[quote=Joie de VivreIF YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY HERE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE OF MAKING THE MAJORITY CONFORM. IF THAT MAKES YOU UNHAPPY, PLEASE EMIGRATE. I HAVE NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER WITH IMMIGRANTS, FOREIGNERS AND PEOPLE OF DIFFERING CREEDS SO DON'T EVEN TRY THAT ONE AGAIN.
Do you have to repeat simplistic platitudes? If one doesn't like the system, intelligent people around the world work to change it - otherwise following your advice they would perpetually keep emigrating from one country to another - something you don't do yourself as the advice is bogus!
You miss the point of the discussion of identity - it refers to a common belief system which people must opt into and believe and respect. People are not expected to follow every detailed aspect of it in order to be characterised with it or to accept it. The question is that is it acceptable and can a muslim feel comfortable imposing this identity or belief system on himself to create commonality with others in society?
I would suggest no and normatively it is prohibited... some might think yes - but when they are questioned, they start reengineering major parts of it (Islamicising it!) before accepting it... is the result a british identity as they claim or an islamic identity?
[/quote]
I think I have brought that up with you only once before, what you accused me of repeating, and then you said I was obviously just a racist, so I have added the caveat. I am not a one-trick pony.
You did not answer the points I made, you simply bundled up your beliefs into "working to change the system", as if you cared at all about the British. If people hostile to British liberties are "working to change the system" I don't suppose you can have any issues with the system fighting back. But you raise issues anyway and tell Muslims it was their fault.[/quote]
Denying you are a racist does not absolve your statements which in their reality are little more than gutter expressions such as "go back to where you came from!".
However I have no desire to stoop to your level of thought or articulation by responding with the kind of response your crude comments warrant.
Denying you are a racist does not absolve your statements which in their reality are little more than gutter expressions such as "go back to where you came from!"
Just to be clear that is exactly my message to you. And there is no way in a million years I am racist. You are hostile, you can go. But having collapsed my argument with the gutter expression I never used...
Quote:
However I have no desire to stoop to your level of thought or articulation by responding with the kind of response your crude comments warrant.
...is either foolish or manipulative. Those are my two theories on you. Foolish (could be anyone/probably HT) or manipulative (maybe EDL/probably HT). ftr
—
It can never be satisfied, the mind, never. -- Wallace Stevens
Does that fact that I want you gone too make me a racist?
Have you gone back and read your previous post on the sahabahs?
or do you think insulting them is fair game?
I asked a question yesterday - are you Muslim?
I will add a second question - are you a single person?
Because the Jeckyll in you wants to discuss points while the Hyde is willing to compare the sahabahs conversions to islam with adultery amongst other things.
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Does that fact that I want you gone too make me a racist?
Nope - you are doing what you think is right - the problem is that some of your thinking is wrong, and I believe it is wrong at an epistemic level especially when you struggled to prove god exists.
You wrote:
Have you gone back and read your previous post on the sahabahs?
or do you think insulting them is fair game?
Anything I write you read with a negative view seeking to find problems - the example of the companions was correct - there were companions who were stoned to death in Medina despite being muslims and having the correct Islamic bonds - what can one derive from that fact in relation to bonds? Nothing. The same as your example of Muslims migrating from mecca to medina who had to be sent back to mecca according to the terms of an agreement - it provides no further clarification of what the socio-political bonds should be. You appear to sidetrack when you are stuck in an argument - I've noticed it happen several times, initially giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now seeing it as your little strategem you intentionally or unintentionally deploy when you grind to a halt in an argument but find cherished beliefs too difficult to give up.
You wrote:
I asked a question yesterday - are you Muslim?
Yes
You wrote:
I will add a second question - are you a single person?
Why? Are you looking to get married? Or does it have some relevance to the discussion?
You wrote:
Because the Jeckyll in you wants to discuss points while the Hyde is willing to compare the sahabahs conversions to islam with adultery amongst other things.
The terms of hudaybiyyah does not apply to sahabah's conversions - it applied also to Muslims who remained behind. Understand the point of an analogy - it analogises on significant points, not on all details.
That still does not get you out of your deeply offensive remarks - even if as you say it only applied to Muslims moving from makkah to Madinah, and not to people who were previously not Muslim (for which you provide no evidence), you are still comparing their moving from Makkah to Madinah with adultery. Deeply offensive to all Muslims.
It still undermined your point that no other bonds existed as the treaty recognised that they were from Makkah and returned them to there. Suddenly a Muslim from Makkah was being treated different from a Muslim from elsewhere. By the prophet (saw). Under a treaty he signed. Now by all means don't recognise this. Your choice. I doubt you're big enough to anyway as it will contradict your anture as you have shown in your postings since you have been here.
Why? Are you looking to get married? Or does it have some relevance to the discussion?
Just pointing out your Jeckyll and Hyde behaviour where you are willing to insult the sahabah to get the upper hand in argument while some times you want to discuss matters point by point. It is lunacy where atleast the first bit makes me wish that you get intimate with a double-decker bus traveling at speed.
Anything I write you read with a negative view seeking to find problems
Hasn't this also been your game, but with everyone? and yes, I have done this and pointed out your errors. It may be because I despise you. A big part of that is of your own making IMO and you reap what you sow.
You did decide to talk about adultery and its punishment as a comparison when confronted with the fact that Muslims were sent back to Makkah under the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. I found your disparaging of the sahabah to be far more offensive and that over-rid any other discussions as I found it extremely shameless of you to do such a thing.
Are you one person or multiple people?
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Of-course you are not racist - you no doubt have many black friends who no doubt should also go to from whence they came!
Not that many black friends I think. Most of them already live where they came from, which is Britain or the Caribbean, and I did have a friend who went "back" to his roots in Nigeria, who I haven't seen or heard from in years. But colour doesn't come into it, and nor does religion per se. I want people overwhelmingly to be able to live where they like and cause no trouble and I have never made a prejudicial observation regarding race. It is just really clear that you have a really hostile mission as far as Britain is concerned, from everything you have said in this thread, and what I REALLY don't like is antagonists like HT, or for that matter the BNP, or anyone at all, making Muslims feel uncomfortable here, because if it wasn't for your voice in their ears the vast majority would otherwise be feeling pretty good about their prospects, and instead people like me who are pretty decent guys find ourselves wondering who is who in the Muslim community. You personally, and your friends in HT, should go, I don't care where. I have been hanging around here for years and calling me racist might raise suspicions but I rather think it makes you look like an idiot, because it is such an easy attack and you missed the real point, about how offensive you are. Just you.
(And Admin, it's times like this I wish you would change your nic, because I don't mean You. On the off-chance I wasn't 100% crystal clear. Apparently random slurs in the HT handbook speak louder than anything I write.)
—
It can never be satisfied, the mind, never. -- Wallace Stevens
That still does not get you out of your deeply offensive remarks - even if as you say it only applied to Muslims moving from makkah to Madinah, and not to people who were previously not Muslim (for which you provide no evidence), you are still comparing their moving from Makkah to Madinah with adultery. Deeply offensive to all Muslims.
You should stop comparing the companions to adulterers! Shame on you!
You wrote:
It still undermined your point that no other bonds existed as the treaty recognised that they were from Makkah and returned them to there.
No it did not! You need to prove the Muslims of Mecca participated in kufr bonds of tribalism with the Meccans.
It is absolutely disgusting that you are suggesting they did - shame on you for suggesting the companions participated in bonds of kufr after they became muslims!!!
Of-course you are not racist - you no doubt have many black friends who no doubt should also go to from whence they came!
Not that many black friends I think. Most of them already live where they came from, which is Britain or the Caribbean, and I did have a friend who went "back" to his roots in Nigeria...
Yes add attacks and insults of other muslims and groups - why not? It helps conceal racism!
I find it strange how you are claiming others did what you did. the post history is there in this very topic.
Goodbye hmd.
It was not nice knowing you.
May God give you some shame.
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The voting on this poll seems to be quite interesting to me - a 50/50 split in what people think.
If anyone wants to elaborate on why they voted as they did, it could be interesting to read.
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Can you actually type a coherent sentence? The stuff above is reminiscent of a 2 year old!
And no it is not allowed to fabricate hadiths or undertake incest - stop it!
I think I have brought that up with you only once before, what you accused me of repeating, and then you said I was obviously just a racist, so I have added the caveat. I am not a one-trick pony.
You did not answer the points I made, you simply bundled up your beliefs into "working to change the system", as if you cared at all about the British. If people hostile to British liberties are "working to change the system" I don't suppose you can have any issues with the system fighting back. But you raise issues anyway and tell Muslims it was their fault.[/quote]
Denying you are a racist does not absolve your statements which in their reality are little more than gutter expressions such as "go back to where you came from!".
However I have no desire to stoop to your level of thought or articulation by responding with the kind of response your crude comments warrant.
Just to be clear that is exactly my message to you. And there is no way in a million years I am racist. You are hostile, you can go. But having collapsed my argument with the gutter expression I never used...
...is either foolish or manipulative. Those are my two theories on you. Foolish (could be anyone/probably HT) or manipulative (maybe EDL/probably HT). ftr
Of-course you are not racist - you no doubt have many black friends who no doubt should also go to from whence they came!
Does that fact that I want you gone too make me a racist?
Have you gone back and read your previous post on the sahabahs?
or do you think insulting them is fair game?
I asked a question yesterday - are you Muslim?
I will add a second question - are you a single person?
Because the Jeckyll in you wants to discuss points while the Hyde is willing to compare the sahabahs conversions to islam with adultery amongst other things.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Nope - you are doing what you think is right - the problem is that some of your thinking is wrong, and I believe it is wrong at an epistemic level especially when you struggled to prove god exists.
Anything I write you read with a negative view seeking to find problems - the example of the companions was correct - there were companions who were stoned to death in Medina despite being muslims and having the correct Islamic bonds - what can one derive from that fact in relation to bonds? Nothing. The same as your example of Muslims migrating from mecca to medina who had to be sent back to mecca according to the terms of an agreement - it provides no further clarification of what the socio-political bonds should be. You appear to sidetrack when you are stuck in an argument - I've noticed it happen several times, initially giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now seeing it as your little strategem you intentionally or unintentionally deploy when you grind to a halt in an argument but find cherished beliefs too difficult to give up.
Yes
Why? Are you looking to get married? Or does it have some relevance to the discussion?
The terms of hudaybiyyah does not apply to sahabah's conversions - it applied also to Muslims who remained behind. Understand the point of an analogy - it analogises on significant points, not on all details.
That still does not get you out of your deeply offensive remarks - even if as you say it only applied to Muslims moving from makkah to Madinah, and not to people who were previously not Muslim (for which you provide no evidence), you are still comparing their moving from Makkah to Madinah with adultery. Deeply offensive to all Muslims.
It still undermined your point that no other bonds existed as the treaty recognised that they were from Makkah and returned them to there. Suddenly a Muslim from Makkah was being treated different from a Muslim from elsewhere. By the prophet (saw). Under a treaty he
signed. Now by all means don't recognise this. Your choice. I doubt you're big enough to anyway as it will contradict your anture as you have shown in your postings since you have been here.
Just pointing out your Jeckyll and Hyde behaviour where you are willing to insult the sahabah to get the upper hand in argument while some times you want to discuss matters point by point. It is lunacy where atleast the first bit makes me wish that you get intimate with a double-decker bus traveling at speed.
Hasn't this also been your game, but with everyone? and yes, I have done this and pointed out your errors. It may be because I despise you. A big part of that is of your own making IMO and you reap what you sow.
You did decide to talk about adultery and its punishment as a comparison when confronted with the fact that Muslims were sent back to Makkah under the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. I found your disparaging of the sahabah to be far more offensive and that over-rid any other discussions as I found it extremely shameless of you to do such a thing.
Are you one person or multiple people?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Not that many black friends I think. Most of them already live where they came from, which is Britain or the Caribbean, and I did have a friend who went "back" to his roots in Nigeria, who I haven't seen or heard from in years. But colour doesn't come into it, and nor does religion per se. I want people overwhelmingly to be able to live where they like and cause no trouble and I have never made a prejudicial observation regarding race. It is just really clear that you have a really hostile mission as far as Britain is concerned, from everything you have said in this thread, and what I REALLY don't like is antagonists like HT, or for that matter the BNP, or anyone at all, making Muslims feel uncomfortable here, because if it wasn't for your voice in their ears the vast majority would otherwise be feeling pretty good about their prospects, and instead people like me who are pretty decent guys find ourselves wondering who is who in the Muslim community. You personally, and your friends in HT, should go, I don't care where. I have been hanging around here for years and calling me racist might raise suspicions but I rather think it makes you look like an idiot, because it is such an easy attack and you missed the real point, about how offensive you are. Just you.
(And Admin, it's times like this I wish you would change your nic, because I don't mean You. On the off-chance I wasn't 100% crystal clear. Apparently random slurs in the HT handbook speak louder than anything I write.)
You should stop comparing the companions to adulterers! Shame on you!
No it did not! You need to prove the Muslims of Mecca participated in kufr bonds of tribalism with the Meccans.
It is absolutely disgusting that you are suggesting they did - shame on you for suggesting the companions participated in bonds of kufr after they became muslims!!!
Yes add attacks and insults of other muslims and groups - why not? It helps conceal racism!
Disgraceful!
I find it strange how you are claiming others did what you did. the post history is there in this very topic.
Goodbye hmd.
It was not nice knowing you.
May God give you some shame.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The voting on this poll seems to be quite interesting to me - a 50/50 split in what people think.
If anyone wants to elaborate on why they voted as they did, it could be interesting to read.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pages