Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1459123428 Message started by freediver on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:03am

Title: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:03am

What should the Scotts do with this one Gandalf?

Glasgow mosque leader praises extremist killer

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123

The religious leader at Scotland's biggest mosque has praised an extremist who was executed for committing murder in Pakistan, the BBC can reveal.

Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman of Glasgow Central Mosque used the messaging platform WhatsApp to show his support for Mumtaz Qadri.

Qadri was hanged in February after murdering a local politician who opposed strict blasphemy laws.

In a statement the imam said the messages had been taken out of context.

He said that he was expressing his opposition to capital punishment.

In messages seen by the BBC, Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman says that he is "disturbed" and "upset" at the news of Qadri's execution, before writing "rahmatullahi alai", a religious blessing usually given to devout Muslims and meaning may God's mercy be upon him.

In another, he says: "I cannot hide my pain today. A true Muslim was punished for doing which [sic] the collective will of the nation failed to carry out."

Maulana Habib Ur Rehman is the most senior imam at Glasgow Central Mosque, a role which involves leading prayers and giving religious guidance and teachings.

The BBC has confirmed with members of the group that the messages come from the imam.

Qadri was employed as a bodyguard for the governor of Punjab province in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, before turning on him in 2011 and shooting him 28 times.

After the shooting Qadri reportedly told journalists that he was "proud" and that he had killed a "blasphemer".

Analysis

BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent Caroline Wyatt

The support for Qadri expressed in the UK by some Muslims from a group within Islam that is generally regarded as moderate was unexpected.

Those supporting his actions came from within Sunni Islam, and a group known as Barelvis, who control just under 40% of mosques in the UK.

These Sufis are not generally connected with jihadist groups, and present themselves in Pakistan and elsewhere as defenders of a moderate, peaceful Islam.

However, on the day of Qadri's funeral, one of the co-directors of the Association of British Muslims, Paul Salahuddin-Armstrong, was so shocked by comments on social media in the UK praising the killer that he wrote a blog post.

"Horrified… I honestly don't know where to begin," he said.

He said he was also "appalled" to find a prominent mosque in Birmingham - the Ghamkol Sharif - had termed Qadri a "martyr" on its website.

The Barelvis' reverence for the Prophet Muhammad is one of great intensity, and goes back to the founder of their movement, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, in the 19th Century. So the issue of blasphemy is one that is likely to rouse strong emotions among Barelvi wherever they live.

Nonetheless, the public support for a convicted murderer by some of their religious leaders in the UK will worry some observers of Islam here.

Pakistan has some of the strictest blasphemy laws in the world, which can carry a potential death sentence for those judged to have insulted the majority religion of Islam.

Human rights campaigners and liberal politicians, including Taseer, have criticised the laws as draconian and believe that they are abused to target minority groups.

The laws do, however, have mainstream support in the country and an estimated crowd of more than 30,000 people attended Qadri's funeral earlier this month.

Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman told the BBC: "The assassination of Salman Taseer is widely condemned.

"Whether I agree or disagree with the views he expressed, as an Imam and as a human being I express abhorrence at the manner in which he was executed.

"The execution was not in accordance with Islamic teachings and principles."

'Nazi' comparison

The Imam also likens Qadri's actions to those fighting Nazi occupation during World War Two.

"Just when France was occupied by Nazies [sic], French did all they had to in order to protect their nation," he writes.

"They were national heroes. Hanging Mumtaz Qadri has raised serious questions about Pakistan's independence."

And he links his execution to the issue of Pakistani nationhood.

"The issue is not of an individual. The issue is of national identity and Islamic spirit."

"The fact that the nation chose to settle the issue of Reymond Davis [sic] by forcing his relatives to accept the blood money, and sending Mumtaz bhai [brother] to gallows is a source of grief and immense pain."

Raymond Davis was a contractor with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Pakistan.

In 2011, he was arrested and imprisoned in the city of Lahore after he was accused of shooting dead two men, triggering a diplomatic incident between the two countries.

He was released after the families of the two men were paid compensation of $2.3m, which many in the country considered to be "blood money".

The WhatsApp messages are the latest controversy at Glasgow Central Mosque, which is the largest place of worship of any religion in Scotland.

The mosque was plunged into turmoil last month when seven members of its executive committee resigned amid claims of intimidation by more conservative figures at the mosque.

The allegations were denied by those accused.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:05am

give him to the paki's so they can execute him too

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by GordyL on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:37pm

File this one under: What Muslims really think.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 1:13pm

G had better get this one right, FD.

You’ll be asking supplimentary questions.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 1:15pm

The real story is the pathetic response by the British authorities to these kinds of people.

It's the same mentality of political cowardice that was shown by a score of leading authorities in the town of Rotherham during the years that 1,400 children were being groomed for sex by a group of Pakistani Muslims.

For every Muslim who goes astray - there are scores of British politicians, law-makers, academics, leading journalists, and police commissioners who counsel that 'tolerance and understanding' should be the correct response, and not thoughts of retribution lest this be seen as 'racist'.

The divide between what the British ruling classes think about these things and what the public thinks about these instances of Muslim mischief is growing ever wider by the day.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 1:51pm

FD I thought you might have learned by now how to spell 'Scots' properly.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by moses on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 1:57pm

islam can never defend itself with truth, reason and logic.

They use of lies is the first line of defence utilized to excuse the filth and depravity of islam (it doesn't really mean what it says - islam is a religin of peace - islam is tolerant - etc.etc.etc.)

If the lies are rejected then force is the order of the day, kill the sceptical for blasphemy, apostasy, disbelief etc.

This goes back to the foundations of islam, muhammad had people murdered for rejecting his depravities (including innocent women with young children, one of whom was still a suckling)

islam is utterly evil

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:14pm

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

What should the Scotts do with this one Gandalf?

I'm actually a bit perplexed by this question FD. Normally when someone here asks this sort of question, the correct answer is "deport him" and/or ban him. Yet I wouldn't have figured you for advocating that sort of thing - quite the opposite in fact. I would expect you to be standing up for his right to say these sort of things.

So would you agree that what "the Scotts [sic] should do with this one" - is to defend his right to free speech?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:23pm

Sure. But there are certainly things that can be done that do not violate his freedom of speech.

But I wasn't asking you what you think I think.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:30pm

Its a nothing question FD - if we both agree that 'the Scots' shouldn't do anything to violate his right to free speech. So we get on to the bleeding obvious stuff like condemn his views and say how wrong they are. And in case I'm not clear enough, that course of action (condemn and say he is wrong) is my final answer to the original question.

But far more relevant is to ask what the muslim community that he represents should be doing - in which case I would answer that they should democratically move to have him removed from his position, or at the very least censure him.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:30pm

Free speech doesn't include treasonous speech during a time of War on Terror.

And this dude was renting that Prayer Hall from the Scott family who lived next door.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:30pm:

You would be happy censuring him?

You seemed to support the closure of French mosques. What makes this one different?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:49pm

I made a general point that inciters to violence should be shut down - thats true.

To be honest I didn't really consider that the comment was incitement, more about expressing his support for Pakistani blasphemy laws. In hindsight though, praising a murderer could be considered incitement - I'm not sure. But not really any more so than praising the drone operators who routinely slaughter children in Pakistan.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm

What sort of person thinks it's alright to kill somebody for insulting religion?? That's nuts. Religion doesn't care who insults it. That's like insulting soccer or a wardrobe.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:07pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

I used to play soccer actually.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:08pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

I used to play soccer actually.

you're not actually 'playing' when you are the ball.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:09pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

I used to play soccer actually.

you're not actually 'playing' when you are the ball.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:11pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

I used to play soccer actually.

you're not actually 'playing' when you are the ball.

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

That's like insulting soccer

try it in the wrong part of Colombia and see how long you live :D :D :D

You could scratch your nuts in public in Columbia and get wacked. I doubt many people care if you insult soccer. Your parents might though.

nah ... my parents might care that you would pretend to know about soccer, but not that you insult it. It's like insulting a pom or any other inanimate object.

I used to play soccer actually.

you're not actually 'playing' when you are the ball.

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:19pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Yep. Some of my relatives fought against the AXIS forces (the Nazi's and her allies) like Italy. Your people surrendered on mass so they weren't a problem.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:21pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Yep. Some of my relatives fought against the AXIS forces (the Nazi's and her allies) like Italy. Your people surrendered on mass so they weren't a problem.

wasn't a problem for me. One grandfather was in Africa, didn't see any real action, he was an army cook anyway. The other was in Argentina working. Saw no action.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:22pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Yep. Some of my relatives fought against the AXIS forces (the Nazi's and her allies) like Italy. Your people surrendered on mass so they weren't a problem.

wasn't a problem for me. One grandfather was in Africa, didn't see any real action, he was an army cook anyway. The other was in Argentina working. Saw no action.

Your grandfather would have cooked for Rommel's Army. I can see why you don't like racist fascists when you had one in the family.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:36pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Yep. Some of my relatives fought against the AXIS forces (the Nazi's and her allies) like Italy. Your people surrendered on mass so they weren't a problem.

wasn't a problem for me. One grandfather was in Africa, didn't see any real action, he was an army cook anyway. The other was in Argentina working. Saw no action.

Your grandfather would have cooked for Rommel's Army. I can see why you don't like racist fascists when you had one in the family.

Are you the only racist in your family ?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by issuevoter on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:58pm

Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it does not really exist. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to grow up and face reality. To murder someone for such a figment of imagination, or to praise the murder, is stark raving bonkers.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:14pm

stark raving bonkers is in the eye of the beholder

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by GordyL on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:22pm

The real question here is why haven't the member of his mosque demand his removal ?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by kemal on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

stark raving bonkers is in the eye of the beholder

Does that include yourself with regard to Islam and your insatiable appetite for it?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Hey John, did any of your relatives fight with the Nazi's during WW2.

sure, during the early part of the war. ... they lived in Italy during WWII. Did your family fight against their home country in WWII?

Yep. Some of my relatives fought against the AXIS forces (the Nazi's and her allies) like Italy. Your people surrendered on mass so they weren't a problem.

wasn't a problem for me. One grandfather was in Africa, didn't see any real action, he was an army cook anyway. The other was in Argentina working. Saw no action.

Your grandfather would have cooked for Rommel's Army. I can see why you don't like racist fascists when you had one in the family.

Are you the only racist in your family ?

So do you reckon your Italian ancestors went out in the street waving flags and throwing flowers when Mussolini bunged on a public speech John? Do you know many Italians were escaping other Italians when they came out here after WW2. For siding with the SS and other deplorable reasons. That might have been your grandparents?? The village turned on them and they had to choice? :-?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I reckon you're an id iot who has no idea. They came here for work. About 15 years after the war. If they were running, they weren't very fast :D :D :D

But you didn't answer my question ... fair is fair, I've answered yours. Are you the only racist in your family?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:07pm

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

The real question here is why haven't the member of his mosque demand his removal ?

they should

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:08pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I'm not a racist. Now your relos were racists. You don't get more racist than fighting for and supporting Hitler.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I'm not a racist. Now your relos were racists. You don't get more racist than fighting for and supporting Hitler.

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ... you should read your history sometime.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:12pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I'm not a racist. Now your relos were racists. You don't get more racist than fighting for and supporting Hitler.

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ... you should read your history sometime.

They were all on the same side. Italians and Germans even fought together. You have fascist supporter in your blood. What a laugh!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:16pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.
[/quote]

;D ;D ;D

Tell him, 'John'.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:17pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I'm not a racist. Now your relos were racists. You don't get more racist than fighting for and supporting Hitler.

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ... you should read your history sometime.

They were all on the same side. Italians and Germans even fought together. You have fascist supporter in your blood. What a laugh!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

firstly, fighting with is not the same as fighting FOR

Secondly, I'm sure I've got family members that support all sorts of different political ideological positions, From the left to the right. I agree with some of them about as much as I agree with you, other less. That you think that is some sort of win for you speaks volumes about you.

You should stop being a puppet and grow a set of balls. Use your brain and do your own thinking every now and then instead of just parroting what your parents told you.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:19pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.

;D ;D ;D

Tell him, 'John'.[/quote]

It seems that my confidence in him was over rated. .. I don't think he's got it yet. Perhaps you can help him Herb ;)

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:22pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

I'm not a racist. Now your relos were racists. You don't get more racist than fighting for and supporting Hitler.

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ... you should read your history sometime.

They were all on the same side. Italians and Germans even fought together. You have fascist supporter in your blood. What a laugh!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

At least I never had relatives fight for HITLER. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Yadda on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:24pm

Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman

A moslem is a follower of ISLAM. < -------- dictionary definition.

Every moslem, is a moslem.

.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 11:48pm:

Most Muslims are neither religious fanatics nor assassins.

Every moslem resident within a secular jurisdiction [e.g. within Western nations], is like 'a flag in the wind'.

When the direction of the 'political wind' changes, to favour the ISLAMIST's [as is in process, right now, 2016], so will the allegiance of 'the moslem' who is living within Western nations change, .....to openly favour the exclusive interests of their own community, i.e. the moslem community.

Always has it been so, with 'the moslem'.

MORE EVIDENCE.....

Young Muslims in the West: A Ticking Time Bomb?
March 22, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/5917/young-muslims-ticking-timebomb

Quote:

An ICM poll from 2006 revealed that 20 percent of British Muslims sympathised with the 7/7 bombers who brought terror to the streets of the British capital, killing 52 and injuring hundreds.

This number rose to one in four British Muslims, according to NOP Research for Channel 4.

With a British Muslim population of over 3 million today, that translates to roughly three quarters of a million terror-sympathising people in the UK.

.......Twenty-seven percent of those polled in the United Kingdom say they had sympathy with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo – the French satirical magazine that published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammed last year, with 78 percent supporting punishment for the publication of cartoons featuring Muhammed and 68 percent supporting the arrest and prosecution of British people who "insult Islam."

.......in 2015, it was revealed that 45 percent of British Muslims think that hate preachers that advocate violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam."

.......The BBC found that 36 percent of 16 to 24-year-old Muslims believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death.

Thirty five percent of Muslims say they would prefer to send their children to an Islamic school, and 37 percent of 16 to 24-year-olds say they want government-funded Islamic schools to send their kids to.

The report again highlights the radicalisation of the Muslim youth in the West.....

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:24pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.

;D ;D ;D

Tell him, 'John'.[/quote]Hey Herbert, John Smith's grandfather fought for the AXIS fascists during WW2. What a laugh!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:25pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ....

That's quite a confession, John.

Aren't you one of those people here who keeps putting the boot into 'Poms'?

"Benito Mussolini in World War II. Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) was the fascist prime minister of Italy, with dictatorial powers, from 1922 until he was overthrown in 1943. In May 1938, Mussolini promised to fight alongside Adolf Hitler in any war against the democracies of the world".

Them phuking 'Poms' eh, John - got a lot to answer for haven't they? ...

Dear O dear O dear ... hypocrites migrate to Australia and then throw stones at the 'Poms'.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:28pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

That's quite a confession, John.

wow ...you couldn't work out that Italians alive during WWII fought for Mussolini ? And you wonder why I put the boot into poms? ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:31pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

they didn't fight for Hitler, they fought for Mussolini ....

I've been pissing myself laughing for a straight hour!!!! He should have kept his mouth shut. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:33pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.

;D ;D ;D

Tell him, 'John'.

Hey Herbert, John Smith's grandfather fought for the AXIS fascists during WW2. What a laugh!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

But then he has the bugger*ing hide to take every opportunity to jeer at and rubbish the 'Poms'.

For sheer hypocrisy that deserves some sort of a trophy to take home with him.

Oh my God look what I just stumbled across .... (but let's not forget them f***ing 'Poms', okay?)

link to Italian genocide

Dear O dear O dear .... John? Where's John? 8-)

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:55pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

I've been pissing myself laughing for a straight hour!!!! He should have kept his mouth shut. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

not sure why you are so surprised, most men in Italy old enough to be conscripted, were. Were you simply unable to join the dots by yourself without someone to explain what the picture was first?

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

But then he has the bugger*ing hide to take every opportunity to jeer at and rubbish the 'Poms'.

that you were also unable to join the dots yourself doesn't hold you in good stead if you were hoping I'd stop.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

For sheer hypocrisy that deserves some sort of a trophy to take home with him.

why? you think I'm responsible for my grandfathers actions? Then what does that make you who was abandoned to the Chinese? :D :D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by capitosinora on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:21pm

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

File this one under: What Muslims really think.

Another Sheitan.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by capitosinora on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:22pm

100% correct.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:50pm

Quote:

The French terrorist attacks were all about killing blasphemers. Here we have a Scottish Imam praising a man who killed a politician merely for standing up for people's right to blaspheme. I am not sure how directly you think the French mosques were involved in the incitement, but the only difference I see is that the French are a bit further down that path.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:01pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

I have confidence in you ... you'll figure it out. Eventually

If you can't articulate a decent post that's your issue. Obviously English was a second language at home.

;D ;D ;D

Tell him, 'John'.

Hey Herbert, John Smith's grandfather fought for the AXIS fascists during WW2. What a laugh!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Did your grandfather go to Ethiopia John??

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:15pm

John? 8-)

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Did your grandfather go to Ethiopia John??

I've no idea .... do they have monkeys in Ethiopia?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:15pm:

John? 8-)

I thought you ran away ....

yes Herb?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by GordyL on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:45pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:15pm:

John? 8-)

I thought you ran away ....

yes Herb?

Next year's work trip may be addis ababa.

I'll give you a monkey report if I go.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:19am

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:15pm:

John? 8-)

I thought you ran away ....

yes Herb?

Have you Italians done your SORRY DAY yet? Hmmmm ... ?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:32am

Hmmmmmmmmmm .... ?

Where's John?

Come out from behind that pizza, John - and confront your past!

HERE's a nice foot-tapper for you to hum by as you roll out your next piece of spaghetti pasta ...

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

(Meanwhile, let's not forget those horrible Poms and their dastardly deeds during WW2)

:P

PS. True fact: My Italian landlord of 15 years in Burwood had once been a member of Mussolini's dreaded Black Shirts (SS types). He was in his 70's when I knew him, and he was mentally and physically tough as nails. Hard as old boot leather. At the very end, when I was about to leave and buy my house, cash-on-the-table, he announced to the staff at the Real Estate agency that I was the best tenant he had ever had of several hundred over the years ...

... but the one thing he used to rip into me about was that the early British settlers didn't take the opportunity to completely wipe out the Abos for the sake of our future generations ...

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:47am

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:19am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:15pm:

John? 8-)

I thought you ran away ....

yes Herb?

Have you Italians done your SORRY DAY yet? Hmmmm ... ?

I don't know what they've done Herb .. I don't live in Italy nor do I particulalry care for their politics.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Where's John?

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

I thought you ran away ....

yes Herb?

you keep calling for me but then you don't say anything ... are you just planning on asking where's John? or do you actually have a point?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:59pm

Also, what is up with Muslims telling such feeble lies about their own beliefs? This guy tried the Gandalf and Falah trick on himself, but he was a few centuries behind on technology and did not realise there was a record of what he had said.

We had another UK Imam who famously said in reference to 9/11 that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then told his congregation in Arabic that only Muslims are innocent. Perhaps he was unaware of google translate.

If the Scottish Muslims follow Gandalf's suggestion and get rid of this idiot, who is to say it will be anything more than an act of window dressing, where they replace him with another Imam who has the same beliefs, but is a bit more media savvy?

Are Muslims unique in expecting their religious leaders to deliberately misrepresent their religious views?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:43pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

Clearly muslim leaders have a monopoly on saying bad things and lying about it right FD? I mean, it would literally be impossible for me to troll this board with a couple of similarly choice pronouncements from christian or jewish leaders and pretend its mainstream wouldn't it? Did you ever consider there's a reason why Yadda's been using the same incriminating muslim quotes for the last 5 years? Did you know that Israel makes ministers out of people who publicly call for the genocide of Palestinians?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:44pm

Go ahead, quote a Christian leader lying about his religious beliefs.

Quote:

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Aussie on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:46pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:44pm:

Go ahead, quote a Christian leader lying about his religious beliefs.

That is not what he posted. You are verbaling him, and you know it.

Oh....and then you added some extra stuff to your post, not captured when I quoted what you originally posted. Nice.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:47pm

It is what I posted Aussie.

Quote:

Are Muslims unique in expecting their religious leaders to deliberately misrepresent their religious views?

So who is doing the "Verbaling"?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Aussie on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:50pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

It is what I posted Aussie.

Quote:

Are Muslims unique in expecting their religious leaders to deliberately misrepresent their religious views?

So who is doing the "Verbaling"?

It is not what he posted. He never suggested that Muslims were unique in expecting their religious leaders to deliberately misrepresent their religious views.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:54pm

What is your point Aussie? I was the one who suggested it. It is all right there in front of you.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:57pm

Reminds me of the Christian Arab reporter from New York who went to one of those mosque Open Days when they invite everyone to come in and have a look.

She went in her own time and not as a reporter.

The imam made a wonderful speech that was truly inspirational in terms of tolerance for all religions and a wish for all American Muslims to see themselves as Americans - and to aim for full integration and assimilation ... etc etc.

It was all a great success, and eventually the Christian general public left the mosque feeling all warm-and-fuzzy and very pro-Muslim.

Before they all left, the imam said he would like to talk to the Muslims in the crowd in their own language of Arabic.

This journalist said she was making for the door, but then decided out of curiosity to wait and hear what the imam had to say to the Muslim congregation - so she stayed behind.

And - what a contrast. This imam then told them all to hold fast to their faith and to give their first loyalties to Islam, and used abusive terminology for the non-Muslims who he had just been making a nice welcoming speech to. etc etc etc.

It shocked her to the core. It disabused her of any such notion that you can't take a Muslim imam's word at face value.

There was an inter-faith Open Day here in Sydney a few years ago - and in the foyer there were books and pamphlets laid out on trestles for people to buy after the speeches had been made.

When the audience trooped out of the hall - all the Christian books and pamphlets had mysteriously disappeared. ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Aussie on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:00pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

What is your point Aussie? I was the one who suggested it. It is all right there in front of you.

That's not too hard to work out if you open that other eye. This is my point:

Quote:

He never suggested that Muslims were unique in expecting their religious leaders to deliberately misrepresent their religious views.

So why ask the question you did?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm

Another good example. It is not just that they do it so willingly, but they are so incompetent at it, and their congregation only makes a token effort at holding them to account when the rest of the public kicks up a stink.

Look at Gandalf's response - get a new Imam. Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Aussie on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:06pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Why do you need permission to mock, FD? You have that right now, don't you?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by John Smith on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:22pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

true FD ... Did you also notice that there was also absolutely no regard for women's rights? :o :o These barbarians. Why do we tolerate them. We should ban them all!

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:38am

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Look at Gandalf's response - get a new Imam. Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

Your right FD - scratch that then, keep the Imam. Thats obviously sets a far better example for "reforming muslim views" right?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 11:41am

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:06pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Why do you need permission to mock, FD? You have that right now, don't you?

Well yes, but FD's fighting for everyone else's Freeeeedom. You know, decent white people everywhere.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 11:43am

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:22pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

true FD ... Did you also notice that there was also absolutely no regard for women's rights? :o :o These barbarians. Why do we tolerate them. We should ban them all!

Good point, JS. FD was about to get onto that.

As long as we keep the discussion confined to Muslim women's rights we should be fine.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Look at Gandalf's response - get a new Imam. Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

Your right FD - scratch that then, keep the Imam. Thats obviously sets a far better example for "reforming muslim views" right?

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf. It is hard to reform Islam if their response to any criticism is to lie about Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:27pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

Ah - like being honest about my view that what the Imam said was abhorrent? And my view that such behaviour from a representative of the Islam faith is unacceptable?

...I guess not. :-/

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Yadda on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:35pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Look at Gandalf's response - get a new Imam. Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

Your right FD - scratch that then, keep the Imam. Thats obviously sets a far better example for "reforming muslim views" right?

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

It is hard to reform Islam if their response to any criticism is to lie about Islam.

I had to archive that quote/post FD!!! :)

It is just such an eloquently lucid moment from you! ;)

hehe

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:42pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Look at Gandalf's response - get a new Imam. Nothing about actually reforming Muslims' views on the right to mock Muhammed - and this is from a self described Islamic reformer.

Your right FD - scratch that then, keep the Imam. Thats obviously sets a far better example for "reforming muslim views" right?

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

That’s right. FD is much more honest about your views than you are, G.

Are you a standard bearer?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Yadda on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

Ah - like being honest about my view that what the Imam said was abhorrent?

And my view that such behaviour from a representative of the Islam faith is unacceptable?

...I guess not. :-/

gandalf,

Seriously, ....why should any non-moslem believe that any view that you express in this forum, relating to ISLAM, is sincere ?

Yadda said........
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458991733/12#12

Quote:

QUESTION;
How can we know when moslems are lying to us [about ISLAM, or about their true motives, towards us] ?

ANSWER;
We can't.

But it is a sure bet, that moslems are lying to us, and often!!

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

Ah - like being honest about my view that what the Imam said was abhorrent? And my view that such behaviour from a representative of the Islam faith is unacceptable?

...I guess not. :-/

Do you think there is something different about Islam that leads to these situations where Muslim religious leaders misrepresent their own views?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Yadda on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:39pm

gandalf,

Do you consider yourself, to be a reasonable person ?

e.g.
Would you be willing to denounce a religious philosophy, which actually promoted murder, based upon a persons religious belief's, or lack thereof ???

Quote:

Do you think there is something different about Islam that leads to these situations where Muslim religious leaders misrepresent their own views?

Yup.......

IMO, all moslems, are mentally unstable.

And imo, it is the influence of ISLAM, upon the moslem psyche, which is the cause of that mentally instability.

Am i mistaken ???

Dictionary;
cognitive dissonance = = the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.

Quote:

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

.

Dictionary;
sanity = = the condition of being sane. reasonable and rational behaviour.

'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294/0#0

Quote:

A simple definition of SANITY/INSANITY.

Typically, an unrestrained sane person will act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society].

And typically, and conversely, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself, and, or, others around him.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 10:04pm

A simple yes or no will suffice, G.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Yadda on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 10:15pm

I don't believe that it can be denied, that, .....Karnal is gandalf's shadow, and minder, and 'hand holder'.

Correct ~~Karnal~~ Habibi ? :)

Dictionary;
alter ego = =
1 a person’s secondary or alternative personality.
2 a close friend who is very like oneself.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 10:29pm

Sometimes a question is just a question, habibi.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 3:25pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Being honest about your views is the first step Gandalf.

Ah - like being honest about my view that what the Imam said was abhorrent? And my view that such behaviour from a representative of the Islam faith is unacceptable?

...I guess not. :-/

Do you think there is something different about Islam that leads to these situations where Muslim religious leaders misrepresent their own views?

Ah I guess this is where I say "no" and you proceed to call me dishonest.

Do you usually associate dishonesty with whatever you disagree with or is it just with muslims?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:24pm

It's not just me disagreeing with him. He disagrees with himself. Have you read the OP?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:36pm

FD do you think its dishonest to suggest that muslims are unique in being dishonest?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:00pm

I think there is something unique in what we are seeing here, including the feebleness of the lies and the acceptance of the hypocrisy by the co-religionists, up to the point that it gets too much media attention (and then the response is limited to window dressing at best). There is a different motivation driving this to what we typically expect from religion.

I am not saying that only Muslims lie, so you can stop trying to shift the goalposts.

What about you Gandalf?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:19pm

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:00pm:

I am not saying that only Muslims lie, so you can stop trying to shift the goalposts.

Fair enough - so actually its that only muslims tell feeble lies and are hypocritical?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:21pm

Go back and read what I first posted Gandalf. It is about Muslims leaders misrepresenting their own religious views. The motivation just wouldn't make sense outside of the context of Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:24pm

sooo... only muslims tell feeble lies, are hypocrits and misrepresent their own religious views?

Am I getting warmer?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:25pm

Do I need to requote the whole discussion in the same thread Gandalf?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:46am

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Do I need to requote the whole discussion in the same thread Gandalf?

No, you've already listed the attributes I'm asking about:

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:00pm:

and that...

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:21pm:

The motivation just wouldn't make sense outside of the context of Islam.

So no need to requote the whole discussion FD, its all there: muslims are unique in telling feeble lies and accepting hypocricy, and their motivation is contained within the sinister nature of Islam.

Or is it more acceptable to put it like this: only Islam encourages its followers to misrepresent their religion (tell feeble lies), and accept the hypocricy of their leaders?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Lord Herbert on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm

And once again the British authorities are showing themselves to be fag-arsed political cowards for not summarily deporting every one of the staff who are involved with this school.

If it takes a 'Rightwing' government to have the balls to deal effectively with these sort of people in Western societies - then it's time people started to vote them into office to take out the garbage.

"Muslim school 'says UK culture is poisonous': Privately-run madrassah accused of 'dividing' communities by teaching children extreme form of Islam".

link

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 3:25pm

What do you think FD - a deporting offense to staff a privately run school that teaches things like mixed-sex institutions are evil, that muslims shouldn't watch TV and women shouldn't work?

Or perhaps you would like to offer an opinion about how such an idea is an attack on people's freedom?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Do I need to requote the whole discussion in the same thread Gandalf?

No, you've already listed the attributes I'm asking about:

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:00pm:

and that...

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:21pm:

The motivation just wouldn't make sense outside of the context of Islam.

The second one is better. It just does not make sense in the context of what people typically think of as religion. Religious people knock on your door and push their opinions on you. They aren't afraid of you knowing. They want you to know, warts and all, that hellfire is coming if you don't repent. They don't try to hide their religion from you. Judaism might also be an exception, being a 'non-proselytising' religion, but even they don't have the trouble that Islam does with active misrepresentation.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Religious people knock on your door and push their opinions on you. They aren't afraid of you knowing. They want you to know, warts and all, that hellfire is coming if you don't repent. They don't try to hide their religion from you

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

Christianity and Islam are the only proselytizing religions, but only christians do the in-your-face door-knocking routine.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:48am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

And Muslims murder people for not being Muslims.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:56am

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:48am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

And Muslims murder people for not being Muslims.

extremely rarely. Almost all of Islamic history has entailed coexistence with non-muslims. They even institutionalised it - called the 'dhimmi system'.

And the rare cases of muslims killing non-muslims for not being muslim is certainly not unique in Islam. How do you think the Roman empire went from overwhelmingly pagan to majority christian in the space of a few decades? Hint: not through proselytizing. The conquest of pagan saxony by Charlemagne is also a good example. Says the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae:

[quote] If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulatio_de_partibus_Saxoniae

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:03am

You’re both wrong. Here in my multicultural ghetto, Muslims do quite a bit of prosletizing. Pamphlets on Sunday in Parramatta, and an old Muslim doorknocker pamphletted me and invited me to the prayer hall.

I should add he was looking for Muslims in the area - he wasn’t out to poach souls.

Oh - and he didn’t murder me.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Mr Hammer on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:34am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:56am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:48am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

And Muslims murder people for not being Muslims.

Islam has a very poor record treating minority religions as equals to the Islamic majority. The Coptics in Egypt are a good example of this. Look at what's happening in Iraq and Syria to Christians. And then there's African countries like Mali. Only the other day an easter parade was blown up in Pakistan. I don't understand why Muslims see themselves as victims.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by James on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 1:15pm

Islam is just a made up religion for the mentally inept and backward. Clearly the essence is in the proof of what islam and the Quranimals produce and add to society. Absolutely nothing.

Quranimals the forever breast beating victims. All they do is moan. whinge and whine. when people call them on their religious bullshittery and chuck a spaz raping murdering and killing innocent people because inside they know they are screwed in the head. Then they run around crying, but most Quaranimals are moderate, they just believe in the book of filth called the Quran that promotes terrorism. Yessiree they are all moderate LOL. There is no such thing as moderate muslim its a fantasy concocted by the ignorant western enablers who muslims laugh at behind closed doors.

No matter which way a mooslime slices his falafel the Qur'an is still the terrorists book of filth and they call it a holy book ROTFLMAO. Idiotic psychopaths.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 4:00pm

Sir James wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 1:15pm:

Quranimals

cute - I like it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by moses on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 4:07pm

Quote:

They even institutionalised it - called the 'dhimmi system'.

the following judgement says it all about how infidels are / were treated by muslims under shar'ia and Dhimmitude

The Answer Of The Shaikh Hasan Al Kafrawi, The Shafiite [Professor of canon law in Cairo, d. 1788 CE

Praise be to allah, the guide of the right way!

The decision given by the Shaikh ar-Ramli [a great Cairo legal authority, d. 1596], by the Shaikh al-Islam [the muslim religious authority in Constantinople], and by the learned scholars whose decrees can hardly be written down here, may be worded as follows:

"It is forbidden to the tolerated peoples living on muslim territory to clothe themselves in the same manner as the chiefs, the scholars, and the nobles. They should not be allowed to clothe themselves in costly fabrics which have been cut in the modes which are forbidden to them, in order that they may not offend the sensibilities of poor muslims and in order that their faith in their religion should not be shaken by this.

"They should not be permitted to employ mounts like the muslims. They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers. They must under no circumstance ride horses because of the noble character of this animal. The most-high has said [qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and allah's enemies.'

"They should not be permitted to take muslims into their service because allah has glorified the people of islam. he has given them his aid and has given them a guarantee by these words [qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely allah will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.' Now this is just what is happening today, for their servants are muslims taken from among men of a mature age or from those who are still young. This is one of the greatest scandals to which the guardians of authority must put an end. It is wrong to greet them even with a simple 'how-do-you-do'; to serve them, even for wages, at the baths or in what relates to their riding animals; and it is forbidden to accept anything from their hand, for that would be an act of debasement by the faithful. They are forbidden while going through the streets to ape the manners of the muslims, and still less those of the cities of the religion. They shall only walk single-file, and in narrow lanes they must withdraw even more into the most cramped part of the road.

"One may read that which follows in Bukhari and muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]: 'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers. They should under no circumstances acquire muslim slaves, white or black. Therefore they should get rid of the slaves which they now have for the), have no right to own them. If one of their slaves who was formerly an infidel, becomes a muslim, he shall be removed from them, and his master, willingly or unwillingly, shall be compelled to sell him and to accept the price for him.

"It is no longer permitted them to put themselves, with respect to their houses, on an equal footing with the dwellings of their muslim neighbors, and still less to build their buildings higher. If they are of the same height, or higher, it is incumbent upon us to pull them down to a size a little less than the houses of the true believers. This conforms to the word of the prophet: 'islam rules, and nothing shall raise itself above it.' This is also in order to hinder them from knowing where our weak spots are and in order to make a distinction between their dwellings and ours.

"They are forbidden to build new churches, chapels, or monasteries in any muslim land. We should destroy everything that is of new construction in every place, founded under the muslim religion, for it is said in a tradition of Umar: 'No church shall be built in islam.' They shall no longer be permitted to repair the parts of these [post-islamic] buildings which are in ruins. However, the old buildings [of pre-islamic times] which are found in a land whose population had embraced islam need not be destroyed. They shall not, however, be enlarged by means of repairs or otherwise. In case the tolerated peoples [Jews, Christians, etc.] act contrary to these provisions we will be obliged to destroy everything that has been added to the original size of the building. [Only pre-islamic churches and synagogues may be repaired; new ones must be torn down.

"Entrance into muslim territory by infidels of foreign lands under the pact guaranteeing protection to the tolerated peoples is permitted only for the time necessary to settle their business affairs. If they exceed this period, their safe-conduct having expired, they will be put to death or be subject to the payment of the head-tax.

continues next page

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by moses on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 4:09pm

continued from previous page 7

[Jews and Christians of foreign lands must pay a special head-tax if they wish to remain permanently in Muslim lands.] As to those with whom the ruler may have signed treaties, and with whom he, for whatever motive, may have granted a temporary truce, they form only the smallest fraction. But they, too, must not pass the fixed limit of more than four months [without paying the tax], particularly if this occurs at a time when Islam is prosperous and flourishing. The most-high has said [qu'ran 2: 2341: 'They should wait four months,' and he has again said [47:37]: 'Do not show any cowardice, and do not at all invite the unbelievers to a peace when you have the upper-hand and may allah be with you.'

"Their men and women are ordered to wear garments different from those of the muslims in order to be distinguished from them. They are forbidden to exhibit anything which might scandalize us, as, for instance, their fermented liquors, and if they do not conceal these from us, we are obliged to pour them into the street."

This which precedes is only a part of that which has been written on this subject, and if we should wish to mention it all here it would take too long. But this brief recital will be sufficient for those men whose intelligence allah has enlightened, to whom he has given the breath of life, and whose inner thoughts he has sanctified. Now let us beg the sovereign master of the world to extend his justice over humanity universally, in order that they may direct all their efforts toward raising with firmness the banner of the religion.
In a tradition of the sincere and faithful [Calif Abu Bekr, 632-634] it is likewise said: "The abolition of a sacrilegious innovation is preferable to the permanent operation of the law." In another tradition it is also said: "One hour of justice is worth more than sixty years of ritual." The verses of the qu'ran and the traditions are very numerous on this subject, and they are known by all the faithful. allah has cursed the former nations because they have not condemned scandalous things; and he has said [qu'ran 5:82]: "They [the children of Israel] seek not at all to turn one another from the bad actions which they have committed. 0 how detestable were their actions. But he has punished these men because of their obstinate conduct." The most-high has also said [qu'ran 9: 1 131: "Those who bid what is right and forbid what is wrong, who observe the divine precepts, will be rewarded. Announce these glad tidings to the muslims."
May the most high allah admit us to the number of this company and may he lead us in the paths of his favor. Certainly allah is powerful in everything; he is full of mercy to his servants; he sees all.

Written by the humble Hasan al Kafrawi, the Shafiite. (1772 CE)

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:29pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

Christianity and Islam are the only proselytizing religions, but only christians do the in-your-face door-knocking routine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

In the writings of the Bahá'í Faith, the endeavour to attract people to the religion is strongly emphasized.

Buddhism has historically been an actively proselytising faith.

Even the ones who don't actively proselytise do not have Islam's problem of relgious leaders deliberately misrepresenting their religious views, as I already pointed out with the example of Judaism. It simply doesn't make sense for any religion other than Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:08pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Even the ones who don't actively proselytise do not have Islam's problem of relgious leaders deliberately misrepresenting their religious views

Sounds like BS to me. I reckon the combined total examples you and Yadda can come up with I can count on one hand. The fact that even you have to resort to an example that Yadda's been relying on for years - to "prove" that this example is not isolated, says a lot.

I'm pretty sure that if I tried I could come up with just as many, of not more examples of extremist Christians saying one thing to their followers and saying something else entirely to the media/general public.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:13pm

Yes please.

Are you saying that these mainstream Muslim leaders who have been copping bad press are actually extremists? Were they extremists before they got exposed in the media, or only after?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:13pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

Christianity and Islam are the only proselytizing religions, but only christians do the in-your-face door-knocking routine.

When muslims knock on doors to peddle their religion it's usually convert or die, a few examples of this in Syria,Iraq,Nigeria fairly recently.

quran.com/9/5

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:56am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:48am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I think you'll find christianity is the only religion that does that.

And Muslims murder people for not being Muslims.

extremely rarely. Almost all of Islamic history has entailed coexistence with non-muslims. They even institutionalised it - called the 'dhimmi system'.

Explain this dhimmi system to us Gandalf, is it a type of apartheid where paying protection money to muslims allows you to live?

Are atheists and pagans protected under this type of religious apartheid?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:35pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Are atheists and pagans protected under this type of religious apartheid?

Evidently so. You might remember a while ago you brought up an example of what you yourself claimed to be an atheist scholar during the caliphate, publishing works that were critical of Islam. You were trying to make a point about how he totally pwned Islamic ideology or something - but seemed to miss the point that here was a seemingly open atheist, not merely surviving under the caliphate, but apparently having all the freedom to propagate his blasphemy. It was quite hilarious watching you flay around in panic after I pointed this out to you - I think you resorted to arguing he must have been deemed mentally ill and therefore escaped the clutches of Islamic law.

So stupid was your argument here that it provided an excellent segue for me to point out how open the caliphate was to anti-Islamic views, where the great intellectual forums in Baghdad and elsewhere were host to healthy, robust intellectual and philosophical debates - where pretty much no view was taboo - even anti-Islam views.

Quote:

In the early centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic law allowed citizens to freely express their views, including criticism of Islam and religious authorities, without fear of persecution.[21][22][23] As such, there have been several notable critics and skeptics of Islam that arose from within the Islamic world itself. In tenth and eleventh-century Syria there lived a blind poet called Al-Ma'arri. He became well known for a poetry that was affected by a "pervasive pessimism." He labeled religions in general as "noxious weeds" and said that Islam does not have a monopoly on truth. He had particular contempt for the ulema, writing that:

They recite their sacred books, although the fact informs me that these are fiction from first to last. O Reason, thou (alone) speakest the truth. Then perish the fools who forged the religious traditions or interpreted them![2][24]

In 1280, the Jewish philosopher, Ibn Kammuna, criticized Islam in his book Examination of the Three Faiths. He reasoned that the Sharia was incompatible with the principles of justice, and that this undercut the notion of Muhammad being the perfect man: "there is no proof that Muhammad attained perfection and the ability to perfect others as claimed."[25][26] The philosopher thus claimed that people converted to Islam from ulterior motives:

That is why, to this day we never see anyone converting to Islam unless in terror, or in quest of power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner, or because of infatuation with a Muslim woman, or for some similar reason. Nor do we see a respected, wealthy, and pious non-Muslim well versed in both his faith and that of Islam, going over to the Islamic faith without some of the aforementioned or similar motives.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam#Early_Islam

As for pagans, hindus are considered pagans right? They were given dhimmi status under the Moguls, as were budhists.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:27pm

Gandalf are you saying that these mainstream Muslim leaders who have been copping bad press are actually extremists? Were they extremists before they got exposed in the media, or only after?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Are atheists and pagans protected under this type of religious apartheid?

Evidently so.

So how long did the pagans of Mecca last after coming under Shariah law?

Every other Muslim who has spoken on the subject insists that Pagans and atheists have an even lower status than Dhimmis in Shariah law.

Quote:

You were trying to make a point about how he totally pwned Islamic ideology or something - but seemed to miss the point that here was a seemingly open atheist

He wrote it down. He did not make any public pronouncements, and as I recall what he said was that doing so was likely to get you killed. They didn't have the internet back then Gandalf.

Quote:

That is why, to this day we never see anyone converting to Islam unless in terror, or in quest of power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner, or because of infatuation with a Muslim woman, or for some similar reason. Nor do we see a respected, wealthy, and pious non-Muslim well versed in both his faith and that of Islam, going over to the Islamic faith without some of the aforementioned or similar motives.

Great example there Gandalf.

Quote:

As for pagans, hindus are considered pagans right? They were given dhimmi status under the Moguls, as were budhists.

How do you think the Muslims would have fared in India had they treated pagans under traditional Shariah law? How is this any different to Australian Muslims refraining from robbing our trains the way Muhammed did?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:34pm

Yes, effendes, not only does FD tirelessly advocate for women’s rights, he supports the poor old pagans of Medina.

It’s just a pity they didn’t have the internet back then.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 6:55am

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

He wrote it down. He did not make any public pronouncements, and as I recall what he said was that doing so was likely to get you killed. They didn't have the internet back then Gandalf.

Pathetic. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about FD, you literally just make stuff up.

Quote:

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 12:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Are atheists and pagans protected under this type of religious apartheid?

This is what I was referring to. Would you like to quote the relevant passage about how liberal this atheist thought Islam was?

Also, you threatened to produce some examples to show that other religions have similar problems to Islam with mainstream religious leaders deliberately misrepresenting their religious views. How is that going?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Frank on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 1:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 6:55am:

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

He wrote it down. He did not make any public pronouncements, and as I recall what he said was that doing so was likely to get you killed. They didn't have the internet back then Gandalf.

Pathetic. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about FD, you literally just make stuff up.

Quote:

You seem to be pining for the good old 13th century!!! Those were the times, eh?

What happens today to the open critics and mockers of Islam? They get killed. A lot has changed in 800 years, no?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:06pm

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

A lot has changed in 800 years, no?

Not according to Baron and FD.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:18pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:

This is what I was referring to. Would you like to quote the relevant passage about how liberal this atheist thought Islam was?

I'm sure he didn't thing Islam was liberal at all FD - what do you think? Funny though that he seemed to have the freedom to make those criticisms and make a long career out of doing so:

Quote:

In the early centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic law allowed citizens to freely express their views, including criticism of Islam and religious authorities, without fear of persecution

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:

This is what I was referring to. Would you like to quote the relevant passage about how liberal this atheist thought Islam was?

Right, so let me get this straight: out of ~2 billion christians around the world, you don't think I'll be able to find a couple of instances of christians being dishonest about their religious views?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm

Quote:

I'm sure he didn't thing Islam was liberal at all FD - what do you think? Funny though that he seemed to have the freedom to make those criticisms and make a long career out of doing so:

I think it is time you quoted what he actually said Gandalf. If you have any evidence he made a career of criticising Islam, you should present that also.

Quote:

You appear to have quoted the wrong bit here Gandalf. If you quote the correct bit, it should be clear enough what I am suggesting you find, and I should not have to spend the next few pages correcting your efforts to shift the goal posts.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:01pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

I think it is time you quoted what he actually said Gandalf. If you have any evidence he made a career of criticising Islam, you should present that also.

I'm not even sure which one we're talking about - there were so many so called 'free thinkers' during the caliphate who made a career of criticising Islam. Like this guy:

Quote:

Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq al-Rawandi (Persian: ابو الحسن احمد بن یحیی بن اسحاق راوندی‎‎, Arabic: أبو الحسن أحمد بن يحيى بن إسحاق الراوندي‎), commonly known as Ibn al-Rawandi (Persian: ابن راوندی‎‎;‎ 827–911 CE[1]), was an early skeptic of Islam and a critic of religion in general. In his early days, he was a Mu'tazilite scholar, but after rejecting the Mu'tazilite doctrine, he adhered to Shia Islam for a brief period before becoming a freethinker who repudiated Islam and revealed religion.[2] Although none of his works have survived, his opinions had been preserved through his critics, Muslim apologists and the surviving books that answered him.[3] His book with the most preserved fragments (through an Ismaili book refuting Al-Rawandi's ideology) is the Kitab al-Zumurrud (The Book of the Emerald).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Rawandi

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

Yes yes, feeble lies and their followers accepting the hypocricy blah blah blah - whatever it is, I definitely wouldn't be able to find a couple of christians amongst ~2 billion adherants.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:23pm

You should still try Gandalf.

The historical passage I assume we are talking about is the one where the guy talks about gangs of Muslim thugs who would attack anyone who mocks or criticises Islam. That is all I can recall about it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 11:46pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

Quote:

I'm sure he didn't thing Islam was liberal at all FD - what do you think? Funny though that he seemed to have the freedom to make those criticisms and make a long career out of doing so:

I think it is time you quoted what he actually said Gandalf..

Yes, effendes, FD really did say this.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 10:59am

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

The historical passage I assume we are talking about is the one where the guy talks about gangs of Muslim thugs who would attack anyone who mocks or criticises Islam. That is all I can recall about it.

You'd think that after a few decades of blaspheming so publicly they would have been able to shut him up.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:02am

Are you just making this up as you go along Gandalf?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:19am

no FD, everything I said has been backed up by evidence, I even cut and paste the relevant article for you.

Here is an example of "making this up as you go along":

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

He wrote it down. He did not make any public pronouncements, and as I recall what he said was that doing so was likely to get you killed.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:22am

Above, on this page, you pasted something saying that none of his works have survived intact to this day. Is this what you think is evidence of "a few decades of blaspheming so publicly"?

Do you have his original quote that you were referring to earlier - the one you insist 'backfired'.?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:40am

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:22am:

Do you have his original quote that you were referring to earlier - the one you insist 'backfired'.?

As I said, you need to be clear on who we are talking about - there are so so many examples to choose from. Quotes from al-Rawandi are contained in the link I provided. The original reference that I brought up with Baron was a different freethinker as I recall. No doubt all of them spoke at length about how horrible and oppressive Islam was, so I'm not really sure what you think reproducing all the quotes will prove. What is proven though, is the fact that all these freethinkers existed and had flourishing careers as 'blasphemers', and as far as we know, were not in hiding, were not threatened and were not afraid to express their blasphemous views. This point seems to fly over your head, as does the fact that I am the only one to have produced any actual evidence in support of my case. Here it is again:

Quote:

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:41am

This is specifically what I am talking about Gandalf. Any uncertainty on your part is entirely of your own making. My recollection of the event (again, assuming I am thinking of the same one), is that Baron produced a quote of the guy saying that angry street mobs attack people who criticise or mock Islam. Is that the one? If so, I can understand your sudden difficulty in recalling the details.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Are atheists and pagans protected under this type of religious apartheid?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:01pm

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

My recollection of the event (again, assuming I am thinking of the same one), is that Baron produced a quote of the guy saying that angry street mobs attack people who criticise or mock Islam. Is that the one?

Probably, I don't recall the details. I think the al-Rawandi said similar things (are his works suddenly legit now FD? ;D)

So you think this guy's opinions are embarassing for me - while the fact that he existed and thrived as a blasphemer (along with many others) is not embarassing to you and your baseless bs about the caliphate not allowing blasphemous views?

Apparently he wasn't attacked by angry street mobs was he?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:14pm

I think it is time you quote what he actually said before we go into more detail in interpreting it.

Also, if you have any evidence (other than the loss to history of every intact version of his work) that he made a living blaspheming, now would be a good time to present it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:18pm

Again, which "he" are we talking about? There are so many to choose from.

And we are not interpreting what he said. For some bizarre reason you think how he criticised Islam is somehow relevant to the point that he did in fact criticise Islam (Baron's original point), along with many other so called 'freethinkers', in a society that was remarkably tolerant of blasphemous views.

But wait FD, you're just in time:

in some breaking news, archaeologists have just discovered a new collection of works from a great 9th century scholar, who lived under the Islamic Caliphate. Going by the name "freediverus", his works include original copies of "how Islam is the greatest threat to our freedom" and "my crusade against the spineless apologists of Islamic terror" and "sinnister jews: how a renowned war criminal conspired to mercilessly slaughter 800 innocent jews". Despite a long and illustrious career in mocking the supposedly brutal religion he was living under without any apparent action taken against him by the state, it is expected that the last known descendant of this great scholar will use this discovery as evidence that blasphemous views were never tolerated under the Caliphate.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 3:45pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:18pm:

That's good news, G. Did the archeologists uncover anything about the great scholar's fight for women's rights, or his aversion to racism?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by James on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 1:05am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:18pm:

Muslims on the internet in today's current climate carrying on like this does them no favors. It just boosts resentment that they are here.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:34pm

Quote:

Again, which "he" are we talking about? There are so many to choose from.

Round and round we go. Where will we stop? Nobody knows. This is your example Gandalf. I have already made this as clear as possible. I am not going to tell you what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 4:34pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

This is your example Gandalf.

Actually its Baron's example - he brought him up in a discussion about 2 years ago. I don't remember what he said other than he was a staunch critic of Islam (that was Baron's whole point - to show how the only smart people in the golden age were atheists). I merely reminded him of it to explain the absurdity of his (and yours) "the caliphate had no tolerance for Islamic criticism" meme.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:22pm

You introduced it to this thread. You have been asking me to interpret it for you. You made quite a point about how it 'backfired' on Baron. I think it is time we figured out what you are talking about.

Have you been unable to find any examples non-Muslim religious leaders getting themselves into the sort of pickle that the Muslim ones are becoming renowned for?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 10:49pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:22pm:

You have been asking me to interpret it for you

Nope.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:59am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:18pm:

I'm sure he didn't thing Islam was liberal at all FD - what do you think?

So how am I supposed to answer this if you won't even identify who you are talking about?

You introduced it to this thread. You have been asking me to interpret it for you. You made quite a point about how it 'backfired' on Baron. I think it is time we figured out what you are talking about.

How is a few surviving scraps of text explaining that you need to keep your mouth shut to avoid an angry mob evidence of how liberal Islam is? Were the Muslims being generous in allowing him to write that down in the privacy of his own home?

Also, you have not produced any examples of non-Muslim religious leaders getting themselves into the sort of pickle that the Muslim ones are becoming renowned for. Is this because you tried and failed and have conceded the point?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:50am

Sorry FD - I thought we were all on the same page that he was an ardent critic of Islam. Baron after all brought it up to specifically make that point (that the only reason Islam thrived during the golden age was because of atheist critics like him).

It backfired on Baron because showing how an atheist not only survived in the caliphate - but thrived as a proud and open 'blasphemer' - obviously contradicts his (and your) meme about the caliphate having no tolerance for blasphemers. We then saw some desperate backpeddling from you both - Baron scrambling for the "oh but he was deemed mentally deficient" defense (completely baselessly of course), and you with some BS about communication being so slow in those days that the authorities never got wind of him and his blasphemy (lol).

Here you go FD, you can ignore this again:

Quote:

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:53am

So you keep saying Gandalf. Do we have to take your word for it?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:57am

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

So you keep saying Gandalf. Do we have to take your word for it?

Not at all. I might have mentioned this before:

Quote:

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:02am

Is that what Baron posted Gandalf, that backfired on him so comically?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:05am

No. Keep up FD.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:12am

So, let's have a look at the example you introduced to this thread then Gandalf.

Let me guess, you are having trouble finding it, aren't you? Is it a bit like all those examples of non-Muslim leaders lying to the press about their own religious views?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:45am

I could probably find it if you really want.

Consider it as something similar to the other two examples I posted - Islam is bad, muslims are thugs - etc etc.

Its really not the point FD - the only point here is that he was hailed as an example of who was really driving the intellectual flowering of the Islamic golden age. His atheistic and blasphemous credentials was Baron's point, not mine. It backfired because he is good evidence that the caliphate was actually quite liberal in its allowance of views critical of Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:47am

You introduced your little exchange with Baron into this thread to back up your argument. You might as well start chanting "I win, I win".

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:17am

You were there too FD. Its where you introduced your "saved by slow communication" argument. You can always fall back on that if you like.

Or you could deal with actual issue here. I might have mentioned it before:

Quote:

If you have anything that refutes the actual evidence that "In the early centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic law allowed citizens to freely express their views, including criticism of Islam and religious authorities, without fear of persecution." - now's probably the time to reveal it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:20am

Why are you afraid to post the link or quote it?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:34am

I'm sure you've found it by now FD - and you obviously would have posted it by now if you thought it damaged my argument in any way.

Why are you afraid to address the issue FD? Here it is again:

Quote:

Do you have anything that refutes the first sentence?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:40am

So it is now up to me to track down the example you introduced?

Have you been taking debating lessons from Greg?

Why are you afraid to post the link or quote it?

I am half expecting your own example to refute it, which is probably why you will only give us your take on it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:50am

Never mind FD, I'm very confident you'll find it. Let me know what it says. As for me, I'll just stick to the relevant point here. Ooh here it is again:

Quote:

Do you have anything that refutes the first sentence?

Do you require a new thread to answer this?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by GordyL on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:54am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

Never mind FD, I'm very confident you'll find it. Let me know what it says. As for me, I'll just stick to the relevant point here. Ooh here it is again:

Quote:

Do you have anything that refutes the first sentence?

Do you require a new thread to answer this?

So why have things gone so backwards. Would you characterize Islam as a progressive organisation?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 11:00am

GordyL wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

So why have things gone so backwards.

Good grief gordy, you're not allowed to say that!

Things haven't gone 'backwards' - Islam has been at rock bottom since the very beginning - the gospel according to FD and Baron. How dare you imply there actually was a time when Islam wasn't as backward as it is now!

Ignore this FD... but I'm pretty sure you've mastered that.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by GordyL on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 11:22am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

GordyL wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

So why have things gone so backwards.

I actually thought Islam hit it's high point when it engulfed and stood on the shoulders of Persia, then it went down hill when it ground their intellectual achievements into the ground.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 12:34pm

Thats better gordy.

We also accept the version that says it was all thanks to the jewish and christian scholars Islam overran. Although we obviously have to be careful to avoid highlighting the inconvenient fact that these versions contradict the meme about non-muslims being persecuted and oppressed. But just as long as we avoid great arab/muslim scholars like Al-Kindi and Al-Hazan and the fact that:

Quote:

The various Quranic injunctions and Hadith, which place values on education and emphasize the importance of acquiring knowledge, played a vital role in influencing the Muslims of this age in their search for knowledge and the development of the body of science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Religious_influence

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:33pm

The Islamic empire was unique in history as a large western civilisation that did not improve on the living standards of it's predecessors in any measurable way. In fact it fell far short. It conquered, it imposed Islam, and that's about it. It's "golden age" was a post-apocalyptic nightmare compared to the Roman empire, when the historical pattern would have suggested the next leap forward was due.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 5:09pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:33pm:

The Islamic empire was unique in history as a large western civilisation that did not improve on the living standards of it's predecessors in any measurable way.

I'm wondering. How does your population theory fit the Islamic golden age, FD?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:46pm

Karnal came up with an example for you Gandalf. It's not a Christian one, but it is the closest one I can think of to what mainstream Islamic leaders like Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman keep getting caught doing.

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

Members of Scientology are brainwashed slowly, in stages. You don't get taught about reincarnation at first. If you ask, you won't get a straight answer. You don't hear about the aliens who populated Earth initially - all this comes later, almost as a test of your loyalty once you're in. If you join the inner group, the Sea Org, you make a pledge to practice Scientology for a billion years, and not to rest until all forms of life have become clear.

It also has strong parallels with how Muhammed 'revealed' Islam

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:03pm

Don't want to say?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:08pm

Whats his population theory K?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:26pm

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

Karnal keeps interpreting it as a fixed limit on population.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:31pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:08pm:

Whats his population theory K?

That by keeping population levels low, or even lowering them, you increase economic growth.

You know, the way China's growth has boomed since its population nearly doubled.

FD has a formula for it.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 7:38am

Can you quote me saying this Karnal?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:51am

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

Can you quote me saying this Karnal?

Why? Your memory can’t be that bad. Do you agree with this claim?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 4:47pm

Yes.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

It also has strong parallels with how Muhammed 'revealed' Islam

How is your search for Christian examples going Gandalf? Do you think Scientology is the closest thing to Islam on this matter?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 4:51pm

I've already conceded FD - I literally will never ever be able to find a single instance of a christian being dishonest about their religion. It simply doesn't happen - right?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 5:04pm

Why do you think these Muslim leaders even try lying to the press? Do you think they normally get away with it?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 7:47pm

Recently I heard our own minister of State claim to parliament that he didn't attempt to procure a certain diary - even after the whole nation had seen the footage of him answering "yes I did" when asked if he had attempted to procure said diary.

Public figures regularly lie and do stupid things in front of the press - and think they'll get away with it. In this case it was, of all people, the minister responsible for parliamentary standards.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:00pm

;D

So Muslim leaders are no different from politicians?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:10pm

At that level they practically are politicians.

By the way, have you been following the royal commission into child sex abuse? A whole bunch of bishops accusing each other of lying. Must be at least some lying going on there do you think?

Pretty standard politician-like behaviour - all of them.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:44pm

FD, do you rule out the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman?

You haven’t said.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 6:43am

At what level Gandalf? Imam?

At some lower level, would Muslim religious leaders be more honest about Islam?

I think the difference is not that people in this position are like politicians, but that Islam itself is more like a political ideology. The behaviour of the religious leaders is a reflection of the ideology they espouse.

That is why Karnal and myself thought of scientology as a parallel, while a Muslim made the leap to politicians. It is also interesting that the Christian example you came up with is one of Christian leaders accusing each other of telling lies - a serious accusation given their role. And it is still far removed from them lying about Christianity. It highlights the different expectations of Christian vs Muslim political leaders. As a Muslim, you expect Muslim religious leaders to treat Islam as a political ideology and to stoop to the same tricks as politicians to further their agenda. Other religious groups (scientology being a notable exception) would see this as undermining the ideology they are trying to promote - as defeating its purpose. It does not make sense, because Christian religious leaders are motivated by Christianity to spread the truth about their religion and correct misconceptions among non-Christians and within their own church. Muslim leaders on the other exploit and encourage lies about Islam whenever it is convenient to their agenda of spreading Islam. The head hacking lunatics can clean up the mess they leave behind later on.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 7:53am

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 6:43am:

At what level Gandalf? Imam?

head of Islam in the country.

Just like archbishops, they don't get where they are without being "political".

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:19am

How about lying about Christianity? Is that a good career move for an archbishop?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:08am

Worked wonders for George Pell.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 5:04pm

What lies did he tell about Christianity?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm

I'm still trying to work out where this Imam lied about Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by James on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

I'm still trying to work out where this Imam lied about Islam.

Was freedivers question really that hard ?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 7:09am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

I'm still trying to work out where this Imam lied about Islam.

This is what he said:

In another, he says: "I cannot hide my pain today. A true Muslim was punished for doing which [sic] the collective will of the nation failed to carry out."

Later, after the press got onto it, he tried this:

In a statement the imam said the messages had been taken out of context. He said that he was expressing his opposition to capital punishment.

Maulana Habib Ur Rehman is the most senior imam at Glasgow Central Mosque, a role which involves leading prayers and giving religious guidance and teachings.

Gandalf, do you think describing this murderer, who killed a man merely for criticising blasphemy laws, as a "true Muslim," and the reference to the failure of the rest of the nation, is a reference to his views on Islam, and blasphemy in particular? Do you see any Archbishops describing pedophiles as "true Christians" who are being punished for merely copying Muhammed's example of having sex with children?

Which of his two statements above do you you think is true?

How about the infamous "only Muslims are innocent" statement, also from a British Imam. Do you think that is a reference to his views on Islam? Do you think he was misrepresenting his views when he spoke to the press in English?

Do you think lying to non-Muslims about Islam is so institutionalised within Islam because even progressive reformer Muslims such as yourself are so indoctrinated you cannot even see the lie? Does this mean we can never expect Imams to stop lying to the press because they will never be pressured by their congregation to be open and honest about Islam, only to avoid the embarrassment of being caught?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 8:54am

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 9:55am

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 7:09am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

I'm still trying to work out where this Imam lied about Islam.

Sorry, I still don't see any lying "about Islam". He lied about what he said about the executed person, but never contradicted his actual views on Islam.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by James on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 11:31am

Lol he believes he was correct, only muslims were innocent.
No surprises there.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 3:24pm

Ah, so lying about what you said about Islam is not the same as lying about what you think about Islam?

Is "what he said about the executed person" anything to do with his views on Islam?

What about the infamous "only Muslims are innocent" Imam? How do you twist that one into him actually being honest about Islam?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 4:41pm

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 3:24pm:

Is "what he said about the executed person" anything to do with his views on Islam?

Probably. But he never actually said anything to contradict those "views" in the subsequent statement to the media. He tried to deflect from his views, but didn't pretend to repudiate them (which is what an actual lie about his Islamic views would involve).

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 4:53pm

Ah, so completely disowning them is not the same as repudiating them? I think I am getting the hang of being a Muslim religious leader now Gandalf. What is in store for our next lesson?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 5:39pm

He didn't disown them. Thats the whole point of deflecting.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 10:11pm

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:

Ah, so completely disowning them is not the same as repudiating them?

Exactly. We have the precedent of the 2007 FD here, who subsequently disowned every single thing he ever said, but never repudiated it.

To this day, FD still pretends he never had the surgery.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 6:52am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

He didn't disown them. Thats the whole point of deflecting.

In a statement the imam said the messages had been taken out of context. He said that he was expressing his opposition to capital punishment.

Would you say this is a misrepresentation of the content of his messages?

What about the "only Muslims are innocent" Imam? Was he being honest?

Quote:

Exactly. We have the precedent of the 2007 FD here, who subsequently disowned every single thing he ever said, but never repudiated it.

I have been pretty clear what I changed my mind on.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 8:57am

Great. So you you mind if we get a few clarifications?

Thanks, FD.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 9:42am

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 6:52am:

Would you say this is a misrepresentation of the content of his messages?

Yes. But he never said anything to the media that actually contradicted the beliefs he expressed about Islam. A good follow-up question would have been something like "yes Imam, but do you stand by your statement that this man was a "true muslim"? - don't you think?

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 6:52am:

What about the "only Muslims are innocent" Imam? Was he being honest?

Obviously not. Congratulations, you've found an instance of a muslim lying about his faith - that is 10 years old. Clearly the problem is rampant :P

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Frank on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 10:18am

The head of the Australian cell of Hizb ut Tahrir speaking in Turkey just last month:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBhT9hyoHA

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:31am

Quote:

You know me Gandalf, I don't like to hassle people with too many follow-up questions. But it is good to see you are getting the hang of the interrogation process.

Do you think Imam Rehman is ideologically opposed to the death penalty?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by gandalf on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:05am

probably not.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:19am

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:31am:

Quote:

You know me Gandalf, I don't like to hassle people with too many follow-up questions.

Exactly. Sometimes a question is just a question.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by freediver on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 6:36pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

Quote:

Do you think Imam Rehman is ideologically opposed to the death penalty?

probably not.

So he was more than likely lying in the one-line extract I provided for you?

Would you describe your posts here as a misrepresentation of his misrepresentation of his views on Islam, or were you merely deflecting?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Karnal on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 6:54pm

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

Quote:

Do you think Imam Rehman is ideologically opposed to the death penalty?

probably not.

FD, are you ideologically opposed to porkies?

Is the 2007 FD a misrepresentation of your misrepresentation of your views on Freeeeedom, or are you merely evading?

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Frank on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 10:11am

the then mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, invited the Egyptian Muslim preacher Yusuf al Qaradawi to the capital for a spot of congenial dialogue, presumably at the taxpayer’s expense. Many people objected, calling Qaradawi an extremist who should not be allowed to set foot in the country. No, no, said the Muslims, and Ken: Yusuf’s definitely a moderate.

Well, let’s see. This is a man who supports the execution of apostates, the murder of Israeli civilians, whipping homosexuals, genital mutilation and unconditional support for the terrorists Hezbollah, and who thinks that women who have been raped must prove they are of good conduct before anyone takes them seriously. And yet, in the wider context of the Muslim world, Ken was right — Yusuf is a moderate. For example, he believes that while uppity women should indeed be beaten by their husbands, this should occur only as a last resort and the husband should not use a stick. This makes old Yusuf a sort of Menzies Campbell of Islam — well towards the liberal wing of the ideology. There’s also his leniency towards homosexuals — lash the buggers by all means, but don’t push them off roofs. The term ‘extremist’ and ‘moderate’ serve only to re-inforce our collective delusions. They make no sense. They lead to the kind of problems we are now seeing with our state-sponsored Muslim chaplains, as they wander from cell to cell disseminating hatred or idiocies.

Title: Re: Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman
Post by Frank on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 10:11am

The religious leader at Scotland's biggest mosque has praised an extremist who was executed for committing murder in Pakistan, the BBC can reveal.
Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman of Glasgow Central Mosque used the messaging platform WhatsApp to show his support for Mumtaz Qadri.
Qadri was hanged in February after murdering a local politician who opposed strict blasphemy laws.
In a statement the imam said the messages had been taken out of context.
He said that he was expressing his opposition to capital punishment.
In messages seen by the BBC, Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman says that he is "disturbed" and "upset" at the news of Qadri's execution, before writing "rahmatullahi alai", a religious blessing usually given to devout Muslims and meaning may God's mercy be upon him.
In another, he says: "I cannot hide my pain today. A true Muslim was punished for doing which [sic] the collective will of the nation failed to carry out."
Maulana Habib Ur Rehman is the most senior imam at Glasgow Central Mosque, a role which involves leading prayers and giving religious guidance and teachings.
The BBC has confirmed with members of the group that the messages come from the imam.
Qadri was employed as a bodyguard for the governor of Punjab province in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, before turning on him in 2011 and shooting him 28 times.
After the shooting Qadri reportedly told journalists that he was "proud" and that he had killed a "blasphemer".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123