b*ll*cks

im gona srart main names up too!

nah, not as sad as the sad 100

"Sirus" wrote:

b*ll*cks

im gona srart main names up too!

nah, not as sad as the sad 100

Shallow answer.

It only makes sense if you have a problem with being effective against Muslim terrorists. You are a hindrance to saving lives.

"The Great 100" wrote:

"Sirus" wrote:

b*ll*cks

im gona srart main names up too!

nah, not as sad as the sad 100

Shallow answer.

It only makes sense if you have a problem with being effective against Muslim terrorists. You are a hindrance to saving lives.

you chat some bull, i tell you that

i have never supported terrorists, always condemned them and anyone who knows me knows im a peaceful person. heck, i've never had a fight thru school.

im a hinderance to saving lives, yeah....whatever you say mate

Sirus,

You are missing my point. If I tell you someone wants to kill you and I know he is a six foot tall Caucasian ice skater but I do not tell you for fear of your backlash against six foot tall Caucasian ice skaters, and one day you come across a six foot tall Caucasian ice skater and don't think to walk away and he kills you, am I not partly responsible? You are basically in denial of the specific problem, which is that many Muslims are uniting to attack the West, and the problem can be arrested if their fellow Muslims allow others to identify them instead of complaining about the use of a word like jihadi with plain stupi[size=12]d[/size] remarks like why do you need a word.

btw it is a shame that you are showing me your ugly side over this because I had a pretty good impression of you.

100, i voted 'No' because that's the general answer to your question.

Muslims living in the UK have to practice islamic law when it comes to personal issues - we have to get married according to shariah, we have to deal with our finances according to shariah, inheritance should be sorted according to shariah, etc. there are already provisions in place for such things, for example HSBC is backing 'islamic finance' whereby muslims can take interest-free mortgages to buy a house or whatever.

as for 'punishments' and criminal law, we have to go by our country's laws, we cannot go around implementing hudood on everyone, because this is not an islamic state with established shariah judges and courts.

hope that answers your question.

Yes it does. Thank you.

i agree with Dust

"The Great 100" wrote:

Yes it does. Thank you.

Actually it doesn't quite, but it is close. The question asks whether Muslims have to advocate for shariah ie make Britain Muslim, and not whether there is already a de facto shariah.

i hate those words too, but for lack of a better word they're sometimes used with no ill intent.

But generally i think these words were coined in the war against muslims, they're "bushisms" introduced by the US government, and now used the world over as if it is the Oxford dictionary norm. If someone called me an Islamist i would kindly tell them actually i'm a muslim, what's an Islamist? You may think i'm paranoid but these words although alledgedly used to refer to militant or extreme muslims do inevitably implicate all muslims generally, and that can't be viewed as no big deal. It's a big deal when the average law abiding muslim is grouped with intolerant militants by so called intellectual reporters in the media. It really infuriates me to no end.

"yashmaki" wrote:

i hate those words too, but for lack of a better word they're sometimes used with no ill intent.

But generally i think these words were coined in the war against muslims, they're "bushisms" introduced by the US government, and now used the world over as if it is the Oxford dictionary norm. If someone called me an Islamist i would kindly tell them actually i'm a muslim, what's an Islamist? You may think i'm paranoid but these words although alledgedly used to refer to militant or extreme muslims do inevitably implicate all muslims generally, and that can't be viewed as no big deal. It's a big deal when the average law abiding muslim is grouped with intolerant militants by so called intellectual reporters in the media. It really infuriates me to no end.

I understand. I think "Islamist" is a political/military movement to spread Islam and therefore nobody is likely to call you an Islamist. It isn't Bush, it is people who know that the enemy is taking advantage of a lot of grey areas and goodwill such as with benefits and protection from discrimination, and want to identify what the enemy is up to - betrayal and sabotage under the guise of being regular Muslims.

"yashmaki" wrote:

i hate those words too, but for lack of a better word they're sometimes used with no ill intent.

But generally i think these words were coined in the war against muslims, they're "bushisms" introduced by the US government, and now used the world over as if it is the Oxford dictionary norm. If someone called me an Islamist i would kindly tell them actually i'm a muslim, what's an Islamist? You may think i'm paranoid but these words although alledgedly used to refer to militant or extreme muslims do inevitably implicate all muslims generally, and that can't be viewed as no big deal. It's a big deal when the average law abiding muslim is grouped with intolerant militants by so called intellectual reporters in the media. It really infuriates me to no end.

which is what i was trying to say, but you managed to do it in one post and with less frustration

:shock: Sirus is no terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

"Don Karnage" wrote:

:shock: Sirus is no terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

why, thank you

i just dont like the terms 100 uses - its offensive, but he doesnt seem to agree, nor care

as ed says....'ah well..'

"The Great 100" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

Yes it does. Thank you.

Actually it doesn't quite, but it is close. The question asks whether Muslims have to advocate for shariah ie make Britain Muslim, and not whether there is already a de facto shariah.

the answer is still no. Islam was not made for the establishing of khilafah, khilafah was made to benefit Islam.

imo khilafah is more needed in countries which already have a majority muslim population - there is not a single so-called 'Islamic' country today which runs according to the khilafah system.

"Sirus" wrote:

"Don Karnage" wrote:

:shock: Sirus is no terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

why, thank you

i just dont like the terms 100 uses - its offensive, but he doesnt seem to agree, nor care

as ed says....'ah well..'

Sirus, you have been on the offensive throughout this thread. Don't misinterpret me and don't miss my point. I don't think using the word jihadi is offensive and I don't think it is adequate to say "terrorists have declared a war on the west" if in fact they are Muslim terrorists trying to recruit Muslims and fight for Islam. The lack of definition plays into the hands of jihadis and allows them to get support on the sly and to operate with stealth and I get upset when, wittingly or unwittingly, people bend over backwards to facilitate that. Since you don't want to be that you should be far more offended by the terrorists, it is an extremely longstanding convention among Muslim fighters to refer to the physical jihad simply as "jihad" and to refer to fighters as "jihadis" and "mujahideen". This came up because I was asking for alternatives, and you were useless and fragile about it. The word for what you are doing is obfuscation. It is very common of late. I liked your "Eid not Weed" article.

*DUST*,

You are the Queen of Clarity. You didn't really need to say that but since I raised it again it is good you did. Thank you!

Great 100, I just come on to apologise to you, been thinking about it all day but only got time to pop on now.

Basically, having read Vedeno's comments, and generally how things are right now - i dont blame you for using such terms, and the real problem is the muslims who propgate the terms so it suits them - not the true meanings. Can't blame you or some of the media for using some of the terms (except islamists - thats plain stupid one), and i shouldn't have got so worked up about it.

i guess recent events just left me frustrated, and i should have vented my frustration elsewhere. Should always think before i speak, and if nothing good to speak - stay silent.

forgot what else i was gona say, so without waffling on, I owe you an apology 100man....i was going at you last time. you'r really a good man.

Peace

You are forgiven, in fact the only reason I would want your apology at all is to learn I really upset you and I can apologise myself. I am sometimes blunt and rude and there are some posters who occasionally warrant that treatment but not you. I'm pleased you understand that I was getting wound up but I'm still sorry. In conclusion I won't use Islamist and I will try to remember that jihadi is less specific than mujahid. Thank you for apologising. That is gracious, you are a mensch.

[size=8] *[/size][size=10]EDIT 10/07/06 [/size]

"Michael Portillo" wrote:

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2261812_1,00.html] Sorry 100 But We Must Call It Islamic Terror [/url]

...

Even peace-loving Muslim spokesmen feel obliged to give credence to the perception that their community is being unfairly harassed. It causes some young Muslim men to withdraw further from a British society claimed to be hostile. At best that surrounds the terrorists with a penumbra of disaffected Muslims who may not condemn their crimes or denounce their murderous plots. At worst it enlarges the pool from which new bombers can be recruited.

It is there that Al-Qaeda has scored its greatest success. More significant for the long term than the bombs is the impact that terror has in dividing the groups that make up our society, and in increasing the appeal of militancy to those who can be duped into seeing themselves as repressed.

...

[size=7] *[/size]