This week in Islam

[Marocc]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but you didn't answer all of my questions.

Your questions don't interest me much.

[Marocc]

https://news.yahoo.com/news/german-government-ordered-allow-isil-140737936.html

"German courts have ordered Angela Merkel’s government must allow an Isil bride and her children home.  In the first ruling of its kind, a court ordered that the government must repatriate the woman from a refugee camp in Syria for the safety of her children.

The families of dozens of other German Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) volunteers are expected to seize on the ruling as they campaign for the return of their relatives.  Like the UK, Germany has so far refused to repatriate citizens who travelled to the Middle East to join Isil, fearing they could pose a security risk.  The woman in the new ruling, who has not been named, is currently living in the al-Hol refugee camp in Syria with her three children aged two, seven and eight. She is understood to be from the Lower Saxony region of Germany.  In an urgent hearing, the court found that conditions in the camp, recently described as “horrifying” by the International Red Cross, presented a serious danger to the children.

The case was brought by relatives who sued the German government to force it to arrange the children’s return.  The government argued it was under no obligation to allow the woman’s return because she joined Isil of her own volition.  The court made no ruling on her rights, but ruled her children were entitled to protection as German citizens and ordered the government to repatriate her because it was impossible for them to leave the camp without her.  Kurdish authorities in control of the refugee camp want European countries to take their citizens back and have ruled out allowing children to return alone.  “This is a fundamental decision in which the foreign ministry was clearly told that it cannot avoid political and legal responsibility,” Dirk Schoenian, a lawyer for the woman’s relatives said.   “Now we finally have a ruling from a German court that Germany is obliged to take back not only the children, but also their mother,” Claudia Dantschke of Hayat Deutschland, a counselling centre for the relatives of Isil volunteers, told the broadcaster Deutsche Welle.  The German foreign ministry said the ruling was “being examined” and a decision had not yet been made on whether to appeal."

 

[Marocc]

17 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

And Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old, called Aisha.

Pobably about 19 actually.

[dialamah]

On 7/13/2019 at 5:20 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It matters because your role here is to either confirm or dispell the thesis of the thread.

Why do you say that?  Is he alone supposed to somehow answer for all the crimes of Muslims/Islamic terrorism?  Or assure us that nobody ever is in danger from Muslim extremists?  

[Marocc]

16 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Exactly

But not for people who have common sense and are starting to wake up, a larger and a larger proportion of people are becoming hostile to islamism. I think it's a victory for freedom and democracy. Islam is a religion that will be crushed eventually. Remember that Islam occupied Spain for more than 600 years, and was eventually expelled from the western part of the European Continent. It's because Islam is not adapted to technology, progress, morality, etc. Societally, islamism may never win in the West. It's too backward.

Things were great in Spain during that time though - check the history books.

Not adapted to technology.. Never been in an Islamic country, have you?

[Marocc]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Not all of them, and not the acts of individuals. It is movements that make a difference.

The movement you're looking for is probably the "anti-islam" movement.

There's quite a few "movements" going on in the Muslim world, but I don't think they interest you. It would be too complicated to read and copy past if the western media doesn't translate it into your "civilised" language first, i.e. The bad guys did this and the good guys did that and the solution is obviously whatever the president of the United States suggests. (if both sides are "bad" the US should bomb them out of existence - or pay someone else for doing that)

It's funny Trump was at some point all about the two state solution and then it turned out one of his colleagues was funding the construction of the illegal Israeli settlements.

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Marocc said:

The movement you're looking for is probably the "anti-islam" movement.

There's quite a few "movements" going on in the Muslim world, but I don't think they interest you. It would be too complicated to read and copy past if the western media doesn't translate it into your "civilised" language first, i.e. The bad guys did this and the good guys did that and the solution is obviously whatever the president of the United States suggests. (if both sides are "bad" the US should bomb them out of existence - or pay someone else for doing that)

ISIS is/was also a movement. I am always interested in hearing who did what to whom. However I may only accept it as your personal opinion.

The US isn't really interested in fighting the bad guys. They ARE the bad guys, which is exactly what you need to be in a bad world. But we love them because they are "our" bad guys. So as far as fighting goes, the US, and Russia etc. don't need to do anything. Just keep you people at each other's throats, and everything will be fine...

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  Got it.  Yes, conflict and contest are exciting and edu-tainment is driven by it absolutely.  The smart people do their work quietly outside the public eye.  You don't know the names of many successful billionaires and they like it that way.  It's another way that our political systems have grown ill-suited to their purposes.

2. No, I wasn't bored I just wanted to understand you.  Thanks for clarifying.

1. I guess that is a reason why. Certain Islamic militants use it not only to attract disenfranchised youth to their "cause", or movement as it were. They also use it to spread subversive propaganda intended to create more division and unrest, a war among ourselves. Once that happens, the voice of reason shall no longer be heard. Then we all go over the cliff, laddie.

2. No problem, happy to clarify anytime. I was on my phone too, in Quebec so it was hard for me to type. I learned some French too, so Au gratin! as Quebecers would say.  

[Marocc]

22 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So as far as fighting goes, the US, and Russia etc. don't need to do anything. Just keep you people at each other's throats, and everything will be fine...

Then why are they constantly there  bombing and on the ground?

Russia is there in a proxy war with US and US can't lose that war.

[Michael Hardner]

55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why do you say that?  Is he alone supposed to somehow answer for all the crimes of Muslims/Islamic terrorism?  Or assure us that nobody ever is in danger from Muslim extremists?  

That's everyone's role.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's everyone's role.

Ah, I think I see.  LOL.  

[Argus]

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

Prove that the 1200 attendees from 30+ countries were working for the Saudi government at a propaganda mill, or stop your Islamophobic bullshit.

I don't need to prove all 1200 attendees were working for the Saudis. I only need to prove the organization that hosted the meeting did. And I already proved that.

 

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I don't need to prove all 1200 attendees were working for the Saudis. I only need to prove the organization that hosted the meeting did. And I already proved that.

 

That shouldn't have a great affect.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Marocc said:

Yes, yes.

Then why are they not safe in Muslim countries?

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Marocc said:

That shouldn't have a great affect.

Because the Saudis are big on moderation?

[Marocc]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Then why are they not safe in Muslim countries?

How safe they are depends.

[Marocc]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because the Saudis are big on moderation?

They like to give that impression. You don't actually expect them to follow the plan, do you? That doesn't mean they would try to stop others from doing it.

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Marocc said:

How safe they are depends.

These kind of half-answers do not really help.  Gives the impression you are playing games.  Anyone's safety can depend on what they choose to do that day - jaywalk or not, drive drunk or not, or on factors out of their control - a drunk driver who runs into them, a gun someone thought wasn't loaded.

In the specific context of this thread,.I think the question is "just how safe are people who insult Islam from a fatwa against them."

I don't actually see how you can answer that question really, given that you've already stated only governments can legally kill and anything else is murder.  And if I recall correctly, you've said that fatwas are pretty ignorable.  My sister has said the same, they don't mean much and are often limited to a small group, ie a particular group of Mosque attendees or a small village.  Also, I have heard you can essentially 'buy' a fatwa.  A perfect vehicle for extremists to use to justify what they want to do anyway and scare Westerners at the same time.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Edited July 14, 2019 by dialamah

[Argus]

33 minutes ago, Marocc said:

How safe they are depends.

On what?

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, Marocc said:

They like to give that impression. You don't actually expect them to follow the plan, do you? That doesn't mean they would try to stop others from doing it.

Given the Saudis don't allow symbols of other religions to be displayed at all, nor allow churches, temples, etc. to other religions in their territory, It's more than a little hard to see why they would be pushing any sort of message on tolerance.

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In the specific context of this thread,.I think the question is "just how safe are people who insult Islam from a fatwa against them."

No, the question is "How safe are they to practice their religion peacefully in Muslim countries, without harassment or attacks from government or Muslims.

My sister has said the same, they don't mean much and are often limited to a small group, ie a particular group of Mosque attendees or a small village.

Your sister who lives in one of the more moderate Muslim countries, where Christians are constantly being attacked and murdered and their churches bombed? Your sister who had to convert to Islam to marry a Muslim?

Edited July 14, 2019 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

Again with the damn Quran...

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

https://quran.com/8/39

What part of that verse are you all having trouble understanding?

[dialamah]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

How safe are they to practice their religion peacefully in Muslim countries, without harassment or attacks from government or Muslims

I looked back and it looks to me like the question arose in relation to Hirsi Ali who is at risk in Western countries due to a fatwa.

In any case the same answers apply.  If you'll read back, you'll find the following statements from Marocc:

In regards to death penalty for apostates:  "The Qur'an prescribes no earthly punishment for apostasy alone. The hadiths mention it and at times directly; 'if anyone changes their religion then kill him.' But seeing as this is controversial to the Qur'an it cannot be right."

In regards to fatwas to kill blasphemers:  And such a fatwa as you propose would be entirely unislamic.

In regards to who can carry out a death penalty he said:  Only the government can execute such punishments.

Re: apostates being killed by in a non-governmental agent he said "What you're referring to is murder - not a punishment by Sharia."

It seems he personally does not believe that death for apostasy is Quranic, recognizes that governments determine their own crimes and punishments (right or wrong), that only a government has the legal right to sentence someone to death and to carry out that punishment in their own country, and that anything else is murder.

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

Your sister who had to convert to Islam to marry a Muslim?

More of your ignorance.  My sister converted to Islam about a decade before she went looking for an Islamic husband.  Being the usual believer in Western media about foreign peoples, you can bet I was worried to death for her when she told us she was relocating to Egypt. As it happens, he treats her extremely well, certainly better than her Canadian husband did.  

Edited July 14, 2019 by dialamah

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

These kind of half-answers do not really help.  Gives the impression you are playing games.  Anyone's safety can depend on what they choose to do that day - jaywalk or not, drive drunk or not, or on factors out of their control - a drunk driver who runs into them, a gun someone thought wasn't loaded.

In the specific context of this thread,.I think the question is "just how safe are people who insult Islam from a fatwa against them."

I don't actually see how you can answer that question really, given that you've already stated only governments can legally kill and anything else is murder.  And if I recall correctly, you've said that fatwas are pretty ignorable.  My sister has said the same, they don't mean much and are often limited to a small group, ie a particular group of Mosque attendees or a small village.  Also, I have heard you can essentially 'buy' a fatwa.  A perfect vehicle for extremists to use to justify what they want to do anyway and scare Westerners at the same time.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

The question was why are they not safe in Muslim countries. The basis of the question is wrong because it implies none of them are safe in Muslim countries, but some of them are safe.

I'm obviously not talking about random things but such circumstancial factors as the country, city and even specific location they stay in, how they "practice their religion" (there's Christian missionaries out there too), whether they try to spread their religion or influence other people by it, whether they wear clothing that may express their religion more or less, what kind of work they do (if it happens to relate to your religion or be against Islam) who they are married to if they are, etc.

This isn't about fatwas but about practicing their religion.

I'm sure I've never said fatwas are ignorable. Maybe you mean fatwa for killing an apostate - never said it about that either.

The answer is actually very simple. It's a mixture of politics, terrorism, culture and human nature that makes man capable of murder. My issue was with the form of the question and with giving a simple answer to a complicated question. I'm sure everyone knows ^that^ already.

[QuebecOverCanada]

5 hours ago, Marocc said:

Things were great in Spain during that time though - check the history books.

Not adapted to technology.. Never been in an Islamic country, have you?

I have in fact been to a backward Muslim country, called Morrocco. Maroc in French, ironic, considering your name on this forum.

The roads are not paved, your economy is in shambles, you have problem with food hygiene and hygiene in general, there is discrimination against women and people of other religion than Islam. Internet is not provided except in major cities. Most people can't afford a car. There is not upward mobility.