Sorry! I meant to write "it'll" instead of "i'll". I fixed it.
Regards,
"GF"
SYRIA bans the burka
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Sorry! I meant to write "it'll" instead of "i'll". I fixed it.
Regards,
"GF"
OK...I am by no means the most intelligent guy in the world.. I would never even imagine this... So, please forgive my ignorance... But what exactly is a "Botanist Extremist"? Or is that even a term or phrase? Perhaps was just part of an arguement? I, like most people that come into these forums, are just trying to broaden horizens, and expand the mind. So, if this term is a true term, please explain, define.
Many thanks,
Gremmie
Many thanks,
Gremmie
This ban is bollox.
haha!
THAT'S my point exactly.
We say: Islamic Extremist but what does that even mean? We in the USA have killed people, in other countries, for attempting to be Communistic. Are we "Capitalist Extremists"? Do you see where I'm coming from? That seems odd, doesn't it? Maybe we are? Maybe we're not.
When we use these little memetic phrases I feel what we're doing is trying NOT to think about the underlying issues. Which are somewhat complex. Is there something different between a person who is extremely Islamic and an Islamic Extremist? If so, what is that? What do we mean when we say these things? Is there a difference between being an extremely devout Muslim and an Islamic extremist? If so what is that?
Why don't we just say "crackpot" or "murderer" or some other term(s). When we say "Islamic Extremest" it seems we're saying there is something fundamentally wrong with "Islam"..... when taken to the extreme. WHAT are those things exactly?
I am actually shocked that I think I am agreeing with you for the second time. There is something very wrong with the terms being used. I take particular irritation to how the West portrays al-Qaeda as "Islamic fundamentalists," and how these "terrorists," are "fundamentalists," whom believe in the "purity," of Islam and represent those who believe the "true," message of Islam. When, that isn't the case. Nor do these terms take into account the material conditions and socio-political factors that are involved rather it places them solely in the realm of religious crazy folk. Who can argue with them? Of course, they must be stopped, they're blood thirsty savages who can't listen to reason or the ring of freedom from the liberty bell.
indeed
no moderates, no extremists, no whatnots
/sneer
The Jihad Against the Jihadis
Over the course of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a series of such terrorist attacks, some directed against foreigners, but others at the heart of the Saudi regime—the Ministry of the Interior and compounds within the oil industry. The monarchy recognized that it had spawned dark forces that were now endangering its very existence. In 2005 a man of wisdom and moderation, King Abdullah, formally ascended to the throne and inaugurated a large-scale political and intellectual effort aimed at discrediting the ideology of jihadism. Mullahs were ordered to denounce suicide bombings, and violence more generally. Education was pried out of the hands of the clerics. Terrorists and terror suspects were "rehabilitated" through extensive programs of education, job training, and counseling. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said to me, "The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."
Perhaps the most successful country to combat jihadism has been the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia. In 2002 that country seemed destined for a long and painful struggle with the forces of radical Islam. The nation was rocked by terror attacks, and a local Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah, appeared to be gaining strength. But eight years later, JI has been marginalized and main-stream political parties have gained ground, all while a young democracy has flowered after the collapse of the Suharto dictatorship.
no moderates, no extremists, no whatnots
/sneer
The Jihad Against the Jihadis
Over the course of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a series of such terrorist attacks, some directed against foreigners, but others at the heart of the Saudi regime—the Ministry of the Interior and compounds within the oil industry. The monarchy recognized that it had spawned dark forces that were now endangering its very existence. In 2005 a man of wisdom and moderation, King Abdullah, formally ascended to the throne and inaugurated a large-scale political and intellectual effort aimed at discrediting the ideology of jihadism. Mullahs were ordered to denounce suicide bombings, and violence more generally. Education was pried out of the hands of the clerics. Terrorists and terror suspects were "rehabilitated" through extensive programs of education, job training, and counseling. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said to me, "The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."
Perhaps the most successful country to combat jihadism has been the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia. In 2002 that country seemed destined for a long and painful struggle with the forces of radical Islam. The nation was rocked by terror attacks, and a local Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah, appeared to be gaining strength. But eight years later, JI has been marginalized and main-stream political parties have gained ground, all while a young democracy has flowered after the collapse of the Suharto dictatorship.
Anything taken to an extreme is a bad thing. If we drink too much water it can kill us.
Islamic extremism is a colloquialism, generally understood to mean those who use violence and intimidation to further the cause of Islam.
When the words Islamic and extremism are applied literally though, it is as you say.
A Takfiri (from the Arabic word تكفيري) is a Muslim who practices Takfir, which is to be accused of apostasy by other Muslims. The term Takfir derives from the word kafir (impiety) and is described as when "...one who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure."Those to whom Takfir is applied are considered excommunicated in the eyes of the Muslim community.
According to Islamic or Sharia law, they can no longer benefit from the protection of the law, and as such are condemned to death.[citation needed] The severe implications of such punishment has resulted in a rigorous set of rules being formulated under orthodox Islam to determine whether an accused party is guilty of apostasy or not.
In principle the only group authorised to declare a Muslim a kafir are the ulema, and this only once all the prescribed legal precautions have been taken. However a growing number of splinter Salafist groups - labeled by some scholars as Salafi-Takfiris - have split from the orthodox method of establishing takfir through the processes of the law, and have reserved the right to declare apostasy themselves.
Takfiri
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism would all be extreme if people practiced them to the letter. As has been said before, the only reason people aren't that extreme now is the history of hundreds of years of scientific advancement, protestant reform (making religion open to interpretation), and secular government.
lets take a trip way down memory lane.......
Ibn Abbas’s debate with Al-Khawarij, the extremists
and another not so far down.....
Combating extremism: a brief overview of Saudi Arabia' s approach.
Saudi Strategies to Counter Terrorism: The War of Ideas
what about the infidel, you fuck!!! what about us??
so ahh
just who are these moderates?
ja,
a simple and uncomplicated people
according to some, that is
/snicker
Ibn Abbas’s debate with Al-Khawarij, the extremists
The Khawarij are probably the first sect among Muslims. During the caliphate of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this group of people broke away from the group of Muslims and accused them, and Caliph Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), of disbelief. They killed innocent Muslims, fought the Muslim army and spread corruption. Abdullah Bin Abbas sought permission from the Caliph and went to convince the group how they had erroneous understanding of Islam. The following is the debate in Ibn Abbas’s own words:
“I have come to you from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), from the Muhajiroun and the Ansar, so that I may inform you of what they say.
“The Qur’an was sent down to them. And they are more knowledgeable concerning the revelation than you, and it was revealed amongst them. And none of them are among you.” (Ibn Abbas pointed to the fact that not one Companion was among the Khawarij.)
So some of them said, “Let us speak with him and let us see what he says.”
I said, “Inform me of that which you harbor against the son of the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his son-in-law (Ali), the Muhajiroun and the Ansar.”
They said, “Three issues.” ....................
“I have come to you from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), from the Muhajiroun and the Ansar, so that I may inform you of what they say.
“The Qur’an was sent down to them. And they are more knowledgeable concerning the revelation than you, and it was revealed amongst them. And none of them are among you.” (Ibn Abbas pointed to the fact that not one Companion was among the Khawarij.)
So some of them said, “Let us speak with him and let us see what he says.”
I said, “Inform me of that which you harbor against the son of the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his son-in-law (Ali), the Muhajiroun and the Ansar.”
They said, “Three issues.” ....................
Combating extremism: a brief overview of Saudi Arabia' s approach.
In the process of formulating its national strategy against terrorism, the Saudi government has confronted the dark side of religious practice--a small group that advocates hatred and encourages terrorism. Youth constitute the majority of this group, as they are targeted for radicalization and recruitment to commit violence in the name of Islamic jihad. The vast majority of this group accept the radical political and theological doctrine of takfir, the practice of declaring that an individual or a group previously considered Muslims are kuffar (plural kaffir), or nonbelievers in God.
The development of extremism in Saudi Arabia goes back decades. Al-Sahwah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Awakening), which rose in 1968, started as a nonviolent, symbolic, apolitical movement that confined its activities to individual acts, such as listening to tapes of the Quran. There were no lectures or religious assemblies, or clerics making speeches and giving lectures about current affairs. Later some religious figures started moving into the public realm, giving lectures and producing tapes of their ideas. These religious figures were influenced by extremist religious and political thinking imported from outside religous figures and movements. Members of these external movements, who were persecuted in their own countries, found refuge in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and started to spread their ideology throughout the Saudi population, which was accustomed to accepting whatever was presented to it in the name of Islam. These figures took the lead in Islamic studies in Saudi public schools and universities and had an influence on many of the young generation who were close to them. In this way, they created a group of followers and students who spread these views to others. They found an audience and, in some instances, abused this religious revival by politicizing it to justify their agenda.
Before its transformation into violence, extremism had been spreading to Saudi youth through secret meetings, camps and trips exploiting the confidence accorded to those of faith. Most of these young men had been living in circumstances that facilitated increased isolation from mainstream society: reading selected books, listening to selected tapes, and hearing from selected individuals who indoctrinated them with radical ideology. Members of this group, who believe in al-Qaeda's extreme views, share the common ground of being superficial and simplistic. Muslim scholars stand in bewilderment of the weak understanding and lack of real knowledge of shariah among youth who are consumed by religious devotion.
The theological basis of takfir adopted by some of these religious figures and movements may be rooted in the al-khawarij movement, a Muslim sect that rejected the authority of the fourth caliph, Ali Bin Abi Talib. The Neo-Khawarij of our time (as many Islamic thinkers term them) advocate challenging their rulers, viewing them as abusers of wealth and power who do not rule according to the Quran. Today's extremists adopted Al-Khawarij theology based on the concept of al-hakimiyyah, the rule of Allah. Their beliefs are based on narrow interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, and they lack any knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence. This has led to such ideologies as takfir
and a version of jihad dominated by violence and terrorism.
The development of extremism in Saudi Arabia goes back decades. Al-Sahwah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Awakening), which rose in 1968, started as a nonviolent, symbolic, apolitical movement that confined its activities to individual acts, such as listening to tapes of the Quran. There were no lectures or religious assemblies, or clerics making speeches and giving lectures about current affairs. Later some religious figures started moving into the public realm, giving lectures and producing tapes of their ideas. These religious figures were influenced by extremist religious and political thinking imported from outside religous figures and movements. Members of these external movements, who were persecuted in their own countries, found refuge in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and started to spread their ideology throughout the Saudi population, which was accustomed to accepting whatever was presented to it in the name of Islam. These figures took the lead in Islamic studies in Saudi public schools and universities and had an influence on many of the young generation who were close to them. In this way, they created a group of followers and students who spread these views to others. They found an audience and, in some instances, abused this religious revival by politicizing it to justify their agenda.
Before its transformation into violence, extremism had been spreading to Saudi youth through secret meetings, camps and trips exploiting the confidence accorded to those of faith. Most of these young men had been living in circumstances that facilitated increased isolation from mainstream society: reading selected books, listening to selected tapes, and hearing from selected individuals who indoctrinated them with radical ideology. Members of this group, who believe in al-Qaeda's extreme views, share the common ground of being superficial and simplistic. Muslim scholars stand in bewilderment of the weak understanding and lack of real knowledge of shariah among youth who are consumed by religious devotion.
The theological basis of takfir adopted by some of these religious figures and movements may be rooted in the al-khawarij movement, a Muslim sect that rejected the authority of the fourth caliph, Ali Bin Abi Talib. The Neo-Khawarij of our time (as many Islamic thinkers term them) advocate challenging their rulers, viewing them as abusers of wealth and power who do not rule according to the Quran. Today's extremists adopted Al-Khawarij theology based on the concept of al-hakimiyyah, the rule of Allah. Their beliefs are based on narrow interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, and they lack any knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence. This has led to such ideologies as takfir
and a version of jihad dominated by violence and terrorism.
Saudi Strategies to Counter Terrorism: The War of Ideas
King Abdullah, Crown Prince at the time, addressed his country: "The tragic, bloody and painful events that took place in the heart of our dear capital, Riyadh, last night, in which innocent citizens and residents were killed or injured, ......... As revealed in the Holy Qur'an: 'If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (forever): and the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.'.."
what about the infidel, you fuck!!! what about us??
so ahh
just who are these moderates?
In "The Refutation of Wahhabism in Arabic Sources, 1745–1932, Hamadi Redissi provides original references to the description of Wahhabis as a divisive sect (firqa) and outliers (Kharijites) in communications between Ottmans and Egyptian Khedive Muhammad Ali. Redissi details refutaions of Wahhabis by scholars (muftis) among them Ahmed Barakat Tandatawin who in 1743 describes Wahhabism as ignorance (Jahala). In 1801 and 1802, the Saudi Wahhabis under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the holy Shi'a cities of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, massacred parts of the Shi'a population and destroyed the tombs of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad, and son of Ali (Ali bin Abu Talib), the son-in-law of Muhammad. (see: Saudi sponsorship mentioned previously) In 1803 and 1804 the Saudis captured Mecca and Medina and destroyed historical monuments and various holy Muslim sites and shrines, such as the shrine built over the tomb of Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, and even intended to destroy the grave of Muhammad himself as idolatrous
Wahhabi
ja,
a simple and uncomplicated people
according to some, that is
/snicker
Last edited:
Some ideas lends themselves well to intolerance. If that intolerance is taken with any decent amount of seriousness - we call it extremism.
On some thread somewhere around here SAM basically said: Gee I have no idea why Pakistani and Indonesian Muslims are so violently intolerant of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (actually so did you Ja'far). Well shit, ask the Muslims and they will tell you directly it's because they consider the Ahmadiyya Muslims as infidels "sowing discord in the land" and should be killed (or at least legally restricted and hopefully extinguished). SAM says it's because all people all over don't like "The Other". But, this wasn't the case in 200CE in terms of trade and religious acceptance. I agree people are wary, but, people can also be very accepting and accommodating. IMO, because people in 200CE lived under a system of polytheism - it was therefor mentally much easier for Romans/Greeks and Egyptians and Persians etc... to accept one another's Gods and Goddesses and to be accepted when they travel to distant lands with other Gods ... when they traveled over to India to work and live there, they could accommodate the Indian Gods and be accommodated themselves. One also wonders: If people don't trust "The Other", then why were Buddhist Chinese so accommodating to Arab Muslims in Chang'an (they even paid for an built them Mosques)? Why weren't Arab Muslims accommodating to Buddhist Chinese in Baghdad (they never paid for or build any Buddhist Temples). Why? Could One God play a role in Arab intolerance? Could multiple Gods play a role in Chinese tolerance? The Venetians heavily traded with Muslims, why were no Mosques built in Venice? Could One God play a role in Venetian intolerance?
Christians used to believe strongly that there was only One God, the Bible was the living inerrant words of God, because the Messiah Jesus has come, no more messengers would be sent - ergo all the Prophets since the time of Jesus are false and born of Satan (in some fashion).
If you take that stuff seriously, it will by default make you an intolerant person.
On some thread somewhere around here SAM basically said: Gee I have no idea why Pakistani and Indonesian Muslims are so violently intolerant of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (actually so did you Ja'far). Well shit, ask the Muslims and they will tell you directly it's because they consider the Ahmadiyya Muslims as infidels "sowing discord in the land" and should be killed (or at least legally restricted and hopefully extinguished). SAM says it's because all people all over don't like "The Other". But, this wasn't the case in 200CE in terms of trade and religious acceptance. I agree people are wary, but, people can also be very accepting and accommodating. IMO, because people in 200CE lived under a system of polytheism - it was therefor mentally much easier for Romans/Greeks and Egyptians and Persians etc... to accept one another's Gods and Goddesses and to be accepted when they travel to distant lands with other Gods ... when they traveled over to India to work and live there, they could accommodate the Indian Gods and be accommodated themselves. One also wonders: If people don't trust "The Other", then why were Buddhist Chinese so accommodating to Arab Muslims in Chang'an (they even paid for an built them Mosques)? Why weren't Arab Muslims accommodating to Buddhist Chinese in Baghdad (they never paid for or build any Buddhist Temples). Why? Could One God play a role in Arab intolerance? Could multiple Gods play a role in Chinese tolerance? The Venetians heavily traded with Muslims, why were no Mosques built in Venice? Could One God play a role in Venetian intolerance?
Christians used to believe strongly that there was only One God, the Bible was the living inerrant words of God, because the Messiah Jesus has come, no more messengers would be sent - ergo all the Prophets since the time of Jesus are false and born of Satan (in some fashion).
If you take that stuff seriously, it will by default make you an intolerant person.
Last edited:
Do you think the House of Saud and the Saudis are the same? The Saudis in 1803 were named for the family of the house of Saud, today they are named for the country.
well no...pardon