I think he means by definition. He's not saying that there are no self identified Muslims hassling girls on the beach, but merely that he doesn't consider them to be Muslims. When a Muslim does something wrong, they cease being Muslim, at least termporarily, so that it becomes impossible for a Muslim to do something wrong. In this way Islam is perfect.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:17pm:


they don't cease to be muslim- that would make them kufr and that's a big thing to say about someone

all it means is that they are acting in a way that is not true to their deen/religion

you can say someone is acting unislamically without casting them out of the religion fd. don't be so extreme

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:20pm:


it's not like changing your status on msn fd. not in my opinion anyway

it's the same way as a christian doing something un-christian

it doesn't make them less of a christian or anything like that- it just might mean they're not a very good one

just because you do or say or think something that is against your religion- it does't mean you're automatically cast out of the fold. by our nature as humans we are going to sin, we're going to do things against whatever religion we subscribe to- it's the way we are.

but if you ask me- yes, you certainly can have an unislamic muslim or an unchristian christian- I've met a few of each.

my definition of that is someone who believes in their religion but doesn't practise it

but someone committing a singular act against their religion - I don't think they can be put into that category. if a muslim ate ham once I wouldn't call them an unislamic muslim. but if I knew someone who thoughout their life never prayed, drank, ate pork, had sexual relations outside of marriage etc- I would say their life was unislamic

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:55pm:


agreed- but there's nothing wrong with abu pointing out that it's against islamic beliefs. he's called upon as the forum's expert on islam, so him saying where this sits with islam is not unusual.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 6:22pm:


yes but you can still say someone is displaying un-christian behaviour  or that they're doing some against the teachings of christianity

to me- unislamic is the same thing

no it wouldn't be more correct- I don't know what the punishment is for caterwalling at women in public so I've got no idea if flogging is appropriate

so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were?

Quote:


The original attacks weren't Ok and from an onlooker - they looked like a drunken bunch of yobbos, which they probably were - but they weren't professing to have any superior moral code, only the fact they were defending their turf from anti-social marauders.  

The revenge attack was planned, there were groups of ethnic males congregating in large parties and on their way over to take revenge.  They smashed cars and property and caused trauma and terror to the innocent residents in nearby streets - of which many were sick and elderly.

No matter what religion they were - if there were Muslims amongst the mob - then they are just as violent and malicious as any male involved in the melee from either side - but they are also hypocrites - preaching one thing and doing another.