http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/us-muslims-begin-to-publicly-confront-questions-on-islam-and-violence.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Here is a link to a New York Times article with the optimistic headline: “US Muslims begin to confront questions on Islam and violence.”

It is primarily to do Bassam Issa of Chattanooga and his views. He is prominent in the local Mosque that supplied the gunman who killed five soldiers recently.

There is no indication in this article that US Muslims are reviewing their beliefs, even if Issa is. Here the article's thesis falls apart, if you consider its elements.

Issa  tries to distance his beliefs from hateful passages in the Koran by saying they are taken out of context. At least he does not try the standard faulty translation defence. But he is still using the fallback position of believers, apologists and appeasers.

He says that Muslim violence is political not religious. This old line does nothing in the way of confronting violence from Islam. Again, it is an attempt to take the blame off Islam by putting into a context westerners might hope to believe.

Instead of confronting the root-cause, in effect he says, Not me, I am a real Muslim, and the violent are not.
The article goes on to itemise gestures of concern from the Islamic community.

But Bassam Issa prefaces one comment on Islamic murders with “Every time something like this happens . . .” It is the subtle truth that the problem is not going away in any public relations campaign.

Issa excuses the Koran, by saying its call for violence is only for defence. If anyone believes that they are beyond reform, but Islam itself cannot be reformed without denying the Prophet and the Koran, and then it would not be Islam.

If this article does anything, it shows the editorial policy of the New York Times is to appease Muslims in the hope they might stop murdering infidels. It is a forlorn hope.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:14am:

Issa excuses the Koran, by saying its call for violence is only for defence. If anyone believes that they are beyond reform, but Islam itself cannot be reformed without denying the Prophet and the Koran, and then it would not be Islam.

We have muslims saying Islam cannot be reformed.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:14am:

He says that Muslim violence is political not religious. This old line does nothing in the way of confronting violence from Islam.

It is confronting violence from Islam - by asserting that its political not religious.

Just because you don't agree with his theological viewpoint doesn't mean that he is not confronting the problem.

Once again we see the tired old call for "reform" to really mean legitimise and endorse the hateful minority ISIS version of Islam, and reject and mock the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:10am:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:14am: Issa excuses the Koran, by saying its call for violence is only for defence. If anyone believes that they are beyond reform, but Islam itself cannot be reformed without denying the Prophet and the Koran, and then it would not be Islam. We have muslims saying Islam cannot be reformed.

Islam has already had a "reformation" - and it created the hateful version taken up by Saudi Arabia:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/17/islam-reformation-extremism-muslim-martin-luther-europe

Islam needs the opposite of reform - it needs to go back to its roots.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:15am:

Once again we see the tired old call for "reform" to really mean legitimise and endorse the hateful minority ISIS version of Islam, and reject and mock the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam.

The ahamdis tried reforming Islam by dropping the obligation for jihad, they are persecuted by mainstream Islam for heretical reforms, they cannot even call themselves muslims in Pakistan.

Muhammad Wahhab reformed Islam, to refute Muhammad Wahhab is to refute Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:17am:

Islam needs the opposite of reform - it needs to go back to its roots.

Muhammad Wahhab reformed Islam by taking it back to its roots, is that the reform you are thinking of?

Ahmadis are persecuted because they don't acknowledge Muhammad as the last prophet. Not saying its right, but lets not be blatantly misleading Baron. The vast majority of muslims reject violent jihad as set out in the Quran:


Quote:

By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.

5:16


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:17am:

Muhammad Wahhab reformed Islam, to refute Muhammad Wahhab is to refute Islam.

erm you're going to have to explain the logic of that Baron.

Does it go something like this? - Wahhab introduced the violent and intolerant version that I want Islam to be - therefore to refute Wahhab is to refute Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:23am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 9:17am: Muhammad Wahhab reformed Islam, to refute Muhammad Wahhab is to refute Islam. erm you're going to have to explain the logic of that Baron. Does it go something like this? - Wahhab introduced the violent and intolerant version that I want Islam to be - therefore to refute Wahhab is to refute Islam?

Wahhab purified Islam by returning it to what it was in $Profit Mo's day, he did nothing innovative.

Muhammad Wahhab is a respected Islamic scholar what are your credentials Gandalf?

define "respected" Baron.

Wahabism was a fringe and insignificant ideology within Islam, and would have remained so if not for its alliance with the British backed House of Saud, who happened to be sitting on top of the energy centre of the world.

Everything you say about Islam is a pathetic attempt to justify yourself. You converts are to despised more than real Muslims.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 11:54am:

Everything you say about Islam is a pathetic attempt to justify yourself. You converts are to despised more than real Muslims.

Yes we know your views issue - you're butt-hurt because you think I'm a race traitor.

Fortunately, most people are not like you - in the real world I'm just a normal person who is respected for what I actually am - not what bigots insist I am.

Apparently I'm such a despicable person "pathetically trying to justify myself" because I insist that the religion I hold is peaceful and just - rather than be a cheerleader for the terrorists. Apparently only if I desist from being an advocate for peace and tolerance will I stop being such a pathetic and despised fake muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:15am:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:14am: He says that Muslim violence is political not religious. This old line does nothing in the way of confronting violence from Islam. It is confronting violence from Islam - by asserting that its political not religious.

".......its political not religious."     !!!!!!!

gandalf,

Your argument,    is that the violence being promoted and enacted in ISLAM's name,    .....is really some kind of violent political expression, by a tiny group or groups of moslem IMPERSONATORS ?



To any reasonable person, your proposition must appear to be a lie, and a falsehood.

Why so ?

Because it can be easily demonstrated to any reasonable person, that the ISLAMIC religious violence [which is seen everyday], which is a violence being motivated by ISLAMIC religious bigotry - is both political AND religious in its nature.

Duh,     .....many, many Koran verses both sanctify and encourage the political AND religious; "violence from Islam".

To claim that this ISLAMIC violence is not religious based violence [a violence which is being witnessed by all humanity, everyday, and wherever moslems exist and live], is an outright, barefaced lie.






polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:15am:

Just because you don't agree with his theological viewpoint doesn't mean that he is not confronting the problem. Once again we see the tired old call for "reform" to really mean legitimise and endorse the hateful minority ISIS version of Islam, and reject and mock the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam.

".....the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam."

Where is it gandalf ?

Where is the majority peaceful version of ISLAM, being practiced, today ?

And where are all of the schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence,        .....which teach this peaceful and tolerant ISLAM, which in your post, you assert is real and exists in the world.



gandalf,

As a counter argument;

Isn't it true that -mainstream- ISLAM teaches religious intolerance and religious bigotry ?

e.g.
All major schools of Sunni ISLAMIC jurisprudence state, and teach their moslem students, that the apostate is to be put to death.


Google;
major schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence, apostate, be put to death




.



Go on gandalf, defend your faith on this forum.

Prove to everyone who reads this thread, that all of the critics, of your ISLAM, are in error.

And prove to everyone who reads this thread that ".....the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam." actually exists,    ......somewhere!


gandalf,

Direct us all, to the online pages, of the many schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence,       which clearly show the pages, and pages authentic ISLAMIC theological script, which is the influence and guidance of your peaceful and tolerant ISLAM.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 12:09pm:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 11:54am: Everything you say about Islam is a pathetic attempt to justify yourself. You converts are to despised more than real Muslims. Yes we know your views issue - you're butt-hurt because you think I'm a race traitor. Fortunately, most people are not like you - in the real world I'm just a normal person who is respected for what I actually am - not what bigots insist I am.

[For.....] What you actually are ?


I always thought that, if a person self declares to be a moslem,        ....then that person actually regarded himself as a moslem.


.


My own proposition and belief,        .....is that;

Every moslem, is a moslem.

That is, that every moslem, who self-declares, and who insists, that he is a moslem,      .....is a person who is declaring that he chooses to follow and support ISLAM's teaching.

And that as a moslem,       ....he/she thereby, is choosing to endorse and support the declared tenets and laws of ISLAM.

That is what a moslem is.        .....imo.




.




THE KORAN....

"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4




THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260




ISLAMIC LAW....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

The thing is that it is all about terminology. Muslims believe that Islam is perfect because it is from God and thus it doesn't require reformation.

What can be reformed however are the interpretations of Islam by fallible human Muslim scholars who interpret the religion based on the context of the time and place in which they exist, such as the political and socio-economic situation of the lands that they are in.

So certainly, Muslims need to be reformed and actually, there was quite a bit of reformation of the schools of thought in Islam during the Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire and a great deal of progression had been made, however thanks to your imperialist ancestors invading the Ottoman Empire and breaking it up, the clock was reset.

The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 11:54am:

Everything you say about Islam is a pathetic attempt to justify yourself. You converts are to despised more than real Muslims.

yes, gandalf is just another muzzie protecting every other muzzie, using whatever they can in the process.

islams a disgusting cult.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

The thing is that it is all about terminology. Muslims believe that Islam is perfect because it is from God and thus it doesn't require reformation. What can be reformed however are the interpretations of Islam by fallible human Muslim scholars who interpret the religion based on the context of the time and place in which they exist, such as the political and socio-economic situation of the lands that they are in. So certainly, Muslims need to be reformed and actually, there was quite a bit of reformation of the schools of thought in Islam during the Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire and a great deal of progression had been made, however thanks to your imperialist ancestors invading the Ottoman Empire and breaking it up, the clock was reset. The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them.

well, what balderdash.
islam was birthed and grew by bloodshed.

if the death cult islam is perfect, it cannot be in any way 'reformed'.
the extremists have spend decades interpreting the koran, the worst book in the world ever,

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:14am:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/us-muslims-begin-to-publicly-confront-questions-on-islam-and-violence.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Here is a link to a New York Times article with the optimistic headline: “US Muslims begin to confront questions on Islam and violence.” It is primarily to do Bassam Issa of Chattanooga and his views. He is prominent in the local Mosque that supplied the gunman who killed five soldiers recently. There is no indication in this article that US Muslims are reviewing their beliefs, even if Issa is. Here the article's thesis falls apart, if you consider its elements. Issa  tries to distance his beliefs from hateful passages in the Koran by saying they are taken out of context. At least he does not try the standard faulty translation defence. But he is still using the fallback position of believers, apologists and appeasers. He says that Muslim violence is political not religious. This old line does nothing in the way of confronting violence from Islam. Again, it is an attempt to take the blame off Islam by putting into a context westerners might hope to believe. Instead of confronting the root-cause, in effect he says, Not me, I am a real Muslim, and the violent are not. The article goes on to itemise gestures of concern from the Islamic community. But Bassam Issa prefaces one comment on Islamic murders with “Every time something like this happens . . .” It is the subtle truth that the problem is not going away in any public relations campaign. Issa excuses the Koran, by saying its call for violence is only for defence. If anyone believes that they are beyond reform, but Islam itself cannot be reformed without denying the Prophet and the Koran, and then it would not be Islam. If this article does anything, it shows the editorial policy of the New York Times is to appease Muslims in the hope they might stop murdering infidels. It is a forlorn hope.

Gandalf likes to present an image of a progressive Muslim reformer. He has different views to people like Australia's Grand Mufti, who prefer to present an image of Islam without need for reform.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

The thing is that it is all about terminology. Muslims believe that Islam is perfect because it is from God and thus it doesn't require reformation. What can be reformed however are the interpretations of Islam by fallible human Muslim scholars who interpret the religion based on the context of the time and place in which they exist, such as the political and socio-economic situation of the lands that they are in. So certainly, Muslims need to be reformed and actually, there was quite a bit of reformation of the schools of thought in Islam during the Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire and a great deal of progression had been made, however thanks to your imperialist ancestors invading the Ottoman Empire and breaking it up, the clock was reset. The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them.

Typical muslim victim mentality in blaming the French and british for fundamental Islam, muslims never do anything wrong it's always someone else's fault.

The first Saudi state predates the collapse of the Ottoman empire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Saud

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:00pm: The thing is that it is all about terminology. Muslims believe that Islam is perfect because it is from God and thus it doesn't require reformation. What can be reformed however are the interpretations of Islam by fallible human Muslim scholars who interpret the religion based on the context of the time and place in which they exist, such as the political and socio-economic situation of the lands that they are in. So certainly, Muslims need to be reformed and actually, there was quite a bit of reformation of the schools of thought in Islam during the Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire and a great deal of progression had been made, however thanks to your imperialist ancestors invading the Ottoman Empire and breaking it up, the clock was reset. The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them. Typical muslim victim mentality in blaming the French and british for fundamental Islam, muslims never do anything wrong it's always someone else's fault.

Snap!      [i.e. what i 'picked up on' too, in Lafayette's post, and explanation of, 'why moslems do anything wrong'.]

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Typical muslim victim mentality in blaming the French and british for fundamental Islam, muslims never do anything wrong it's always someone else's fault. The first Saudi state predates the collapse of the Ottoman empire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Saud

And who supported and propped up the Al Saud's to fight against the Ottoman Empire and establish the ass backwards theocratic state we have today? It was the BRITISH! Just like the BRITISH supported Islamic extremists in Iran to overthrow Mossadeq in Iran and even more recently in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi.

I'm not saying that the terrorists and extremists have no responsibility in their actions. They clearly do, but I'll put it like this, if you raise a dog to be mean and aggressive to attack people you don't like, then you shouldn't be too surprised when that dog bites your kids. That doesn't mean you shouldn't put that dog down, but you just shouldn't be surprised.

And we will put the barbarian Muslim dogs down, just give us a bit of time.
Theres a nice ham bone to chew on seeing it's Christmas, the season to celebrate western christian civilisation.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them.

So the west is to blame for Islamic terrorism, which has nothing to do with Islam?

Sounds like a return to Islam's roots. Did you know that Muhammed himself was a perpetual victim?


Quote:

I'm not saying that the terrorists and extremists have no responsibility in their actions. They clearly do, but I'll put it like this, if you raise a dog to be mean and aggressive to attack people you don't like, then you shouldn't be too surprised when that dog bites your kids. That doesn't mean you shouldn't put that dog down, but you just shouldn't be surprised.

So the British raised Islam? Or raised Muslims? Are they our children? Or pets? At what point do Muslims become people rather than dogs who can take responsibility for their own actions?


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:15am:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:14am: He says that Muslim violence is political not religious. This old line does nothing in the way of confronting violence from Islam. It is confronting violence from Islam - by asserting that its political not religious.

Does Islam make a distinction between political and religious Gandalf?


Quote:

Once again we see the tired old call for "reform" to really mean legitimise and endorse the hateful minority ISIS version of Islam, and reject and mock the overwhelming majority version of a peaceful Islam.

What about the hateful warmongering Muhammed version of Islam? There is no shortage of Muslims with very backwards views Gandalf. Ever been to Malaysia?


Quote:

Islam has already had a "reformation" - and it created the hateful version taken up by Saudi Arabia:

Sounds tired and old to me.


Quote:

Islam needs the opposite of reform - it needs to go back to its roots.

Except for the whole rape and pillage thing, right? We must pick out the more cogent utterings of Muhammed and ignore the rest, then tell all the non-Muslims that is the real Islam.


Quote:

Ahmadis are persecuted because they don't acknowledge Muhammad as the last prophet. Not saying its right, but lets not be blatantly misleading Baron. The vast majority of muslims reject violent jihad as set out in the Quran:

It's a shame no-one told Muhammed about that. We could have avoided the whole embarrassing 1400 year affair.


Quote:

Wahabism was a fringe and insignificant ideology within Islam, and would have remained so if not for its alliance with the British backed House of Saud, who happened to be sitting on top of the energy centre of the world.

You need to coordinate your spin better with lafayette. He is saying it was born to throw off the shackles of western interference. Are Muslims mistreated dogs biting their owner, or glorious liberators fighting the good fight?


Quote:

Apparently I'm such a despicable person "pathetically trying to justify myself" because I insist that the religion I hold is peaceful and just - rather than be a cheerleader for the terrorists. Apparently only if I desist from being an advocate for peace and tolerance will I stop being such a pathetic and despised fake muslim.

False dichotomy.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:59am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:00pm: The more radical forms of interpretation that came into existence were themselves based on the context of the their time and place, which just happened to in colonized lands wanting the shackles of British and French colonization lifted off of them. So the west is to blame for Islamic terrorism, which has nothing to do with Islam? Sounds like a return to Islam's roots. Did you know that Muhammed himself was a perpetual victim?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The only people responsible for the killing of innocent people, are the people that kill innocent people. There may be factors that contribute to radicalization that we can change from our own policies but it doesn't mean that we let them get away with it.

So how should we 'not let them get away with it'?

Give them a stern talking to. 

Perhaps Lafayette means staying out of middle eastern 'politics'.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:59am:

What about the hateful warmongering Muhammed version of Islam?

Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:59am:

You need to coordinate your spin better with lafayette. He is saying it was born to throw off the shackles of western interference. Are Muslims mistreated dogs biting their owner, or glorious liberators fighting the good fight?

Speaking of spin  ;D

Quote:

Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it.

False dichotomy.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

So how should we 'not let them get away with it'?

That depends on the circumstances of where they are. If we can capture them and haul them before a court to answer for their crimes then we do so. If they're a part of an armed force that is there to fight then we kill them.

No one gets a free pass just because they disagree with our foreign policy.

So the terrorists were created by our interference in the middle east (and have nothing to do with Islam), and the solution is to interfere in the middle east?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:24am:

Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it.

Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it.

Nothing will ever be good enough.

Yes. Muslims are the eternal victims. How dare people suggest they do more, merely because of the rising tide of Islamic terrorism?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

So the terrorists were created by our interference in the middle east (and have nothing to do with Islam), and the solution is to interfere in the middle east?

Islam is primarily used by terrorist organizations to encourage and motivate their flocks to have no fear against a bigger and more technologically advanced army. However, the justifications used to commit terrorism are not based on Islam so much are they are based on  political grievances with the West and the perceived wrongs that they feel have been committed against them by the West.

That is not as much the case with ISIL, where they have began to use Islam itself as the justification to fight against the West with the intention to impose a global caliphate on the world. This is very different than Al Qaeda and other organizations.

Though their justification for attacking civilians comes from their perception that the West is killing civilians in the swath of land that they essentially control.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

Quote: Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it. False dichotomy.

The question is not a false dichotomy - I'd be interested in your answer.

Also you do criticise the violent nature of Islam and mock muslims who want to stop it. Not sure where the false dichotomy comes into it.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it.

Actually that wouldn't be so bad - if they didn't simultaneously insist that nothing short of renouncing Islam completely would satisfy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:38am: Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it.  Actually that wouldn't be so bad - if they didn't simultaneously insist that nothing short of renouncing Islam completely would satisfy.

Well what was it that made you think "hey this Islam bizzo sounds like the real deal - I think I'm gonna buy into it".

... wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:20am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:17am: Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:38am: Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it.  Actually that wouldn't be so bad - if they didn't simultaneously insist that nothing short of renouncing Islam completely would satisfy. Well what was it that made you think "hey this Islam bizzo sounds like the real deal - I think I'm gonna buy into it".

Actually gaining a proper understanding of it.

But its irrelevant - the point is you have muslims, you always will have muslims, and insisting that the only way to "reform" Islam is for all 1.5 billion adherents to drop it, just aint a viable proposal.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:30am:

... wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:20am: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:17am: Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:38am: Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it.  Actually that wouldn't be so bad - if they didn't simultaneously insist that nothing short of renouncing Islam completely would satisfy. Well what was it that made you think "hey this Islam bizzo sounds like the real deal - I think I'm gonna buy into it". Actually gaining a proper understanding of it. But its irrelevant - the point is you have muslims, you always will have muslims, and insisting that the only way to "reform" Islam is for all 1.5 billion adherents to drop it, just aint a viable proposal.

Not all 1.5 billion adherents, just the ones who Wish it was something else.  That'd be you and maybe 100 million other "Moslems".

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

However, the justifications used to commit terrorism are not based on Islam so much are they are based on  political grievances with the West and the perceived wrongs that they feel have been committed against them by the West.

Just for a laugh, this is the same FD 8 years ago:


freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2007 at 12:48pm:

While this is a genuine problem at the moment, not every modern terrorist is a muslim and historically they are no different from any other group. The problem with linking it to Islam is that it suggests that Islam must be either destroyed or contained in order to protect ourselves. You know where that leads... It would be more accurate and more useful to say that most current terrorist attacks or by people from the middle east or by people responding to the current situation in the middle east. It is not Islam that breeds terrorism, but political upheaval and the middle east is where most of the world's political problems currently are. As with most of these problems it can be traced back to past historical events, most of them during or immediately after WWII.   Pointing the finger at Islam is an association fallacy. It assumes that Islam is the cause of the violence merely because it is associated with the violence. This is just like saying that any other religion is inherently violent because at some time in history violent acts were committed in it's territory or in it's name on a large and organised scale. Pointing the finger at Islam will inevitably perpetuate the violence. Ending the violence is a far more complicated process that will never be achieved while we grasp for overly simplistic explanations and solutions to our problems.   This is why DT can easily provide evidence to back up his views, but is unable to turn this into suggestions for ending the violence. He baulked last time he was asked to do this and continued trying to prove that Islam is inherently violent while ignoring the real question that was asked - 'what should we do to end the violence?'

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:30am:

But its irrelevant - the point is you have muslims, you always will have muslims, and insisting that the only way to "reform" Islam is for all 1.5 billion adherents to drop it, just aint a viable proposal.

That is precisely correct. That is the difference between the right wing religious extremists who basically want to make this about a war between Islam and the Wests and the rationalists who want to fight religious extremists and terrorists.

Correct Laf - the extreme right know its totally unviable and thats the way they like it, since *NOT* having a viable solution is precisely what they want - endless war, endless hate - without it their lives would have no meaning.

Circle jerk alert.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Correct Laf - the extreme right know its totally unviable and thats the way they like it, since *NOT* having a viable solution is precisely what they want - endless war, endless hate - without it their lives would have no meaning.

This is why I love the US, because protections were put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent this whereas Australia doesn't have those protections.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:35am:

Just for a laugh, this is the same FD 8 years ago: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2007 at 12:48pm: While this is a genuine problem at the moment, not every modern terrorist is a muslim and historically they are no different from any other group. The problem with linking it to Islam is that it suggests that Islam must be either destroyed or contained in order to protect ourselves. You know where that leads... It would be more accurate and more useful to say that most current terrorist attacks or by people from the middle east or by people responding to the current situation in the middle east. It is not Islam that breeds terrorism, but political upheaval and the middle east is where most of the world's political problems currently are. As with most of these problems it can be traced back to past historical events, most of them during or immediately after WWII.   Pointing the finger at Islam is an association fallacy. It assumes that Islam is the cause of the violence merely because it is associated with the violence. This is just like saying that any other religion is inherently violent because at some time in history violent acts were committed in it's territory or in it's name on a large and organised scale. Pointing the finger at Islam will inevitably perpetuate the violence. Ending the violence is a far more complicated process that will never be achieved while we grasp for overly simplistic explanations and solutions to our problems.   This is why DT can easily provide evidence to back up his views, but is unable to turn this into suggestions for ending the violence. He baulked last time he was asked to do this and continued trying to prove that Islam is inherently violent while ignoring the real question that was asked - 'what should we do to end the violence?'

So basically FD knows the truth but is just being a troll?

FD saw the light.

He now blames Islam - on everything.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:24am: Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it. Don't forget criticizing Muslims for not doing enough to stop it. Nothing will ever be good enough.

It's the responsibility of all Muslims to report anything suspicious to the authorities.

Anything less and the person should be charged with being a
collaborator in crime -  for being a traitor to our nation.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

It's the responsibility of all Muslims to report anything suspicious to the authorities. Anything less and the person should be charged with being a collaborator in crime -  for being a traitor to our nation.

The only way that the Australian and US Governments have been able to stop terrorist attacks before they take place has been through the Muslim community assisting them. That's why making the Muslim community adversaries rather than partners is counter productive.

Muslims reported Man Horan Monis to the police over 10 years ago.

The police did nothing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:05am:

Muslims reported Man Horan Monis to the police over 10 years ago. The police did nothing.

what about?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:59am: It's the responsibility of all Muslims to report anything suspicious to the authorities. Anything less and the person should be charged with being a collaborator in crime -  for being a traitor to our nation. The only way that the Australian and US Governments have been able to stop terrorist attacks before they take place has been through the Muslim community assisting them. That's why making the Muslim community adversaries rather than partners is counter productive.

Yes - we need the help of the Muslim community  to crush their radicals.

However - we should go a step further & make it mandatory to report suspicious activities.

Was this the same Muslims who want cameras in mosques?


Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:38am: So the terrorists were created by our interference in the middle east (and have nothing to do with Islam), and the solution is to interfere in the middle east? Islam is primarily used by terrorist organizations to encourage and motivate their flocks to have no fear against a bigger and more technologically advanced army. However, the justifications used to commit terrorism are not based on Islam so much are they are based on  political grievances with the West and the perceived wrongs that they feel have been committed against them by the West. That is not as much the case with ISIL, where they have began to use Islam itself as the justification to fight against the West with the intention to impose a global caliphate on the world. This is very different than Al Qaeda and other organizations. Though their justification for attacking civilians comes from their perception that the West is killing civilians in the swath of land that they essentially control.

Is that a yes? How should we interfere?


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:35am: Quote: Is a version of Islam I reject, obviously. Who do you think is more useful in bringing an end to Islamic terrorism FD - the muslim who campaigns for a peaceful Islam and denounces violence in its name - or the muslim who adheres to the "hateful warmongering" version? For some reason you insist on this double act of criticising the violent nature of Islam *AND* mocking the muslims who want to stop it. False dichotomy. The question is not a false dichotomy - I'd be interested in your answer. Also you do criticise the violent nature of Islam and mock muslims who want to stop it. Not sure where the false dichotomy comes into it.

Sorry I assumed it was rhetorical. Do you want to know whether terrorists or anti-terrorists are more useful in fighting terrorism?


Quote:

This is why I love the US, because protections were put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent this whereas Australia doesn't have those protections.

Like the right to bear arms? How's that working out for you?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:07am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:04am: Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:59am: It's the responsibility of all Muslims to report anything suspicious to the authorities. Anything less and the person should be charged with being a collaborator in crime -  for being a traitor to our nation. The only way that the Australian and US Governments have been able to stop terrorist attacks before they take place has been through the Muslim community assisting them. That's why making the Muslim community adversaries rather than partners is counter productive. Yes - we need the help of the Muslim community  to crush their radicals. However - we should go a step further & make it mandatory to report suspicious activities.

No, having an "authentic" Arab serving our factory-made kebabs is not worth the cost of living in a police state. 

Moslem communities in western nations don't just spontaneously arise through an unstoppable force of nature - we create them with our own hand.  We don't need a "partnership" with our Muslim communities, we need to stop making them to begin with.

... wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:07am: Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:04am: Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:59am: It's the responsibility of all Muslims to report anything suspicious to the authorities. Anything less and the person should be charged with being a collaborator in crime -  for being a traitor to our nation. The only way that the Australian and US Governments have been able to stop terrorist attacks before they take place has been through the Muslim community assisting them. That's why making the Muslim community adversaries rather than partners is counter productive. Yes - we need the help of the Muslim community  to crush their radicals. However - we should go a step further & make it mandatory to report suspicious activities. No, having an "authentic" Arab serving our factory-made kebabs is not worth the cost of living in a police state.  Moslem communities in western nations don't just spontaneously arise through an unstoppable force of nature - we create them with our own hand.  We don't need a "partnership" with our Muslim communities, we need to stop making them to begin with.

You don't agree with sir Bobby's new law?

Look - they're here now - it's too late -

all we can do is make new laws.

Quote:

Monis, who had no connection with Arkana College, sent about a dozen faxed messages to Karolia objecting to the school's ties with Mount Sinai College. He also condemned Karolia as a "traitor and sell-out" to Islam for organising an inter-faith Anzac Day ceremony for his students. Karolia complained to the federal police when the messages turned threatening, but he heard nothing more of Monis until the carnage at the Lindt cafe. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-controversies-raging-inside-our-islamic-schools-20151012-gk790z.html#ixzz3vCH0Hfh6 Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

Do you want to know whether terrorists or anti-terrorists are more useful in fighting terrorism?

Absolutely.

Or, to put it a slightly different way, do you think its worthwhile encouraging muslims who preach anti-terrorism in the interests of fighting terrorism - rather than constantly mock them and attempt to de-legitimise them?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:07am:

Yes - we need the help of the Muslim community  to crush their radicals. However - we should go a step further & make it mandatory to report suspicious activities.

Mandatory reporting is unenforceable and will simply be a means of punishing a group of people for the actions of terrorists.

I think the hand holding strategy is probably more effective in the short term, but may undermine efforts in the long term.

Long term, we need to address the underlying issues.

This problem won't go away overnight just by being nice to Muslims.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:07am: Yes - we need the help of the Muslim community  to crush their radicals. However - we should go a step further & make it mandatory to report suspicious activities. Mandatory reporting is unenforceable and will simply be a means of punishing a group of people for the actions of terrorists.

No - it would work as the whole family not just the one radical member would be up on charges -

that would make a huge dent in their plans.

That's how the Israelis deal with them -

they bulldoze the whole family home down if one member is a terrorist.

Ask the Jews - it works!

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

Is that a yes? How should we interfere?

We should interfere in whatever is in our interests to interfere in. But we shouldn't then lie about the consequences of our interference and say that our interference was not a contributing factor to the terrorism that we then get attacked with.

To do so would be dishonest and would only lead us into more problems. Taking ownership of our actions is the only way to properly protect ourselves. That doesn't mean that we will have to stop our interference, but it will give us a better opportunity to assess where threats are coming from and protect ourselves agains them. It will also provide us with a measure to see whether our policy is worth the blowback.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

Like the right to bear arms? How's that working out for you?

Very well. next to me I have an AKM, a Beretta 1301 Tactical and a Glock 19. All are fully loaded and ready to rock and roll :)

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

I think the hand holding strategy is probably more effective in the short term, but may undermine efforts in the long term. Long term, we need to address the underlying issues. This problem won't go away overnight just by being nice to Muslims.

I completely agree with you FD. Obviously if there are issues in the community they need to be addressed, but we need to make sure that we are not exacerbating them with our actions.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:31am:

No - it would work as the whole family not just the one radical member would be up on charges - that would make a huge dent in their plans. That's how the Israelis deal with them - they bulldoze the whole family home down if one member is a terrorist. Ask the Jews - it works!

Yeah, let's ask the Jews.. in WW2 about how collective guilt worked for them under Hitler's persecution.

It's idiotic and only causes more problems. Those problems are only being amplified in the Palestinian territories with the demolishing of the homes of people.

It's very simple in that you can rarely prove that people knew about it and it becomes a witch hunt.

Lafayette did you know that Gandalf actually supports mass murder and collective guilt in some circumstances where it involves scheming Jews?


Quote:

We should interfere in whatever is in our interests to interfere in. But we shouldn't then lie about the consequences of our interference and say that our interference was not a contributing factor to the terrorism that we then get attacked with.

So when you blame the west for terrorism, this is not actually a criticism?


Quote:

Very well. next to me I have an AKM, a Beretta 1301 Tactical and a Glock 19. All are fully loaded and ready to rock and roll

And this protects you from terrorism?


Quote:

I completely agree with you FD. Obviously if there are issues in the community they need to be addressed, but we need to make sure that we are not exacerbating them with our actions.

You think Islam itself needs reform, rather than simple window dressing?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:31am: No - it would work as the whole family not just the one radical member would be up on charges - that would make a huge dent in their plans. That's how the Israelis deal with them - they bulldoze the whole family home down if one member is a terrorist. Ask the Jews - it works! Yeah, let's ask the Jews.. in WW2 about how collective guilt worked for them under Hitler's persecution. It's idiotic and only causes more problems. Those problems are only being amplified in the Palestinian territories with the demolishing of the homes of people. It's very simple in that you can rarely prove that people knew about it and it becomes a witch hunt.

No - a verdict before 12 men - brave & true is enough to prove guilt.

forgiven

namaste

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:28am:

I think the hand holding strategy is probably more effective in the short term, but may undermine efforts in the long term. Long term, we need to address the underlying issues. This problem won't go away overnight just by being nice to Muslims.

No one is saying it will go away "just by being nice to Muslims" - but what I asked specifically was to do with supporting and empowering muslims who preach against terrorism and prosecute the peaceful version of Islam. Your posting history indicates you are more interested in mocking and de-legitimising these muslims - while others like issuevoter actually take it to the absurd level of ridiculing such efforts as not confronting the issue of violence in Islam.

Do you think such criticism by non-muslims is counter-productive to the fight against terrorism?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

Lafayette did you know that Gandalf actually supports mass murder and collective guilt in some circumstances where it involves scheming Jews?

I have no idea, show me where he has said that.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

So when you blame the west for terrorism, this is not actually a criticism?

I haven't blamed the West for terrorism. I'm saying that if we want to have certain policies towards other nations, we have to understand that the people that live in those nations may not be happy with that and may try and attack us for it.

If we are prepared to deal with that and it is worth having those policies then that is fine. What we shouldn't do however is say that our policies do not in any way contribute to hatred towards us and ultimately lead to attacks against us.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

And this protects you from terrorism?

Yeah, if terrorists try and barge through my door they're getting shot in the face.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

You think Islam itself needs reform, rather than simple window dressing?

I think that the interpretation of Islam by Muslim scholars to form the Islamic schools of thought need reform and that it is often based on cultural practices rather than Islam itself.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

No - a verdict before 12 men - brave & true is enough to prove guilt. forgiven namaste

No, you first need probable cause to be able to charge someone with a crime even before you get to a trial and usually there isn't even that in these situations. So unless you are prepare to lower the standards of charging someone with a crime for all crimes, thus making kangaroo courts then it just won't work.

I might also point out that the Israelis don't hold trials in this case, just like the Nazis didn't when applying collective guilt against the Jewish people during WW2

Quote:

but what I asked specifically was to do with supporting and empowering muslims

You may interpret my answer as being in reference to your points. By support, do you mean giving them money to help them preach Islam?


Quote:

I have no idea, show me where he has said that.

Do a search for "tough titties, off with their heads". He uses that phrase quite a lot when we talk about slaughtering scheming Jews.


Quote:

Yeah, if terrorists try and barge through my door they're getting shot in the face.

So you carry your gun on you round the house in case Muslim come barging through the door?


Quote:

I think that the interpretation of Islam by Muslim scholars to form the Islamic schools of thought need reform and that it is often based on cultural practices rather than Islam itself.

"Nothing to do with Islam" will suffice.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

You may interpret my answer as being in reference to your points. By support, do you mean giving them money to help them preach Islam?

no, I specifically said by not mocking them and trying to de-legitimise them.

Do you think people who do mock and try and de-legitimise muslims who preach against terrorism are being counter-productive in the fight against terrorism?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

Do a search for "tough titties, off with their heads". He uses that phrase quite a lot when we talk about slaughtering scheming Jews.

Ah yes - that would be where I specifically spoke up against collective punishment and defended the decision to execute men who had violated the treaty they had with Muhammad, and conspired with the people who were attempting to overrun Medina and slaughter its inhabitants. The same time you attempted to put "I support collective punishment" and "scheming jews" into my mouth.

Don't worry Laf, you'll get used to FD - a little while back he insisted I wanted to execute gays - by referencing a thread where I literally said the exact opposite.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

So you carry your gun on you round the house in case Muslim come barging through the door?

Actually I carry my gun on me around the house in case anyone barges through my door. You asked me specifically about terrorists and I answered to that.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

"Nothing to do with Islam" will suffice.

It won't suffice because that's not what I said. It has to do with extreme interpretations of Islam by fallible men that are guided by their own hateful perversions, biases and lusts for power and wealth.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:16pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 12:02pm: Do a search for "tough titties, off with their heads". He uses that phrase quite a lot when we talk about slaughtering scheming Jews. Ah yes - that would be where I specifically spoke up against collective punishment and defended the decision to execute men who had violated the treaty they had with Muhammad, and conspired with the people who were attempting to overrun Medina and slaughter its inhabitants. The same time you attempted to put "I support collective punishment" and "scheming jews" into my mouth. Don't worry Laf, you'll get used to FD - a little while back he insisted I wanted to execute gays - by referencing a thread where I literally said the exact opposite.

I believe that the Banu Qurayza got exactly what they deserved. Their religion or ethnicity was irrelevant as they committed treason and attacked the state by attacking it from within while the state was being attacked by hordes of savages trying to overrun them and kill them all.

Had the Banu Qurayza had any honor then they'd have left the state and fought it from outside. Instead they committed treason.

I also believe that any American, regardless of their religion, that has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then attacks the state from within to overthrow our system of government should also be put to death.

Quote:

Do you think people who do mock and try and de-legitimise muslims who preach against terrorism are being counter-productive in the fight against terrorism?

I suppose it depends on whether they are legitimate or funny.


Quote:

Ah yes - that would be where I specifically spoke up against collective punishment and defended the decision to execute men who had violated the treaty they had with Muhammad, and conspired with the people who were attempting to overrun Medina and slaughter its inhabitants. The same time you attempted to put "I support collective punishment" and "scheming jews" into my mouth.

Earth to Gandalf. Slaughtering 800 people without trial is collective punishment. You even concede they were punished as a collective, but tried to make a distinction between that and collective punishment, because collective punishment makes it sound bad.


Quote:

Actually I carry my gun on me around the house in case anyone barges through my door.

Don't worry, I am sure this is perfectly normaly behaviour for a Muslim gun nut who works in anti-terrorism.


Quote:

You asked me specifically about terrorists and I answered to that.

Ah, but you did so much more.


Quote:

I believe that the Banu Qurayza got exactly what they deserved. Their religion or ethnicity was irrelevant as they committed treason and attacked the state by attacking it from within while the state was being attacked by hordes of savages trying to overrun them and kill them all.

So collective punishment is OK when Muslims do it in an effort to create an Islamic State?


Quote:

I also believe that any American, regardless of their religion, that has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then attacks the state from within to overthrow our system of government should also be put to death.

Along with 800 of his closest male relatives? And you get some of the women for yourself?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Earth to Gandalf. Slaughtering 800 people without trial is collective punishment. You even concede they were punished as a collective, but tried to make a distinction between that and collective punishment, because collective punishment makes it sound bad.

There was a trial, and they were judged according to Jewish law, as they asked for. They even got to choose their own judge.

The 800 males were all fighting aged males that participated in the treason.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Don't worry, I am sure this is perfectly normaly behaviour for a Muslim gun nut who works in anti-terrorism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGBEDCxmyzs
This is why people carry guns even at home, because of home invasions. Having a firearm close can save the lives of your family.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

So collective punishment is OK when Muslims do it in an effort to create an Islamic State?

Madinah wasn't an Islamic state, certainly not in the Islamist modern sense of the word.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Along with 800 of his closest male relatives? And you get some of the women for yourself?

They weren't judged according to Islamic law though, that was according to Jewish law.. Had they been judged according to Islamic law they'd have been exiled like the other two tribes.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 1:27pm: Earth to Gandalf. Slaughtering 800 people without trial is collective punishment. You even concede they were punished as a collective, but tried to make a distinction between that and collective punishment, because collective punishment makes it sound bad. There was a trial, and they were judged according to Jewish law, as they asked for. They even got to choose their own judge. The 800 males were all fighting aged males that participated in the treason. .... They weren't judged according to Islamic law though, that was according to Jewish law.. Had they been judged according to Islamic law they'd have been exiled like the other two tribes.

Don't be daft.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

I suppose it depends on whether they are legitimate or funny.

Can you explain this please?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

I believe that the Banu Qurayza got exactly what they deserved. Their religion or ethnicity was irrelevant as they committed treason and attacked the state by attacking it from within while the state was being attacked by hordes of savages trying to overrun them and kill them all.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Madinah wasn't an Islamic state, certainly not in the Islamist modern sense of the word.

What kind of state was it/wasn't it??