No third option i.e
Folks who wish to want secularism in west but go ballistic by the mere mention of it in their home countries?
If you preach against seperation of church and state and against secularism tham you have no right to crticize burkini ban or ban on minarets and hijabs
Muslims have nothing to do with secularism in the west. West was secular before muslims were even there and majority of the westerners follow the
religion called secular liberalism. Do you get this simple fact?
And do you understand the fact that ,
banning of burkini/Hijab/niqab/minarets are perfectly in line with European separation of church and state i.e secularism - the kufr ideology that people like you defend. The french state banned burkini based on their state ideology and they practice the purest form secularism. SO criticizing burkini ban = criticizing secularism.
My argument against burkini/hijab ban is NOT based on secular/liberal narratives of "freedom of choice". How can it possibly be since secularism allows for such bans. Secularism is inherently intolerant of mere religious expressions in public life. MY criticism of their hijab ban is based on "freedom of religious minorities" argument.
I am merely urging secular west to be consistent and NOT be hypocrites. West claims their system is neutral and tolerant to all beliefs but secularism is inherently incapable of being neutral and tolerant.
There is nothing wrong in pointing out that western deception and that's what I try to do. West should NOT be allowed to get away with such deception and propaganda and the muslim argument should be such that those deception and western fallacies are pointed out.
I have all the rights to criticize kufr and injustice and that's what a muslim should do to his/her best capacity.
Besides Sharia allows religious minorities their own space in return for jizya , as long as they do NOT oppose the state. Thus I use "freedom for religious minorities" argument for muslims in the west. And I advocate for sharia in muslim lands. Sharia does NOT allow absolute "freedom of choice" and "individual freedom" and that's why I don't use those arguments to defend hijab, niqab, beards etc in the west. Hope you get it.
Btw Islam is the only to true religion while others religion like secularism is pure falsehood. From an islamic perspective a muslim can and should criticize kufr of secularism whether he/she is in the east or in the west.
Islamic extremist are those people who twist the teachings of Quran and Hadith radically to fit their narrow interpretations.
This definition also perfectly fits the liberals and secularists in the muslim world. In fact it suits liberal secular "muslims" more than it suits contemporary militants.
???
There is nothing Western about it. The concept of suicide bombing emerged in China during the era of World Wars. However, it became a mainstream tactic of extremist movements such as Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS to spread fear among the masses.
Bro , the author is pointing out that contemporary militants , who just like liberal secular "muslims" , twist the Quran and Sunnah to justify heir pre-concieved notions and agendas no matter how anti-islamic and heretical those notions are. Militants justify indiscriminate killing of innocent and one of the hall mark of western war fare is deliberate indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians - hence the term "western approach to warfare".
The author was referring to one of Bin laden's quotes , where laden reportedly admitted to rejecting islamic principles:
"
“
They [the Muslim scholars] say that the killing of innocents is wrong and invalid, and for proof, they say that the Prophet forbade the killing of children and women, and that is true. It is valid and has been laid down by the Prophet in an authentic tradition…but this forbidding of killing children and innocents is not set in stone…if the disbelievers were to kill our children and women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly to deter them from trying to kill our children and women again”
Osama Bin Laden – October 21, 2001, al-Jazeera interview"
Btw in this regard Bin laden is much more honest that secular liberal "muslims" IMO. At least he admitted to violating Islamic injunctions BUT liberals are too intellectually disingenuous to do even that.
Why do you think guided munitions such as smart bombs were created? To significantly reduce the collateral damage.
Bombing raids in Iraq in 2003 are a lot more different than bombing raids you will see in a WW-II documentary.
Those guided munitions still cause collateral damage. Most drone victims are civilians:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...one-cia-secret-drone-war-160330081229214.html
Guided munitions were made to primarily make bombing and air raids more efficient and cost-effective. It was an inevetable progress of technology and nothing to do with reducing civilain casualties.
90% of bombing raid victims in Iraq were still civilians no? What's the difference between Iraq 2003 and Japan or Germany 1945 in terms of civilian deaths?
