View Full Version : Fatwa on terror, what the hell.
A leading muslim (soefi, have never been violent) cleric has put a Fatwa on terrorism to prevent radicalization among young british muslims, and presented it to the ministry of foreign affairs in the UK. I do not question his good intentions, but this is getting dangerously close to some serious overlapping of religion and state affairs. In the west we have the laws of society, it should be taken for granted. British authority is simply outsourcing it's authority when you think of it, why do they need a fatwa on terrorism.
First off:
1) Fatwa against terror. A fatwa is a binding Islamic jurisdictional advice. The man you are refering to is known as Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri and is a Pakistani scholar; it's not the first time he's done this, though, he spoke out against Osama bin Laden right after the events of 9/11.
2) I don't see the problem with presenting it to the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's a pretty weird choice to give it to the Foreign Affairs ministry and not the Internal Affairs ministry, seeing that what they could do is distribute the fatwa among mosques in Britain and urge imams to listen to this.
3) Then again, what if the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the House of Commons or Parliament with a statement concerning, for example, hooliganism; would you condemn this as well?
If you are to mention the fatwa, you should probably detail what exactly a fatwa means in religious terms. I don't think that ul-Qadri's intention was to ask the British MoFA to make this part of a new law; that would be fairly unrealistic and then he would have sent his fatwa to the wrong people.
This is what the fatwa stated:
Muslim leader issues anti-terror fatwa
Suicide bombers heading to hell, al-Qaeda evil, Pakistani-born scholar says
News agencies
The leader of a global Muslim movement has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that he calls an absolute condemnation of terrorism.
Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a former Pakistani lawmaker, says the 600-page fatwa bans suicide bombing "without any excuses, any pretexts, or exceptions."
"They can't claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim nation," Qadri told a press conference in London. "“No, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are heading towards hellfire. ”
Qadri also slammed Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, referring to it as an "old evil with a new name" and saying it has not be challenged adequately thus far.
"There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered jihad," he said.
Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued similar, shorter decrees, but Tuesday's event in London was publicized by the Quilliam Foundation, a government-funded anti-extremism think tank and drew strong media attention.
The religious scholar is the founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran, a worldwide movement that promotes a nonpolitical, tolerant Islam. The group has hundreds of thousands of followers around the world, most of them in Pakistan or Pakistanis living in other countries.
Associated Press, AFP and Reuters contributed to the report
I don't care what the Fatma states, that's the point.
I don't care what the Fatma states, that's the point.
No, but then again, you don't think Muslims can do anything right, isn't it?
No, but then again, you don't think Muslims can do anything right, isn't it?
But one just did, he condemned terrorism. No, this overlapping of state and religion worries me, why does the ministry of foreign affair accept something that condemns something that is illegal by it's own laws.
The Wizard
03-04-2010, 14:19
I'd worry a lot more about the overlapping of religious and state affairs in the House of Lords, with its Lords Spiritual, than I would about a single sufi scholar offering a piece of paper to a ministry.
But one just did, he condemned terrorism. No, this overlapping of state and religion worries me, why does the ministry of foreign affair accept something that condemns something that is illegal by it's own laws.
Um. Why does something being illegal automatically prevent discussion or government action about the crime in question?
I'd worry a lot more about the overlapping of religious and state affairs in the House of Lords, with its Lords Spiritual, than I would about a single sufi scholar offering a piece of paper to a ministry.
Along with the Head of State being Head of the CoE etc.
Um. Why does something being illegal automatically prevent discussion or government action about the crime in question?
What is there to discuss here
edit: not to say that this isn't deeply appreciated, don't get me wrong.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-04-2010, 20:48
Frag':
Britain, despite being a secularized state in practice, is technically a theocratized constitutional monarchy with the monarch as both head of state and head of religion (in practice, both roles are titular-only today). Thus, a specifically religious message/connection to government does not contravene British law.
Moreover, the chap in question issued the fatwa at his own discretion. It might have had a far different, and far less appropriate, connotation had he done so at the direct request of, or at the direction of, the British government.
Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.
In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 01:39
Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.
In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.
Honestly I believe, because Frag is speaking about Muslims as he so often does, we assume it is to rage against them racially, ethnically, whatever the hell he does.
What i believe he is doing actually is creating a new topic on Secularism in Europe and using this story as a catalyst to start discussion.
HoreTore
03-06-2010, 01:48
Child abuse is illegal as hell.
I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).
Honestly I believe, because Frag is speaking about Muslims as he so often does, we assume it is to rage against them racially, ethnically, whatever the hell he does.
What i believe he is doing actually is creating a new topic on Secularism in Europe and using this story as a catalyst to start discussion.
Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 01:56
Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.
What about tribes, i'm sorry i don't understand what you just stated.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 01:57
Child abuse is illegal as hell.
I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).
Logical argument. Some matters even if stated by a religious person are still secular. Like terrorism is bad.
CrossLOPER
03-06-2010, 02:06
Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises...
Yeah lol.
Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.
If you kill innocent you go to hell.
He has the courage to say to all the potential killers they are killers. There is no mistake, no “I wouldn’t do it but they got a point”.
They, if they use the name of Islam and are true believers, will go to hell and won’t have the virgins (or the grapes, depending on the translation)
Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.
Sure, all the praise in the world, but no praise for the praise, and certainly no praise for the English government who gladly accepts (asked for?) it. This man is a soefi by the way, soefi's have always been peaceful. His religious authority is marginal, as is the British authority it seems.
Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.
That is a single post I made after Van Gogh was murdered, I was angry and wasn't thinking clearly, as I explained, I have taken my hands of it soooo many times. You weren't there at the time, Tribes never posted links but he must have known the PM-button. Don't make me angry, it isn't a very smart thing to do.
What about tribes, i'm sorry i don't understand what you just stated.
Stupid post I made 6 years ago when I was very very angry, been his doomsday-device-argument until his departure. I guess he also kept a network of cheerleaders of the radar, Beskar being one of them, spreading your poison over PM how cowardly.
That is a single post I made after Van Gogh was murdered, I was angry and wasn't thinking clearly, as I explained, I have taken my hands of it soooo many times. You weren't there at the time, Tribes never posted links but he must have known the PM-button. Don't make me angry, it isn't a very smart thing to do.
It wasn't a single post, I mentioned multiple things. I remember you saying during the first time I went into the backroom, about how you throw-away and bin any job applications of anyone having a vaguely arabic looking name. So if a dutch guy was simply named Imar or another arabic sounding name with no links to Islam, you said you would bin it as "better safe than sorry". Then in the other thread yesterday.. well.. let's say even CA was surprised at the depths you went.
It seems everytime the Muslims or Islam or 'Arab' comes up, you put on an armband and foam at the mouth.
It wasn't a single post, I mentioned multiple things. I remember you saying during the first time I went into the backroom, about how you throw-away and bin any job applications of anyone having a vaguely arabic looking name. So if a dutch guy was simply named Imar or another arabic sounding name with no links to Islam, you said you would bin it as "better safe than sorry". Then in the other thread yesterday.. well.. let's say even CA was surprised at the depths you went.
It seems everytime the Muslims or Islam or 'Arab' comes up, you put on an armband and foam at the mouth.
Yeah if I have the choice between a Polish and an Arab I go for the Polish, unlike you I am talking from experience, and unlike you I had customers who want you to get the job done. Polish work their asses off, and Arabs don't like manual labor they see it as humiliating, not my fault. And I know Tribes signaled you in, some of the things you bring up are before your time here. I have changed a lot over the years, yeah I have been pretty far on the right but I said adieu to it years ago. It won't get me on the barricades for the marxist cause any soon, but stop treating me unfairly. CA has arguments of his own he isn't Tribes parrot and has always treated me with respect even if I might amaze him, you don't show me that courtesy.Yes the left is facilitation the radical islam, it's an unholy alliance of the enemies of the west, multiculturalism is destruction, it's sabotage, yes I believe that. So shoot me, that's what your kind does after all, democracy as long as you agree. You know nothing of me, you don't know what my life looks like, who I interact with, just another bored rich kid who thinks he knows what he's talking about. Ich es&Uberfail.
KukriKhan
03-06-2010, 15:29
Gentlemen: the topic proposed by the opening post is the principle of the separation of church and state, and its observance in the UK.
Hosakawa Tito
03-06-2010, 16:33
I don't understand the beef. Here we have a Muslim Cleric giving a religious opinion concerning Islamic law to provide guidance to the faithful. He's standing up to the militant/radical intepretation that claims terror/suicide and killing innocents is acceptable. I would think we'd applaud the man. Isn't this what we want? We need more moderate Muslims to publicly and vociferously reject those that commit acts of terror and slaughter on innocent people in the name of Islam or any other religion.
It's the only way to marginalize the militants and it has to come from within the Muslim community.
Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.
In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.
I could not help but to smile at this post.
I don't understand the beef. Here we have a Muslim Cleric giving a religious opinion concerning Islamic law to provide guidance to the faithful.
Presenting it to the government, why does the British government need the backing of muslim clerics for what should be obvious to everyone. There is only one law active in the west and that is democratic law, if you need a muslim cleric to tell some that to some then some must be in the wrong place.
Furunculus
03-07-2010, 10:48
Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.
If you kill innocent you go to hell.
He has the courage to say to all the potential killers they are killers. There is no mistake, no “I wouldn’t do it but they got a point”.
They, if they use the name of Islam and are true believers, will go to hell and won’t have the virgins (or the grapes, depending on the translation)
i with Brenus here, a good move, and about time!
Presenting it to the government, why does the British government need the backing of muslim clerics for what should be obvious to everyone. There is only one law active in the west and that is democratic law, if you need a muslim cleric to tell some that to some then some must be in the wrong place.
Its no different than to what church leaders did in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, this man should be applauded for what he's done. In presenting it to the government all he's doing is saying "we're against these people too".
Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?
Its no different than to what church leaders did in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, this man should be applauded for what he's done. In presenting it to the government all he's doing is saying "we're against these people too".
Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?
Public statement fine why accept it as a government, now the public statement is that the British government isn't in control. Nothing but praise for this man but no praise for the praise. You can't rule the muslims through the Islam and that's what they are trying to do. English law is well enough equipped to deal with radicalism, this outsourcing of law, because that's what it is, doesn't need to exist.
Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?
If they have gotten astray that far, gun -> neck
Otherwise nothing they are free to believe what they want.
Louis VI the Fat
03-07-2010, 17:31
We've all been clamouring for moderate Islam to speak out. Which this Fatwa does. So far, so good. This man is trying to make the peace, is striving towards a peaceful world. Bless him and all that.
The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:
It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.
To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.
It's very nice to think that, but whole point of Islamist terrorism is that it stands against secular law in an attempt to implement a code of law based on Islamic theology. Saying "That goes against our principles" is pointless, because Islamists refuse to fight on our terms, hence, terrorism. Statements such as the above theologian made are important because they show that the Islam which Islamists claim to be fighting for is in fact totally compatible with Western society. It's akin to fighting fire with fire, or in this case, fatwa with fatwa.
Hosakawa Tito
03-07-2010, 21:39
We've all been clamouring for moderate Islam to speak out. Which this Fatwa does. So far, so good. This man is trying to make the peace, is striving towards a peaceful world. Bless him and all that.
The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:
It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.
To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.
I really don't care how the believers of Islam arrive at the epiphany that terrorism & suicide attacks of innocents goes against the teachings of their religious faith. As long as they believe it and speak out against such acts.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-07-2010, 21:57
Child abuse is illegal as hell.
I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).
The Holy Father's immediate predecessor made such a statement (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pope-finally-proclaims-that-child-abuse-is-not-just-a-sin-it-is-a-crime-658024.html).
The Church is, however, a church founded upon the idea of redemption. The only one-way ticket is one you sell to yourself be rejecting repentance.
I do admit that I am personally in favor of priests who abuse others this way being ordered to a life of monastic asceticism and prayer -- redemption is best, but it can only atone for and not obviate a crime of this kind.
You can't rule the muslims through the Islam and that's what they are trying to do.
Fragony, please. "The Islam" doesn't exist. Let's face it; there's no global Muslim conspiracy waiting to send in groups after groups of bearded and angry-looking men together with their veiled women and their nine children whose pleasures in life consist out of little more than turning the life of autochtonous westerlings into a state of pure misery.
Who were natural allies during the First Crusade? Right, the Fatimids (Shi'ites) and the Byzantine Empire, vs the Seljuks (Sunnites). Like they really cared what kind of denomination you followed, hell, they hardly cared whether you were a Muslim yourself (explaining the expanse of the Coptic Christians who actually fared better under Fatimid rule than they did under Byzantine rule). It's only since about...thirty/fourty years that Islamic fundamentalism has been stirring, and this largely being supported by an amount of western nations (Al-Qaeda vs Russians? Mohammed Mossadeq, 1953, CIA?) in the first place.
Islam is a word that is thrown around, like somehow, the spirit of Muhammed lives still in every single Muslim alive; it doesn't. Actually, it stopped doing so almost immediately after he died: need I remind you of the fact that Ali and Imam Husayn were killed? Need I remind you of the numerous Caliphates? Need I tell you about how the Ummayad family was slaughtered and how Abd al-Rahman fled to Al-Andalus?
Muslims and Islam are as impervious (or perhaps even more impervious) to political, social and economical change as other people. To suggest that there is some sort of hivemind that is shared by Sunnites, Shi'ites, Wahabbis, Alevi, Sufis and all the denomininations is factually incorrect and a good way of scapegoating an enormous amount of people.
The suggestion that "the Islam" exists has no factual basis, whatsoever.
It makes you think whether people have stopped taking an active interest in history.
I am not talking about muslims when I say 'they', my beef is isn't with the muslims but with the multicutural left.
Furunculus
03-08-2010, 09:35
Muslims and Islam are as impervious (or perhaps even more impervious) to political, social and economical change as other people.
i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9C7WY8NiHY&feature=player_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNq6Ps901J4&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_gHCqk9HE&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWIvy9A9YiI&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02626WM1yiM&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7_mPQwfBxE&feature=related
Pretty good documentary.
i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......
The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention. And how would you call Turkey then? The existence of religious political parties (such as in almost all the Maghribi countries) does not constitute for a lack of seperation of church and state. Otherwise, most western countries would not know seperation of church and state. Look at the United States for an obvious example.
The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention.
So are antibiotics what's your point
My point being that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in criticising other people when it comes to things like these, especially when it's definitely not true or overgeneralised. You criticise "the multicultural left", but if there is something that "the right" is more prone to doing, it's generalising.
Furunculus
03-08-2010, 12:59
The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention. And how would you call Turkey then? The existence of religious political parties (such as in almost all the Maghribi countries) does not constitute for a lack of seperation of church and state. Otherwise, most western countries would not know seperation of church and state. Look at the United States for an obvious example.
turkeys separation of church from state was enforced by the generals to held a coup every time politically islamic politicians got too close to power, hardly a good example for you to counter my point with............ :)
My point being that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in criticising other people when it comes to things like these, especially when it's definitely not true or overgeneralised. You criticise "the multicultural left", but if there is something that "the right" is more prone to doing, it's generalising.
The right is very diverse, but if there is one thing that is a given for all leftist party's is that you aren't allowed to have doubts about unlimited immigration and multiculture. The sectarian nature of this unquestionable fact and the paralysing social control within the leftist church is a disaster for our country's.
SP used to be an exception by the way, but they don't like to be reminded of that.
HoreTore
03-08-2010, 14:53
The Holy Father's immediate predecessor made such a statement (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pope-finally-proclaims-that-child-abuse-is-not-just-a-sin-it-is-a-crime-658024.html).
The Church is, however, a church founded upon the idea of redemption. The only one-way ticket is one you sell to yourself be rejecting repentance.
I do admit that I am personally in favor of priests who abuse others this way being ordered to a life of monastic asceticism and prayer -- redemption is best, but it can only atone for and not obviate a crime of this kind.
I know he did - and I'm very happy that he did it. It may be seen as unnecessary(child abuse already being illegal) or whatever, but I honestly don't care, it's still a very good thing, and I'd say it's something that had to be said.
But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time? I'll tell you why; because things like these are not a problem, they are good things - the only problem is that Wilders hates Islam, and in his mind everything about Islam is bad. That's how he can be silent when something is done in Christianity, and whine when the exact same thing is done in Islam. Some people call that hypocritical. I call it pathetic.
as for the one-way ticket, well, that was the reason why I added "or something along those lines", as I know very well that a "one way ticket to hell" is impossible in christianity, it was more a figure of speech than a proposed punishment....
The right is very diverse, but if there is one thing that is a given for all leftist party's is that you aren't allowed to have doubts about unlimited immigration and multiculture. The sectarian nature of this unquestionable fact and the paralysing social control within the leftist church is a disaster for our country's.
That's just nonsense, Frags.
The Norwegian labour party, allied with other parties of course, have been responsible for the following:
- Sending Russian POW's back to Stalin following WW2, as their "Slavic race" was "found incompatible with the Norwegian race and culture".
- Sending Czech refugees back to the Czechoslovakian dictatorship after the soviet invasion, due to the same.
- Forcing christianity and "Norwegian culture" upon the Roma and Suomi peoples, including things like forced adoption, sterilization and forced labour.
- Ending legal immigration in the 80's.
And I'm quite sure similar stuff has gone on in other countries.
But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time?
Enough outrage without me, where are you when a leading muslim cleric says something sick, the first thing you bring up sick things within the christian religion, there is the difference. All religions can go screw themselves, but for lefties some religions some more then others, when it are muslims they will try to relativate, a courtesy only reserved for them. And that is because leftism itself is a religion, muslims believe in Allah, lefties in multiculture, to be able to keep believing in multi-culture they will have to keep making compromises as religious nutjobs don't, and that is why the left will implement sharia law they will never accept that multi-culture isn't perfection and keep compromising. You can see it everywhere, always compromise, never a finger in the face and ridicule. But I guess I am the islamphobe because they can go to hell just as well as everybody else.
al Roumi
03-09-2010, 14:13
Louis and Fragony, you both have a peculiar perspective on this.
It is Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam (the Qu'ran & Sura) which legitimises their war. This Fatwa undermines Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam by providing a theological counter-argument. Whether it has any weight or reach is another matter.
The tactics Al-Qaida uses: terrorism, are the same any small group uses in an asymetric war -or in trying to provoke one. They do not have the resources for conventional warfare, but would more than likely escalate to it if they did have such resources. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not members or supporters of Al-Qaida, if they were the west would be at war with them all -yet we are not. Despite this, for some reason Frag's has a hard time seeing a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist.
Islam means surrender. A believing Muslim is meant to surrender himself to his religion and live by its precepts and rules, otherwise he is not a Muslim (believer). I know regrettably little about Christianity beyond that gleaned from an upbringing in a broadly christian society (UK), but western society certainly isn't governed or ruled by religious guidance -this is a central pilar of the enlightenment and our current western societies (as Frag's and Louis point out). I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...
The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:
It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.
To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.
Fragony/Louis, surely you are aware that terrorism, in any form, is not something a government can simply stop or mitigate by passing a law? Laws don't actually stop people murdering, drink driving, stealing or even dropping litter!
I struggle to see how anyone bar a Muslim could embrace this Fatwa Louis. In the context of your post, to think one actually has a say over one's life or death is amusing to say the least. If terrorism is about an individual's beliefs and his justification for killing civilians, to be blind to the personal motivations which lead him to or away from terrorism, be they theological or other, is also rather disengenious, to say the least.
al Roumi
03-09-2010, 14:26
i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......
That's a bit of a sweeping statement too!
I'd argue that most Muslim states, with a few notable exceptions, are ruled by secular leaders through secular structures. The "Mosque" though is undeniably important in Muslim society, comparatively mores so than in the west so yes Church and state are closer, but that again does not neccesarily mean Hax is wrong.
HoreTore
03-09-2010, 19:10
I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...
It does. The way christianity was spread here(in the north) wasn't through evangelizing or something like that; it was by converting the ruler who then changed his pagan system of laws to the christian system of laws.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-09-2010, 19:48
It does. The way christianity was spread here(in the north) wasn't through evangelizing or something like that; it was by converting the ruler who then changed his pagan system of laws to the christian system of laws.
Actually, Cnut used Christian missionaries from England in the early 11th Century to convert Danes and Norwegians. The "Christian Law" you refer to was mostly Roman Law, or some locally adapted version thereof. Evangelising began with the ruler because the missionaries needed protection, especially in the North where they were often killed without pause. This was in fact so endemic that the English made a point of boasting that they did not kill the first missionaries sent to them; and claimed this as a unique acolade.
Of course, what the Monks and Clerics brought with them in addition to Christianity was writing, which offered a ruler the ability to much more efficiently order, control and tax his lands. Writing also offered immortality through written history, something very popular amongst the Norse in particular, I believe.
HoreTore
03-09-2010, 20:15
Actually, Cnut used Christian missionaries from England in the early 11th Century to convert Danes and Norwegians. The "Christian Law" you refer to was mostly Roman Law, or some locally adapted version thereof. Evangelising began with the ruler because the missionaries needed protection, especially in the North where they were often killed without pause. This was in fact so endemic that the English made a point of boasting that they did not kill the first missionaries sent to them; and claimed this as a unique acolade.
Of course, what the Monks and Clerics brought with them in addition to Christianity was writing, which offered a ruler the ability to much more efficiently order, control and tax his lands. Writing also offered immortality through written history, something very popular amongst the Norse in particular, I believe.
If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2010, 00:17
If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....
There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.
HoreTore
03-10-2010, 00:31
There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.
Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".
And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2010, 00:37
Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".
And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.
Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.
HoreTore
03-10-2010, 00:44
Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.
Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2010, 00:59
Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...
Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.
HoreTore
03-10-2010, 01:14
Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.
Which one of them wasn't a brute?
al Roumi
03-10-2010, 11:03
As interesting a topic as the spread of Christianity among the Norse is, does it actually shed any further light on whether Christianity, and it's texts, prescribes an actual legal system (or dispute resolution mechanism) on its adherents?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2010, 11:56
Which one of them wasn't a brute?
Godwin and Godwin's sons were not so terrible (Tostig accepted), Bishop Wulfstan of York (contemporary with Cnut) was considered to be just, fair, intelligent, and is credited with avoiding a divisive and costly war after Cnut took the crown. Perhaps you equate "brute" with "violent", which I do not.
Alh_p, it does shed some light because it helps to explain why people converted. Catholicism was not the only show in town, but it plugged you into the Roman network and gave you access to all manner of advantages in trade and administration. However, the Law was not strictly theocratic. Church courts existyed and dealt with moral matters, mainly burrial, infidelity, etc. but they were hardly the only law in the land.
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 00:13
But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time?
Enough outrage without me, where are you when a leading muslim cleric says something sick, the first thing you bring up sick things within the christian religion, there is the difference. All religions can go screw themselves, but for lefties some religions some more then others, when it are muslims they will try to relativate, a courtesy only reserved for them. And that is because leftism itself is a religion, muslims believe in Allah, lefties in multiculture, to be able to keep believing in multi-culture they will have to keep making compromises as religious nutjobs don't, and that is why the left will implement sharia law they will never accept that multi-culture isn't perfection and keep compromising. You can see it everywhere, always compromise, never a finger in the face and ridicule. But I guess I am the islamphobe because they can go to hell just as well as everybody else.
Right...
Please show me where I was outraged when the pope made his statement about child abuse. No, I believed it was a good thing, as you did too. But you believe that this thing, which is basically the exact same thing, is bad, and the reason is because it's coming from the muslims. And that my friend, is a clear example of blind fanaticism.
What you don't get is that I don't care about the Islam, it's about the multicultural left. They are like that annoying salesman that comes to your door every day to offer you what you don't want. If they like it so much they should move there instead of printing folders of how wonderful everything is. Many cheap houses there.
day of this, day of that, this and that foundation festival they should piss off. Tax money isn't meant for their multicultural religion.
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 17:54
What you don't get is that I don't care about the Islam, it's about the multicultural left. They are like that annoying salesman that comes to your door every day to offer you what you don't want. If they like it so much they should move there instead of printing folders of how wonderful everything is. Many cheap houses there.
day of this, day of that, this and that foundation festival they should piss off. Tax money isn't meant for their multicultural religion.
So.... Could you again please explain just what makes a muslim guy doing the fatwa is bad, while the pope bashing child fondling is good...?
Where does the "multicultural left" fit into that?
So.... Could you again please explain just what makes a muslim guy doing the fatwa is bad, while the pope bashing child fondling is good...?
Where does the "multicultural left" fit into that?
Can you explain to me how defending the backward expects of another religion makes any sense.
How is a fatwa, which is basically a statement by a cleric on a topic, backward?
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 20:42
Can you explain to me how defending the backward expects of another religion makes any sense.
The guy in question made a statement that terrorism is wrong, why on earth should I have a problem with that?
I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with the pope speaking out against child abuse, as both are things I agree heartily with, and I will absolutely defend the idea that killing innocent people or raping 10-year olds is wrong. Even if some religious guy happens to agree with me.
as long as nobody in marketing agrees...
Do you think he just decided to go to England, of course not he was asked, English government is desperate. Harebeards know that and they will get only more radical.
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 09:40
Do you think he just decided to go to England, of course not he was asked, English government is desperate. Harebeards know that and they will get only more radical.
.....And the pope was not asked to make his statement....?
The ground beneath your feet is disappearing fast, Frags...
Anyway, read up on his job description. Making statements like these in foreign countries are well within his responsibilities. He's simply doing the job for which he is paid.
solid as a rock, we have overlapping of religion and state, apparently muslims have no respect for the British law unless there is a fatwa. Dangerous development to outsource law to religious authority, this is seen as a major victory make no mistake.
There hasn't been any outsourcing of law. Parliament has not devolved any of its sovereignty to this guy. It's no more a "lack of respect for British laws" than a journalist submitting an article supportive of the government's foreign policy.
apparently muslims have no respect for the British law
and
it's not about the [sic] Islam
How on earth can you say this and then that?
Furunculus
03-12-2010, 12:51
Obituary of Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/7423395/Sheikh-Mohammed-Sayyid-Tantawi.html
Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi, who has died aged 81, was a moderate, sometimes progressive voice at the apex of Islamic scholarship during a period when such measured tones tended to be drowned out on the international scene by his more militant rivals.
Published: 7:16PM GMT 11 Mar 2010
As the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the pre-eminent seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, he argued for secular politics, advancement of women's rights and engagement with both the West and Israel. He was a fierce critic of al-Qaeda and condemned the attacks of September 11 2001.
Given his position, his fatwas – religious edicts – were due more weight than those issued by minor scholars (whose fatwas of a draconian nature were often blasted across newspaper headlines). Tantawi's own edicts, by contrast, gave comfort to those in the Middle East and beyond who hoped that a Muslim identity was compatible with material advancement and, to some extent, "Western" values.
But his loyalty to Hosni Mubarak, the autocratic Egyptian president, which seemed sometimes to verge on slavish, provoked criticism and contempt at home and abroad.
Unwillingly but inevitably, Tantawi helped unite much of the opposition to Middle Eastern, pro-American dictatorships (such as the one he served) behind the conservative forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies and offshoots. Moderate attitudes towards religion and society favoured previously by liberals and nationalists came to be associated with him – and through him with authoritarian rule and American foreign policy.
This was not helped by a lack of political sure-footedness which might have been endearing in a less political cleric.
On one occasion, he was accused of removing his shoes and using them to hit journalists who asked him difficult questions. After extending his condemnation of suicide attacks to their use in the Palestinian cause, he then appeared to backtrack.
In late 2009, he launched a campaign against the niqab – the full-face veil increasingly worn by women in Egypt – by personally tearing away that of a teenage girl at a school affiliated to Al-Azhar he was visiting, much to the shock of all concerned.
In 2008, he attempted to deny shaking the hand of Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, at a United Nations interfaith forum. When a photograph of a distinctly firm handclasp was published, he claimed he had failed to recognise the Nobel peace laureate, a dominant figure in Israel's peacemaking efforts over the last two decades.
Born on October 28 1928 in the village of Salim, Mohammed Tantawi came from a traditional family in rural upper Egypt. The eldest of six brothers, he had memorised the Koran by his teens and, at the age of 15, joined the Alexandria Religious Institute.
A series of academic positions in Egypt and abroad followed, culminating in five years spent at the Islamic University of Medina, in Saudi Arabia.
In 1986, he was appointed Grand Mufti of Egypt by President Hosni Mubarak. The two men formed a close bond: they were of similar age and temperament, though whether Tantawi was truly a believer in the president's practice of secular, nationalist, authoritarian government, or merely allowed himself to be co-opted, is hotly disputed.
Under reforms initiated in the 1960s by Abdul Gamal Nasser, the charismatic but dictatorial founder of modern Egypt, appointments to the country's senior clerical positions had come under direct political control. These included those of the Grand Mufti and of the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, a position to which Tantawi was elevated in 1996.
When Nasser's popularity in the Arab world was at its height, this interference did not harm the clerisy's image of integrity and authority. But as Egypt's influence and, later, President Mubarak's reputation waned, the damage by association became clear.
This was a particular blow for Al-Azhar. Established in the 10th century and long the Oxford or Harvard of Islamic teaching, it was, by the time of Tantawi's ascendancy, losing ground to puritanical Salafi establishments which replaced emphasis on historic schools with a more direct, personal contact with the Koran and faith as practised in the earliest times.
That these doctrines were spread by preachers themselves often funded by wealthy Gulf Arabs did not lessen their appeal.
Tantawi saw the threat, and his first steps at Al-Azhar were to lessen the influence of its conservative elements, which were already urging a greater independence from Mr Mubarak's grip. From then on he issued fatwas promoting the secular modernism with which Egypt had long been associated but which was becoming increasingly unpopular as it failed to give rise to comparably Western standards of living for Egypt's fast-growing, impoverished population.
He said that charging interest on bank loans, long condemned as usury, or riba, was in fact ribh, or just gaining profit, which was allowable. This eventually allowed the development of a mortgage industry. He moved on to popular culture, backing television game shows such as Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
As attitudes towards women became more traditional, he asserted their rights. He said women could take leading government and judicial positions. The practice of female circumcision, often condemned but still widely practised, he described as "un-Islamic", declaring that he had not inflicted it on his own daughter. He argued for easier divorce for women, said that abortion was permissible in cases of rape, and came to his greatest prominence in the last two years as debate raged about the growing tendency of Egyptian women to wear the niqab.
He understood the political implications: for decades, the practice of even wearing the hijab – the headscarf – had been declining, particularly in middle-class Egyptian society. But as more and more women, including students, resumed its use from the 1980s onwards, those who wished to show their greater modesty or devotion – or just protect themselves from sexual harassment – began wearing the full face-veil. It came to be associated, at least in the government's mind, with support for fundamentalist Islam.
After issuing a fatwa allowing girls in France to go uncovered, in accordance with the ban there on the hijab in schools, he then turned to his own foundation. Visiting a secondary school affiliated to al-Azhar in Cairo in October last year, he found a girl wearing the niqab and, when she failed to remove it, did so for her.
His actions unleashed widespread complaints from across the Arab world, with many arguing that to defend women he was denying women's right to choose.
In the West, he will be remembered for encouraging relations with other faiths; he signed an agreement to promote dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002. Those who met him will remember him either for his personal generosity and soft-spoken, even somnolent personality or, especially if they happen to be journalists, as a man capable of flying into violent rages.
Apart from the shoe-wielding incident, he stood apart from liberal allies on the issue of censorship, which he supported. He once demanded that those convicted of libel be flogged. The editors of the Israeli newspaper that published the photograph showing him with Mr Peres he called lunatics, liars, and the "sons of 60", an Arabic expression in which the 60 implicitly refers to dogs and prostitutes.
His major work of scholarship was a multi-volume exegesis of the Koran, which took 10 years to complete but did not receive widely favourable reviews.
Sheikh Tantawi died suddenly of a heart attack on March 10 while boarding an aeroplane in Saudi Arabia. He was buried in Medina.
He is survived by two sons and a daughter. His wife predeceased him.
and
How on earth can you say this and then that?
Easy, for the millionth time, my enemy is the multicultural left, do I need to sing it if reading it is so hard. I really don't care what tree you bark at. The british government are idiots, there are about 80 known sharia courts in the UK, no outsourcing Subotan? But this is even more serious, the British government needs the backing of an imam to control it's citizens, so who is the highest authority here, that would be the imam.
edit: Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi sounds like a soefi-muslim, a rather unknown version of Islam, they mostly bother with the mystical aspects and mostly ignore the hadith. The guy behind this Fatwa is also a soefi, I don't think they have ever been violent.
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 19:03
solid as a rock, we have overlapping of religion and state, apparently muslims have no respect for the British law unless there is a fatwa. Dangerous development to outsource law to religious authority, this is seen as a major victory make no mistake.
....And Catholics don't have any respect for British law unless the pope says they shouldn't rape boys...?
....And Catholics don't have any respect for British law unless the pope says they shouldn't rape boys...?
See, again, that same boring reflex. Screw them as well by the way.
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 19:20
See, again, that same boring reflex. Screw them as well by the way.
"Same boring reflex"? We now have two cases where the muslims and the catholics have done basically the same thing. As they've done the same thing, I treat them exactly the same.
But since one of them is a muslim, you treat them diffrently.
"Same boring reflex"? We now have two cases where the muslims and the catholics have done basically the same thing. As they've done the same thing, I treat them exactly the same.
But since one of them is a muslim, you treat them diffrently.
It's not the same thing, these catholic kiddielovers know that what they do is immoral, but jihadi's think that they are on morality's side, whole different perspective on society not the same thing at all. And same boring reflex yeah, it is absolutely normal that issues within the catholic church are brought up when you don't give the islam special treatment in the respect department, or did you think it was original.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 09:37
It's not the same thing, these catholic kiddielovers know that what they do is immoral, but jihadi's think that they are on morality's side, whole different perspective on society not the same thing at all. And same boring reflex yeah, it is absolutely normal that issues within the catholic church are brought up when you don't give the islam special treatment in the respect department, or did you think it was original.
They know what they're doing AFTER THEY'RE CAUGHT. I haven't seen a single catholic priest run to the cops to confess his sins, what grounds do I have for believing that they are aware of how disgusting their acts are? A lot of pedophiles honestly believe that what they are doing is good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla) for the child they abuse, why should I believe it's anything different for the priesthood?
Can't comment on the second part of your post though, as I don't really understand what it means...
Nope they know what they are doing is wrong, it just doesn't fly.
Another example, you say 'they', I understand you don't mean all catholics. When I say 'they' lefties think I mean all, it's a reflex.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 10:06
Nope they know what they are doing is wrong, it just doesn't fly.
Another example, you say 'they', I understand you don't mean all catholics. When I say 'they' lefties think I mean all, it's a reflex.
So the catholic priesthood would be the sole exception then, of all the pedophiles in the world, they are the only ones who know that what they are doing is wrong yet they still do it? Sorry, you'd have to bring up some damn hard facts if that's going to fly.
And yes, I know very well that "they" don't mean "everyone", possibly because the phrase "all muslims" is used so commonly... And I only really get anal about language when it's a document from marketing. Bloody buggers who make twice my salary and doesn't even have a basic grasp about how to express their thoughts in words.... Makes me want to become a Norwegian teacher, even though it's quite possibly the dullest kind you can be....
Is there such a thing such as religiously inspired child rape in the catholic church, sorry it's a non-argument. Especially since there is no overlapping of secular and religious rules here.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 18:39
Is there such a thing such as religiously inspired child rape in the catholic church, sorry it's a non-argument. Especially since there is no overlapping of secular and religious rules here.
Terrorism is inspired by religious interpretation, which all the more reason for someone to make a fatwa like this.
This might seem like a troll post, but I'm gonna say it:
Let all the little children come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said.
I guess that if you are a sick Catholic priest and you need to excuse your sickness, you could interpret this in a way that might excuse the raping of children. That's right, a matter of interpretation! Same goes for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or any extremist Muslim organization.
Also, there is the "religiously inspired" murder of abortion doctors going on in the United States..just so you know.
Terrorism is inspired by religious interpretation, which all the more reason for someone to make a fatwa like this.
We don't live in Fatwastan there is only one law and that is our law, we carved it out it suits our needs. A public statement would have been good, the government accepting a fatwa isn't.
This might seem like a troll post, but I'm gonna say it:
Say it right then, 'Let all the children come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said.'
Fixed it for ya.
No, Fragony. Just no (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm). Trying to ignore or condemn one's statement by nitpicking is worse enough, but when you fail at doing even that correctly, I don't know if you can continue this conversation with any credibility.
"Fixed it for ya". Who are you kidding?
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 20:58
We don't live in Fatwastan there is only one law and that is our law, we carved it out it suits our needs.
But we live in Catholicchurchistan? An imam isn't needed, but the pope is needed to keep us in check?
A public statement would have been good, the government accepting a fatwa isn't.
"Government accepting a fatwa"? What? See, it's times like these that makes providing links so important, so that others can have an idea of what you're talking about...
"Fixed it for ya". Who are you kidding?
Whoever tried to teach you latin I guess, yes just yes. There is no need to emphasize that children are small, never heard the quote but I am 99% sure you've been naughty.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 21:08
Whoever tried to teach you latin I guess, yes just yes. There is no need to emphasize that children are small, never heard the quote but I am 99% sure you've been naughty.
Jesus does put butter on his bacon (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIRV).
(it's number 14)
Whoever tried to teach you latin I guess, yes just yes.I have no intention of studying an elitist and dead language. And interestingly, I've sung in a Catholic Church choir for four years. I have actually witnessed it all on a weekly basis.
There is no need to emphasize that children are small, never heard the quote but I am 99% sure you've been naughty.Do (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) you (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) even (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) ever (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) check (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm)the (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) links (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) people (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm)send (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm) you (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm)? (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm)
Hey take a look at that, for your convenience, I put a link in every word of that last sentence for your convenience!
We don't live in Fatwastan there is only one law and that is our law, we carved it out it suits our needs. A public statement would have been good, the government accepting a fatwa isn't.
I'm sorry but you seem to just ignore facts to justify your view, the statement was made by the Minhaj-ul-Quran orginisation and was publicised by the Quilliam Foundation which is a government sponsered anti-extremism think tank, he wasn't asked to make the statement by the UK government (he does this thing regularly) nor was it aimed soley for UK muslims (it had been already issued in Pakistan the previous year).
How is this outsourcing authority? the UK government does not have authority in religious matters, the people who carry out these attacks justify it with their religious views, therefore combatting these views is done by people who do have religious authority, like this man. To combat the actual crimes is what secular law does.
As i said before this is no different than the Irish church leaders condemning the perpertraitors of sectarian violence during the Troubles, or more recent statements against racism or homophobia. do you rail against these as well? it would seem not because they lacked the hint of foreigness that you need to become outraged.
We don't live in Fatwastan there is only one law and that is our law, we carved it out it suits our needs. A public statement would have been good, the government accepting a fatwa isn't.
It's actually our law.
How is this outsourcing authority? the UK government does not have authority in religious matters, the people who carry out these attacks justify it with their religious views, therefore combatting these views is done by people who do have religious authority, like this man. To combat the actual crimes is what secular law does.
I can't find it on any English links, but my links said that he presented the 600 page document to the English government. I checked it out and it has been rectified, it is like you said, a government sponsored think-tank. I don't have a problem anymore.
@Hax, catholics follow the Vulgate by Jerome. And ask your daddy to put you on a public school if you hate elitism so much.
@Hax, catholics follow the Vulgate by Jerome. And ask your daddy to put you on a public school if you hate elitism so much.
I have seen enough of the failing school system of the Netherlands to not go to school anymore, Fragony.
I have seen enough of the failing school system.
must... resist....... it'sssssss hard...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.