"Terrorism," of course, is a tactic, and as liberally as the term is applied in common usage, condemning it doesn't tell us a whole lot. After all, nobody likes terrorism. It will, of course, be instructive to see how Qadri defines "terrorism," and for that matter, "innocent people."
But here, as ever, the question remains: What about jihad? Without addressing the ideology and its roots in the Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira, acts of violence in the name of jihad -- offensive or "defensive" (jihad in search of an excuse) -- remain untouched by this edict. Thus, even despite the ruling on suicide attacks, this fatwa is not a game-changer, so to speak. There is more than one way to wage a jihad.
"Islamic Scholar Issues Anti-Terrorism Fatwa," by Mark White for Sky News, March 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):
A prominent Islamic scholar will use a speech in London to issue a 600-page religious edict, denouncing terrorists and suicide bombers as "unbelievers".
Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri is a leading figure who has promoted peace and interfaith dialogue for 30 years.
He said he felt compelled to issue the fatwa because of concerns about the radicalisation of British Muslims at university campuses and because there had been a lack of condemnation of extremism by Muslim clerics and scholars.
Ul Qadri says his fatwa, which is aimed at persuading young Muslims to turn their backs on extremism, goes further than any previous denunciation.
"This is the first, most comprehensive fatwa on the subject of terrorism ever written," said ul Qadri, who has written about 350 books on Islamic scholarship.
He is a scholar of Sufism, a long tradition within Islam which is widely seen as focusing on peace, tolerance and moderation. [...]
Government officials will be among those joining ul Qadri for the launch of the fatwa in central London.
The Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella organisation representing some 500 Islamic groups, has welcomed the fatwa.
Ul Qadri will tell his audience: "The reality is that whatever these terrorists are doing it is not martyrdom. All these activities are taking them to hellfire." [...]
Ul Qadri said he is confident his edict will have a significant impact because he has drawn on classical teachings and authorities acceptable to all sects of Islam.
"I will say more than 50% will change their way, they will be influenced," he said.
"Of the remaining 50% at least some of them, half of them, will become doubtful about their life, their terrorist activity," he said....
Silence. I send you to hellfire!
What say you, Wacky Mullah?
The patient Islamist communicating to the impatient Islamist. Six hundred pages worth, wow.
Water into wine. Snake oil into fatwa. Ehm... I prefer the first one.
Silence, Infidels! Obviously, this shirk is an apostate! Twisting the words of the Prophet into a career as a western apologist for Islam! Of course, you cannot have Islam without terrorism! Did not the Prophet say, "I have become victorious through terror"? Sheesh.
- Abdullah Bhullah, the wacky mullah.
Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya - illustrated.
ISLAM ITSELF IS ONE GIANT FATWAD FOR MANKIND...
Now could we please hear from "prominent Islamic scholars" living in states where Islam predominates, or better, states where Islam is the supreme law? Could we please hear from Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Somalia, Yemen? Why is it that the prominent Islamic preachers of nonviolence always seem to be somewhere in what used to be called Christendom? Could it be that they would be executed if they were to insult suicide bombers and other jihadists in any Islamic country?
Ul Qadri will tell his audience: "The reality is that whatever these terrorists are doing it is not martyrdom. All these activities are taking them to hellfire."
Problems:
1) Implicit in the negative formulation of the first sentence is the admission that there is, in fact, in Islam a virtue of laudable dying for Islam (i.e., "martyrdom") which -- if we follow the Koran, specifically 9:111 -- links this dying "in the path of Allah" with fighting against enemies and killing enemies. So, Qadri, like all the other Muslims who have issued so-called condemnations of terrorism, is not eliminating the root of the problem: he is only telling the "young" wannabe terrorists that their particular violent militancy is wrongly framed: he is not forbidding violent militancy when it is rightly framed -- i.e., when it passes the litmus test of being considered authentic "martyrdom". In a sane world, this framework would not be tolerated by us and we would have Qadri arrested or deported for advocating "martyrdom" (i.e., sedition) at all.
2) If our modern Western society has innumerable numbers of people who need to dissuaded from doing concerted guerilla-style violence against us on the basis that it will not take them to Paradise, but rather to "Hellfire", and if we not only permit this absurd and deadly nonsense, but we positively invite it and showcase it supportively (e.g., "Government officials will be among those joining ul Qadri for the launch of the fatwa in central London"), then we have already assumed the posture of conceding defeat.
"Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri is a leading figure who has promoted peace and interfaith dialogue for 30 years." and a Sufi, recognised as heretical by Sunnis and Sh'ias, the majority of the "Truly Submitted" who also consider each other to be apostate.
For that reason alone Jihadist terrorists will probably ignore ul Qadri's well-considered and long-overdue fatwa. It is hoped and expected that others less doctrinaire but inclined nevertheless to Jihadist thought will stay any precipitous actions tending to death and dismemberment among the innocent, both Muslim and Kaffir.
Ul Qadri's fatwa will probably make no significant different to the daily body counts of Islam's victims, but it may cause discussion and perhaps dissuade a few young people from the path of bloody Jihad.
It's a start 1388 years late, for something that should never have been necessary if Mohammed had listened to the well-intentioned objections of his early critics.
I am having problems submitting comments. Is this happening to anyone else?
No. I just submitted one on the "Neither rock nor roll" thread. It's there.
I've never had any problems on TypePad.
More Taqiyya and Samosas.
Al-BBCeera have been whoring this all day, along with their permalink to the MCB statement on terrorism... yes you know the one, you must have heard it so many times from other Muslims:
"Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible"
Anjem Choudary has already told the BBC what 'innocent' means in this context - but they keep on shilling for Islam and Islamic immigration regardless. He told Stephen Sackur exactly what it means at 0:11:00 in this video.
"I will say more than 50% will change their way, they will be influenced," he said
So here's the deal according to this fatwa spewing "scholar", in the future, expect the number of those murdered in the name of islam to be cut in half, Bravo. If he would have issued his fatwa before he spent his time writing 350 other books perhaps only one of our twin towers would have been destroyed and only 1500 of our citizens have been murdered by the reduction he envisions.What a deal.
Also he only promises to present his case, a case which will do more to falsely reassure those who are ignorant of isalm than to dissuade terrorism.
The only acceptably sane fatwa coming from any muslim is the absolute repudiation and abandonment of islam itself and the destruction and ridicule of the Koran.
Hitler reacts to news of his Coalition partners refusal to extend the Dutch mandate in Afganistan. The government collapse which follows means he will lose this war.... After the capitulation he contemplates upcoming elections against his old nemesis Wilders.. and prepares to have him persecuted for the crime of 'speech deemed offensive to the Fuhrer' .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwXh3aAF0Nw
Here are some excerpts from Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri's keynote address at the "National Peace Conference":
"Islam is a religion of peace and harmony. There is no need to establish it here as the Quranic injunctions and 1400-year history of Muslims are clear evidence authenticating this reality. The Holy Quran has equated the killing of one person with the killing of entire humanity and protection of one person with the protection of entire humanity"
Of course, that last Qu'ranic passage was not only abrogated, but is actually a passage excoriating the supposed failings of Jews.
more:
"The Holy Prophet (saw) has himself described a Muslim as someone by whose hands and tongue other Muslims are not hurt and remain safe."
Hmm—no mention of *non-Muslims* here.
more:
"There is a constant talk of peace in the entire world today and war on terror is being fought to establish elusive peace. There is no denying this truth that terrorists are not only enemies of peace but also of entire humanity. The peaceful forces should struggle against them but the questions arise here as to who fanned terrorism? Who opened this front? The situation was not as volatile as today ten years ago. Where have the army of terrorists appeared from all of a sudden? Is it not likely that the global forces fighting terrorism have also been responsible in creating this monster and now the whole world is being made victim to clash of civilization in the name of establishment of peace?"
Wait—what happened about ten years ago? Could it be 9/11—an unprovoked attack by Muslim terrorists on Infidel civilians?
No matter—Tahir ul Qadri still implies that it is "the global forces fighting terrorism" that have—somehow—created this monster in the first place.
He then goes on to imply that drone attacks are the cause—rather than the consequence—of terrorism in North Waziristan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan. He darkly hints that it is the "foreign powers" who are supporting terrorism there—would that be India, or Britain, or the US, or "the Zionists"? Does it matter? It must be the wily Infidels, in any case.
After establishing that evil Infidels have caused terrorism in Pakistan, he then—with perfect "Muslim logic"—concludes that there probably aren't any real terrorists there, anyway. It has all been cooked up by the Pakistani authorities.
In fact, the fight against terrorism itself seems to be terrorism, as Tahir ul Qadri makes it sound:
"The situation has reached such alarming levels that our Mosques, sacred places, religious institutions and hospitals are not being spared."
http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/7911/Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri%E2%80%99s-keynote-address-at-%E2%80%9CNational-Peace-Conference%E2%80%9D.htm
Sounds like the same old weasely "condemnation of terrorism" by Muslims to me.
Six hundred pages is a considerable fraction of a tree to waste expressing an opinion that will likely not be considered as authoritative by anyone who counts within the Islamic world. This prominent Islamic scholar, Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri, must have been ruminating on this problem for a very long time for it to take 600 pages to fully explain the reasoning. No Islamic scholar worth his salt is capable of uttering even a simple declarative sentence without full citations of what is considered to be settled Islamic "case law" based on the Qur'an, hadith and sura, so most of the 600 pages will be this sort of filler material, along with padding in the form of the usual Asaalamu Aleykums, PBUHs, SAWs, etc., etc. The essence of the "edict" is very likely to be little more than a variant of the usual Islamic message. A good editor could probably boil the principal talking points down to less than a single page.
I found out what was wrong. I was trying to post in the recent story about Muslims banning a music festival in northern Nigeria. It turned out that I was trying to post my comment as a reply to a freshly-deleted comment. When I posted it as a stand-alone, it went through OK.
"...a freshly-deleted comment."
DDA, could you please clarify, specifically whether it was a comment that had already been posted? I wasn't aware that this was possible in TypePad, although it would be a useful feature (IntenseDebate allowed this, as well as editing of posted comments).
"Implicit in the negative formulation of the first sentence is the admission that there is, in fact, in Islam a virtue of laudable dying for Islam"
Hesperado,
Once again you laser sharp logical analyses has cut threw this crummy falafel sandwich thrown our way by this new and improved gentle Nazi, Tahir ul Qadri , revealing the true meat of the subject as only consisting of pure baloney.
I feel much more safer now after reading this wonderfull news here,i can take a plane without anymore anxiety or feeling of insecurity....i don't understand of what's looking for me here a overreacting behavior of some peoples ( Maybe islamophobia ),that guy looks very Honest i want to give him a Chance......it's a pious muslim after all,how could we not trust him....
What's funny is, whether this guy is on the level or not, other "scholars" are going to issue fatwas calling for his death for saying such un-islamic, heretical stuff.
Ha! Martin
Obvious preemptive BS strike.
Someone watch the side doors as he issues his fa-twat,please.
This fartwa was advertised a week ago by Ed Husein, this strange and weird "moderate Muslim" who is no moderate at all, but somehow gets $$$$ from the thiving interfaith bizniss that the Nullabour stooges offer for the taking.
We shouldn't ackowledge any fartwas, none whatsoever, because they are irrelevant, except when they are about killing us.
This is from Harry's Place:
I’m afraid, Brian Whittaker in The Guardian(well, CiF, actually) may be right.
The whole idea of waging “fatwa wars” with extremists is not only futile but anti-progressive and further entrenches the authoritarian tendencies in Islam. Issuing fatwas and promoting them, even in a good cause, is damaging because it ends up reinforcing the importance attached to fatwas in general.
He is of course responding to the story that an influential Muslim scholar has issued a global ruling against terrorism and suicide bombing.
Whittaker disagrees with Ed Hussein who also writes in The Guardian’s CiF that “Fatwas can be a force for good”.
wakingwest,
"Once again you laser sharp logical analyses has cut threw this crummy falafel sandwich thrown our way by this new and improved gentle Nazi, Tahir ul Qadri , revealing the true meat of the subject as only consisting of pure baloney."
Thanks. And yes, once again with this fatwa as with all previous anti-"terrorist" fatwas, we see the fat hasn't been trimmed away -- you know, the deadly kind of saturated fat that grows between the ears of Muslims, the fat that shortens the lives of Infidels. To this latest fatty fatwa, it is getting tiresome for us to have to repeat the necessary rhetorical question: Where's the beef!?
gravenimage, thanks for providing those exceprts of Qadri.
I shouldn't be surprised to see all the same ostensibly assuaging, but insidiously sinister, platitudes trotted out by yet another Muslim "doctor".
Good God, Qadri must think the West is stupid!
And, alas, alack, he's right.
Gravenimage, thank you for the information you provided here on ul-Qadri. You have exposed him definitively as just another Muslim liar who resorts to twisted "logic" to demonstrate that Muslims are, in fact, mere victims of infidel aggression. Time and again, those Muslims who present a veneer of moderation are revealed to be utterly mendacious about their true beliefs. Example after weary example of this leads one inevitably to conclude that the so-called "moderate Muslim" is indeed an entirely chimerical being, but given what we know about Islam and Muhammed, how could it, realistically, be otherwise?
Tahir ul Qadri: Typical Mohammedan, fighting among other Mohammedan sects for dominance of his sect. Islam's SOP. Gravenimage already pointed to some of his "achievements". He is one of the sharia-lawyers enabling Zia-al-Haqq's quranic Hudd-laws, eg. blasphemy for ridiculing Mo and blood money also payed for mohammedan women (according to sharia)in Pakistan - which is why Qadri claims to support women's rights.
His bio (self pompously told):
http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/8718/A-Profile-of-Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri.html
In another case the Blasphemy Law protecting the esteemed station and reverence of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) was also passed for the first time in the history of Pakistan after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the court, over a period of three days, culminating in an Act of Parliament. Another landmark and famous enactment of Parliament concerning ad-diya (blood-money) of a murdered woman resulted after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented arguments in the President House of Pakistan during a special legislative session chaired by President Zia’ al-Haqq.
His organisation Minhaj-ul-Quran and it`s standpoint on "Gaza":
http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/7484/MQI-organizes-Gaza-Conference.htm
...He said that more than 1.5 billion Muslims were helpless before 14 million Jews. (...) Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri said that the ruling elites in the Muslim world would have to rise above their personal interests and take collective decisions. Only in this way would peace be established in Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan, deterring the aggressors from committing aggression against the Islamic countries.
Hesperado wrote:
Good God, Qadri must think the West is stupid!
...................
I agree. And there is absolutely no excuse for the Mark Whites of the world to be so credulous. I was able to find Tahir ul Qadri's own words easily enough. Why should this be beyond the capacity of a working journalist?
He is a phony, of course, but a hard-working phony. Maybe those British are getting harder to convince that Islam can be modified. As I said somewhere else today, if he was any kind of decent human being he could have spared himself the effort of labouring over 600 pages of tripe, left Islam and got himself an honest job.
dda: did you contact Mark Durie? I have a request for you...
Is there legitimate terrorism? Retaliatory terror? For example, if and / or when Iran becomes a nuclear power, should the Iranians or an Iranian proxy detonate a nuclear device in a US city - killing innocent men, women and children - wouldn't this be an act of terrorism? The US would then retaliate in kind, killing Iranian men, women and children. Isn't this justifiable terrorism?
Buraq is Dead, thanks for the additional information on Tahir ul Qadri's views, especially as regards Pakistan's grotesque blasphemy laws.
And Commonsense, thank you.
From Al Jazeera's wensite:
"They can't claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim Umma [the wider Muslim community], no, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are leading towards hellfire," he said.
"There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered Jihad," he said.
'No place in Islam'
At a news conference, ul-Qadri said Islam was a religion of peace that promotes beauty, "betterment", goodness and "negates all form of mischief and strife".
"Terrorism is terrorism, violence is violence and it has no place in Islamic teaching and no justification can be provided for it, or any kind of excuses or ifs or buts," he said.
A number of edicts condemning extremism have been made by Islamic groups since the September 11 attacks on the United States, but ul-Qadri insists his is the most wide-reaching.
"Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri is a leading figure who has promoted peace and interfaith dialogue for 30 years."--from the article.
Qadri's idea of "peace and interfaith dialogue" may be rather different than what the author of this article suggests, given that Qadri has appealed for the revival of some archaic blasphemy laws in the West, presumably to be used to punish those who "insult" Islam and Muhammad.
In response to the "cartoon crisis" of 2005-2006, Qadri wrote an article available online titled: A call to prevent a clash of civilizations (Sunday, February 26, 2006). In it, he writes:
"[...] There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace.[...]
• 1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.
• 2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.
• 3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again."[...]
What he is proposing in that article is not referred to explicitly as sharia law, but it is clear enough that he wants sharia-based restrictions on what non-Muslims can express about Islam. In that, he is in agreement with the majority of Muslims in the U.K., who want Islam critics who "insult" Islam or Muhammad to be criminally prosecuted and punished.
"buraq is dead" and Gravenimage, thanks for the info.
Gravenimage,
You quoted Qadri: "The Holy Quran has equated the killing of one person with the killing of entire humanity and protection of one person with the protection of entire humanity"
and you added:
"Of course, that last Qu'ranic passage was not only abrogated, but is actually a passage excoriating the supposed failings of Jews."
As far as I'm aware, 5:32 is not regarded by Muslim scholars or jurists as abrogated. In any case, the exception for "mischief/corruption in the land" in the verse allows such a vast loophole that Muslim jurists and scholars can (and do) use other parts of the Quran and Hadith to fill in the meaning of "mischief/corruption" to include all kinds of words and deeds of the non-Muslims, i.e., anything deemed significantly in opposition to Islam. To see modern applications of punishments, including the death penalty (which is mentioned as one of the punishments in 5:33), for corruption/mischief, see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc.
Re the reference to the Jews, indeed the verse does excoriate the Jews, but the meaning of the verse is broader, and when taken with 5:33, threatening punishment to anyone who commits mischief/corruption.
What do you do when you are a prominent Islamic scholar and somebody gets over enthused and performs sajda with niyat of ibaadat, and ibada on you at the party?
The sparks fly and hilarity ensues as Dr. Qadri handles business in “Dr. Qadri and the Muslim Masher.”
http://bzupages.com/f262/tahir-ul-qadri-sajda-karvaate-huay-th-6035/
"It's a pious muslim after all,how could we not trust him...."
That's why. The more pious the more dangerous and likely to "go Muslim" - you know, following allah's commands of "slay and be slain."
So peaceful, that.
What happened was - *someone else* posted a comment. I then wrote a reply to that comment; but while I was writing, the comment I was replying to, had been deleted. So I got an error message. Tried again, again an error message.
So posted my own comment as a stand-alone rather than as a reply, and it went through.
Deepest apologies, PJG - I haven't yet done so, what with one thing and another. Will do so later this afternoon once I finish the school run.
So, it only took this B.S. artist 4 1/2 years after England's 7/7/2005 Terrorist attacks in London to come up with this lame nonsense?
Too frikkin' little, way too frikkin' late, imam.
600 pages ! That is a lot of toilet paper. I forgot mools don't use toilet paper. However I imagine it could be useful for burning down a Synagogue or Church. Why do you need 600 pages to state a very simple maxim - blowing up innocent people and yourself is anti-human.
Apparently these Muslims either didn't read this fatwa, or didn't agree with it:
"Three suicide bombs hit Iraq city of Baquba"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8546744.stm
Muhammed Ul-Qadri, who is he, what authority does he really carry? He is very arrogant, talking about what Islam is about and what it is not about. Just as if there was so much clarity and consensus on the issues he discussed and condemned. But there isn't, witness the fact that he felt obliged to give the fatwa in the first place.
Look, Islam is Islam, very complicated, interpreted in countless ways, and the Muslims are very much divided on many issues and here he comes; the great understander, the great authoritative leader. No, he's just one more man with an opinion.
And opinions of people like here on Jihad-Watch, who are also experts on Islamic teachings, interpretations and implementations should weigh something also. Yes, non-Islam-people may have ulterior motives, but so can pro-Islam-people have sinister motives too. The opinion of both groups should be weighed carefully, on arguments alone.
The world should also get and listen respectfully to "fatwa's" from people like us. Many of us have as much, or much more knowledge, clarity and consensus about Islamic teachings than many of the Muslims. Believing in Islam does not determine how well or bad a person understands it, I think.
Our fatwas won't have authority among muslims, but they could get Muslims and Western citizens thinking. And most fatwa's of Muslim leaders are always ignored by a big part of the Muslims too.
'The world should listen respectfully to "fatwas' from people like us' - if you can hear above the boom of the Muslims' Islamic jihad bombings.
And the Islamic world's jihad killers, their supporters and apologists should listen respectfully to the victims of Islam, but don't.
Jihad 1: Kaffir 0.
The fatwa isn't intended for Muslims - it's intended for kaffir (and will divide us kaffir, without doubt). The BBC and lamestream media took the bait and swallowed it without a thought.
It's safe to condemn Islamic terrorism if you're a Sufi, since who's ever heard of a Sufi terrorist. Of course Islamic terrorism is against Islam, until a caliph officially declares jihad, which can be retroactive, all the way back to 632, so hurry up and restore it and all 1.x billion Muslims will lock and load instead of just thousands, after hopefully 50 million Muslims are allowed into the West for multiculturalism. Study Islam's history free online with the Historyscoper and master the facts fast in a concentrated form at http://go.to/islamhistory
TL Winslow.
Gratitude and admiration for your heroic and intelligent postings of the truths which have the power to blow islam away, kudos.Your link is an armory from which we can draw our weapons to slay this great beast of deceit, isalm.
Well, I hate to dash cold icy water on such a (for Islam) rosy outlook on the possibility that change might come to the murderers - but, sadly, "He is a scholar of Sufism", and Sufism is not taken seriously by other Muslims. It is rather like you had the leader of the Jehovah Witnesses speaking for Christianity, and expecting a different result. No doubt he thinks what he said is going to get him status as a kind of new Muslim Pope - but I bet he thinks that about his writings at least once a year - every year he thinks, "This time they will get it and recognize my gift as a great teacher-leader".
Fron TL Winslow's site --
"Yes, the original Nazis were Jews . . "
Caveat Lector
Whenever somebody asks what kind of people are considered "innocent" by Islam and therefore unentitled to be killed in suicide bombings et al, what we get is a lot of waffling, red herrings, hairsplitting from "moderate Muslims" ( I am beginning to suspect that this phrase is an "oxymoron"). For my part I am sick of this moral tergiversation(and if this is "Islamophobic", then so be it!)
Terry
The fatwa that we can issue is that Muslims must adapt and subordinate their Islamic beliefsystem to all major relevant Democratic rules and that in the end Muslims must do so in Islamic countries too and that Muslims should side with the Democratic authorities and forces against those who would prefer theocratic rule over democratic rules, anywhere.
Because Islam can survive under democracy but democracy cannot survive under Islam.
Hello everyone. As many of you know, I am firmly in the camp that opposes extremism and jihad as we know it. In fact, it is something that occupies my thoughts (and prayers against it)every single day, that is why I am here whenever my health allows it. I try to stop in every day at least a few times.
Having said that I am not sure, Robert's comments notwithstanding, that this is a bad thing, or an attempt to disguise jihad. I believe that this particular imam is sincere in his desire to stop terrorism. Perhaps his specific comments regarding suicide bombers and that they are not martyrs destined for paradise.
That struck a chord, even to my (some may say tin) jaded hearing. I honestly hope his words do have an effect on those who may have been won over to radicalism, maybe even swaying them to forgo it. I hope Robert is wrong this time, with all my heart.
We can pray after all, can't we?
Larry
onwatch24/7,
Read the post by buraq_is_dead | March 2, 2010 4:24 PM
Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri is partly responsible for the implementation of the harsh blasphemy laws in Pakistan, resulting in the killing or imprisonment of numerous non-Muslims in that country. He is now trying to introduce Islamic blasphemy laws into the U.K. and indeed through the West, as one of my posts above showed.
Hi Kinana, and thank you for the education. I apparently needed it. I guess that I allowed the optimist in me to blind me to what we all know is the sad truth of Islam. I will do more research before posting foolishness in the future. Like reading all of the prior posts for instance ;-)
Larry
Hi Larry
here is an article for your research,
"To associate two radically opposed concepts, Islam and terror, seems nowadays to be considered a ‘natural’ reaction to comtemporary events; thus we feel that we are an under obligation to bring these two different terms together in our paper. The aim of this paper is to show that there is no direct relation between them. To do this we focus mainly on the question: what is the meaning of terror? We examine what Islam says about terror........."
to see the rest of the article please go to the link below
http://fethullahgulenconference.org/dallas/read.php?p=islam-and-terror-from-perspective-of-fethullah-gulen
Peace be upon mankind