Combating Secular Extremism

[Luffy 500]

Combating Secular Extremism

https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/04/25/combating-secular-extremism/

Western governments and pundits ask Muslims to combat “Islamic extremism”, the first question that should be asked is ‘what is Islamic extremism? And what makes it a bad thing?’ These questions must be asked because the term ‘Islamic Extremism’ not only is attached to a negative preconception, but is used to refer to a reality and people which aren’t in truth ‘extreme’, this smacks of a prejudice unbefitting a society that believes that individuals and ideas are ‘innocent till proven guilty’.

Islam is a comprehensive way of life. It is an ideology that contains a specific viewpoint to life (the establishment of man’s purpose in life in the affairs of life) which forms an ideal and a basis for human society and whose solutions to human problems naturally and purposefully manifest themselves in the forms of Political, Economical, Ruling, Educational and Social systems as well as peoples universal rights.

If Islam is understood as such, then those who call for this way of life, comprehensively and ideologically and who reject systems built on the philosophic and political separation between man’s life, and his purpose in life (Secularism) and the ruling systems like Democracy (a self-interest based system based upon rule of the majority- but in reality ends up being a rule of the wealthy minority), are actually in fact, being true to their beliefs and making a principled stand for them.

These people should not be labeled ‘extremists’ by a others who misunderstand them and their ideas, but rather their should be labeled ‘Ideological’ or principled (someone who’s life is governed by principles and ideas). Why can’t Muslims follow Islam like others who believe and implement the ideology of Communism or (secular) Liberalism? Would it be fitting to call a Communist- an atheist extremist? (Because it is based upon materialism, which springs from atheism) or would it be fitting to call a Liberal- a Secular extremist? (because secularism is part of Liberalism).

These other ideologies propagate the comprehensive implementation of their core creeds and the rejection of others, so why can’t the Muslims do the same?

An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology/belief system, but rather an extremist is someone who claims to follow a particular one, but holds views which go outside its bounds. So a extremist in Liberalism, is someone who holds ideas based initially on Liberalism (e.g. individualism), but then hold views that go outside its bounds, like Anarchists (who reject Liberalism’s requirement of a state to protect individualism). Similarly, an extremist in Communism may profess they believe in Communism, but then hold beliefs that go outside its bounds like, advocating private property and free market.

The REAL problem today is not the Muslims who stay true to their comprehensive way of life; the real extremists amongst the Muslim community, are those who have adopted Western methodologies, Secularism, and Liberal philosophy.

These extremists generally follow two types:

1. One kind of extremist Muslim advocates Western pragmatic and utilitarian approaches to warfare, and therefore engages in Terrorism (claiming that by killing western civilians, it would compel them to stop their governments killing muslim civilians – and hence serving a ‘greater good’ in their view).
2. The other type of extremist Muslim, are those who attempt to distort and change Islamic laws by misrepresenting Islamic principles, deliberately twisted and taken out of context so as to render Islam compatible with secularism and Liberalism. This leads to the lobotomising of Islam, leaving it restricted to merely being a set of religious beliefs with no political impact locally or globally beyond wishy washy ‘values’. Furthermore, these Secular ‘Muslims’ are known for attacking the concept of Ummah (in its fullest sense), by severing Muslims from considering the affairs of Muslims in other parts of the world, and urging them to ‘integrate’ into artificially contructed nationalities and ‘identities’ to replace their former ones .

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“He who wakes up in the morning and does not think of the affairs of the muslims is not one of us” (Sahih muslim)

The ideas of utilitarianism, secularism and Liberalism are the real problem and extremism that Muslims need to deal with, and Muslims should make their utmost efforts to intellectually combat them and those who champion them.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said,
من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد

‘Whoever brings something that is not from our affair (Islam), it is rejected.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Zibago @waleed3601 @haviZsultan @SHK @PersonasNonGrata @madokafc @Salik @Hell hound @T-123456 @A.P. Richelieu @Kaptaan

 

[war&peace]

Hey
You have opened a pandora's box. All the liberals will come to stifle you. It is only their right to express their opinion and you will be labelled terrorist supporter.

But I would like to add that a true Muslim is the most liberal person and cannot be possibly extremist. Look at the examples of true practicing Muslims; all the prophets and their earliest followers especially.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Non of the above. A Islamic extremist is person who want's to use force to point of killing to impose exactly what he thinks Islam is on others.

And what in hell is "western approach to wafare"? Care to elaborate please?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Combating Secular Extremism

https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/04/25/combating-secular-extremism/

Western governments and pundits ask Muslims to combat “Islamic extremism”, the first question that should be asked is ‘what is Islamic extremism? And what makes it a bad thing?’ These questions must be asked because the term ‘Islamic Extremism’ not only is attached to a negative preconception, but is used to refer to a reality and people which aren’t in truth ‘extreme’, this smacks of a prejudice unbefitting a society that believes that individuals and ideas are ‘innocent till proven guilty’.

Islam is a comprehensive way of life. It is an ideology that contains a specific viewpoint to life (the establishment of man’s purpose in life in the affairs of life) which forms an ideal and a basis for human society and whose solutions to human problems naturally and purposefully manifest themselves in the forms of Political, Economical, Ruling, Educational and Social systems as well as peoples universal rights.

If Islam is understood as such, then those who call for this way of life, comprehensively and ideologically and who reject systems built on the philosophic and political separation between man’s life, and his purpose in life (Secularism) and the ruling systems like Democracy (a self-interest based system based upon rule of the majority- but in reality ends up being a rule of the wealthy minority), are actually in fact, being true to their beliefs and making a principled stand for them.

These people should not be labeled ‘extremists’ by a others who misunderstand them and their ideas, but rather their should be labeled ‘Ideological’ or principled (someone who’s life is governed by principles and ideas). Why can’t Muslims follow Islam like others who believe and implement the ideology of Communism or (secular) Liberalism? Would it be fitting to call a Communist- an atheist extremist? (Because it is based upon materialism, which springs from atheism) or would it be fitting to call a Liberal- a Secular extremist? (because secularism is part of Liberalism).

These other ideologies propagate the comprehensive implementation of their core creeds and the rejection of others, so why can’t the Muslims do the same?

An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology/belief system, but rather an extremist is someone who claims to follow a particular one, but holds views which go outside its bounds. So a extremist in Liberalism, is someone who holds ideas based initially on Liberalism (e.g. individualism), but then hold views that go outside its bounds, like Anarchists (who reject Liberalism’s requirement of a state to protect individualism). Similarly, an extremist in Communism may profess they believe in Communism, but then hold beliefs that go outside its bounds like, advocating private property and free market.

The REAL problem today is not the Muslims who stay true to their comprehensive way of life; the real extremists amongst the Muslim community, are those who have adopted Western methodologies, Secularism, and Liberal philosophy.

These extremists generally follow two types:

1. One kind of extremist Muslim advocates Western pragmatic and utilitarian approaches to warfare, and therefore engages in Terrorism (claiming that by killing western civilians, it would compel them to stop their governments killing muslim civilians – and hence serving a ‘greater good’ in their view).
2. The other type of extremist Muslim, are those who attempt to distort and change Islamic laws by misrepresenting Islamic principles, deliberately twisted and taken out of context so as to render Islam compatible with secularism and Liberalism. This leads to the lobotomising of Islam, leaving it restricted to merely being a set of religious beliefs with no political impact locally or globally beyond wishy washy ‘values’. Furthermore, these Secular ‘Muslims’ are known for attacking the concept of Ummah (in its fullest sense), by severing Muslims from considering the affairs of Muslims in other parts of the world, and urging them to ‘integrate’ into artificially contructed nationalities and ‘identities’ to replace their former ones .

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“He who wakes up in the morning and does not think of the affairs of the muslims is not one of us” (Sahih muslim)

The ideas of utilitarianism, secularism and Liberalism are the real problem and extremism that Muslims need to deal with, and Muslims should make their utmost efforts to intellectually combat them and those who champion them.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said,
من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد

‘Whoever brings something that is not from our affair (Islam), it is rejected.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Zibago @waleed3601 @haviZsultan @SHK @PersonasNonGrata @madokafc @Salik @Hell hound @T-123456 @A.P. Richelieu @Kaptaan

I am sure that there are people that would be all too happy to call war criminals, murderers, rapists, enslavers, supporters of genocide, oathbreakers, claiming to be of the Muslim faith, "mainstream Muslims" and not "Islamic extremists". Are You one of them?

Noone in the West has a problem with intellectual combat.
What we have a problem with is people, which selectively read the Qu-ran, and ignores other parts.

Pakistan voted for the UN bill of Human Rights,and Bangla Desh was part of Pakistan in 1948.
Pakistan has argued against Saudi Arabia, which shares Your view.
Bangla Desh, has to my knowledge not rejected this bill.

Not accepting the UN bill of Human Righs can be considered as oathbreaking.
Is oathbreaking not against Islam?

 

[EasyNow]

Is the writer seriously saying that normal Muslims, living, working, banking in a multicultural world are all extremists? I.e.the majority? I am an extremist because I don't want people stoned to death? Because I believe everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe?

the real extremists amongst the Muslim community, are those who have adopted Western methodologies, Secularism, and Liberal philosophy.

Umar RA, suspended hand cutting for theft in his rule, I suppose you think he was an extremist too.

Yes AQ, The Taliban, Isis who stick to the so called 'letter of the law' are the normal ones.

I pity the poor souls who are duped by scholars like these. It is clear what extremism is. You are free to 'reject' democracy as much as you want. But when you start hurting other people because of your belief, that's when you have gone too far.

 

[war&peace]

Non of the above. A Islamic extremist is person who want's to use force to point of killing to impose exactly what he thinks Islam is on others.

And what in hell is "western approach to wafare"? Care to elaborate please?

Perhaps he means by genocides at massive scales as in WWII, Vietnam, Korean Conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Yes AQ

Who is AQ?

 

[Pakistani E]

@Luffy 500

So where do the Al Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban, Boko haram guys fit in this narrative? Are they true fundementalist Muslims who are following the fundamentals of Islam? I am confused, you say all those who do advocate for a political implementations of a Religious state are true Muslims and should not be labelled as extremists, right? Does that mean that Taliban, ISIS etc come under the definition of true and pious Muslims?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

genocides at massive scales as in WWII, Vietnam, Korean Conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

That is not "Western approach". That is modern approach. It is the use of modern technology in furtherance of war which has 100times more devastating impact than the old sword and arrow. The intent is same only the tools and resources. That is "modernism" not "Westerism".

Ottoman Turkey and Pakistan Army did fair amount of killing in Armenia and Bangladesh. Or how about the black on black mass genocide in Rwanda, Africa using the good old machete?

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

And definition of a Muslim is akin to defining white rice. You wash the thing for ten minutes. That's good enough to cook. Along comes another cook and says "no". Runs more water and sure enough more dirt comes out. After one hour he is happy. Comes another cook and says "no". Pours more water and shockingly more dirt comes out. And the cycle goes on and on. There is never a point where there is definitive "white rice" ready to cook. When is the rice clean enough is entirely subjective abstraction.

Same with these Islamists. Each will just apply their own version until they start killing each other. On and on it will go with each calling each other as "kuffar". It's just madness unlimited and retardness beyond belief. What is true Muslim is also subjective abstraction. The final judgement ought to be left to the hereafter.

Are You one of them?

Ja

 

[war&peace]

That is not "Western approach". That is modern approach. It is the use of modern technology in furtherance of war which has 100times more devastating impact than the old sword and arrow. The intent is same only the tools and resources. That is "modernism" not "Westerism".

Ottoman Turkey and Pakistan Army did fair amount of killing in Armenia and Bangladesh. Or how about the black on black mass genocide in Rwanda, Africa using the good old machete?

Thanks for at least comparing the western kind hearts with Ottoman and Rwandians really feels so reassuring except they claim modern weapons have precision strike to capabilities to reduce the human loss significantly.

 

[Salik]

In the life of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H few Sahaba showed extreme behaviour, like continued fasting and prayer, the Prophet prohibited them from doing such practices.

Extremism can be witnessed in seculars and conservatives both. The writer is focusing on one aspect. Rather he is ignoring one aspect i.e. conservative extremism apart from discussing others.

I think extremism is mental disorder that can enchant a human in any field. Like obsession with exercise or music or items collection, or cleanliness like white rice. It can be cured through counselling, medication and meditation, yoga and therapy. Phobia is also a form of extremism. Sometimes it is created to achieve vested interests created by another extreme ideology.

So we need to look at extremism in a scientific way.

 

[Luffy 500]

Non of the above. A Islamic extremist is person who want's to use force to point of killing to impose exactly what he thinks Islam is on others.

And what in hell is "western approach to wafare"? Care to elaborate please?

Extremist is someone who go beyond the bounds of ideologies and beliefs he/she claim to profess , example - ISIS type extremist and liberals in the muslim world.

Extremist as defined by you perfectly fits the liberals and secularists. In an desperate attempt to reconcile Islam with liberalism and secularism , they resort to hermeneutical gymnastics with the text of the Quran . And then they try to impose their views on mainstream muslim society. Mainstream muslims as per these liberals are backward , extremists and terrorists.This is the level of tolerance these liberals and secularists have.

Western approach to warfare = purposeful indiscriminate killing of civilians to achieve political goals eg. nuking hiroshima , nagashaki and the bombing raids in tokyo and berlin during WWII.

I am sure that there are people that would be all too happy to call war criminals, murderers, rapists, enslavers, supporters of genocide, oathbreakers, claiming to be of the Muslim faith, "mainstream Muslims" and not "Islamic extremists". Are You one of them?

None in the West has a problem with intellectual combat.
What we have a problem with is people, which selectively read the Qu-ran, and ignores other parts.

Pakistan voted for the UN bill of Human Rights,and Bangla Desh was part of Pakistan in 1948.
Pakistan has argued against Saudi Arabia, which shares Your view.
Bangla Desh, has to my knowledge not rejected this bill.

Not accepting the UN bill of Human Righs can be considered as oathbreaking.
Is oathbreaking not against Islam?

Who are you as a non-muslim , to classifying muslims into binary mainstream and extremist? You have no right to do that.

West is dead scared of intellectual combat and thus resorts to carpet bombing of muslim lands , coup detats and sanctions. Eg. Iraq, Afghanistan , Gaza , Egypt , Algeria, Syria , etc etc. West can't leave the muslim world alone. Remember the western hue and cry on Brunei Sharia law? What kind of intellectual combat was that? It was just self-righteous ranting of how Brunei was barbaric for not adopting "universal" western values and beliefs. NOT only that what do you say about the way , egalitarian tolerant west is combating muslims in the west? UK is so confident about their intellectual superiority that they are contemplating to pass laws criminalizing "vocal or active opposition to fundamental british values" and persecuting "non-violent extremist who remain within law but give speeches opposing british values" . Sounds to me like blasphemy law. And what about the tolerant french laicite , banning the niqab , and school girls from wearing long skirts? The tolerant secular french seem to want to force a uniform set of values and culture on its citizens. SO much for tolerance and intellectual combat.

As for your "UN human rights" argument , its amusing to see non-muslim like you trying to use Islamic principles to justify their liberal imperialism. Your attempt is a fail. First of all :

- There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience to the Creator. Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“There is no obedience to any human being if it involves sin; obedience is only in that which is right and proper.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6830; Muslim, 1840. )


Second:

You are conflating UN treaties with oaths and vows. First you should go look into a good dictionary and see what oath means. International treaties are NOT oaths and vows . And Oaths and vows itself have different meaning as per Islam.
Ayman (oaths) and Nazr (vows). An oath is to swear by one of the Names of Allah or one of His Attributes to prove the correctness of something affirmatively or negatively, or to urge doing something or leaving it.As for the vow, it is defined as a permanent or discontinued offering that the person commits himself to present to Allah if a given good thing happens to him or a given bad thing does not hit him.

Third:

Vows to commit sin or vows that go against sharia are forbidden to fullfill. This is every vow which involves disobedience to Allaah. Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Whoever vows to do some act of worship and obedience to Allaah, then let him do it, and whoever vows to do some sin, let him not do it.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari).

“There should be no fulfilment of a vow to commit sin.” (Reported by Muslim, 3099).

Fourth:

Just because a muslm country sings a text ( UDHR clearly goes against sharia) doesn't make it Islamically permissible.

PAK in 47 was NOT an islamic state and even now its NOT an islamic state and neither is BD.

Back then neither PAK nor BD represented its muslim population. It was post-colonial era with a religiously ignorant population and the leaders of the muslim world were all colonial educated religiously ignorant people. Many countries like Egypt , Algeria , Jordan , Syria had colonial stooges as rulers , implanted by western powers.

People of muslim countries have no obligation in abiding by the UN human rights treaty that clearly goes against their religious beliefs and even tries to effect their private family lives.

UN human rights treaty is a classic case of western imperialism that impinges on the basic rights of non-westerners by asking them to revoke their cultural , native and religious identity and beliefs , in favor of western values and beliefs.

Is the writer seriously saying that normal Muslims, living, working, banking in a multicultural world are all extremists? I.e.the majority? I am an extremist because I don't want people stoned to death? Because I believe everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe?



Umar RA, suspended hand cutting for theft in his rule, I suppose you think he was an extremist too.

Yes AQ, The Taliban, Isis who stick to the so called 'letter of the law' are the normal ones.

I pity the poor souls who are duped by scholars like these. It is clear what extremism is. You are free to 'reject' democracy as much as you want. But when you start hurting other people because of your belief, that's when you have gone too far.

It seems you simply read in your preconceived biases and notions into what the writer actually said. Classic case of a deceptive liberal. Btw i don't know when did you become the spokesperson for the majority. And as per definition of extremism , you r an extremist for not believing in clear laws ordained by Allah (swt) as a mercy to mankind. Btw why are you a tolerant liberal so obsessed about what muslims believe?

https://islamqa.info/en/198400

As for your argument against the punishment for theft , its a clear case of cherry picking incidents and islamic principles to supplement your preconceived liberal notions and impose them on muslims. You are just like ISIS when it comes to twisting islamic principles to suit your political agenda. You should first understand the conditions for the hadd punishment for theft. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Again you are obsessed about Islamic laws while living in a secular country.

https://islamqa.info/en/9935

 

[EasyNow]

It seems you simply read in your preconceived biases and notions into what the writer actually said. Classic case of a deceptive liberal. Btw i don't know when did you become the spokesperson for the majority. And as per definition of extremism , you r an extremist for not believing in clear laws ordained by Allah (swt) as a mercy to mankind. Btw why are you a tolerant liberal so obsessed about what muslims believe?

https://islamqa.info/en/198400

As for your argument against the punishment for theft , its a clear case of cherry picking incidents and islamic principles to supplement your preconceived liberal notions and impose them on muslims. You are just like ISIS when it comes to twisting islamic principles to suit your political agenda. You should first understand the conditions for the hadd punishment for theft. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Again you are obsessed about Islamic laws while living in a secular country.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/combating-secular-extremism.431170/#ixzz49HqQ5blk

I am not placing myself as a speaker for the majority - your definition has grouped the majority of us together - as extremists. Ask any normal person if they want to see stoning on the streets and you'll realise that you are on your own.

I am not cherry-picking incidents, you simply don't have an answer. If the greatest leaders of Islam could vary the lslamic laws according to circumstances, why are you so stuck?

Ps. Using Islamqa... Change your sources, no wonder you have such a messed up world view. How do you know who is feeding you this stuff on the Internet? Talk to a respectable and experienced Imam in real life, things are not as black and white as you'd like.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Extremist is someone who go beyond the bounds of ideologies and beliefs he/she claim to profess , example - ISIS type extremist and liberals in the muslim world.

Extremist as defined by you perfectly fits the liberals and secularists. In an desperate attempt to reconcile Islam with liberalism and secularism , they resort to hermeneutical gymnastics with the text of the Quran . And then they try to impose their views on mainstream muslim society. Mainstream muslims as per these liberals are backward , extremists and terrorists.This is the level of tolerance these liberals and secularists have.

Western approach to warfare = purposeful indiscriminate killing of civilians to achieve political goals eg. nuking hiroshima , nagashaki and the bombing raids in tokyo and berlin during WWII.



Who are you as a non-muslim , to classifying muslims into binary mainstream and extremist? You have no right to do that.

West is dead scared of intellectual combat and thus resorts to carpet bombing of muslim lands , coup detats and sanctions. Eg. Iraq, Afghanistan , Gaza , Egypt , Algeria, Syria , etc etc. West can't leave the muslim world alone. Remember the western hue and cry on Brunei Sharia law? What kind of intellectual combat was that? It was just self-righteous ranting of how Brunei was barbaric for not adopting "universal" western values and beliefs. NOT only that what do you say about the way , egalitarian tolerant west is combating muslims in the west? UK is so confident about their intellectual superiority that they are contemplating to pass laws criminalizing "vocal or active opposition to fundamental british values" and persecuting "non-violent extremist who remain within law but give speeches opposing british values" . Sounds to me like blasphemy law. And what about the tolerant french laicite , banning the niqab , and school girls from wearing long skirts? The tolerant secular french seem to want to force a uniform set of values and culture on its citizens. SO much for tolerance and intellectual combat.

As for your "UN human rights" argument , its amusing to see non-muslim like you trying to use Islamic principles to justify their liberal imperialism. Your attempt is a fail. First of all :

- There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience to the Creator. Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“There is no obedience to any human being if it involves sin; obedience is only in that which is right and proper.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6830; Muslim, 1840. )


Second:

You are conflating UN treaties with oaths and vows. First you should go look into a good dictionary and see what oath means. International treaties are NOT oaths and vows . And Oaths and vows itself have different meaning as per Islam.
Ayman (oaths) and Nazr (vows). An oath is to swear by one of the Names of Allah or one of His Attributes to prove the correctness of something affirmatively or negatively, or to urge doing something or leaving it.As for the vow, it is defined as a permanent or discontinued offering that the person commits himself to present to Allah if a given good thing happens to him or a given bad thing does not hit him.

Third:

Vows to commit sin or vows that go against sharia are forbidden to fullfill. This is every vow which involves disobedience to Allaah. Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Whoever vows to do some act of worship and obedience to Allaah, then let him do it, and whoever vows to do some sin, let him not do it.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari).

“There should be no fulfilment of a vow to commit sin.” (Reported by Muslim, 3099).

Fourth:

Just because a muslm country sings a text ( UDHR clearly goes against sharia) doesn't make it Islamically permissible.

PAK in 47 was NOT an islamic state and even now its NOT an islamic state and neither is BD.

Back then neither PAK nor BD represented its muslim population. It was post-colonial era with a religiously ignorant population and the leaders of the muslim world were all colonial educated religiously ignorant people. Many countries like Egypt , Algeria , Jordan , Syria had colonial stooges as rulers , implanted by western powers.

People of muslim countries have no obligation in abiding by the UN human rights treaty that clearly goes against their religious beliefs and even tries to effect their private family lives.

UN human rights treaty is a classic case of western imperialism that impinges on the basic rights of non-westerners by asking them to revoke their cultural , native and religious identity and beliefs , in favor of western values and beliefs.



It seems you simply read in your preconceived biases and notions into what the writer actually said. Classic case of a deceptive liberal. Btw i don't know when did you become the spokesperson for the majority. And as per definition of extremism , you r an extremist for not believing in clear laws ordained by Allah (swt) as a mercy to mankind. Btw why are you a tolerant liberal so obsessed about what muslims believe?

https://islamqa.info/en/198400

As for your argument against the punishment for theft , its a clear case of cherry picking incidents and islamic principles to supplement your preconceived liberal notions and impose them on muslims. You are just like ISIS when it comes to twisting islamic principles to suit your political agenda. You should first understand the conditions for the hadd punishment for theft. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Again you are obsessed about Islamic laws while living in a secular country.

https://islamqa.info/en/9935

In short, according to You, treaties with Muslims are useless.
You reject the UN convention on Human Rights, and I guess also the Geneva Convention.
If the latter is true, then Carpet Bombings of Muslims is not a crime,
since the Geneva Convention is only applicable between two parties accepting the Convention.
If You do not accept the basic Human rights of others, don't expect Your Human Rights to be respected.

You simply do not respect others that do not share Your view, and that makes You an extremist.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

bounds of ideologies and beliefs

No. Extremists are those who draw the lines and boundaries of belief. Then they set in place extreme punishments for transgression.

In an desperate attempt to reconcile Islam with liberalism and secularism

Yes. Indeed we are desperate. Have you seen the state of most of the Muslim countries? You might be happy about rip roaring Bangladesh but I certainly am not happy about Pakistan. I see a great and beautiful people - the Pakistani's with historical legacy in the top 5 peoples on earth lagging behind reduced to illegal migrants and terrorism all because of sickness of a ideaology that is profoundly out of sync with the modern world peddled by medieval mullahdom that was the cause of retarded development in the first place.

I also refuse to look through "Western versus Mullahdom" prism. There is only modernism and medievalism in today's world. In China, in Japan, in USA, in Turkey, in Pakistan in Egypt. Mullahdom is the worship of medieval backwardness dressed as religion. It is a failed mindset. It is a mindset that arrested development of those Muslim countries in the first place. Yet a failed prescription is being offered as solution. Stupidity knows no bounds.

The secularists or Western apologists as you might call them may have not done a great job (mostly because they failed in seeing through their reform and properly muzzling mullahdom with exception of Turkey where secularists were successful. You can go to Istanbul and then visiit your dump called Dhaka and compare) but whatever little progress you see is thanks to that Western educated, Western inheritance those countries have.

Take the case of Pakistan. Whatever runs in that country is largely product of British inheritance. The entire state machine is largely reflection of British. The institutions that function are almost clone left by the British including Pakistan Army. The elite that gave birth to Pakistan was largely product of the British and that includes Jinnah.

The idealogue of Pakistan Sir Allama Iqbal (notice "Sir" a title endowed on him by the British ) was a product of what you call "Western" education and struggled to drag his primitive people to the modern world. His book Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam" was as you describe it "desperate" attempt by Iqbal to reconcile medievalism of the mullah and modernism.

Link > http://islamicblessings.com/upload/The Reconstruction Of Religious Thought In Islam.pdf

Sir Allama Iqbal - centre with Oxford University students who were the vanguard of the idea of Pakistan. Mullah free zone.

Western approach to warfare = purposeful indiscriminate killing of civilians to achieve political goals eg. nuking hiroshima , nagashaki and the bombing raids in tokyo and berlin during WWII.

There is no such thing as Western approach. Only approach to warfare which is use of force to advance your goals. Of course your ability to advance your goals is going to be dependant on what tools you have. If it is this (below) the effects are going to be limited.

On the other hand if you have these (below) than the effects are going to be 100 times worse. The motivation is the same. To kill. Just that one is more proficient at it.

Which of these guy's do you think is going to throw his weight around?

or

Intention and capability are two differant things. Don't mix them.

 

[Jaanbaz]

I didn't even read all of this non sense, just another Islamist crying victim and subtly supporting terrorism against innocent civilians.