YouTube Taji Mustafa Hizb ut Tahrir Muslims and Free Speech Debate

[TheWersum]

Islam is Nazism.

[RusPrideAK]

the second guy is a complete dumb ass. He is like the only person that is HAPPY for people to insult his mom, that's so wrong. I wonder what his mum was thinking while watching this.

[denk7225]

@RusPrideAK In what sense was anything he said anything other than rational? There is nothing approaching equivalence between freedom of speech and fatuous appeals for freedom from insult.

I may very well be furious with insults directed towards my mother, but my feelings should in no way detract from an individuals right to say what he/she pleases according to their conscience.

So fucking what if someone is insulted.

[Dabayl]

Well, Any Indian or Chinese will be very happy to have his mum insulted.. That is why they accept all sort humilation in the hands of white man.

[maxed150]

I like this guy Taji!

[kennydeeedeee]

This guy “Taji,” who represented Muslims in the debate is a tiger. He makes a good attorney. I’ve watched so many Muslim representatives here in America on television, and almost all of them sounded weak, sorry, and defeated. They presented matters pertaining to Islam and the affairs of the American Muslim community poorly. If they’re more like Taji, I think the American people would have a more positive image of Islam.

[rexplorerii]

Why is the audience applauding all the time, what a bunch of idiots.

[dadush4]

@rexplorerii must suck to be deaf to reason.. ah well.. at least the audience got it :>..

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 My hearing is fine thanks, My beef is with applause for implying that Blair and Bush have Christian armies in Irag killing muslims, and preaching christianity along the way. There's no missionary side to the war there, and muslims are the ones guilty of killing other muslims in that country.

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 And on the issue under debate: people have rights, ideas dont. It is clear that the pope performed a critique of islamic doctrine, not a generalisation against muslims. If that happens to offend somebody, then they are quite welcome to try and counter argue whats been said. But what mr.Mustafa is doing here is to pose as a victim and claim that a civilized society must disallow free speach to protect the feelings of muslims. I say: no way! If you want to live in a bubble, join the amish

[dadush4]

@rexplorerii google => christiaan snouck hurgronje; have fun reading facts :)..

and as for freedom of insult, muslims (as he said) have no trouble going into a debate and discussing an issue, we ENCOURAGE it, we DISCOURAGE when someone adds an insult to a discussion, you dont agree? fine "I dont agree" is enough, why must you say "I dont agree you asshole" ??? what does the "you asshole" add to the idea? it just raises tension, i hope this answers your question.

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 The word asshole does not appear in any of my above comments.

CS Hurgronje died in 1936. He can't possibly make the anglo-american coalition guilty of all the bombings committed by different groups of muslims against each other in Iraq. Nor of preaching christianity by the sword. I think Mr Mustafa said that Blair was guilty of killing muslims, and that the pope's remarks should be understood in that context. The audience reaction to that is what i find laughable, in my first comment.

[dadush4]

@rexplorerii dude u are defending the word asshole by calling it freedom of speech,its just as bad as saying it.I'm trying to deny people these words,by denying freedom to insult.

Look at wat Mr. Hurgronje did,not when he died and THEN you can try and tell me Mr. Blair is innocent and the pope's remarks aren't to offend muslims..You like your society so much you hate to think it does anything wrong,because to you muslims arent probably even people so whatever ur government does,who cares right?

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 I'm defending the freedom to use the word asshole, not the word itself, not the use of it, or any fool who does use it unjustly.

It matters not how offended someone might be by statements about their religion: if it isn't an attack on a person or a group, they can be disproven if false, and they should be taken seriously if true.

I read the whole wiki-article on the Snouck fellow, i have no idea where you're going with this. Why don't you say what Blair is guilty of in your eyes.

[dadush4]

@rexplorerii hahaha thats the same thing.. dude give me 1 use of the word "asshole" in a debate about anything non buttock relatable. ur defending murder, but u wont allow it to happen unjustly, thats what u r saying.. "no no im not defending murder, im defending the freedom to murder" why would you allow any form of hatred into the world?

And it offended because it was specifically aimed at muslims,if I wrote in the newspapers "Ur mom is a jackass" aiming at u, u would not get offended?please.

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 You still don't get it: the popes qoute is about islam and its doctrines, not about muslims. It does not say "muslims are x, muslims do y!". It says what muhammed brought was all bad. It doesn't even say that muslims do spread the word of the prophet by the sword, only that muhammed urged it should be. A statement about ideology, that happens to offend gravely, is NOT equivalent to saying asshole to someone, it is not bringing hatred into the world. It is healthy, constructive debate.

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 I'm not defending the right to murder, murder is an initiation of force, and a violent act. Even extremely offensive speech may be constructive and important. What if i say the life and practice of muhammed is responsible for sexual abuse of children in Yemen: changing the law to raise minimum age of marriage, blocked by islamist party pointing to hadith, and the age of Aisha when she was married. Should i not fight the cause of 12yo girls dying in child birth from fear of offending?

[dadush4]

@rexplorer Snouck is proof of the western politicians now hiding their policies on Islamic interference.In Snoucks time,the newspapers in Holland wrote what he did as a spy in the muslim world and how he was accepted,after a while critizism came from some muslims who found out and they immediatly silenced the whole ordeal.Snouck was the inside job person to destroy the Islamic society in Indonesia,much like we believe Blair is doing today.thats why I had you read that article,we were fooled once

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 Indonesian islamic soceity wasn't destroyd, he was a fifth column to win the Aceh war(you're right he infiltrated and double crossed muslims to do so). No matter what Hurgronje did, it's not proof that Blair or anyone else is doing anything like that today. Yours is conspiracy theory, no better founded or less hysterical than the Eurabia conspiracy theory about muslims trying to take over Europe. They're both nonsence.

[dadush4]

@rexplor Exactly,muslims dont want europe they want their Islamic states reinstated.Tell me this,have you ever gone to Saudi Arabia or any of those states and talked to those people?If you did,you would notice they all want 1 thing,a Khalifah, and the reason they cant have it is because these western leaders pay the Soeltans or traitors in those states to supress these normal people in order to take oil and sources,so if you think Europe is innocent,think again,today is just like Hurgronjes time

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 People certainly dont all want that, Mustafa Kemal wasn't paid off by the west to turn trukey in to a secular state. Why does the muslim brother hood and the salafist party in egypt not get 100% of the vote in their election? There's lots of secular democrats in the middle east, and more than enough resistance locally to avoid the civilizational backlash you refer to. I never said Europe is innocent, but you'll notice we're not talking about murderous wars and killing muslims anymore.

[dadush4]

@rexploreri I dont necessarily agree with the killing muslims,if you look at the gaza;and its because you cannot have a muslim party inside a democracy, its either democracy or khalifah.its not khalifah INSIDE a democracy.the mere fact that democracy is present is an eyesore to the people,and their hatred towards it is being manifested by the turmoil present.the media just flowers up everything to make it look like people want democracy,while really they just want freedom,a KHALIFAH,INDEPENDANCE

[rexplorerii]

@dadush4 Well, well, that's honsety! Democracy and caliphate are incompatible. You don't seem to realize the contradiction in saying that peolpe don't want democracy, they want the caliphate, freedom and independence... What about the freedom to NOT submit to allah? Or for gay people to live life in what's for them a natural way? Independence for all individuals can't come without some sort of liberal democracy. A caliphate is the antithesis of what you say pople want. Feels good being European.

[4salahuddin]

alhadulillah this is dawah not the fucken saudi salfi cant even talk, fuckers

[4LLKILL3R]

nice taji!!

[truth1z]

Mashallaha ,nice & to the point answers.

[xukun0]

@Celtic450: You don't know what you are talking about! go and drink some beer thats what you good at it!!! your full of $hit!!! Lol

[themunkable]

jazakallah khairan 4 antum.....



[15Hejsa]

May Allah (Swt) reward you brother !

[warioreaction]

taji mustafa thrashed him

[xukun0]

@neelantra: PROVE IT!!! WHOO HOO! such a idiot lol kkkk Prophet Muhammad (SAW), the greatest man in history!!! Get some knowledge first then talk.

[whatsuppplz]

well done brother May Allah reward you in this life and the hereafter inshAllah

[theproudONE92]

i love this brother may allah bless him

[AbuAbdullahUK]

Just type: YOUTUBE(.)COM like you normally do, then copy and paste this next to it:

/watch?v=XGe2IsfM6wk

[AbuAbdullahUK]

Learn more about Hizb ut tahrir, here:

/watch?v=XGe2IsfM6wk

Or type: Abu Khadeejah on Hizb ut-Tahrir Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani Khawarij Takfir Sufi (on the search bar)

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - All the examples you gave are of the khawarij, I suggest you look up what this means, dimwit. To be impartial, we need to bring in examples of Christian and Jewish terror orgs that do indeed use scripture as a basis for their fascist ideologies and extreme intent. If you can't find any examples (conveniently), let me know and I will send some facts over.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - Your confusion and self-inflicted ignorance can easily be rectified by mere learning. Instead of wasting time with frivilous comments and woeful palaver, do some study you dimwit. As for extremism in Islam, no one is denying that it exists, and our efforts in country this "khawarij" ideology is not going in vain. Yet Islamophobes and bigotted hate-mongers like you would like to paint the whole faith with the acts of a few who claim adherence to it. Comprehende? Good!

[BarclayAvenue]

Zakuk77: It is the Islamic organizations who turn to murderous violence who should be the object of your rebuke, not those who expose them !

[zakuk77]

muslimheritage . com tinyurl . com / 6beamxp mercyprophet . org lastprophet . info rasoulallah . net muhammad . net theliesaboutmuhammad . com inspiredbymuhammad . com muslimheritage . com tinyurl . com / 6beamxp islamic-awareness . org / History islamic-awareness . org / Polemics muslim-responses . com

[BarclayAvenue]

The King Hearings : (remove spaces): c-span . org/Events/The-Extent-of-Radic­alization-Among-American-Musli­ms/10737420089-4/

Watch : Jasser, Wolf testimony

[san929292]

azakAllah

[zak96824]

@Celtic450

the west can't handle the true religion ISLAM more people convert to it than any other religion.

so the freemasons (polititions,music artist,POPE) are trying to find ways to take down the mass population of muslims across the world.

THEY CAN;T HANDLE ITTT SOON ALL OF BRITAN'S POPULATION WILL BE MUSLIMS

[BarclayAvenue]

@zak96824 Yes soon almost all Britains population will be Muslim. However Islam as the rule of law will never take hold in Australia and the Americas, not even in miniscule isolated pockets.

You will continue to be perplexed how Muslims could live here and be spiritual and happy to be Americans without desiring an Islamic state because you don't understand at all the basics of what America is.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue i explained to u how u criticise and sharia isnt choping off the hand,,,students study 6 years of sharia in saudi arabia so im sure they dont send those 6 years n holw to chop off a hand or to hang...besides there is no hanging in islam...

i idnt say speach is indoctrination but "free speach" the way is presented today by the politicians is n indoctrinatin...yes u can speak ur mind in a polite way...but when u curse someone thats not free speach but insulting

[zakuk77]

There is not a single place in the world that allows complete free speech without consequences. Even in some European countries, to deny the holocaust will get you imprisoned. In the US, laws are there to protect the honour of individuals from slander etc.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 America is that single place in the world. America protects all speech. The cost of having your speech protected is that others you may disagree with also have theirs protected. It is a small price to pay. Open dialogue increases understanding. Clothing and books will never be banned here. You can deny the holocaust ever existsed. You can march through the streets singing muslims are superior to kuffars, singing whites are superior to blacks, singing you are proud to be gay.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - If you keep repeating what you wrote, you may actually start believing in it...

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 I do believe it. America protects. There will never be "thought police" or religious oppression in America. To have consistency and fairness, a country cannot discriminate - it is *not* the job of government to evaluate ideas and decide *which* are worth protecting. That is the individual's role in a free society. The willful speech ideas opinions and actions of citizens are all universally protected within the USA as unalienable rights UNLESS they impinge on other citizens' rights.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - "UNLESS they impinge on other citizens' rights" - The fascist hearings which Peter King has initiated clearly impinge on citizen rights, just ask the Muslims who live there! There are thousands more blatant examples of wanton persecution of groups and individuals who simply profess the Muslim faith; most have never even been charged!

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Every criminal investigation must examine motive, and when the perps say they did it for Allah, you can't just fill your ears with cotton to satisfy CAIRs request for avoiding bad Muslim PR.

How *DARE* you use the word Persecution to describe the King hearings [ go to c-span . org and type king hearings into search box to see for yourself] when there are *actual* people sufffering *actual* persecution [lynchings maiming church burnings] under Islamists i.e. copts, ahmadiyyas.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 How DARE you call the King hearings facist when there is *real* facist theocracy occuring in Islam...visit my channel Barclay AVenue to see examples.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - You have just made my point, I rest my case. Adios.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Real facism occurs in every single country that becomes 90% Muslim or greater. In Turkey, the government mandated shutdown of religious institutions such as seminaries., In Bangladesh and Pakistan, tolerance for anti-Ahmadiyya vioence and masjid burnings. In Indonesia, the jailing of people who want to marry outside of the Islamic religion in which they were raised or who even speak out against a religion. Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Jordan, etc

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 It defies all reason to use the word facism to describe the King Hearings when they have included in themselves , TO BE A PART OF THE HEARINGS, even those Muslim voices who are strong opponents OF the hearings.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Actual religous facism is occuring every point on globe that Muslims reach 95% of population. Actual religious facism is being used to propel Sunni Islam and ensure through violence and jailings, and selective enforcement of the law (no jailtime for church burnings, punishment for interfaith marriage) that no other religion can take root.

Contrast with Poland (>97% CAtholic): Muslims Jewish and any ohter Christian sect can worship freely , with government protecting religious freedom.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - Stop wasting my time with your self-inflicted ignorance and bigotry. We shall leave it for the discerning readership to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Your clearly are an Islamophobe who would rather avoid the "cause and effect" of the issues you want to highlight, while also being partial/selective to your brand of misnomers. Good bye!

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77  Of the 107 videos I have on my site, 100 of them are uneditorialized direct footage of Muslims speaking their own minds and performing actions they feel are justfied by Quran/Hadith.

You are a cliche. When someone says "lets end church burnings", "lets end this violence on interfaith marriage","lets end suppression of free speech", you jump up, pull a giant curtain, waive your arms that Islam's misunderstood, and call the cameraman an Islamophobe.

Grow some balls like Zuhdi Jasser.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Yes those are indeed verifiable facts I've cited. I am not a bigot. It is bigotry to view Islam without its very real warts by selectively closing your eyes to it, disclaiming as "not islam" when the very people who commit the atrocities openly say they do so because it is prescribed in the Quran & Hadiths. They even tell you what chapter and verse its referenced in, and when you look it up it's all right there in black and white. Renounce or embrace it, but don't deny it exists.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Openly Renounce those parts of the Quran that prescribe brutality and injustice (wife beating for disobedience, death for apostates,discount of female testimony in court as worth half a man's, jew hatred, treating unbelievers as less human, using deception to further islam, suppression of free speech with violence,etc ), or Openly embrace them. But don't deny their existence, while protecting from criticism those parts of Islam that carry them out.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - The more you write, the more stupid you look. You do NOT know Arabic and rely on 3rd hand conjecture. The problem with your type of dimwits is that you have no desire to learn the truth and prefer to perpetuate lies over facts, cosmetics over substance. I would challenge you to substantiate your assumptions, but I already know the ignorance of your approach. Again, stop wasting my time and do some proper research, dimwit.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Please refrain from calling others "dimwit" "stupid" in the course of civil discourse. I am happy to provide the references if you can manage to control yourself.

It is not cosmetics but the substance of the Quran and Hadiths, on which Islamists base their cruel and rights-debasing acts that is the issue. I believe you to be very much aware of this, and you are denying it because it would reflect poorly on Islam, or perhaps feigning ignorance of the true content of the texts.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - Islamophobes like you do not know the meaning of civility; you come here pretend to be impartial and it was no sooner that we saw your real bigotry, hatred and ignorance, dimwit.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 Why is it that whenever someone points out bad things you always cry Islamophobe? I have no hatred bigotry or ignorance. You can continue to hurl insults at me but it does nothing whatsoever to support your position. For your information I love Muslims. One day you'll have to face up to the injustice and atrocities in the Quran and Hadiths, by either acknowledging & renouning them, or promoting non-fundamentalist Islam. But don't turn a blind eye to the dastardly deeds of the fundies.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - If they were "bad", you would have the competence to prove them to be so based on referential integrity and the Arabic language. Clearly you are a bigoted hate-monger and an Islamophobe because you have no substance to oft-repeated misconceptions and lies. Do not confuse religion and culture nor with those who claim adherence to it while acting in contradiction to it! Go away and broaden your reading horizon because your comments show a intellectual bankruptcy. Bye!

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 So, lets examine your logic. A multinational consortium of interconnected groups who are all Muslim and who spread hatred of and threaten to or actually commit violent acts on non-Muslims, on those who speak out against Islam, and on those who try to leave Islam CITING THE QURAN. When THEIR interviews are made public in an effort to get the good Muslims to grow some balls and denounce them, the "good" Muslims instead defame the publisher as having "mental issues" and being bigoted.

[zakuk77]

@BarclayAvenue - You need to understand "what is NOT Islam" to get the answers you want. Hitler for example, said "I am and forever will be a Catholic" - and he was never excommunicated from the church during his lifetime; are you now going to blame Catholicism for all Nazi blood-letting? Of course not! Hitler's idea of a "pure race" was supposedly based on his warped understanding of Christian texts mixed with his own nationalist/supremacist ideologies.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 (HITLER VS ISLAM - PART ONE) Zakuk,That's the worst analogy ever. Hitler's objectives were never "Canon Law for All!!" No historian ever had any reason to believe the third reich's objective was spreading canon law. Look at Hitler's writings...do you see anything related to religion?? anything at all?!?!?!?! Read Mein Kampf. In contrast, Islamists self-stated goal is Sharia (religious) Law to rule the land, every word from their mouths is Islam and Allah.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 (HITLER VS ISLAM - PART TWO) Third Reich was NOT motivated by religion. Hamas is. Al-Shabbab is. Hezbollah is. Abu Sayyaf (al-Harakat al-Islamiyya) is. Al-Qaeda is. The purpose of their actions specifically is to carry out the dictates of the Quran&Hadiths. YOU may not agree with their interpretation of Islam, but adherence to Islam is self-stated as the very reason for thier actions, which, as it turns out are pretty explicitly found in the Quran and Hadiths.

[BarclayAvenue]

@zakuk77 (HITLER VS ISLAM - PART THREE) The most you can say about what hitler has to do with Catholicism is he was the worst Catholic to ever walk the face of the earth. Contrast that with Islamist orgs, for whom the spread of Islam is the very reason for their existence and everything they speak and breathe; The religion is the very driving force for what they do. Yours is about as mistaken an analogy as I can think of.

[khalilrabee]

freedom to insult...my question is what rational human being accepts being insulted? which of these politicians who wants u ppl to accept insult would accept insults himself? are those politicians ur example? politicians who claim equality between citizens and yet the poor pays the taxes and rich does not pay anything...politicians driving expensive cars bought from the money of the ppl without any right? what world are u ppl living in? where are ur minds? ur manners? ur dignity? are u humans???

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee The right to be able to speak out against something is as important as the right to be able to speak out in support of something. Without that right, no real and open discussion can be had.

Why does Islam continue to deny that to others.Why in Islam are death threats considered a proportionate response to criticism of Islam, yet In Islamic Countries other religions are denied the very right to practice and spread their religion via speech at all?

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue im going to answer this question but before doing that ill ask u to leave ur biased thoughts about islam...

the qor'an says "wa jadelhom billaty hia ahsan"...this means "debate them in the best manners"

muslims are the fathers of debates for 1400 years by now...we invite everyone to talk to us and debate us (ofcourse this isnt talked about at the news u watch)...

in islam there is the RIGHT to speak but todys politicians preach FREEDOM of speach whch is a different thing...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue lets take the exmple of a person that is indoctrinated by this concept of freedom of speach in the way its presented by the media which is aproved by the government...

they do not criticise but insult...the drawings made by the swedish...can u call that criticism? they know that we muslims do not draw prophets and we consider it a sin..not only they portray the prophet but they portray him with a bomb on his head...after that a draw mohmmad day was created...can u call that crit.

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee

Muslims murdered and create death threats over a drawing. You are saying the death threats hurled against those who criticize Mohammed's followers should be protected speech but the criticism of Mohammed's followers (as too eager to use bombs/violence) should not be protected speech?

As there were no bombs in Mohammed's time, clearly the image was a criticism of the modern-day followers of Mohammed.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue again those drawings arent clled criticising...thats insulting...if i sy that ur mother is dumb can u say that i criticise ur mother and not insult her directly? thats not criticism...

and again about sharia...instead listening to news about sharia why dont u study it urself? because sharia isnt about choping one hand off...sharia is n entire science...sharia means legislation...its an entire legisltion which requires vast studies

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee Of all the valid criticisms of Sharia I have just mentioned not one can you defend ? The best you can do is say Its been around for 1300 years so it must be good ??!?!?!! This conversation is over.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue i dont know why nonmuslims have a problem with focusing...

i repeat again...the state that deals with sharia and implements it as a system IS ABSENT since 1924...why cnt u understand this?

there are laws..sharia is a legislation...now lets say that england does not have police anymore and the ppl want to apply the laws...so they apply the laws acording to each ones understanding? what will become of england? chaos right? the same is with muslims...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue the AUTHORITY which implements sharia which has police and courts is absent...and if the authority is absent then there is chaos...u just wnt to tell me what uve heard from tv but u dont want to focus on what i sy in order to understand...

this is why we muslims cll for that authority to be reestablished so that islam is implemented in the correct way by the authority not by the ppl (acording to the prophets tradition)...

pls focus on my words otherwise we wont go anywhere...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue u didnt show me any criticism u told me about choping off hands, honor killing nd disfiguring...i told there is no disfiguring and honor killing in islam and choping off the hand has situations and conditions...and yes if a system worked for 1300 years and it worked well and can still work if the authority is established it means tht this system is good

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue now if u tell me tht this conversation is over because u cant focus or comprehend what i say and u just want to argue by throwing a few words in comment then i agree with u...lets end this conversation and waste of time...besides im fed up with ppl who tell me about honor killing and disfiguring, things that have nothing to do with islam, and ppl who do not care about reading a single book about islam, instead they simply want to argue...keep listening to media crap

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue sharia worked for 1300 years...are u going to tell me that in 1300 years of choping off hands didnt cause any major revolt gainst the government? comunism didnt chop off hands but how many years did it exist as an implemented system? now im not going into details about sharia but i tell u that jees wrote books about the fact that there is no system under which they felt more protecting than under sharia...during the inquisition the jews fled to the islamic state to be protected

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee If you look at honor killings, every place honor killings occur, it is only in cultures subject to the violent honor/shame mindset infused by Islam over the course of hundred years or more (cultures who have been ruled by islam for at least 100 years). Islam has left unerasable scars in the people it ruled over.

People don't need to be humiliatd to live a wholesome life. That concept is erroneous and is unique to Islam.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue pls...focus on wht i am saying...honor killings have nothing to do with islam...there is no such thing as honor killing in islam...but as i sid the media portrayes islam through what some muslims do and they do many things that have nothing to do with islam...like honor killing...

islam is a clear system that needs an authority (state/government) to apply it...and that authority is the khilafh...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue instead of telling me about honor killings which i hve heard before why dont u study islam urself and stop listening to media? and see wht islm really is about...

now again ur telling me about choping off hands nd disfiguring...disfiguring is totally forbidden in islam and there are about 16 rules which must be considered in order to chop off a thiefs hnd...such as in what condition is the country of that man, what did he steal, is he well fead and so on...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue but THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA...i hope u will understand...that authority is destroyed since 1924 and thats why muslims call for khilfh to be reestablished...can u understand?

there is no islamic authority which deals with the laws of islam...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee It is a grave grave wrong to permanently disfigure a young man by chopping his hand off for stealing a cell phone. It is a replacable piece of plastic junk. A man's arms are irreplacable.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue again...there is no free speach...free speach means the right to insult...

there is the right to speak and THE RIGHT TO RESPECT AND PROTECTING ONES DIGNITY...this is the natural right not to insult

there is also something called politeness which exists in criticism...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee How does telling the Ahmadiyya you are going to kill them protect human dignity? Where is the dignity of the raped woman who, after being brutally victimized, is jailed for pointing a finger against her attacker. How can a child have dignity if those who speak out against statutory rape in an arragned child "marriage" are silenced as blasphemers? How does it protect one's dignity if a woman has to endure beatings for disobedience and is denied recourse to jail her assailant ?

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee Where is the dignity of women protected when they are not allowed even to walk around in their own bodies and have to wear what looks like giant garbage bags? Where is the dignity in unjustly being called a whore for failing to wear a tent made of 9 yards of fabrics?

Where is the dignity in complete gender apartheid which denies and precludes women from running their own businesses? from forming a sense of community? from going to masjid to worship?

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue as i said in order for sharia to be implemented corectly over all the ppl there has to be an authority...a government which deals with this...now there is no government that implements sharia so the muslims apply it as they think its correct..some follow the right interpretation others create their own...thats why mulims call for the reestablishment of the khilafh which is this authority...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee Where is the politeness which exists in criticism, when Jews are compared to pigs and monkeys?and women to donkeys? We are tired of your double standard. One level of respect for Muslims and another , lower level of respect for Kuffars and other subhuman characters. Your demand for politeness and simultaneous insults to others only makes sense if you have swallowed the lie that Muslims deserve more human rights than everyone else because they are more human .

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue we do not have double standards...i repeat again...

there is no islamic authority which deals of the afairs of the muslims acording to sharia...and u cant tell me that all muslims are killing ahmadis...ahamdis and christians are killing muslims too...

we muslims want the authority ie khilafah which was destroyed in 1924 to be reestavlished and implement sharia on everyone acording to the prophets tradition...now we dont have the khilafah which is the authority...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee  You will NEVER implement Sharia in the United States. First the Sun would have to die out and the moon split in two. Sharia legitimizes unjust judiical policy (i.e. women are treated as less than men in court), prevents women's rights, prevents religious freedom, suppresses speech ,and encourages cruel brutal punishments which are disproportionate to the crimes). A state under Sharia Law is theocratic facism.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue ur nuts...goodbye

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue the khilafah would have police and courts which deal with these afairs...

but because it does not exist and we have some corupt regimes (which are flling soon) some atrocities happen because of misinterpratations or some mullahs who are bought by the corrupt governments...

do u understand? islam is a system that needs to be implemented by the state...we dont have any state that implements islam instead we have states who fight against us...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue since the fall of the khilafah these corrupt regimes are portrayed by the media as islamic states...no they are no islamic states but corrupt dictatorial secular states that apply 2 sentences not laws of islam...in an unjust way...thats why we muslims call for the khilafah to be reestablished and implement islam in the way the prophet did...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee I do not understand what you are trying to say...you are saying the concept of speech itself is "indoctrination" "pushed" by the media and moulded by the government? You have just turned everything on its head. Speaking one's mind for humans is as natural as walking. It is in human's very nature, and therefore is considered a Natural Right . Just as the right to life is a natural right. If anyone tries to kill you because they dislike u they're impinging on your right.

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee The rights I have described below as Natural Rights means the rights are recognized to existed long before the first government and continue to exist independent of any government. Government's only role therefore is to enable law enforcement to prevent others from taking it away.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue no..if u are a rational person u will agree that those things arent criticism but direct insults...

we muslims invite ppl to criticise and question us...the qor'an itself tells everyone to analise it and to test it...thats no problem...

but this freedom of speach concept creates insults not criticism...

also many of them act as they would criticise by telling lies or picking out parts of stories in order to insult us or the prophet...ofcourse by insulting him they insult us...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee I disagree. Criticism is always painful when it is targeted at ideas held very dear. Many pepole criticize Mohammed not because they want to debase others but because they dont' want to see 9 and 11 year olds get raped in "marriage" as happens in Yemen as people there (and in other Islamic countries that are >97% Muslim) excuse their own behavior because Prophet Mohammed pbuh did it.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue u dont seem to understand what criticism means...if i insult ur mother would u accept it as free speach or criticism? get real...

'a'isha...we know she used to play with dolls and i wonder what would u do in the 7th century desert...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue how would u entertain urself in the 7th century in the middle of a desert? thats how 'a'isha used to do it..playing with dolls...

now u cant criticise islam by what some muslims do...u criticise islam but looking at what the main source says which is the qor'an...the qor'an says to marry girls when they reach alboloogh...boloogh is puberty...the prophet mohammad was the living example of the qor'an (sunnah)...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue in the 7th century arabia girls didnt eat mcdonalds as we do now, ppl didnt have our technology to live an easier life as we do, they used to work at a very early age otherwise they wouldnt survive, they didnt go to school until the age of 18 as we do...u have to know what type of society it was in that time...

in that time girls used to reach maturity (boloogh) earlier than they do now so ofcourse its not allowed to us to marry 9 year olds now...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue 'a'isha herself said that a girl at the age of 9 is already a woman...in not one authentic hadith she complains about the prophet mohammad, on the contrary she said that allah chosed her to be the best of women by becoming the prophets wife...plus she was a main scholar of islam...the caliphs abu bakr and 'omar used to ask her about how the prophet dealt with certain afairs...

in europe it was allowed to marry 9 year olds until the 19th century...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue ppl dont insult europeans for that but instead they insult the prophet mohammad who lived in the 7th century, in a desert...a time and place where early mariage was esential for the survival of society when death rates were much higher thn nowadays...u have to consider these things...

u wnt criticise islm dont say "some muslims do this in yemen"...no...tell us what the qor'an says, what the hadith says and what history says...thats how u criticise...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue i know there are some muslims who marry 9 year olds in these days (marrying is something and having sex is something else) but u cant tell me that all muslims marry 9 year olds because those ppl are in a small number...u have to tell us where does the qor'an and sunnah go wrong...i can say that christians do not follow any moral or ethic because they don have to acording to their doctrine...jesus died for sins so u can do whatever u want...and many christians do that...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue but i dont criticise christianity based on what some ppl do because ppl can do whatever they want...i read the bible and criticise christianity based on what the bible says...

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue nother thing that u must understand is that if we want to implement islam in the corect way on every single human being we need an islamic authority who takes care of afairs...if this authority woul have existed a small group of iranians wouldnt throw acid on womens bodies...this authority is the khilafah state which doesnt exist anymore since 1924...since then sharia isnt implemented...there are states that apply 2 or 3 laws (in fact they apply only the verdict without trial)...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee But there would be chopping off of hands and feet , public hangings, death for apostacy, women forced into the home unless chaperoned by male relatives, and, despite not being prescribed explicitly, all the intense bizarre obsession with modesty and sexual repression will undoubtedly inspire violence against women just as it does today. I have seen enough of Sharia to know I don't want it. It kills human dignity and stamps out human rights.

[khalilrabee]

@arclayAvenue sharia doesnt kil human diugniy and rights...sharia protects thesethings...u want to know what system kills dignity and human rights? democracy...a system in which women are forced by the media to starve themselves to look in a certain way...a system in which the leaders say that a woman covering herself is bad while they force her to get naked...thats killing dignity...a system which instead of solvinjg a problem it legalises the problem...prostitution and drugs...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee The verse that says a woman's testimony in court is worth half of a man's testimony mathematically this means that under Sharia Law justice is perverted (read: kangaroo court) in all cases, except in those very rare cases in which the witnesses' male:female ratio on the prosecution side is exactly equal to the male:female ratio on the defense side. Sharia law always creates injustice becuase it selectively invalidates testimony of any witnesses if that witness has a vagina.

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee (PART ONE) If a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's : Example: A wreckless male driver kills someone. There is some physical evidence of his crime and a woman observer of the incident. In her court she states what she saw. The defendant brings a friend of his to lie and say he saw the incident and the defendant is not at fault. IN A FAIR COURT, the woman and man's testimony would conflict and cancel eachother out, and the physical evidence would determine the case.

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee (PART TWO) IN A SHARIA COURT, the man's testimony (being worth twice a woman's) would be valued more highly and the man's testimony would be in conflict with the physical evidence showing probable manslaughter. The man's testimony (evidence) weakens the impact of the physical evidence on the decision, and the driver may walk away free if enough uncertainty is created by his testimony.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue since then there is no authority that implements sharia as it should be implemented...first entirely and secondly acording to qor'an and sunnah not acording to mullah...

since then muslims suffer continously: traitor governments, invasions, massacres, psychological war...in the khilafah these things didnt happen...thats why millions of muslims want the khilafah to be reestablished, sharia to be implemented by a state authority

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAven for example if a person is wondering why the prophet married 'a'isha at the age of 9 and wnts to criticise then he opens the qor'an to see what it says about marriege, he opens the islamic books of hadith and history to see what type of society was the arab society of the 7th century, to realise at what age did girls become mature in that period. what did 'a'ish say about mohammad and by her talk we can realise what kind of person she was...thats criticism...

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee That she liked to play dollies with her playmates after marrying Mohammed IS IN the Islamic Holy texts. I can provide references if you wish. Muslims (like yourself) are presented with a conundrum, either believe fantastic wild baseless claims that Aisha was advanced for her age (9 yrs) and had the mind and body of a 20 year old, or believe Mohammed committed an egregious sin of statutory rape. Looking at the evidence It's one unfortunate postion or another, I'm sorry to say.

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue but when a person comes to me and simply says "mohammad was a paedophile" (many say much worse things) without studying those things and if i tell him not to insult the prophet and then he tells me that its freedom of speach then i cn say that this type of freedom of speach has a problem and creates problems...which means that it has to be delt with

islam aproves the right to speak AND THE RIGHT TO RESPECT AND PROTECTING ONES DIGNITY not the freedom of speach ie right to insult

[BarclayAvenue]

@khalilrabee Case in point:  "are u humans???"

[khalilrabee]

@BarclayAvenue pls focus on what i say and read my entire comment...dont pick out phrase out of context...

[GoaTseTung]

@khalilrabee "what rational human being accepts being insulted?" Anyone who is for free speech. Just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's exactly for this reason that "outrageous" speech needs to be allowed.

[khalilrabee]

@GoaTseTung well if freedom of speech means the freedom to insult then fuck ur freedom of speach ok? criticising and directly insulting on porpuse are 2 different things...so get a dictionary+a life

[dadush4]

@GoaTseTung ok, so if you disagree with something you can say "I disagree"; why should you go the further inch and say "I disagree you asshole" ???? what does the "you asshole" part contribute??? this is what he means by freedom to insult, why should people insult? this leads only to hate and tensions, and this is why it is irrational and uncivilized, if you cannot control your tongue, dont speak it to cause harm.. just that easy, we muslims dont offend anyone, so why would you ?

[khalilrabee]

ppl dont really realise that their politicians by claiming this freedom of speech are driving the citizens into the law of the jungle...

ppl cant have the "freedom" of speach but the right to speak...and ppl must also have the right to respect...

that man is a total idiot or filthy liar...noone accepts insults, and ppl have the right to speak but also the obligation to respect others...thats justice not jungle law...if u want jungle law go live in central africa or the amazon

[vienna1981]

lovely fellow!

[xukun0]

The Prophet SAWW: Greatest Man Ever on Earth!!!

[neelantra]

@xukun0 prophet muhammed the greatest pedophile and murderer ever!!! whoo hoo!

[Celtic450]

@xukun0 Bullshit. He never gave the cure for cancer.