Documentary: My Brother the Islamist

Dades

Anyone watch this on BBC Three last night?

Really interesting, even if it ultimately went no way into explaining why some white middle class bloke would suddenly embrace Muslim extremism.

Small clip below - haven't found a full link to it all yet but I'm sure it's on BBC iPlayer if you have proxys etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tytxGAUTMc

MagicMarker

I only saw the last 20 minutes or so, bunch of hypocritical nutjobs tbh. Protesting about the threat to burn the koran by burning the American flag. :rolleyes:

Absolute fools.

GO_Bear

MagicMarker wrote: »

I only saw the last 20 minutes or so, bunch of hypocritical nutjobs tbh. Protesting about the threat to burn the koran by burning the American flag. :rolleyes:

Absolute fools.

Agreed, still looks interesting tho.

dead one

well what he said is true whether you admit it or not.

Rich said: "You foolish people risking your lives for these degenerate rulers, these people who conspire to misguide you into the hellfire."

Rich/Salahuddin protested at the return of British troops from Afghanistan

Zombrex

I watched it.

Same old story to be honest, young men feeling disconnected from their peers in society latch on to a system that gives them ridged structure and a sense of justification for why they feel alienated. Every time the interviewer discussed Islam with his brother you could tell the brother was simply repeating what he had been told.

A common thread was the disillusionment the young men had with the "drinking and drug taking" culture they had met in their teens. Some times it got rather frustrating, I felt like shouting at the TV that radical Islam was not the only alternative to getting drunk every night.

You really feel that these guys are Islamists simply because Islam is the only system targeting them. You could see any of them joining a boxing gym or Buddism temple if they simply got to them first. Highlights I think the route society needs to go to combat the rise of religious extremism, not by attacking the groups and further alienating these men, but simply offering an alternative.

It is unfortunately such a common meme in society, that the alternative to religion X is selfish materialism. You get that all the time on the other 2 major forums in this section, its not hard to see how young men would view joining groups like this as the only think that justifies them stepping out of the society they fear and loath.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

well what he said is true whether you admit it or not.

Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to him though. He is an Islamist because this group offers him a shelter from the society he finds stressful and nervous about. You could replace Islam with anything, Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism. The appeal isn't the "truth" of the religion as theists like to pretend, it is the justification for his inner fears and hangups and a sense of belonging to a group that confirms his subconscious notions about the world.

That is true whether you like to admit it or not.

old hippy

I had to say, I felt a sense of deja vu about the picketing of dead soldiers funerals. And the hatred of people out having a good time. They should hook up with another bunch of extremists; the Westboro Baptist Church (on Louis Theroux)...

Leslie91

Felt sorry for the 17 yr old. Seemed like he needed something to hang on to. Surely he'll be out of that crap before long if not already. Bunch of losers if u ask me with disgusting attitudes to people who do not follow them. We need these people like a hole in the head.

irishconvert

I didn't get to watch the programme but I see words here such as extremist and nutjob. Can someone who watched the programme tell me in what way was the convert an extremist or a nutjob?

Thanks.

GO_Bear

dead one wrote: »

well what he said is true whether you admit it or not.

He hates the army, he hates freedom and democracy, he thinks women should be covered up in public, that they should be stoned to death for adultery

Is this true then ?

old hippy

irishconvert wrote: »

I didn't get to watch the programme but I see words here such as extremist and nutjob. Can someone who watched the programme tell me in what way was the convert an extremist or a nutjob?

Thanks.

Picketed soldiers funerals, would only use his "bad" hand to shake his brother's. Complained about women in short skirts and men holding hands.

Hates the country he lives in and wants it to be under Sharia law.

Fairly extreme, wouldn't you say?

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

I didn't get to watch the programme but I see words here such as extremist and nutjob. Can someone who watched the programme tell me in what way was the convert an extremist or a nutjob?

Thanks.

Sure.

Extremist - Advocating violent over throwing of government to establish an Islamic state. As one of the Islamists interviewed said if you don't give us an Islamic state in Britain we will take it. Protests outside of the American embassy burning American flags and calling for death of Americans (ie not peaceful protest), protests outside of returning British Soldiers that involved fights with the counter protest. Stating that all who do not belong to their particular Islamic group (including other moderate Muslims) are immoral "idiots", advocating a separatist doctrine. Showing visible disgust and hatred to those who did not agree with him or those who match the lifestyle they advocated (ie lacking empathy or pity), for example they started a fight with a drunk man and later when driving around at night would comment with disgust and anger the drunk people they saw.

Nutjobs - It seemed pretty clear from interviews with most of the young men in the video that the religion was simply manipulating their mental or social issues with the rest of society. They seemed to have little genuine understanding of the doctrine they were being taught or what they were telling others. It was devoid of any contextual awareness, repeated as a child might repeat what they were told by their parents. The group practiced the standard elements of a cult, isolating and indoctrinating new members.

krudler

old hippy wrote: »

Picketed soldiers funerals, would only use his "bad" hand to shake his brother's. Complained about women in short skirts and men holding hands.

Hates the country he lives in and wants it to be under Sharia law.

Fairly extreme, wouldn't you say?

Makes me laugh about extremists, hating the country they choose to live in, dont like that it doesnt fit in with your mental views? gtfo, simple as.

Zombrex

krudler wrote: »

Makes me laugh about extremists, hating the country they choose to live in, dont like that it doesnt fit in with your mental views? gtfo, simple as.

The most ironic bit of the doc was at one point the brother was explaining to a member of the public who was shouting at them to piss off that he had a right to be there and to protest under the law, ie he was appealing to the protection of the law that he himself was calling to be disbanded and replaced with Islamic law.

See how well you protest in Saudi Arabia my friend :rolleyes:

Dades

irishconvert wrote: »

I didn't get to watch the programme but I see words here such as extremist and nutjob. Can someone who watched the programme tell me in what way was the convert an extremist or a nutjob?

The particular brotherhood he joined affiliated themselves with Anjem Choudary.
I assume you'd agree his views are extreme, and his Islam4UK group pretty radical.

This wasn't just a documentary about a guy who converted to Islam, which in itself is not particularly newsworthy.

old hippy

krudler wrote: »

Makes me laugh about extremists, hating the country they choose to live in, dont like that it doesnt fit in with your mental views? gtfo, simple as.

tbf, there's a lot about home and the UK that get up my nose but I'm not about to call for a revolution.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

it ultimately went no way into explaining why some white middle class bloke would suddenly embrace Muslim extremism.

Not quite on-topic, more the opposite really, but since it's a while since it last came up, here's a 1972 documentary about a four-year old kid named Marjoe Gortner who was indoctrinated by his fundamentalist parents to the extent that he became a knee-high fundamentalist preacher himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lum9J4-hg

In time, however, Marjoe saw through religion and he finished up his preaching career with a documentary crew who followed him on his last crusade and to whom he spilled the beans on the whole preaching gig.

irishconvert

old hippy wrote: »

Picketed soldiers funerals, would only use his "bad" hand to shake his brother's. Complained about women in short skirts and men holding hands.

Hates the country he lives in and wants it to be under Sharia law.

Fairly extreme, wouldn't you say?

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure.

Extremist - Advocating violent over throwing of government to establish an Islamic state. As one of the Islamists interviewed said if you don't give us an Islamic state in Britain we will take it. Protests outside of the American embassy burning American flags and calling for death of Americans (ie not peaceful protest), protests outside of returning British Soldiers that involved fights with the counter protest. Stating that all who do not belong to their particular Islamic group (including other moderate Muslims) are immoral "idiots", advocating a separatist doctrine. Showing visible disgust and hatred to those who did not agree with him or those who match the lifestyle they advocated (ie lacking empathy or pity), for example they started a fight with a drunk man and later when driving around at night would comment with disgust and anger the drunk people they saw.

Nutjobs - It seemed pretty clear from interviews with most of the young men in the video that the religion was simply manipulating their mental or social issues with the rest of society. They seemed to have little genuine understanding of the doctrine they were being taught or what they were telling others. It was devoid of any contextual awareness, repeated as a child might repeat what they were told by their parents. The group practiced the standard elements of a cult, isolating and indoctrinating new members.

Yup, if the above is true then sounds like you've used the right words to describe him. What pisses me off is that they always use Muslims like this on TV programmes. It just renforces the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists/extremists/whackjobs. I suppose nobody is interested in watching a TV programme about a normal Muslim convert living an everyday life.

Dades

irishconvert wrote: »

I suppose nobody is interested in watching a TV programme about a normal Muslim convert living an everyday life.

It's the same with the Fred Phelps Christian crowd. And if there were a bunch of "extreme atheists" acting like complete assholes they'd get coverage, too.

That's the media for ya.

irishconvert

Wicknight wrote: »

The most ironic bit of the doc was at one point the brother was explaining to a member of the public who was shouting at them to piss off that he had a right to be there and to protest under the law, ie he was appealing to the protection of the law that he himself was calling to be disbanded and replaced with Islamic law.

I've met muslims like this before. They generally don't have a clue and don't know Islam very well. When challenged on their views by a knowledgeable Muslims they usually end up looking like fools.

Wicknight wrote: »

See how well you protest in Saudi Arabia my friend :rolleyes:

Saudi Arabia is a very bad example of an Islamic state. Why people hold it up as a good example is beyone me.

Standman

irishconvert wrote: »

Yup, if the above is true then sounds like you've used the right words to describe him. What pisses me off is that they always use Muslims like this on TV programmes. It just renforces the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists/extremists/whackjobs. I suppose nobody is interested in watching a TV programme about a normal Muslim convert living an everyday life.

Well yes the media do love a bit of fear mongering, but there was a documentary on tv3 last week about Muslims in Ireland which was largely focused on these normal Muslim converts. I thought it was very interesting.

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is a very bad example of an Islamic state. Why people hold it up as a good example is beyone me.

I don't believe the Saudi's hold that view of their country. Nor indeed, do I believe that Iran's religious community believes that their particular version of an islamic state is a bad example either.

Why people on this side of the fence hold these countries up as examples is because they're good examples of the bad that happens when religion controls a state. The fact that it's a "bad example" of a state simply shows that the point is accepted and understood.

Out of interest, what's the country which demos a "good example" of an islamic state?

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is a very bad example of an Islamic state. Why people hold it up as a good example is beyone me.

It seems to be far closer to the state they want, though I appreciate that what they want and other Muslims such as yourself want might be very different.

irishconvert

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe the Saudi's hold that view of their country.

Have you spoken to many Saudis to come to this point of view? The ones I spoke to when I was there were not happy. They were also very reluctant to speak about it with one telling me they would cut his tongue off :-o I stopped asking questions when I heard that!

robindch wrote: »

Nor indeed, do I believe that Iran's religious community believes that their particular version of an islamic state is a bad example either.

Why people on this side of the fence hold these countries up as examples is because they're good examples of the bad that happens when religion controls a state. The fact that it's a "bad example" of a state simply shows that the point is accepted and understood.

No, they are good example of the bad that happens when bad people control a state. Muslims do not control Saudi, a royal family who do not practise Islam control it. They enforce a weird distorted version of Islam on the people to keep them down and keep the wealth and power for themselves. Saudi had the biggest reserves of oil in the world but you should see the state of the place and how the ordinary people live. It's unbelieveable.

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems to be far closer to the state they want, though I appreciate that what they want and other Muslims such as yourself want might be very different.

There is no concept of a monarchy in Islam. There are no rules that prohibit women from driving, education, going out alone, covering themselves head to toe in black. I would almost go as far as saying the west is closer to how an Islamic state should be than Saudi is.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, what's the country which demos a "good example" of an islamic state?

I don't think there are any good examples.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

They enforce a weird distorted version of Islam on the people to keep them down and keep the wealth and power for themselves.
...
There is no concept of a monarchy in Islam. There are no rules that prohibit women from driving, education, going out alone, covering themselves head to toe in black. I would almost go as far as saying the west is closer to how an Islamic state should be than Saudi is.

That isn't all that relevant, since I think it is pretty established that what you call Islam and what these guys call Islam are quite different.

Good luck convincing them they are wrong though

Dades

That seems to be an unfortunate theme with religion.

Not only is the other guy's different religion wrong - so is the some other guy's version of yours.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

That seems to be an unfortunate theme with religion.

Not only is the other guy's different religion wrong - so is the some other guy's version of yours.

One theory of electromagnatism, 40,000 religions

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

There are no rules that prohibit women from driving, education, going out alone, covering themselves head to toe in black.

Well, the Saudi mullahs will disagree with you on that.

irishconvert wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Out of interest, what's the country which demos a "good example" of an islamic state?

I don't think there are any good examples.

Pretty much what I think myself.

Would that suggest to you that islam should have no part in the administration of a state?

irishconvert

robindch wrote: »

Would that suggest to you that islam should have no part in the administration of a state?

I think you know well that I as a Muslim will believe that Allah's law is supreme to any man made law and should form the basis of all law in a state.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

I think you know well that I as a Muslim will believe that Allah's law is supreme to any man made law and should form the basis of all law in a state.

I think the point of Robin's question was would you trust any men to faithfully carry out Allah's law as a government?

There are lot of states that claim to do this, but as you say none do. This would suggest that such an exercise is doomed to corruption and failure, leading to totalitarian regimes who claim authority from Allah by using the authority of Islamic law to impose their will.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Not quite on-topic, more the opposite really, but since it's a while since it last came up, here's a 1972 documentary about a four-year old kid named Marjoe Gortner who was indoctrinated by his fundamentalist parents to the extent that he became a knee-high fundamentalist preacher himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lum9J4-hg

In time, however, Marjoe saw through religion and he finished up his preaching career with a documentary crew who followed him on his last crusade and to whom he spilled the beans on the whole preaching gig.

Just watched that last week. Very good film.

dead one

video wrote:

He hates the army, he hates freedom and democracy, he thinks women should be covered up in public, that they should be stoned to death for adultery

GO_Bear wrote: »

Is this true then ?

These aren't words of rich but his brother, who is speaking on behalf of Rich. So you should remember youtube is best media for propaganda. Now come to Adultery. Zina (adultery‎ ) in Islam is extramarital sex and premarital sex. Islamic law prescribes punishments for Muslim men and women for the act of Zina (adultery)
Islamic law considers this prohibition to be for the protection of men and women and for the respect of marriage. Zina is considered one of the great sins in Islam.(wiki)

He Hates Freedom

Freedom actually means slavery of desires. It means you are free to do whatever you wish. You are free to abusive, You are free in sex, You are free in every aspect of life. That isn't freedom but slavery. Now why he hates freedom because freedom isn't actual freedom. It is diffcult for you to understand because you can't see the end results of this freedom. I hope your future generation will suffer and they will blame you for your slavery
Let me quote you somthing this will clear you what is real freedom

freedom, or hurriyya (arabic), in the “Encyclopedia of Islam” describes a state of divine enthrallment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is “the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him.” Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery” to Allah. To put it another way, Islamic-style “freedom” is freedom from unbelief.

He hates Democracy and Army

democracy” is Greek in origin, demos, meaning people, and krates, meaning authority. Simply it means as you know authority of the people” or the rule of the people by the people and for the people.”. Now people are free in their authority to kill other people. As you had seen How American and its allies are killing innocent men, women and children in the name of democracy. They are free to use their limited army for their hidden agendas. Even army men can't resist this evil system which used them and take their lives. Now tell me why he shouldn't hate democracy where people are illegal in using their authority. Where people are destroying peace of World.In the Islamic State, authority is limited and is exercised within the limits prescribed by God because the authority is delegated to the community as a whole. . Thus, the Islamic State is established under the sovereignty of God and God isn't unjust. People can be unjust in their authority.

he thinks women should be covered up

The religion of nature, the natural religion, Islam, has respected in women in every aspect and had placed the garland of chastity, modesty and decency around her neck. She was made the custodian of virtue and moral values, and was granted the status of honor and esteem. That same woman is now reduced to being a showpiece in commercial institutions. She is now an object of entertainment for men. Now she relieves the fatigue of tired minds and bodies. Now think why women shouldn't cover up. Don't follow your desires.

The Mad Hatter

dead one wrote: »

Freedom actually means slavery of desires. It means you are free to do whatever you wish. You are free to abusive, You are free in sex, You are free in every aspect of life. That isn't freedom but slavery. Now why he hates freedom because freedom isn't actual freedom. It is diffcult for you to understand because you can't see the end results of this freedom. I hope your future generation will suffer and they will blame you for your slavery
Let me quote you somthing this will clear you what is real freedom

Freedom is slavery.

The religion of nature, the natural religion, Islam, has respected in women in every aspect and had placed the garland of chastity, modesty and decency around her neck. She was made the custodian of virtue and moral values, and was granted the status of honor and esteem. That same woman is now reduced to being a showpiece in commercial institutions. She is now an object of entertainment for men. Now she relieves the fatigue of tired minds and bodies. Now think why women shouldn't cover up. Don't follow your desires.

Ignorance is strength.

democracy” is Greek in origin, demos, meaning people, and krates, meaning authority. Simply it means as you know authority of the people” or the rule of the people by the people and for the people.”. Now people are free in their authority to kill other people. As you had seen How American and its allies are killing innocent men, women and children in the name of democracy. They are free to use their limited army for their hidden agendas. Even army men can't resist this evil system which used them and take their lives. Now tell me why he shouldn't hate democracy where people are illegal in using their authority. Where people are destroying peace of World.In the Islamic State, authority is limited and is exercised within the limits prescribed by God because the authority is delegated to the community as a whole. . Thus, the Islamic State is established under the sovereignty of God and God isn't unjust. People can be unjust in their authority.

Big Brother is watching you.

GO_Bear

dead one wrote: »

These aren't words of rich but his brother, who is speaking on behalf of Rich. So you should remember youtube is best media for propaganda. Now come to Adultery. Zina (adultery‎ ) in Islam is extramarital sex and premarital sex. Islamic law prescribes punishments for Muslim men and women for the act of Zina (adultery)
Islamic law considers this prohibition to be for the protection of men and women and for the respect of marriage. Zina is considered one of the great sins in Islam.(wiki)

You did not answer my question. Is the penalty for adultery death? In some muslim countries, and if yes, I want you to tell me if it is disgusting and morally wrong.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Freedom is slavery.

Indeed

irishconvert

GO_Bear wrote: »

You did not answer my question. Is the penalty for adultery death? In some muslim countries, and if yes, I want you to tell me if it is disgusting and morally wrong.

Accoring to the Qur'an, the penalty for adultry is not death, but lashes. Accoring to hadith (written accounts on the life of Muhammed) the penalty is lashes if the parties are not married, but death by stoning if they are married. Bear in mind that some hadith are unreliable, some are third hand accounts of the actions of Muhammed and things he said. As we believe the Qur'an is the word of God, Muslims must follow what is written in it. However for the hadith, we are free to follow or reject hadith. Personally I would reject the stoning to death punishment as I believe it is inconsistent with the other accounts I have read about the life and actions of Muhammed.

GO_Bear

irishconvert wrote: »

Accoring to the Qur'an, the penalty for adultry is not death, but lashes. Accoring to hadith (written accounts on the life of Muhammed) the penalty is lashes if the parties are not married, but death by stoning if they are married. Bear in mind that some hadith are unreliable, some are third hand accounts of the actions of Muhammed and things he said. As we believe the Qur'an is the word of God, Muslims must follow what is written in it. However for the hadith, we are free to follow or reject hadith. Personally I would reject the stoning to death punishment as I believe it is inconsistent with the other accounts I have read about the life and actions of Muhammed.

Would you be for enforcing lashing as a punishment for adultery?

Are you not concerned that your beliefs can be interpreted in so many ways to the point where any criticism you receive can be veiled by simply saying;

• Thats taken out of context
• Thats a different interpretation
• Thats a wrong interpretation

And yet you all in my eyes have an equal claim at what that particular god wants.


One final point, not trying to be flippant but do you consider, those muslims who go by these unreliable haddiths, where adultery and other crimes, are punishable by death through stoning or other barbarous methods, to be bad muslims ? Even though they are part of the same religion, as a result of there own interpretations which results in them commiting sins such as murder where you would only lash the culprit, will they still go to heaven? what about the person who committed adultery and died as a result of these people, would they go to heaven ?

irishconvert

GO_Bear wrote: »

Would you be for enforcing lashing as a punishment for adultery?

Yes I would be in favour of it in an Islamic society where all members of the society were willing participants, i.e. all Muslims of their own free will. But you have to understand in reality it is almost impossible to be convicted of adultry in a properly run Islamic soliety. There are very strict rules for convicting someone of adultery. The actual sexual act must be witnessed by four reliable Muslims who witnessed the act with their own eyes. These people must be upstanding members of the community who are well respected and never lie. Now how many people do you know who have sex on front of four people? None I would guess. This punishment is designed to act as a deterrant so that people will not have sex with anyone other than their spouse. [/QUOTE]

GO_Bear wrote: »

Are you not concerned that your beliefs can be interpreted in so many ways to the point where any criticism you receive can be veiled by simply saying;

• Thats taken out of context
• Thats a different interpretation
• Thats a wrong interpretation

And yet you all in my eyes have an equal claim at what that particular god wants.

I don't have sleepless nights worrying about it.

GO_Bear wrote: »

One final point, not trying to be flippant but do you consider, those muslims who go by these unreliable haddiths, where adultery and other crimes, are punishable by death through stoning or other barbarous methods, to be bad muslims ?

No, I'm sure they believe what they are told by their religious leaders. Perhaps they don't read the Qur'an or Hadith themselves and rely on the guidance of others. If the scholars are deliberatly misguiding their followrs, then I think they are the bad Muslims.

GO_Bear wrote: »

Even though they are part of the same religion, as a result of there own interpretations which results in them commiting sins such as murder where you would only lash the culprit, will they still go to heaven? what about the person who committed adultery and died as a result of these people, would they go to heaven ?

I have no idea who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, only Allah knows that.

Doctor DooM

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes I would be in favour of it in an Islamic society where all members of the society were willing participants, i.e. all Muslims of their own free will. But you have to understand in reality it is almost impossible to be convicted of adultry in a properly run Islamic soliety. There are very strict rules for convicting someone of adultery. The actual sexual act must be witnessed by four reliable Muslims who witnessed the act with their own eyes. These people must be upstanding members of the community who are well respected and never lie. Now how many people do you know who have sex on front of four people? None I would guess. This punishment is designed to act as a deterrant so that people will not have sex with anyone other than their spouse.

That's nice, but how about you answer the question- do you think someone being lashed for commiting adultry is morally wrong?

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

I think you know well that I as a Muslim will believe that Allah's law is supreme to any man made law and should form the basis of all law in a state.

Yet you also believe that every state that has tried to do this has failed.

So, which is it -- state law based upon religious law (and almost certain failure), or state based upon non-religious law (like in the west, where you say that we are much closer to what you believe an islamic state should be).

GO_Bear

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes I would be in favour of it in an Islamic society where all members of the society were willing participants, i.e. all Muslims of their own free will. But you have to understand in reality it is almost impossible to be convicted of adultry in a properly run Islamic soliety. There are very strict rules for convicting someone of adultery. The actual sexual act must be witnessed by four reliable Muslims who witnessed the act with their own eyes. These people must be upstanding members of the community who are well respected and never lie. Now how many people do you know who have sex on front of four people? None I would guess. This punishment is designed to act as a deterrant so that people will not have sex with anyone other than their spouse.

Yet we still hear of people being stoned to death for the act. ( I am aware you are for lashing not death )

However even if this is a "scare tactic", should it ever occur that some how it happens then it will be enforced as it is written as law.

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't have sleepless nights worrying about it.

Thats fair enough.

irishconvert wrote: »

No, I'm sure they believe what they are told by their religious leaders. Perhaps they don't read the Qur'an or Hadith themselves and rely on the guidance of others. If the scholars are deliberatly misguiding their followrs, then I think they are the bad Muslims.

Ok, but you still did not tell me if you consider them to be wrong? i.e they are morally bad and are committing sins by doing this.

If it is indeed the person misguiding them that is commiting the sin and not them as they " Believe ", how do you know you are not misguided in your belief, since it is faith without evidence.

biko

dead one wrote: »

This looks to be him too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1Io_KHKwk

GO_Bear

biko wrote: »

This looks to be him too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1Io_KHKwk

Can't watch more than two minutes.

He's like a kid at a bonfire who decides to throw petrol on the fire

Dades

dead one wrote: »

Freedom actually means slavery of desires. It means you are free to do whatever you wish. You are free to abusive, You are free in sex, You are free in every aspect of life. That isn't freedom but slavery.

So non-Muslims are free to abuse? The laws of Ireland (and pretty much every Western country) specifically make striking your spouse (or anyone) illegal, and yet your religious code specifies how you can beat your spouse?

Top logic there!

Turtwig

GO_Bear wrote: »

Can't watch more than two minutes.

He's like a kid at a bonfire who decides to throw petrol on the fire

Now, now comparing that idiot to those kind of kids would be an insult to those kids.:D

philologos

I caught this on BBC iPlayer there, so much thanks for recommendation. It's quite strange that they use Christian music in the background at some points though!

fatmammycat

dead one wrote: »

These aren't words of rich but his brother, who is speaking on behalf of Rich. So you should remember youtube is best media for propaganda. Now come to Adultery. Zina (adultery‎ ) in Islam is extramarital sex and premarital sex. Islamic law prescribes punishments for Muslim men and women for the act of Zina (adultery)
Islamic law considers this prohibition to be for the protection of men and women and for the respect of marriage. Zina is considered one of the great sins in Islam.(wiki)


Freedom actually means slavery of desires. It means you are free to do whatever you wish. You are free to abusive, You are free in sex, You are free in every aspect of life. That isn't freedom but slavery. Now why he hates freedom because freedom isn't actual freedom. It is diffcult for you to understand because you can't see the end results of this freedom. I hope your future generation will suffer and they will blame you for your slavery
Let me quote you somthing this will clear you what is real freedom




democracy” is Greek in origin, demos, meaning people, and krates, meaning authority. Simply it means as you know authority of the people” or the rule of the people by the people and for the people.”. Now people are free in their authority to kill other people. As you had seen How American and its allies are killing innocent men, women and children in the name of democracy. They are free to use their limited army for their hidden agendas. Even army men can't resist this evil system which used them and take their lives. Now tell me why he shouldn't hate democracy where people are illegal in using their authority. Where people are destroying peace of World.In the Islamic State, authority is limited and is exercised within the limits prescribed by God because the authority is delegated to the community as a whole. . Thus, the Islamic State is established under the sovereignty of God and God isn't unjust. People can be unjust in their authority.


The religion of nature, the natural religion, Islam, has respected in women in every aspect and had placed the garland of chastity, modesty and decency around her neck. She was made the custodian of virtue and moral values, and was granted the status of honor and esteem. That same woman is now reduced to being a showpiece in commercial institutions. She is now an object of entertainment for men. Now she relieves the fatigue of tired minds and bodies. Now think why women shouldn't cover up. Don't follow your desires.

Replace 'garland' with 'yoke' and you have it right. Your tiresome Madonna/Whore views are nothing new or original in ANY religion.

dead one

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Freedom is slavery.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ignorance is strength.

“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Big Brother is watching you.

Good thing is Big Brother is watching. He isn't educating because
education is enemy of ignorance. Perhaps younger brother is educating something against the ignorance of Big Brother.

simple advice to big brother (a quote)

“It is better to conceal one's knowledge than to reveal one's ignorance”

dead one

Dades wrote: »

So non-Muslims are free to abuse? The laws of Ireland (and pretty much every Western country) specifically make striking your spouse (or anyone) illegal, and yet your religious code specifies how you can beat your spouse?

There is restriction in context, if you don't follow that context than you will suffer and that suffering are very clear in western societies.

Dades wrote: »

Top logic there!

some time human mind fails to understand logic because "To error is human"

robindch wrote: »

War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Freedom is slavery.
(Thanks Eric)

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”
Thanks unknown

GO_Bear

dead one wrote: »

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”
Thanks unknown

I could not of said it better myself.

It is not possible for you to know what your god wants , you can only assume based on a book written by men for men.

philologos

Admittedly this documentary struck me in one way. The warmth and coldness that the group of extremists can hold at any given time. It is as the guy who did the documentary said pretty much a paradox.