TheRevivalEditor wrote:

a childish responce to my points
if you dont have strong arguments or cant refute them so be it; but dont just bang on about the same thing on every topic and when you are questioned u give silly answers....
u called me a British HINDU Muslim in ur rant above!!
accusing me of SHIRK wont be taken lightly!

It's not childish, it is called sarcasm.

Your ideas are so superficial, that my original arguments containing references and academic definitions were way too above you. These simplistic arguments seem to make sense to you - but like the others, you cannot even refute them.

Don't you get it? The way you are trying to fuse foreign ideologies with Islam is the problem - you can't draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say we'll fuse democracy and british identities with Islam as they are culturally dominant and most muslims may go along with it as they know no better and have never really looked into the matter - others will take your logic and extend it to systems like devil worship, hinduism, communism and ask why don't you accept them too?

If you insist on being British you will also be labelled HinduCommunistDevil Worshippers etc

You need to prove that British National Identities are compatible with Islam and respond to the objections in a serious way - not in a childish way by saying - well that's a big objection but I won't believe in it or I'll just follow the Islamic bit and not the kufr bit but I'm still a democrat or British!

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

The fact the conversation is more about an insult and its resulting fallout than the original topic shows a lot about the intelligence of EVERYONE involved.

Thank you for joining the fallout - you might not have noticed but your comment includes you within the set!

and that was uncalled for, its just going to start another, pointless argument again, where people will be aggressive and rude to each other. I definatly did not join The Revival for THIS type of discussions.

Anonymous1 wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

a childish responce to my points
if you dont have strong arguments or cant refute them so be it; but dont just bang on about the same thing on every topic and when you are questioned u give silly answers....
u called me a British HINDU Muslim in ur rant above!!
accusing me of SHIRK wont be taken lightly!

It's not childish, it is called sarcasm.

Your ideas are so superficial, that my original arguments containing references and academic definitions were way too above you. These simplistic arguments seem to make sense to you - but like the others, you cannot even refute them.

Don't you get it? The way you are trying to fuse foreign ideologies with Islam is the problem - you can't draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say we'll fuse democracy and british identities with Islam as they are culturally dominant and most muslims may go along with it as they know no better and have never really looked into the matter - others will take your logic and extend it to systems like devil worship, hinduism, communism and ask why don't you accept them too?

If you insist on being British you will also be labelled HinduCommunistDevil Worshippers etc

You need to prove that British National Identities are compatible with Islam and respond to the objections in a serious way - not in a childish way by saying - well that's a big objection but I won't believe in it or I'll just follow the Islamic bit and not the kufr bit but I'm still a democrat or British!

i dont think starting to insult is going to help putting your point across, or change other people's opinions, even if they are wrong (which im not saying they are) the people concerned are just goint to want to proove you wrong and stick to their guns.

i dont think insulting is the way of the Prophet/Sahabahs

As a muslim your duty is to remind someone 3 times, after that you dont need to anymore and it's up to them.

ALL i can say is anonymous must be paid well by the bnp
she's doing a good job for them
and note for moderators:
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW SUCH FITNAH ON THIS FORUM, ACCUSING PEOPLE OF KUFR/SHIRK??!!!

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

ALL i can say is anonymous must be paid well by the bnp
she's doing a good job for them
and note for moderators:
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW SUCH FITNAH ON THIS FORUM, ACCUSING PEOPLE OF KUFR/SHIRK??!!!

Moderators should ensure characters like Editor who regularly churn our vitriolic hate in his posts against Muslims, groups etc should be looked at.

Even stating accusations of kufr/shirk have been made at concepts not at people - he can't seem to read and maybe should retake reading classes.

Anonymous1 wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

ALL i can say is anonymous must be paid well by the bnp
she's doing a good job for them
and note for moderators:
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW SUCH FITNAH ON THIS FORUM, ACCUSING PEOPLE OF KUFR/SHIRK??!!!

Moderators should ensure characters like Editor who regularly churn our vitriolic hate in his posts against Muslims, groups etc should be looked at.

Even stating accusations of kufr/shirk have been made at concepts not at people - he can't seem to read and maybe should retake reading classes.

Agreed with Anon.

Ed, you can't say it bad for some groups to be intolerant and narrow-minded when you are acting exactly the same towards those groups!

Ya'qub wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

ALL i can say is anonymous must be paid well by the bnp
she's doing a good job for them
and note for moderators:
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW SUCH FITNAH ON THIS FORUM, ACCUSING PEOPLE OF KUFR/SHIRK??!!!

Moderators should ensure characters like Editor who regularly churn our vitriolic hate in his posts against Muslims, groups etc should be looked at.

Even stating accusations of kufr/shirk have been made at concepts not at people - he can't seem to read and maybe should retake reading classes.

Agreed with Anon.

Ed, you can't say it bad for some groups to be intolerant and narrow-minded when you are acting exactly the same towards those groups!

so if i call you a hindu, kafir, mushrik, secular, mutazilite...are you gonna have any respect for me?
i say it how it is...anon has done nothing but create fitnah since she has been on these forums; accusing everyone in her way as the above....
HT - i disagree with
anon- i dislike for her arrogance and accusations towards ANYONE who disagrees with her....

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

Anonymous1 wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

ALL i can say is anonymous must be paid well by the bnp
she's doing a good job for them
and note for moderators:
ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW SUCH FITNAH ON THIS FORUM, ACCUSING PEOPLE OF KUFR/SHIRK??!!!

Moderators should ensure characters like Editor who regularly churn our vitriolic hate in his posts against Muslims, groups etc should be looked at.

Even stating accusations of kufr/shirk have been made at concepts not at people - he can't seem to read and maybe should retake reading classes.

childish girl
grow up

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

It helps when she is the loudest voice.

Like when she decided to have a go at Hajjar and Exception - they both came to their views, but those views would have been different if anonymous1 was being jumped on loudly. More, when she was asked about her use of insults, she jumped on other members, who may have til that point considered her to be potentially reasonable, but they now are just avoiding her due to her way of posting and demanding that people learn from her when the posters express an interest but also mention now being the most knowledgeable.

Without a louder voice than hers, her posts look less reasonable. But with a louder voice, they seem less unreasonable as they can be passive aggressive, but that is not the same as outright aggression.

Everytime she uses terms like HinduMuslim, DervilWorshippingMuslim, she loses credibility in a way that needs not be pointed out because all the readers have their own brains that can see how ludicrous such assertions are. So give her enough rope to hang herself. No point jumping on her.

PS are you sure that the email person is the same? Maybe the HT afiliated people play off the same rulebook so the arguments seem identical, but the people are different? there was also Ahmed786 posting the same content as anonymous1 before, but he was much more... rabid.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

Yeah, because your role as editor is to give voices to Muslim youth, whether or not you agree with what they have to say.

Getting dragged into petty personal squabbles (whether or not you 'started it') is ok for other ppl to do, but I dont think the editor should come down so strongly - otherwise you are likely to push ppl with different viewpoints away from the forum, rather than engage them.

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

Yeah, because your role as editor is to give voices to Muslim youth, whether or not you agree with what they have to say.

Getting dragged into petty personal squabbles (whether or not you 'started it') is ok for other ppl to do, but I dont think the editor should come down so strongly - otherwise you are likely to push ppl with different viewpoints away from the forum, rather than engage them.

ok...advice taken on board.
i think its time for me to sit in the background and 'observe'.
jazakhallah khair

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

Yeah, because your role as editor is to give voices to Muslim youth, whether or not you agree with what they have to say.

Getting dragged into petty personal squabbles (whether or not you 'started it') is ok for other ppl to do, but I dont think the editor should come down so strongly - otherwise you are likely to push ppl with different viewpoints away from the forum, rather than engage them.

I'm inclined to agree Yaqoub... It givs the impression the site/magazine have an agenda when the editor starts fighting for an ideology rather than a neutral facilitator... Surely the authors of the articles can defend their articles when critique is raised? (Unless it is about the editorial where the editor does have to step in - and on the most recent editorial about controversial identities like National Indentities he has had to do that, albeit defending his corner emotively rather than intellectually through citation of relevant academic and scholarly well researched works)

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

its funny how nobody here has the courage to say a word against anonymissy.
tell Ed to shut up but let anon rant and slander everyone!!!!

Yeah, because your role as editor is to give voices to Muslim youth, whether or not you agree with what they have to say.

Getting dragged into petty personal squabbles (whether or not you 'started it') is ok for other ppl to do, but I dont think the editor should come down so strongly - otherwise you are likely to push ppl with different viewpoints away from the forum, rather than engage them.

I'm inclined to agree Yaqoub... It givs the impression the site/magazine have an agenda when the editor starts fighting for an ideology rather than a neutral facilitator... Surely the authors of the articles can defend their articles when critique is raised? (Unless it is about the editorial where the editor does have to step in - and on the most recent editorial about controversial identities like National Indentities he has had to do that, albeit defending his corner emotively rather than intellectually through citation of relevant academic and scholarly well researched works)

ok
my apologies i have come across a bit unprofessional and a bit aggressive but i suppose it was a natural reaction with all the allegations thrown against me.
wasalaam

Going back to the original topic, if things are taken to a level too far, it can be harmful.

I am thinking the qualifier match between (I think) Egypt and Algeria where the animosities between the two countries were raised to a very high level and it became all political and about national pride instead of simply about football.

You wrote:

Going back to the original topic, if things are taken to a level too far, it can be harmful.

Yeah but isn't the same about everything? Everything can be done in excess.

yaqub, whats your view on the world cup, is it all nationalism as some would say?
and whats your understanding on 'nationalism'?

yes, and moderation is key.

I was just pointing out that the Al Mouhajiroun may be using an example of exzcessiveness and then misapplying that to everything.

Or they may be thinking that it is nationalism...

... its just football really. I don't plan to watch any of it. Maybe i will get caught up with world up fever at some point...

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

yaqub, whats your view on the world cup, is it all nationalism as some would say?
and whats your understanding on 'nationalism'?

i love the world cup. but only cos i love football.

i just cant wait til england get knocked out so i can enjoy the football without all the horrible flags and fighting

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

yaqub, whats your view on the world cup, is it all nationalism as some would say?
and whats your understanding on 'nationalism'?

i love the world cup. but only cos i love football.

i just cant wait til england get knocked out so i can enjoy the football without all the horrible flags and fighting

dont most people love the world cup BECAUSE they love football. what other reason is there?
which team do you support? england? and would that be nationalism as I keep getting told by someone?

what do you dislike about the England flags displayed everywhere nowadays?

A few thoughts on the terms moderate, extreme - what is their real context and usage???
------------------------------------

Banning riba or excessive riba - extreme - reasonable rates of riba, moderate?

No alcohol or drunkeness - as both are extreme? light consumption = moderate?

No worship or too much worship, rememberance of Allah (dhikr) - extreme? Little bit of worship, moderate?

Covering all body or nudity - extreme - dressing in skirts/trousers/blouses moderate?

What about stoning or cutting hands? Extreme? Letting them go extreme? Imprisoning them, moderate?

Memorising Quran - good - too much or too little, extreme?

Fasting a few days - moderate - 30 days - extreme?

Making too many duas - extreme?

Paying 2.5% or 90% of wealth to poor - extreme? 25-50% moderate?

One wife or 4 wives, extreme - 2-3 wives moderate?

Loving one's wife or hitting her - extreme? Indifference = moderation?

Sacrificing one's life in jihad - extreme?

No marriage (batchelor) or marriage - extreme? Casual relationships moderate?

Men leading congregational prayers extreme? Taking turns with women moderate?

Can we please keep this topic about football? it has already been derailed enough.

If you want to discuss new topics, you can join and then members are allowed to create topics and your views of moderate and extreme can be discussed.

Please don't hijack a different topic. If you do want all this discussed without creating a topic there is "no topic" which is for discussions that people do not think warrant their own individual topics.

//yes, and moderation is key.//

You had mentioned the term moderation - my comment responded to it... Maybe you too should keep comments to the subject if that's what you ask of others?

There is even a recently created topic on moderation. Use that.

It may not seem this way to you - because you were given a baptism of fire - but we generally try to keep things civil here and not always jump at eeach others throats.

Things may not always have been the most civil, but that does not mean we do not try for the future.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

dont most people love the world cup BECAUSE they love football. what other reason is there?

No, loads and loads of ppl only watch football during the world cup, and have no idea about it, and get in the way of the TV screen.

Not sure of their reasons, but I'm guessing its an excuse to get drunk in big groups and all sing and shout together.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

which team do you support? england?

never! i've always supported any team playing against england, except when they were playing against israel...

But then again, I am Scottish. But the main reason I dislike England is because I dislike almost all their players.
Rooney, Lampard, Terry, Ashley, Crouch, what a HORRIBLE bunch of ppl. I don't want to see them become national 'icons' or demigods (which they surely would be if England even got to the final).

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

and would that be nationalism as I keep getting told by someone?

not necessarily... but it is tied in with it. if england draw germany in the next round, i'm pretty sure tabloid newspapers will be calling them krauts or mentioning the war. similar if england play argentina. 'cheating argies' would be mentioned, as would the falklands.
and this would be 0% to do with football and 100% because of deep-rooted nationalist hatred.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

what do you dislike about the England flags displayed everywhere nowadays?

ermmm.... something to do with the BNP?

If you look at footage of the 1966 world up, everyone was waving union jacks, yet only in (very) recent years has the st george's cross been adopted.

I don't think that all england fans or flag-wavers are racist... but there are PLENTY of racists who are waving them.

There's NOTHING wrong with rooney!!!

Funzo wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

...or is this some more ranting from nutters who learnt how to printer?

No doubt they would cite your own words against you and state in similar terms: is this a rant from a nutter who can't even string a sentence together?

Ohh im sorry i need to remind myself you dont have the mental capacity to read a sentence with a typo in it, perhaps you would like to address the argument and the group i referenced rather than a missing word? better yet why dont you just go on 7cgen?? or a forum which other simmilar minded people will agree with every single single word you post.

If you're going to insult intelligence of Muslims (through questioning their ability to use a simple printer!) try to make sure you don't expose your inability to use a keyboard - otherwise the irony of the situation is visible to readers!

And it doesn't help when your point falls flat on its face, to insult those pointing it out - you sound like a bigger idiot and the post then focuses more and more on your inability to carry off a simple "sarcastic remark"!

It doesnt show my inability to use a keyboard it shows that im human and can make mistakes but if you want to come back with another pathetic retort, so be it!

I make pathetic retorts, others are nutters - you're the only polite person here eh?

Funzo wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

There's NOTHING wrong with rooney!!!

Saw my mate the other day
he said to me hes seen the white pele
so i asked who is he?
he said he goes by the name of
waaaayne roooooney
waaaaaaaaaayne rooooooooooney!

Are you on something?