Muslim group, Ansar al-Sunna, demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened

Conquering land isn't really because of religion, nearly every race done it. British empire alone had 1/3 of the world under its control.

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

- Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936



Did Islam spread by the sword ?

Originally posted by GLaDOS
Are you forgetting the Crusades?

If I am supposed to feel guilty for the Crusades in the 11-13th centuries, shouldn't Muslims feel guilty for conquering that Christian area in the first place (did you know that it was Christian until invaded by Muslims?) and later conquering Southern Europe in the 16th Century?



The Muslims were the original aggressive party.

Originally posted by BuckWilder
I see they occupied parts of Europe around the same time we Europeans were taking over another continent and killing its indigenous people.

Indeed. However only white people are made to feel guilty about their Imperial past. The Muslims are rather proud of theirs.

reply to post by ollncasino


The Ottoman empire was by the Turks! Why do you say Muslims? It's like saying 'Christians invade Poland starting WW2' or 'Jews invade Lebanon'...

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by BuckWilder
I see they occupied parts of Europe around the same time we Europeans were taking over another continent and killing its indigenous people.

Are you sure about that?

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Koran 9:29

Muslims have a religious duty to spread their faith by the sword. Historically, they have taken that duty very literally.

Fallacy of quoting out of context.

You are chopping a verse out of context to make it suitable with your argument. BRAVO, this is getting old "Sigh"

Ladies and gentlemen - viewers/readers Full verses here :

Surat At-Tawbah

DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT

reply to post by ollncasino


"The Muslims were the original aggressive party. "
Roman Empire? Alexander the Great? they were both before Islam arrived.

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by ollncasino

 

The Ottoman empire was by the Turks! Why do you say Muslims? It's like saying 'Christians invade Poland starting WW2' or 'Jews invade Lebanon'...

The Caliphs of the Ottoman Empire would be quite surprised to not be considered Muslim.

They would be even more shocked that a 21st revisionist was trying to deny the central role of Islam in waging Jihad against Christian Europe.

Muhammad said:

"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 24

Are you aware that the word slave comes from Slav?

Those Turks enslaved so many Southern European Slavs that the name stuck!

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire

Due to European intervention during the 19th century, the Empire began to attempt to curtail the slave trade, which had been considered legally valid under Ottoman law since the beginning of the empire.

reply to post by ollncasino


So you're holding all Muslims accountable for invading other countries a century ago? lol

You should focus on current events, things that are relevant.

To all those arguing (and in my opinion derailing) the thread with talk of who was aggressive party, before or after who, going back hundreds of years, quoting passages from their holy book - what relevance does that have now, in the 21st Century?
We are talking here of Islamic followers - going to a country foreign to them, and demanding that this country allow them to create an islamic sub state.
It is that simple.
To me, and many other people on here, that is unacceptable.

There are two viewpoints here, you either
a) agree with them and think they are right to demand such things, and those who disagree are being disciminatory towards islam, intolerant etc.
OR
b) disagree with them, and think their behaviour in doing so is unacceptable, because by doing this action it is the followers of Islam who are being intolerant of the lands they have chosen to live in.

I think you need to sit on whichever side of this argument you must - but just state your viewpoint and why you feel this way, leave all the irrelevant "facts" out of it.

Originally posted by mekhanics
Fallacy of quoting out of context.

You are chopping a verse out of context to make it suitable with your argument. BRAVO, this is getting old "Sigh"

Ladies and gentlemen - viewers/readers Full verses here :

Surat At-Tawbah

Sadly the context of the Sura is warfare.

Sura 9

Peaceful Muslims have been struggling with Sura 9 for at least the last 100 years.

Sadly, violent Jihadists take the exhortations to engage in violent warfare literally.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by ollncasino

 

The Ottoman empire was by the Turks! Why do you say Muslims? It's like saying 'Christians invade Poland starting WW2' or 'Jews invade Lebanon'...

Muhammad said:

"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 24

Investigation, investigation, investigation.................. "Sigh"


Source: www.sunniforum.com...

The reason:

“I was ordered to fight people…”

One well-known hadith that is often misunderstood is as follows:

“I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; establish the ritual prayer; and pay almsgiving. So if they do that, their lives and wealth are safe from me, except for a right recognized in Islam. Their accounting, however, will be with Allah.” [Bukhari, Muslim]

Unfortunately, this text is often grossly misinterpreted as calling for continuous “holy war” against all non-Muslims until and unless they become Muslim. But examination of context and scholarly interpretation reveals that the hadith by no means refers to all people and is not calling for any sort of war, holy or unholy. The key to understanding the hadith, then, is to understand who exactly is meant by the word “people” in the statement, “I was ordered to fight people.”

This same hadith has various narrations as recorded by different hadith scholars. Imam Nasa’i’s narration reads: “I was ordered to fight the polytheists” rather than the word “people,” and it is an established principle in hadith methodology that various narrations of the same hadith serve to clarify its actual meaning. Hence, the narration of Imam Nasa’i indicates that the word “people” in the first narration does not refer to all people, but rather a specific group of people, namely, certain polytheists. This understanding is confirmed by both the Qur’an and the Sunna, as many incidents in the life of the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] clearly show that all of humanity was not intended in the hadith.

This understanding is also confirmed by our codified legal tradition, which is a reflection of the Qur’an and Sunna. Imam Abu Hanifa and his legal school limited this hadith to only the polytheists among the Arabs. And Imam Malik and his legal school limited it to only the Quraysh tribe among them. [Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari]

That is to say, according to both schools of law, all non-Arabs are excluded from the hadith - whether polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, or otherwise. Among the Arabs, any group that does not worship idols are also excluded, whether Jews, Christians, Magians, or otherwise. Only Arab polytheists - or perhaps just the tribe of Quraysh among them - were being addressed by the Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him]. Incidentally, the Hanafi and Maliki schools historically and up to today have constituted the vast majority of the Muslim world.

Imam Kasani, the eminent 6th-century Hanafi jurist, explains that the reasoning of this position is based on the difference between Arab polytheists and all other peoples, including People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians, Arab or non-Arab] and non-Arab polytheists. With respect to peoples other than Arab polytheists, it is hoped that by mutual coexistence between them and Muslims, they will be drawn to Islam after reflecting over the beauty of the religion and its Sacred Law [shari'a]. [f: And that hope is sufficient; whether they become Muslim or not is irrelevant to the Hanafi and Maliki perspective that they are not addressed by the hadith.]

The nature of Arab polytheists, however, was to reject anything that conflicted with their customs and traditions, deeming all else to be madness and worthy of scornful ridicule. They were a people - as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an - that refused to reflect over anything but “the ways of their forefathers.” Therefore, because the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] was from their same tribe and knew them intimately, he gave them no option but acceptance of Islam or fighting [f: And this statement, of course, was after years of being oppressed by those Arab polytheists].

[Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i]

The great early Hanafi jurist and legal theorist, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, confirms this understanding with respect to both the above hadith as well as the related verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). In fact, he states that all the early Meccan verses of peace and forbearance with respect to non-Muslims remain in effect and are not abrogated with respect to all peoples other than the Arab polytheists. And with respect to all the later verses commanding Muslims to fight the polytheists, they abrogate the early verses of peace only with respect to the Arab polytheists.

This understanding is also confirmed by the early Hanafi scholar Abu Layth al-Samarqandi, who comments on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), “That is, do not compel anyone whatsoever to this religion, after the Conquest of Mecca and after the Arabs become Muslim [i.e., the Arab polytheists of that time].”

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

What is the solution?

Quite honestly, Deport them to their original nation of origin. If they are of Norwegian native born citizens, strip them of their citizenship, since they obviously don't want to be Norwegian citizens and then you have the option of imprisoning or offering them a one way ticket to a country that has Sharia law with no chance of returning to Norway.

There comes a point when enough's enough with the stupid demands of radicals and you just show them the boot.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by mekhanics
Fallacy of quoting out of context.

You are chopping a verse out of context to make it suitable with your argument. BRAVO, this is getting old "Sigh"

Ladies and gentlemen - viewers/readers Full verses here :

Surat At-Tawbah

Sadly the context of the Sura is warfare.

Sura 9

Peaceful Muslims have been struggling with Sura 9 for at least the last 100 years.

Sadly, violent Jihadists take the exhortations to engage in violent warfare literally.

edit on 7-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

Sadly, your argument is invalid.

The chapter is called "The Repentance"

Surah 9


Nice try though, dough



By the way...


Did Jesus preach Jihad?

99% of British born whites say they have had it up to the teeth with Muslims, the danger og us being attacked is running at 100% we are told, in UK citys they have become the most part of population, so white people have gone and left the city to them, in Bedford, Bradford, and Northampton the whites are at just 23% of total, we are with thanks to Camerons open door policy on the verge of fighting them on our streets.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
So you're holding all Muslims accountable for invading other countries a century ago? lol

Yet, another poster appears to be holding all Europeans accountable for the Crusades 900 years ago.

Double standards much?

Does Islam instruct Muslims to spread Islam by the sword?

The Islamic Supreme Cleric of Iran appears to thinks so.

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Islam says, kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! ...Whatever good there is, exists thanks to the sword, and in the shadow of the sword!

People cannot be made obedient, except with the sword!

The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!

...Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”—”

—Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989—the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation.

www.religioustolerance.org...

Still, I'm sure his comments were taken out of context...

reply to post by ollncasino



Dude , tell me - Did Jesus preach Jihad?

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Originally posted by mekhanics
Sadly, your argument is invalid.

The chapter is called "The Repentance"

Surah 9

Nice try though, dough

Ironically your own link contains the verse

[Quran 9:5]

“ [But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Sadly for non-Muslims, repentance consists of submitting to Islamic domination and becoming a Muslim. Otherwise it is death.

In other words, nice try at trying to spin Islamic aggression as something benign.

Originally posted by mekhanics
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Dude , tell me - Did Jesus preach Jihad?

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

edit on 7-9-2012 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)

Actually, no. He was telling a parable about a king. Here's the whole thing:

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

In context, verse 27 is talking about executing those who commit treason, which is a reasonable punishment for an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. The person talking in the story in verse 27 is not Jesus but the king. I can't find any text where Jesus demands killing someone. In Quaran, Mohammed says so frequently as a direct admonition, not as part of a story.