Mosques takenover by hardliners

[Atom]

"Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.

The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.

Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.

Seventeen of Britain’s 26 Islamic seminaries are run by Deobandis and they produce 80 per cent of home-trained Muslim clerics. Many had their studies funded by local education authority grants. The sect, which has significant representation on the Muslim Council of Britain, is at its strongest in the towns and cities of the Midlands and northern England.

Figures supplied to The Times by the Lancashire Council of Mosques reveal that 59 of the 75 mosques in five towns – Blackburn, Bolton, Preston, Oldham and Burnley – are Deobandi-run. "

The time for crass delusion and wilful self-deception should be surely gone now.


http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4537/hardlinetakeover544444tij0.jpg

Why can't the Moderate Muslims act to take them back under control?

 

[S.A.M.]

The Deobandis don't talk to the press; this makes them green fodder for the yahoos.

The Deobandi are Muslims of South Asia and Afghanistan who follow the fiqh (tradition of jurisprudence) of Imam Abu Hanifa. The name comes from Deoband, India, where the madrassa (religious school) Darul Uloom Deoband is sited.

According to Fuad S Naeem (Islam, Fundamentalism and the Betrayal of Tradition), Deobandi schools are completely orthodox and traditional, even though they oppose certain popular Sufi practices in the subcontinent. Their opposition though, needs to be seen not as a puritanical reform, but rather as an attempt to focus on essential Sufism.

Are the Taliban then the offspring of a purely Deobandi upbringing? By all accounts, yes, but it is not as simple as it appears to be.

One benefit of TWM's characterization of the Taliban as Deobandi Sufis is the implication that there exists different streams within that particular school.

The stream that concerns us is the one that has gained most from the imported ideology of Salafism. According to Ahmad Rashid (Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia), a gradual politicization of many Deobandi schools in Pakistan has been taking place in the last twenty years, which has resulted in a form of Deobandism that resembles militant Salafism and is far removed from the traditional Sufi piety of the school's founders.

Ahmad Rashid says that the five key leaders of the Taliban were graduates of a single madrassa, Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, near Peshawar which is situated in Pakistan but which was largely attended by Afghan refugees. This institution reflected Salafist beliefs in its teachings and much of its funding came from private donations from wealthy Arabs for which Usama bin Laden provided a conduit.

At its peak, the Taliban regime was recognized by only three countries; the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The last is interesting because in many ways, the Taliban programs for social and religious reform mirrored the equally spectacular career of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, an 18th century preacher from Central Arabia whose activism had met with fierce opposition from the worldwide ulema (scholars).

Furthermore, Afghanistan was an impoverished country with only opium as a dubious source of revenue. Saudi Arabia's links with the regime was, in all likelihood, an ideological one; a project for Saudi missionaries to work on.

http://higher-criticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-are-taliban.html

 

[Atom]

What is the diference between them and the Wahabbi's?

 

[Sock puppet path]

Did you see this one billy? Don't know if these guys are related.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is the diference between them and the Wahabbi's?

Wahabbis = conservatives in Saudi Arabia, hardline Muslim conservatives opposed by many Islamic ulema (scholars) almost worldwide, consider nonconservative Muslims as non Muslims.

Deobandis = conservatives in Asia and Africa, Sufi in philosophy, generally keep to themselves, low profile, want to keep Islam away from Western influences of materialism and consumerism.

Taliban = politicised Afgani refugees financed by militant Saudi Wahabbis + trained by militant Pakistani Deobandis

 

[Norsefire]

Well, too bad.......there are extremists everywhere, get used to it.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Well, too bad.......there are extremists everywhere, get used to it.

Should we get used to it or should we drag it into the light where it can shrivel and die faster?

 

[Adstar]

Well, too bad.......there are extremists everywhere, get used to it.

These are not extremists they are true muslims.

Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.

Being proud of being british is like saying you are proud if being a part of an infidel lead nation and society. And the quran says that muslims should never be friends with Christians.

So these islamic teachers are teaching pure islam, their calls for their follower to engage in bloodshed is the same call that muhammed made to the original followers of islam to fight jihad until all the world submits to the religion of islam.

Bringing terror to the infidels is a central part of true islamic teaching.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[superstring01]

Well, too bad.......there are extremists everywhere, get used to it.

Certainly, and for what it's worth, they are a pretty goddamned big problem (various American Militias, FARC, Sendero Luminoso, Tamil Tigres, ETA, and the IRA to name a few non-Muslim groups). But, unfortunately, it's the Muslim ones that seem to be blowing themselves (inside civilian targets) these days.

And before anybody mentions the requisite "America Bombing..." and "Israel Bombing..." issues, I'm not justifying those specific issues either, they are just different issues for another thread.

~String

 

[chuuush]

Being proud of being british is like saying you are proud if being a part of an infidel lead nation and society. And the quran says that muslims should never be friends with Christians.

So these islamic teachers are teaching pure islam, their calls for their follower to engage in bloodshed is the same call that muhammed made to the original followers of islam to fight jihad until all the world submits to the religion of islam.

Bringing terror to the infidels is a central part of true islamic teaching.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

People in the west seem to be obsessed with self-interpretations of the Islamic teaching of Jihad and see it as a call for violence. Jihad is a holy war first with your inner tempting soul and then with the assaulting enemy who threatens your life, your family, your citizens, your honur and your land. You fight them to protect your valued ones or free the opressed ones from the tyrans. It is not an occupying assault or a preemptive strike in most cases. It is either a self-defensive measure or a liberating action. The main concept is not to shed as much blood as possible as many people out there may think. There are strict instructions by the prophet of islam himself (Peace Be Upon Him) regarding the initiation and the process of Jihad some of which being:

- you should not be the initiating side,
- trees, water resources, and corpses should not be damaged,
- houses should not be destroyed,
- women, the elderly and the children should be spared,
- the hostages should be dealt with dignity,
- Stop it when they surrender and do not exagerrate it...

And most importantly if one accepts that the teachings of the prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) are based on the Quranic teachings, one can not consider him to be teaching bloodshed, simply because Quran openly instructs:
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."
and it also instructs:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but DO NOT TRANSGRESS LIMITS; for Allah loveth not transgressors"
so the prophet can only teach bloodshed if he contradits the Quranic rulings which are divine orders and the basis of the religion we call Islam...this of course is totally out of question according to the Islamic teachings!

Also, I do not believe that Taliban belong to a sufi tradition or to a real islamic school. They follow the example of wahhabism in rejecting many old-established islamic traditions and sticking to certain details while overlooking some principles, and everybody knows that wahhabism renounces sufism. Taliban was an over-politicalization of an erroneous understanding of Islam supported and flattered by the decayed governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE who, just by chance, have great ties with the western states, and thought such a regime would just be ideal for Afghanistan,but not for their own countries.

As a separate case, I should admit that my knowledge of Wahhabism (or Salafism as they call it) still has way to go; I actually intend to open a new thread in the religion subsection here to discuss it with people who can share hints... for or against it.

"To you be your Way, and to me mine."

Peace

 

[Michael]

Should we get used to it or should we drag it into the light where it can shrivel and die faster?

second the motion.

Also, again I'd like to add, pluralistic societies don't want another monotheistic cult ruining it again for us, so the best option is to teach children, beginning in primary school, the archaeological history behind the major monotheistic faiths. Combined with a heavy dose of evolution we may achieve a decent level of information inoculation. Oh sure some people will still get sick but a lot less than would have otherwise.

 

[Michael]

People in the west seem to be obsessed with self-interpretations of the Islamic teaching of Jihad and see it as a call for violence. Jihad is a holy war first with your inner tempting soul and then with the assaulting enemy who threatens your life, your family, your citizens, your honur and your land. You fight them to protect your valued ones or free the opressed ones from the tyrans. It is not an occupying assault or a preemptive strike in most cases.

After the battle [of Walaja] Khalid ibn Walid, got his exhausted men together as he realized that the battle had imposed a terrible strain upon his troops despite the sound victory over the Sassanians. [11] The battle of Walaja had been the longest [12] and fiercest of battles which the Muslims had so far fought in Iraq; and Khalid ibn al-Walid sought to ensure the high Muslim morale.
He addressed the men. He started by praising Allah and calling his blessings upon Muhammad. Then he continued:

Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours

most of the time... yeah that's right

 

[S.A.M.]

Found some more flotsam floating around, I see.

So which accomplished warrior of the time bequeathed this history to you? Same guy who recorded the splitting of the moon, by any chance?

 

[Michael]

Found some more flotsam floating around, I see.

So which accomplished warrior of the time bequeathed this history to you? Same guy who recorded the splitting of the moon, by any chance?

Haaa the splitting of the moon, magic winged fairy horses.
So stupid.

Oh yeah, I forgot, SAM thinks the Persians were never conquered, no one was raped and no one murdered and terrorized; they simply and gladly gave up their religion, language, culture and land to become Muslims because the Religion offered nothing new but they thought what the f*ck lets venerate an Arab. Or was it that the Arabs had to fight a "defensive" offensive war for their own safety (just like Amercia has to in Iraq) plundering the riches the soil had nothing to do with it. And hey it ushered in the "Islam" golden age - you know the one that was so golden it resulted in the major loss of human art.

Here you go: Annals of the Early Caliphate By William Muir

Michael

Does the possibility exist there is no God?


Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours

We all know the famous cities founded and built by the conquering Greeks and Romans but I wonder: What are the major cities founded and built by the conquering Muslims? Cairo?

 

[S.A.M.]

So you believe what someone said someone else said about something that happened somewhere else at some time long ago (100? 200? 300? years ago?)

On what basis? On factual evidence? Or are we still discussing fairy tales till we are blue in the face?

 

[Michael]

So you believe what someone said someone else said about something that happened somewhere else at some time long ago (100? 200? 300? years ago?)

On what basis? On factual evidence? Or are we still discussing fairy tales till we are blue in the face?

I posted the citation SAM. What, want me to go to the library and read it for you as well??? Geesh.

It's seem rather disingenuous of you to take the written testimony that the bloody moon was split in two peaces and also to believe it, when we know for certain such an event never occurred. Yet when a responsible peace of scholarly evidence is presented to you (and cited) you call for "factual" evidence? This from someone who believes in magic flying fairy horses.

Any reasonable person will tell you there is no such thing as a magical fairy horse nor was the moon ever split into two peaces. They will also tell you that generals from that time period always encouraged their armies with an offer of riches.

Anyway, you have the citation as it stands.

Michael

PS: What are the major cities that the Muslims founded and built?

 

[S.A.M.]

William Muir was there when the Persians were attacked?

Explain to me your rationale for believing this piece of retrospectively collected history, over say that of the splitting of the moon (which for example is cited even in India by astrologers of the king who was instrumental in building the second oldest mosque in the world in India due to his knowledge of this miracle)

 

[Michael]

spitting of the moon ... ... that's too funny SAM. ROTFLMAO.... it's really really funny you can say this with a straight face and really really scary you believe it. No SAM the moon was never split into a couple of floating peaces and then magically annealed back together. That's a fantasy.

I've given you the citation, now it's up to you to look it up.

Michael

PS: Which major cities were founded and built by Muslim Arabs?

 

[GeoffP]

Uh...splitting the moon?

Anyway, isn't the fascination with the moon thing a bit pagan?

 

[Michael]

back to the topic: Education Inoculation must ensure that at some point in their schooling children know the difference between Harry Potter or the Qur'an and Evolution. One has magical fairy creatures and moon splitting and the other grounded in scientific fact.

I am sure that if some of us on this board had been schooled as such they'd at least have the wherewithal to recognize a story-tale from reality. Then when you have these fundamentalist fruitcakes like Riyadh ul Haq balbing on about history and magical fairytales the listeners will be a little more inclinded to think the guys is full of shit.

Now I think we can ALL agree to this at least.

Michael