-muslims and violence. Really man, I'm a full-time student. I don't really have time or the energy to go after non-muslims. Neither am I interested in converting other races into muslims or changing the west.

And unlike what you believe, jews survived a long time after sharia law was the law of the land in the east. While almost none of them survived under the secular state of nazi-germany. I wonder, if we were so merciless, how could jewish communities in the middle-east, survive surrounded by muslims, pre ww eras? The worst persecution of jews, didn't happen under islamic empires. It happened when secular Arab nationalists deported and killed jews, during the 3-5th decades of the 20th century.

Why did jews benefit from the ottoman economic policies? Economic policies that were ironically impeding muslim dominance of muslim markets. Bernard Lewis, who is considered one of the best historians of the middle-east, a jewish man himself, said that tolerance within islam fluctuated and changed with the situation. Just like in europe, where religious tolerance depended on the economical base and the rulers. In some periods jews were persecuted and in some they were highly integrated minority upper classes that were part of the ruling dynasties adminstration. But to say that jews were being persecuted by muslims... all of the time, is frankly a ridicules claim. If muslims had wanted to, they could have confiscated all jewish property, converted all synagogues in muslim lands into mosques, force converted all of the jews, and sent the rest of the jews to europe or india. By the standards of the time, we weren't more evil or less evil than christians in europe. You seem to disclude all other dimensions when talking about islam. Whether it's politics, economy, or history. Those are fundamental to understanding islamic legislation, history and attitudes. Yet you chose only to interperate islam from one single perspective. What specific parts of the hadith/qu'ran says. And you turn them into absolutes. Like the only facet of Islam is to persecute non-muslims. I'm sorry, that's just intellectually immature and really biased. As if some verses, constitute the entire belief-system. It's like taking criticizing the validity of an entire body of text, that contains i don't know how many chapters, based on some verses. Which the overwhelming majority never practice in real life.

[manfred]

OK...
I am listening.

In a NEW THREAD, why don't you tell us about your own personal understanding of Islam? What does it mean to you? What aspects do you endorse, what aspects you think need reform, as you put it? Can Islam be reformed at all?

That would be a really interesting and useful discussion.

[frankie]

Qutuzistan:

Why did jews benefit from the ottoman economic policies? Economic policies that were ironically impeding muslim dominance of muslim markets. Bernard Lewis, who is considered one of the best historians of the middle-east, a jewish man himself, said that tolerance within islam fluctuated and changed with the situation. Just like in europe, where religious tolerance depended on the economical base and the rulers. In some periods jews were persecuted and in some they were highly integrated minority upper classes that were part of the ruling dynasties adminstration. But to say that jews were being persecuted by muslims... all of the time, is frankly a ridicules claim. If muslims had wanted to, they could have confiscated all jewish property, converted all synagogues in muslim lands into mosques, force converted all of the jews, and sent the rest of the jews to europe or india. By the standards of the time, we weren't more evil or less evil than christians in europe. You seem to disclude all other dimensions when talking about islam. Whether it's politics, economy, or history. Those are fundamental to understanding islamic legislation, history and attitudes. Yet you chose only to interperate islam from one single perspective. What specific parts of the hadith/qu'ran says. And you turn them into absolutes. Like the only facet of Islam is to persecute non-muslims. I'm sorry, that's just intellectually immature and really biased. As if some verses, constitute the entire belief-system. It's like taking criticizing the validity of an entire body of text, that contains i don't know how many chapters, based on some verses. Which the overwhelming majority never practice in real life.

It is accepted that Jews may have been tolerated in Muslim lands during parts of history,but this was only inspite of Islamic teachings not because of them.The Quran teaches that Jews (and pagans)are the the "strongest in emnity to the believers" 5.82.When you have teachings such as these in a book purported to come from a god, allegedly for the benefit and guidence for mankind,you are more than likely to have a hostile reaction from the readers of these hateful writings towards the peoples mentioned.Islam teaches it is the only one true religion which has "to be proclaimed over all religion",to replace man made rules into an alleged god's, Allah's rules.History shows Islam spread from the Arabian peninsular by the sword,conquering lands,killing and/or violently subjugating their inhabitants,and taking women and children to be slaves.These are not the actions of a "religion of peace",but are measures taken to terrorise people into a belief system they do not want to believe in.

It is thankfully not the case most Muslims do not practice faithfully what their teachings command them,likewise to practice faithfully how their prophet actioned Islam,but this in itself does not exonerate all Muslims.To be true to his faith a Muslim must "fight in the cause of Allah,"as per Quran e.g.9.111 and Sunnah,when a Muslim does, he makes himself a terrorist for his faith,see Bukhari hadith Book 52 Volume 4 named "Fighting in the cause of Allah(jihad) for clarification.

[Qutuzistan]

It is accepted that Jews may have been tolerated in Muslim lands during parts of history,but this was only inspite of Islamic teachings not because of them.The Quran teaches that Jews (and pagans)are the the "strongest in emnity to the believers" 5.82.When you have teachings such as these in a book purported to come from a god, allegedly for the benefit and guidence for mankind,you are more than likely to have a hostile reaction from the readers of these hateful writings towards the peoples mentioned.Islam teaches it is the only one true religion which has "to be proclaimed over all religion",to replace man made rules into an alleged god's, Allah's rules.History shows Islam spread from the Arabian peninsular by the sword,conquering lands,killing and/or violently subjugating their inhabitants,and taking women and children to be slaves.These are not the actions of a "religion of peace",but are measures taken to terrorise people into a belief system they do not want to believe in.

It is thankfully not the case most Muslims do not practice faithfully what their teachings command them,likewise to practice faithfully how their prophet actioned Islam,but this in itself does not exonerate all Muslims.To be true to his faith a Muslim must "fight in the cause of Allah,"as per Quran e.g.9.111 and Sunnah,when a Muslim does, he makes himself a terrorist for his faith,see Bukhari hadith Book 52 Volume 4 named "Fighting in the cause of Allah(jihad) for clarification.
.

1. All abrahamic religions, claim to be superior to one an another. Especially towards idolators and pagans, who have been wiped out by Islam,Christianity and Judaism.
2. Muhammad waged wars with idolator competitors of his. But when viewed historically. He wasn't more violent or more atrocious than his competitors. Neither is the dislike of idolators particularly unique to Islam. Muslims attacked those who had declared themselves their enemies and his enemies allies. Which is perfectly in-line with historical conflicts at the time. I fully agree that Muhammad was no pacifist. Not like Jesus. But what he did was perfectly in-line with people of his time. Judaism has conquests of its own. From a rational point of view, removing his enemies in Arabia makes sense. Quraysh and their allied tribes weren't exactly saints. They had persecuted Muslims for a long time after Islam was formed. Muhammad was originally reluctant, until he decided it was the best way to keep the religion from dying out. Hence why it took such a long time for Muslims to organize for battle. This is after being expelled from their home cities, boycotted, attacked by pogroms. Having to immigrate to east-Africa, for refuge. Having their treaty for religious rights refused. I doubt Muhammad woke up one day and said, "Hey guys, lets just conquer the world". That never happens in real life. I doubt Islam and Muslims would have survived, if Muhammad had been a pacifist.

I disagree with violent quotes in the Qur'an, because to me they're not relevant outside of their historical context. Now days our enemies aren't people of a particular faith or belief system. Hence why war is unjustified. It's the states that attack us and force Muslims to bend to their will.

[Newmember1973]

I am reading all this and am thinking 'what kind of a god punishes'

[Qutuzistan]

I am reading all this and am thinking 'what kind of a god punishes'

God in abrahamic religions, have a tendency for vengeful acts and indignation of authority.

[frankie]

Qutuzistan:
I would agree that Mohammed's invented religion "Islam" mirrors 7th century Arabian life,hence the barbarity of Sharia,and would also agree with you when you say "I doubt Muhammad woke up one day and said, "

Hey guys, lets just conquer the world"

I think Mohammed only thought for the "moment"and himself,I doubt very much whether he thought further than the present,but I may be wrong.He was after all pursuaded by his family to be a prophet of god,which in turn convinced him actually to be,albeit a false one,which he used to his great advantage.

Your point about the violent verses.You have a rational point to say "they are not relevant outside of their historical context"but the Quran is not given to be a(rational) book "in an historical context" to Muslims,what is written in the Quran IS the context,as it seen as the clear, literal,eternal word of Allah,given to Muslims for mankind's benefit and guidence.Unfortunately for Non Muslims, part of this "guidence" says "fighting is prescribed as a good thing for Muslims to do" as is violently subjugating people until they accept Allah and Mohammed,as the one true faith.

"Religon" of peace, Islam is not.

[Qutuzistan]

Qutuzistan:
I would agree that Mohammed's invented religion "Islam" mirrors 7th century Arabian life,hence the barbarity of Sharia,and would also agree with you when you say "I doubt Muhammad woke up one day and said, "

Hey guys, lets just conquer the world"

I think Mohammed only thought for the "moment"and himself,I doubt very much whether he thought further than the present,but I may be wrong.He was after all pursuaded by his family to be a prophet of god,which in turn convinced him actually to be,albeit a false one,which he used to his great advantage.

Your point about the violent verses.You have a rational point to say "they are not relevant outside of their historical context"but the Quran is not given to be a(rational) book "in an historical context" to Muslims,what is written in the Quran IS the context,as it seen as the clear, literal,eternal word of Allah,given to Muslims for mankind's benefit and guidence.Unfortunately for Non Muslims, part of this "guidence" says "fighting is prescribed as a good thing for Muslims to do" as is violently subjugating people until they accept Allah and Mohammed,as the one true faith.

"Religon" of peace, Islam is not.

I disagree that jihad is compulsory and eternal. I disagree even that Islam should be missionary. I don't even agree with other races becoming muslim.

Islam isn't a "religion of peace", the word Islam means means divine submission. Having faith and Surrendering your will to the will of God. As for whether muhammed received divine revelations or not, that is an argument you can make towards any Abrahamic prophet. We don't know for certain that jesus was the son of god and not just a phoney preacher. You can either believe him or not. It's a matter o faith.

[frankie]

Qutuzistan:

I disagree that jihad is compulsory and eternal. I disagree even that Islam should be missionary. I don't even agree with other races becoming muslim.

If only Muslims would agree with you,then there would be no need for this web site.

[Qutuzistan]

Qutuzistan:

I disagree that jihad is compulsory and eternal. I disagree even that Islam should be missionary. I don't even agree with other races becoming muslim.

If only Muslims would agree with you,then there would be no need for this web site.

Jihad should only be in the defense of the homeland.

[manfred]

homeland?

Now there is a concept... Is Pakistan a "homeland" of the Muslims? And Israel, what is that? What about Spain? Whose homeland is that?

Given that ALL Muslim lands were in fact acquired simply by conquest and/or deception, would you then also agree that there is such a thing as a "law of conquests". For example, should the country of Liechtenstein decide to conquer Gaza and succeed, they can then legally keep it?

Why would you, along with millions of others then leave your "homeland" and spread your ideology in Europe, Australia and America?

[Qutuzistan]

homeland?

Now there is a concept... Is Pakistan a "homeland" of the Muslims? And Israel, what is that? What about Spain? Whose homeland is that?

Given that ALL Muslim lands were in fact acquired simply by conquest and/or deception, would you then also agree that there is such a thing as a "law of conquests". For example, should the country of Liechtenstein decide to conquer Gaza and succeed, they can then legally keep it?

First off... all lands have been conquered, F.ex in Europe, Latin European countries claim to be heirs of their roman conquerors. Islamic lands, is where the state belongs to the homeland of nations that have traditionally belonged to Islam. To the point where the culture has become predominantly Islamic.

You're right that within history, conquests and conflicts have rendered things like borders meaningless and pliable, arbitrary and man made. What can be done however is addressing the question of contemporary borders. The question is Islamic nations sovereignty, that has to be respected. If Islamic sovereignty is respected, then reciprocally non-Muslim sovereignty is respected. There is nothing that prevents a treaty between Muslim states and non-Muslims states to enter in such a treaty. That is something I envision, and a future world where our respective worlds are segregated. However there are many steps that have to be taken to ensure such an treaty can be created.

Israel is an Illegal state that declared itself a state without the consensus of the international law and without legitimate claims to ottoman territories that were ceded to Britain. I don't understand why everyone here supports Israel. Are you guys against Islam western lands? Or are you for non-Islamic states pushing out the Islamic race outside of its homeland? In that case, do you consent with Islamic entities pushing out western races, outside of western homelands? Is it justified because the Jews are not Muslims? Really, what is your stance on Israel? I have never understood westerners who support Israel just because they don't like Muslims in their own countries. It's contradictory and counterproductive. Because the more Muslims are attacked and oppressed by non-Muslim powers, the more they will move into non-Muslims areas. But perhaps non-Muslims who despise Muslims, support a genocide against Muslims, and support anti-Muslim aggression, but want to keep their own lands and traditions preserved. Do you support violent incursions into muslim territory? Do you support killing muslims and expanding non-islamic states in non-muslim areas?

Why would you, along with millions of others then leave your "homeland" and spread your ideology in Europe, Australia and America?

Why I live in the west, first off is not only irrelevant, but also a personal. It has nothing to do with religion or missionary work. These recent Islamic missionary activities, you see financed by Saudi Arabia and Islamic governments, is not a tradition within Islam, especially when you look at Islamic history. It also contradicts Islam, because Islam doesn't condone moving to countries where your religious practices are compromised and unfeasible. This however doesn't prevent movement from Islamic countries to non-Islamic countries. Because like any other place, societies all across the globe have similar workings and similar occurrences. And like I've stated many times before, I'm speaking for my views and myself only. So don't conflate me with a Saudi Wahhabi. I stand against their pro-globalization stance. I'm anti-globalist. Like I said. I have nothing against westerners wanting to preserve their traditions and culture, as long as they respect our rights.

[manfred]

So, you seem to say, any land that your people have CONTROL over, by virtue of conquest, is rightfully theirs. For example, this would mean that Northern Cyprus is rightfully Turkish, by virtue of the many Turkish soldiers there.

Now, Arabs have repeatedly tried to take possession of Israel, and failed. Should they then not use the same yardstick for that and say and recognise Israel? It's there, and it will stay, as simple as that.

Here is a a map, with the countries that do not recognise Israel coloured in purple. The lighter purple means that they once did recognise Israel, but not now.



ALL but two of them are Muslim countries. The other two are communist dictatorships.

What has "traditionally" belonged to Islam exactly? Spain? France? Greece? What exactly was North Africa before Islam? Anatolia is "traditionally" Muslim? Pakististan? It seems that Muslims work on a rather odd assumption when it comes to their own conquests. Once taken, it at once becomes "traditionally Islamic" and can never taken back. However, other people's "conquest" are a complete different story, right? Muslims may take whatever they want, if they can, and immediately they create a "tradition". But if even a tiny speck of land once conquered by Muslims is lost to them, there is a big outcry.


So, according to you Israel is "illegal"? What then of Northern Cyprus? Legal? Have a good look at the map. The rest of the world does not agree with the Muslims on this.

These recent Islamic missionary activities, you see financed by Saudi Arabia and Islamic governments, is not a tradition within Islam, especially when you look at Islamic history. It also contradicts Islam, because Islam doesn't condone moving to countries where your religious practices are compromised and unfeasible.

So how exactly did all the current Muslim countries end up Islamic states? Please don't take me for an my intellectual superior. This is simply completely untrue.

We don't see any "missionary activity" in Europe. We see jihad against Europe, by different means. The old method of rattling sabres at the gates of Vienna has not worked. So this is plan B. Immigrate, and infiltrate. Become at first a large and powerful minority, and when the time is right take over.

It does not even matter what your personal reasons are for settling in a Western country. You will have children, many of them. They will also have many, in line with tradition and Islamic command. Maybe one day one of your children will sit on a high chair, collecting jizyiah from local people, slapping them with a slipper round their heads and spitting into their forced open mouths in the process.

That is the plan in the end isn't it?

That may or may not be your own personal plan, but that is certainly the way petrol dollars are used.

[Qutuzistan]

So, you seem to say, any land that your people have CONTROL over, by virtue of conquest, is rightfully theirs. For example, this would mean that Northern Cyprus is rightfully Turkish, by virtue of the many Turkish soldiers there.

Now, Arabs have repeatedly tried to take possession of Israel, and failed. Should they then not use the same yardstick for that and say and recognise Israel? It's there, and it will stay, as simple as that.

Here is a a map, with the countries that do not recognise Israel coloured in purple. The lighter purple means that they once did recognise Israel, but not now.



ALL but two of them are Muslim countries. The other two are communist dictatorships.

What has "traditionally" belonged to Islam exactly? Spain? France? Greece? What exactly was North Africa before Islam? Anatolia is "traditionally" Muslim? Pakististan? It seems that Muslims work on a rather odd assumption when it comes to their own conquests. Once taken, it at once becomes "traditionally Islamic" and can never taken back. However, other people's "conquest" are a complete different story, right? Muslims may take whatever they want, if they can, and immediately they create a "tradition". But if even a tiny speck of land once conquered by Muslims is lost to them, there is a big outcry.

Taken back by who? European Christians? Romans? The people there have become Muslim and have been Muslim since the early medieval ages. The nations that existed there before Islam, have changed and their identity has become Islamic. They haven't been taken. You talk as if the people there have been replaced. They have been Islamic by tradition for over a millennium. They cannot be taken back by anyone, they're group independent nations and peoples. They don't belong to anyone. Just like china, japan and korea, cannot be taken back by anyone. Unlike you, muslims do not disclaim the nationhood of peoples there. The people there are ancient and aboriginal to their countries, even before islam/christianity. But it just so happens that they have become Islamic and Hence their identity has Islam incorporated in it.

So, according to you Israel is "illegal"? What then of Northern Cyprus? Legal? Have a good look at the map. The rest of the world does not agree with the Muslims on this.

Kemalist Turkey isn't an Islamic state. Please don't conflate kemalist turkey with Islamic state. It's ridicules, comparing nationalist Turks who worship ata-turk, as somehow. It makes as much sense as calling Nazi-Germany or Soviet union a christian state. The country itself has declared a separation from religion and state. The business in Cyprus is a geopolitical conflict between Greeks and Turks. Not the entire Islamic world and Greece.

So how exactly did all the current Muslim countries end up Islamic states? Please don't take me for an my intellectual superior. This is simply completely untrue.

Like I said, there is no framework for missionary work within the Islamic body of legislation. If there was missionary work, it's innovation. But there is no such thing as missionary work within Islamic texts. You'll have no luck finding body of work that says that Muslims are compelled to spread their religion. They converted to Islam, because the small part of Muslims had privileges in taxation. And because the elite were Muslims. They weren't compelled at all times to become Muslims.

We don't see any "missionary activity" in Europe. We see jihad against Europe, by different means. The old method of rattling sabres at the gates of Vienna has not worked. So this is plan B. Immigrate, and infiltrate. Become at first a large and powerful minority, and when the time is right take over.

Yes, but by who exactly? Saudi-Arabia. Wahabis constitute a very small minority within Islam. They're spreading wahabism to Europe. They are however innovating and including this in their interpretation of Islam. There is no such thing as missionary work within Islam. You have to separate politicized movements within Islam, from other schools of Islam. I neither have the same or share the same interests as Wahhabi. You're paranoid, and imagining things. There is no grand-master plan for all Muslims to convert the west into Islam. To me they're the wrong race and hence undesirable. Most muslims aren't interested in converting westerners either. Only Wahhabi are, hence the immense investment into building mosques and converting Muslims to Wahhabi ideology.

setttling in a Western country. You will have children, many of them. They will also have many, in line with tradition and Islamic command. Maybe one day one of your children will sit on a high chair, collecting jizyiah from local people, slapping them with a slipper round their heads and spitting into their forced open mouths in the process.

That is the plan in the end isn't it?

That may or may not be your own personal plan, but that is certainly the way petrol dollars are used.

You're asking the wrong person and accusing the wrong person for something that i have nothing to do with. It's like you going up to catholic and accusing him/her of spreading evangelical ideas, when it's a fringe group of Americans in the USA doing it. It's like no matter what I say, you seem to equate me with Wahhabi from Saudi-Arabia and AL-Qaeda. Ignoring the major political and interpretative differences between a Muslim revisionist like myself, and a Saudi Wahhabi. I'm neither interested in taking over the west, or having children there. You're paranoid, you're accusing a person who will leave this place in the near future, for being a fifth columnist Wahhabi. Like I've said before, Wahhabis see me as a murtad and a rafid. Not a muslim. Because my interpretation of Islam is not literal, like theirs.

[manfred]

I don't want to be rude, but some of the things you say sound somewhat far-fetched. Do you think Islam can be "reformed"? I don't. It has a built-in protection against that. Islam is like a clay pot. The only way you can really change it is by smashing it. Painting the outside of the pot may make it appear different, but in essence it is exactly was it ever was.

Your Saudi friends saying you are murtad are right, if all you have told us is really true.

But what's in a label, anyway?

If you disagree with many central themes of Islam, then why do you still prefer to see yourself as a Muslim? Would it not be simpler to break away from all of that, as you have in effect largely done so anyway? Why do you see ISLAM as something essential in defining YOU? It is a pseudo-religious political ideology forced on your ancestors. You don't need it and you are infinitely more than that.

Start asking not WHAT amI, but try WHO am I instead.

[frankie]

Jihad should only be in the defense of the homeland.

Qutuzistan:

Only according to you,the belief system of Islam says something quite different.