Nicely done, bringing the subject back to the point of the thread.

There is a certain view from some Muslims in Islam that is not acceptable, it is elitist, chauvinist, morally corrupt, logically inconsistent and revolutionary (which is NOT a good thing).

It is these ideas that must be attacked, not the track record of HuT, as can be seen Inyanat, Usman, Refresh and Co will always be able to cast aside the evidence at the top in Sunny’s article.

Political correctness be damned, certain things that Mo said and some of the actions of the old Caliphates must be questioned and held up to critical debate.

This doesn’t seem to be happening, only the actions of the “West” appear to qualify for this while all other societies are given an easy ride, enabling some of the tosh that we have seen on this page.

TFI

Usman. Sounds like Captain America. US Man.

I’ll get me coat.

TFI

i meant to say “”and it was far more cyclical than me vs. you and east vs. west.”

525 and 533: my thoughts on this.

the ‘muslim world’ and was it really ‘one entity’ – {so actually Usman saying now about the ‘muslim world’ should do what It wants – well there isn’t one It, is there.}

let’s start off with these questions: how did the ‘muslim world’as we consider it now – become ‘muslim’? and once all these different places became ‘muslim’ were they all ‘united’ through the ages?

so – to start – once arabia had been unified under the Prophet and then the early caliphate went caliph went off and ‘unified’ the levant – under the banner of islam – what was that then? invasion? did those countries/places/people ask to be included? it turned some places into becoming part of what is then referred to as part of the ‘muslim world’.
So did the countries/regions which can now be considered part of the ‘Muslim world’ vote to join the ‘Federation’? Or did the early Muslims just decide they wanted to spread the word? and behave like empires usually do? Later on we know that the Arabs weren’t the ones in power anymore in the so-called Muslim world. the rise of the seljuk turks etc. etc. who wanted an empire for themselves and happened to be muslim. lots of different people who happened to be muslim wanting to gain power over other people and each other, as it happens. ‘normal’ empire games?

whether later on the ‘Muslim world’ behaved like one entity or not – clearly it got very complicated by then – my point is that at some point the Muslims in Arabia decided that in order to ‘spread’ Islam they should go around invading some other territories and conquer those. If they decided to do that in the name of religion ( which we don’t actually know – they could have wanted some power and gotten tired of their bit of desert – who knows) then that is a bit worrying isn’t it in the context of these Khilafah discussions? How do we know the contemporary Khilafah types won’t want to follow the example of the Early Muslims? Perhaps that is what is worrying Roger? ( and others)

TCH

now sure there were loads of great mathematicians and scientists and what have you who came out of the ‘Islamic empire’. fine, yes there is an element of this is not very well known – but heck, not many people nowadays know much about the past. there is also a tendency for people to be ‘favouritist’ about this and see it as a west/east thing, instead of realising knowledge was built on previous thinking and it was far more cyclical and me vs. you and east vs. west.

alexandria for example in late antiquity was hugely cosmopolitan with indian sadhus hanging round neopythagoreans etc. etc.

in any case, it seems while people are happy to recognize the heavy handedness of some empires e.g. in the case of British colonialism, some are not so ready to criticize similar aspects of other empires – e.g. the Islamic empire. Surely there’s no need to be so ‘defensive’. Empires are empires!

Fascinating assumptions about me, about Islam, about yourself and your roots.

As you wish. Not sure we’ve got much to discuss.

That thirst was established long before the birth of Mo. The only claim that could be made for is that modern science / thought is the rejection of mysticism as an explaination of phenomena. This “the age of reason” and the philosophical thought behind it is as Islamic as a bacon sandwich.

What you are trying to lay claim to is the ability to think or reason as fruit of Islam rather than a fruit of human nature itself.

I suppose that if you see the world in terms of reverts etc, i.e. that we non-Muslims are already a lapsed Muslims waiting to return to the fold, it is easy to lay claim to any human virtue as rooted from Islam and your god.

Breathtaking arrogance and is not the sole jurisdiction of islam, but you might as well lay claim to that as well.

TFI

In summary; huzzah for me.

why does no one trust no one in this country?

how cum the prisons are full? and how cum all all the celebrities, (you know the people that are ‘living the dream’) have been in rehab at one stage or other in their lives?

these are just a few illnesses caught by victims of secularism, surley the worlds deadliest disease.

The invisible killer passive smoking or secularism you decide!

But Yes really!