You need a third option of 'Dunno'.

What we are required to do is if we see something wrong, then stop it. Or speak out against it. Or atleast think it is wrong.

Our judgements should be made using the qur'an and sunnah as our guides.

Shariah is the application of those sources with reality to get a ruling. Its not a predefined set of laws which are to be imposed upon society.

So its yes we have to use Islamic sources for guidance. And no there is no compulsion in religion, and no, there are no specific sets of laws. And that leaves a resounding 'Dunno'.

Simply put a Muslim Politician in the UK can never justify as an example being in favour of a gambling/casino bill. (This is an example from the top of my head - nothing to suggest that there is one).

And democracy is the process of a number of people using their sources to suggest laws, and creating groupings on the interpretations from these sources. The sources may be religion, history, opinion, bias or anything. The larger grouping wins.

There are a basic set of laws that can be put on the whole population.

Simple stuff like thou shalt not steal, murder, plunder etc...

The next set of laws which are specific to muslims only should have some sort of non-criminal but legal arbitration system where parties can go to get an Islamically valid ruling, which is not criminal. Here things such as marriage/divorce issues etc can be sorted out aswell as inheritance etc. Obviously this is specific to muslims, so cannot be forced onto others. However there are issues of if there was such a system may the givenment bodies try to impose some political message overruling the actual Islamic positions...

So, there are bits that I would advocate to binding to all. However these are generic, and most civilised societies have a moral/legal equivalent.

Then there are bits which are specific to Muslims, which would be stupid to bind upon everyone, muslim and non-muslim.

All this is supposing there ever is a voting bloc in the uk big enough to ever demand such a thing. That is nigh on impossible. Til then individual politicians are bound to act according to the guides.

'Nationalism is supporting your people in something which is wrong.'

The above quote is from a hadith. Islamically we are not allowed to support a cause if it is wrong, just because it is done by/for muslims.

So if someone tries to implement an overly harsh version, I would not be able to support it. Not only will the Islamic laws be bastardised, but the spirit of the implementation will not be correct.

The Initial Islamic state too years to have the laws implemented. The qur'an was revealed over 23 years, not a couple of days.

But then there are shades of grey. How wrong have they got it? is the overall impact good or bad? is it possible to get the positives implemented, leaving the negatives behind? or is it just a ruse to get votes?

I am in broad agreement I think. The actual question lacks focus, so it depends on what it actually means. By your translation I pretty much agree with your assessment.

Would love to see if others differ with me.

"100man" wrote:

Islamists, jihadis, mujahideen, Islamic supremacists, Muslim extremists, all these phrases are unsatisfactory because the qualifier eg extremists isn't enough to clarify that many Muslims are moderate or because the word jihad carries other connotations. Jihad, jihadis and mujahideen are phrases which work for me to describe those who commit violence or conquest to advance khalifah or shariah, but is there a word that is specific and that does not especially risk carrying offense? Otherwise I am stuck with the phrases above.

yeah, a wacko...terrorist...psycho

it ticks me off the use of 'islamist'...what the heck is one anyway? it implies someone who follows Islam. Its a bush made word, and therefore stinks of stupidity.

as for Jihadi, Mujahid etc.....im sure you've already been told the exact meaning of Jihad (struggle)....If i wasnt afraid of the cops breaking into my house and shooting me, i would say im doing jihad daily

Yes but if I attacked a number of French people, they might try to establish if I am with anyone.

If 50 British people followed up with similar attacks, the French might then say, hey these are British fighters, we can limit our discussion of where they emanate from and what is their purpose to discussion of Britons.

If it then turns out they were all Jewish chaps from North London, the French would raise an eyebrow and say: "Aha, haw haw, wawa, hey man I av not ad a baf in free wiks man I am rilly stinky wawa, ze attackers we are on ze lookout for and seeking to understand are all juifs from Londres and if I see one I will smoke 'im out. We can call off ze search for an Italian monk haw haw, ey I am rilly sexy do you want to see my crabs?"

If these attackers all said "we represent the propagation of Judaism and justice for all", it would behove most Jews to say: "OK, the people we are talking about are people who believe that Paris is the indivisible capital of the London Jewish community and although they call themselves Jewish fighters we would sooner you call them Parisnikim, because that is specific and doesn't villify us, and you will find them based at such-and-such address."

If instead the Jewish response was to say, "Why are you discriminating against Jews?" the implication is that we don't see the logic of pursuing the criminals in our midst and would rather the French keep focusing on Italian monks thank you very much, while our brethren continue to attack the French with impunity.

So I am asking Muslims if there is a specific word for the khilafah-supporting-racist-primitive-terrorist-jihadis-who-happen-to-call-themselves-Muslim so that we can all identify and excise them together and put a stop to the villification of other Muslims.

"The Great 100" wrote:

So I am asking Muslims if their is a specific word for the khilafah-supporting-racist-primitive-terrorist-jihadis-who-happen-to-call-themselves-Muslim so that we can all identify and excise them together and put a stop to the villification of other Muslims.

The people your reffering too...i dont have a problem with that at all, im no fan of the likes....im not against em, im jus not for em....but like i said....get the terminology right otherwise you are causing offence...

couldnt make much sense of what ur sayin, but...

Quote:

yeah, a wacko...terrorist...psycho

add to that extremists....how many more words do you need?

theres no marks for vocabulary use here

I want a word that describes who they are. They often call themselves Mujahideen. Not to specify the enemy is absurd. This is not a war on nutjobs or even really a war on terror but a war on terrorist jihad, and btw I find it disgusting that you cannot say you are against them, because if you had any backbone it would go a lot further than mine, and because they are mindless and kill many innocent people. Like I say, Mujahideen and Jihadis are words that work for me and I think people will understand that I am not against people who engage in an internal struggle to be good. I think it a great shame if your religion gives you no words to distinguish war from self-improvement. If there simply isn't an obvious answer then, OK.

"The Great 100" wrote:

I want a word that describes who they are. They often call themselves Mujahideen. Not to specify the enemy is absurd. This is not a war on nutjobs or even really a war on terror but a war on terrorist jihad, and btw I find it disgusting that you cannot say you are against them, because if you had any backbone it would go a lot further than mine, and because they are mindless and kill many innocent people. Like I say, Mujahideen and Jihadis are words that work for me and I think people will understand that I am not against people who engage in an internal struggle to be good. I think it a great shame if your religion gives you no words to distinguish war from self-improvement. If there simply isn't an obvious answer then, OK.

they mis-interpret and misuse the term Jihad. not a war on terror, but a war on terrorists? :? extremists is perfectlly ok....they take things to the extreme, and have taken Jihad to the faaaaaaaar extreme, there is a physical Jihad too, but not justified in the extremists views.

Why am i not against them? well, depends who specifically u refer too...i object to all acts of terror...but, i dont see them as the only problem/enemy. The US govt/State...The Israeli State/Govt and Blair, are much worse in my eyes coz they 'legitly' commit crimes

i dont expect you to agree....and ur gona come out with somat else now....cant really be bothered

byeeee

No, I specified, the terrorist jihad. It has goals and it has members of specific groups that are not ETA and the IRA, they are not members of the Michael Jackson fan club and they do not support West Bromwich Albion.

I find the fact you do not oppose them but do oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas you could strictly oppose all three, inconsistent with my support for you to be my neighbour, and inconsistent with my sentiments and rebuttals to people I have assumed are a bit racist who speak of mass deportations that remind me of the Nazis, but maybe those people are right, maybe you are an enemy of the state.

I do not equate Sirus with a terrorist but let me tell you that if Sirus' position above is anything like the most widely shared Islamic position - A BIG IF - then I have nothing left that is good to say about Islam and Muslims. Nothing.

Since that is such a painful place to be I implore Sirus to form a reply.

when i can be bothered

Fair enough. Sooner better.

The correct terms are probably Takfiri's, or millitants depending the context.

Thank you Admin. However, I thought takfiris are Muslims who condemn Muslims. Am I mistaken?

That is what they are.

They normally use that as a justification to kill Muslims. These groups also tend to kill alot of others, or support it.

So in essence the same type of groups groups hold that crede. Its still a generalisation, but far better than some of the others.

I appreciate that but it isn't correct then for non-Muslims in the line of fire to suggest they are fighting takfiris. A bit of Googling and I find jihad bis saif and qital are both expressions to denote physical jihad. Can the word qital be adapted to qitali in reference to a person who fights jihad bis saif?

saif means sword, qital death/killing.

It all depends on what people you wanna group. There is no simple answer, and plenty of wrong answers.

EDIT

Just use the term militant.

Militant could be anything.

The fact that these particular militants are stateless and the fact that Muslims already have another use for the word mujahid rather makes it hard to pin the enemy down. Qitali seems like the most appropriate word.

why do you insist on having a word?

even tho admin has gaven a perfectly good one

childish :roll:

It is really strange how Muslims object to use of jihadi, or to specifying a word like extremist or terrorist - which a lot of Muslims also objected to for a long time, and many people like to call heads of state the terrorists - by prefixing something like Muslim or Islamic or Islamist to be politically specific. It is strange, because the ideology of the terrorists owes so much to Islam, the terrorists are not Irish or British or American or Saudi Arabian or Pakistani, they are Muslim. Their ideology is that Islam will put the world's wrongs to right and that they are acting in the name of Islam. To refer to them as wackos is plainly ridiculous, and it is a favour to you that I ask what to call them, because I could happily bandy about terms like Muslim terrorist and ask you not to be offended, and because you were moved to reeducate me about the meaning of jihad. Like I say, I can't believe you don't have words to distinguish self-improvement from war, and I really think you should be more helpful coming up with a word.

"The Great 100" wrote:

It is really strange how Muslims object to use of jihadi, or to specifying a word like extremist or terrorist - which a lot of Muslims also objected to for a long time, and many people like to call heads of state the terrorists - by prefixing something like Muslim or Islamic or Islamist to be politically specific. It is strange, because the ideology of the terrorists owes so much to Islam, the terrorists are not Irish or British or American or Saudi Arabian or Pakistani, they are Muslim. Their ideology is that Islam will put the world's wrongs to right and that they are acting in the name of Islam. To refer to them as wackos is plainly ridiculous, and it is a favour to you that I ask what to call them, because I could happily bandy about terms like Muslim terrorist and ask you not to be offended, and because you were moved to reeducate me about the meaning of jihad. Like I say, I can't believe you don't have words to distinguish self-improvement from war, and I really think you should be more helpful coming up with a word.

why does their have to be a word?

and im sure there are plenty alternatives to the daft ones you insist on using, which i presume is just to be offensive.

if i wanted to refer to those who kill innocent palistinians in the middle east, im gonna need a word too....and despite what word you insisit i use, i like the word Jewishist.....and im not changing unless you come up with an alternative i like :roll:

I don't know about "people who kill innocent Palestinians", which rather seems to suggest they do it on purpose and do not also kill terrorists, but you would use the word Israelis, or the Israeli army, or the IDF. I hope you find those terms more accurate than Jewishist. They are not looking to conquer the world and make it Jewish. When these terrorists recruit and ask for money openly in mosques, at conferences and in the street, they refer to the mujahideen. They refer to the jihad. They refer to conquering the world and making it Muslim. They need to be opposed and we need to know who they are. I am sure you understand my point, and of course it is important to have a word that specifies the enemy or else you end up not understanding who you're fighting.

"The Great 100" wrote:

You would use the word Israelis, or the Israeli army, or the IDF. I hope you find those terms more accurate than Jewishist. They are not looking to conquer the world and make it Jewish. When these terrorists recruit and ask for money openly in mosques, at conferences and in the street, they refer to the mujahideen. They refer to the jihad. They refer to conquering the world and making it Muslim.

no..i dont like those words

Jewishist, until i come up with a better word or u stop sayin Islamist - coz there aint such thing

kinda silly isnt it?

Sirus if you read his previous post, he WAS trying to get a more 'acceptable word than Islamist, Jihadi etc!

I guess I will keep talking about mujahideen and jihadis and if anyone takes me up on qitalis then I will start using that.

Since I have been edgy in this subject I will mention not for the first time that most people who come here are sweet and most amiable and that I respect you all for that. It is unfortunate about some of your coreligionists.