Abu can you explain what you mean by strategic here?

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showpost.php?p=484299&postcount=33

Quote:

So what is the plan? Why the need to emphasise strategy?

Don't worry, I'm fully aware of your insinuations that being strategic must refer to planning in war... Your intentions are tainted fd, in every post you make here.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 7:55pm:




More comment on 'upper hands' from the Koran.....

" "Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand. "
Koran 47.33-35


So, the 'rightly guided' moslem 'strategy' is, that when moslems become strong, politically, that when moslems have the 'upper hand', politically, that moslems should obey Allah, and destroy those who reject the authority of ISLAM over their lives ???

i.e.
Destroy those who reject the authority of ISLAM over their lives, whenever they are within the power of moslems.

THAT, is the meaning that i read.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 7:55pm:


Abu Rashid, If Islam comes to the secular world with a strategy to undermine it, that is going to lead to conflict is it not? I mean isn't it obvious to you that Christians and indeed secularists and Atheists are going to develop strategies too and their resistance is going to be greater having held those lands for many years.

Islam would not peacefully become the minority in Mecca without bloodshed would it? How can you come to secular countries with agendas to conquer and describe yourselves as the religion of peace?

I'm curious as to why you converted to Islam from being a secularist. Did you find being tolerant a difficult position to maintain?

Abu Rashid, I put it to you that there's a bit of a disconnect between the interpretation of the Qur'an that you and other moderate voices put and the interpretation used by a goodly proportion if not the majority of the Muslim world. For example it was be hard to find a Christian in an Islamic country who thought they were being treated fairly and impartially. The general consensus of opinion seems to be their very lives are under siege.

I ask these questions without rancour, but out of a spirit of revelation. I myself am an Atheist, but not without any spirituality. For most Atheists what we reject is a stylized God and Priests not a rejection of rapture and ecstasy.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 6:41am:




Yadda paraphrases Abu;

ISLAM cannot, and good moslems cannot, be held accountable for what moslem 'impersonators' do in the world today, because ISLAM has no authority in this secular world.
Therefore every evil that happens in this world can only be blamed upon non-moslems [because ISLAM has no authority in this world].
Even when moslem 'impersonators' [who claim to be acting on behalf of ISLAM] do wicked things, those evil actions can never, ever, be blamed upon good moslems - because good moslems have no authority in this world.




ALTERNATIVELY;
Of course, if the evil forces in control of this world today, were to surrender their power to ISLAM, and allow good moslems to rule the world, everyone would then see and understand the perfection of ISLAM.
All mankind would then live in peace and harmony, under the benevolent guidance of good moslems.
Because ISLAM is Allah's perfect religion.
/sarc off




+++


None of these incidents of violence [attributed to moslems]....

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

http://thereligionofpeace.com/
...has anything, AT ALL, to do with ISLAM, or, good moslems.



ISLAM is Allah's perfect religion, and ISLAM is only virtuous.

Honest!
/sarc off


+++

Beslan, in the footsteps of Mohammed - the rape of female captives.

Google;
beslan images young girls raped islam captives



The rape of female captives, by Jihadists, is justified by the example of Mohammed, as is recorded in the Hadith...

"Rape your 'war booty', its OK, say ISLAMIC texts"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251760605/0#0



The Hadith is the 'Sunna', it is the record of Mohammed's life.

The Hadith is meant to be an example to moslems of how they may [should] act in the world.

Moslem boys are taught from childhood, that they should try to imitate the life of the perfect man [in Allah's eyes], Mohammed.



Dictionary;
Sunna = = the traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad’s words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims.


+++

ADDENDUM;

Above, i raise the terrorist incident at Beslan as an example.




And i ask this question;

Were the perpetrators [who claimed to be moslems] of that terrorist incident at Beslan influenced in their actions, by ISLAM, OR, not ???

I would argue that the Hadith, which is an authoritative ISLAMIC text, DID influence those persons [who regarded themselves, as devout moslems], justifying the rape of the female children at Beslan.


And a subsequent question;

If the perpetrators [who claimed to be moslems] of that terrorist incident at Beslan are NOT regarded as good moslems [by the worldwide moslem community], WHERE WAS THE WORLDWIDE CONDEMNATION , OF THE INCIDENT AT BESLAM, BY ALL MOSLEM COMMUNITIES ???



n.b.
The 'prophet' of ISLAM said that, a persons silence is [their] consent, [their] agreement [with what is happening].

Google;
mohammed silence is consent

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 7:55pm:


Quote:


Quote:


The questions may have been leading but I don't think that's a reason not to answer.  By continually sidestepping this question of Islam's political strategy you make Muslims look distinctly dodgy. Would they look even dodgier if you answered them?

I mean to say we know that Left Right factions of our government have strategies, but their goals are quite open. Is the goal of Islam to take over secular societies? Should we at least try to resist by making war on Muslims, as they did when Jews took over their land including Jerusalem, a fierce resistance that is not yet over.

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not guarantee that a state is secular.

Secular states become secular either upon establishment of the state or upon secularization of the state (e.g. France). Movements for laïcité in France and for the separation of church and state in the United States defined modern concepts of secularism. Historically, the process of secularising states typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds to be used for a religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs.[2]

That doesn't look tolerant to you? Surely it's a lot more tolerant than societies where the religious go on rampages killing a dozen of their own fellows, all because thousands of miles away in another country across the seas some idiot has burnt a Quo'ran?

Also Abu why did you use the term propaganda? Are you suggesting that the promotion of Islam should not be entirely open and honest about Islam?