Belgium bombings 22-Mar-2016 (5 Viewers)

[Hist]

I mostly agree, wipe them out, but that won't happen anytime soon. But then there is a problem what do you do after with all that shit left? Just get out some other isis will prop up.

Btw, how do you integrate a culture that doesn't want to get integrated? One thing you can go russian style ala russification, but that didnt really work out and it's not really a democratic solution. This thing is a clash of cultures.

Every time an organized group like them pops up you destroy their state again. It wont be the end of jihadis but it would prevent them from becoming organized enough, popular enough and rich enough to displace whole populations of civilians and launching massive spectacular terror attacks in Europe and the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of what is claimed, we are talking in a semi scholarly fashion, and the sourcing even for sunni scholars is weak, as explicitly mentioned in that article. As for the rest, has Muhammed ever killed anyone for apostasy? As you said the sahihs were compiled some 200 years later and there is hardly consensus around them(your environment is hardly comprehensive of the Muslim tapestry), as for the whole Aisha debate, let's throw context out the window and let's just be, well, scholarly:

Depends on which scholars you ask. The methodologies of determining which chains to be trusted, and who counts as a good source differs across scholars. Adnan Ibrahim (the guy in the video) tends to hold views that go against the majority of scholars in the tradition. Ex-muslims regard him as a closet atheist and most Sunni scholars regard him as an infidel. He believes in Darwinism for instance amongst other things and has been subjected to incredible attacks. A guy similar to him is now serving jail time in Egypt for criticizing the hadith collectors (his name is Islam el Behairy)

Again to serious historians none of these sources are reliable. Ibn Ishaq (the biography writer) is deemed not trustworthy by many sunni scholars because he confirmed the Shiite version of events for instance. They don't discredit him at large but they discredit some of his narrations (like those about Ali).

The main point about ISIS's interpretation is that it is rooted in the tradition. Some scholars may make arguments like Adnan and others scholars will respond but both sides are Islamic and are rooted in Hadiths. You cannot say (I am not saying you do) that this has nothing to do with Islam, when the hadiths are there and biography is there and it contains such stories.

About apostasy, there are recorded hadiths in both sahih bukhari and sahih muslim of him saying that they should be killed. As long as the chain of transmition (Sanad) is 'solid' and the content of the hadith (matn) is similar then this hadith is trust worthy for most Sunni scholars. If I remember correctly, the 4 main schools of jurisprudence all agree that apostates should be put to death. They only disagree about the process prior to execution. Some say the apostate should be killed immediately, others say we have to wait 3 days to give the apostate a chance to repent before killing them. They also disagreed on who has the right to kill the apostate. Does the average muslim on the street have the right to kill apostates or is it solely the right of the Caliph? But they all agree that apostates should be killed.

About Aisha, the hadiths are pretty straight forward and are in more than one source. She even tells how she used to go to him with her toys. You can make arguments like Adnan (he is largely anti-hadiths) but again swaths of muslim scholars think otherwise and so it is an islamic practice.
9
Fun fact: Bukhari says in the intro of his book of hadiths that he started off with something like 600,000 hadiths and ended up with 3000 that he judged as authentic enough (I cant remember the exact numbers you'll have to look it up). Mathematically he would have had to been collecting hadiths all his life since birth averaging something like 3 hadiths a day, in a time where there was no cars, plans or telephones. Historians spend a full year with a handful of letters to determine their authenticity. That guy was on fire in comparison. The proof that he is not reliable is in his own book But again thats all we have to work with so...


This has some of the things he is very different from the majority of scholars.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/adnan-ibrahim

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

yeah I don't think we're such a big deal for most people so that'd make them vote for him but still I've heard/read a lot of people who are really supportive of the things he says, not just about mexicans

Me neither, the wall isn't my greatest fear tbh, if it's built I wouldn't care that much (only if we pay for it),but as you say, it wouldn't solve anything. My biggest fear is from an economic point of view, I'm scared about the relationship of our countries deploring so much that a lot of our agreements fall, as you know the USA is the primar destination of export products (around 70%), and not only that but if he does in fact deports illegal inmigrants that'd mean a big loss of income for a lot of families.

I wouldn't worry about the economics. US companies will continue to move to Mexico.

 

[Zacheryah]

I blame all west. West created them. West created ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram... Western puppet states Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding them. Yes, i see the problem

- - - Updated - - -


Dude, what Syrians? There's no 10% of them. They are mostly from Pakistan, Avganistan, Palestina, east and north Africa.
And yeah, about woman and children, there is so litle of them. Last group i saw, there wasnt one child or woman. But when you see pics in papers, all womans with children.

The middle east has a historical tendency to become violent. So its best to not fucking meddle, and let them find their ways.

Instead, the US (not europe, but we cant really neglect our master) decides it stirrs shit up over there all the place, tries to overtrow goverments and places puppet ones wich fails every single time. Get rid of Hussein, who was a dictator but at least he kept the 3 main groups from going at each other. Then you get saudi arabia, wich is what happens if radicals find oil and maintain a strong grip the population can only slowly get under from. (no female drivers, not THAT bad idea tho). From the ruins of iraq, you get IS, who mostly recruit former military men who are now without a job, mostly funded by saudi princes. Oh yeah, those Saudi's all us westeren country's do deals with.

"oh fucking hell no" if its Iran. But Saudi arabia, wich is literally 50 times worse on everything they do wrong, nope, cant touch that shit.


I quoted your post because you call saudi arabia and qatar puppet states. Roflmao. They are hardcore religious dictatorships, and we kneel for them, not the other way around.

Syria and Irak used to be quite beautifull country's. Iraq had a very good educational level and social security. Today, you see people in hopeless situations, ready to be brainwashed and recruited with few efford.

 

[Nzoric]

The middle east has a historical tendency to become violent.

Sorry Zach, but

 

[Bjerknes]

I blame all west. West created them. West created ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram... Western puppet states Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding them. Yes, i see the problem

*Some of them, not all. And by West you should mean certain corrupt parts of the government. I didn't do it, don't blame me.

- - - Updated - - -

EXCLUSIVE: Belgian Intelligence Had Precise Warning That Airport Targeted for Bombing

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.710572

 

[swag]

Forget Muslims. We should be rounding up all the engineers:

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists?
http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Engineering-Education/235800

A long but a good read.

 

[Bjerknes]

Forget Muslims. We should be rounding up all the engineers:

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists?
http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Engineering-Education/235800

A long but a good read.

Very interesting. Not sure what I think about that.

 

[Hust]

Forget Muslims. We should be rounding up all the engineers:

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists?
http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Engineering-Education/235800

A long but a good read.

State of the Union you ask? One only needs to read the comments section to know where we are headed.

 

[Linebreak]

Every time an organized group like them pops up you destroy their state again. It wont be the end of jihadis but it would prevent them from becoming organized enough, popular enough and rich enough to displace whole populations of civilians and launching massive spectacular terror attacks in Europe and the US.

- - - Updated - - -



Depends on which scholars you ask. The methodologies of determining which chains to be trusted, and who counts as a good source differs across scholars. Adnan Ibrahim (the guy in the video) tends to hold views that go against the majority of scholars in the tradition. Ex-muslims regard him as a closet atheist and most Sunni scholars regard him as an infidel. He believes in Darwinism for instance amongst other things and has been subjected to incredible attacks. A guy similar to him is now serving jail time in Egypt for criticizing the hadith collectors (his name is Islam el Behairy)

Again to serious historians none of these sources are reliable. Ibn Ishaq (the biography writer) is deemed not trustworthy by many sunni scholars because he confirmed the Shiite version of events for instance. They don't discredit him at large but they discredit some of his narrations (like those about Ali).

The main point about ISIS's interpretation is that it is rooted in the tradition. Some scholars may make arguments like Adnan and others scholars will respond but both sides are Islamic and are rooted in Hadiths. You cannot say (I am not saying you do) that this has nothing to do with Islam, when the hadiths are there and biography is there and it contains such stories.

About apostasy, there are recorded hadiths in both sahih bukhari and sahih muslim of him saying that they should be killed. As long as the chain of transmition (Sanad) is 'solid' and the content of the hadith (matn) is similar then this hadith is trust worthy for most Sunni scholars. If I remember correctly, the 4 main schools of jurisprudence all agree that apostates should be put to death. They only disagree about the process prior to execution. Some say the apostate should be killed immediately, others say we have to wait 3 days to give the apostate a chance to repent before killing them. They also disagreed on who has the right to kill the apostate. Does the average muslim on the street have the right to kill apostates or is it solely the right of the Caliph? But they all agree that apostates should be killed.

About Aisha, the hadiths are pretty straight forward and are in more than one source. She even tells how she used to go to him with her toys. You can make arguments like Adnan (he is largely anti-hadiths) but again swaths of muslim scholars think otherwise and so it is an islamic practice.
9
Fun fact: Bukhari says in the intro of his book of hadiths that he started off with something like 600,000 hadiths and ended up with 3000 that he judged as authentic enough (I cant remember the exact numbers you'll have to look it up). Mathematically he would have had to been collecting hadiths all his life since birth averaging something like 3 hadiths a day, in a time where there was no cars, plans or telephones. Historians spend a full year with a handful of letters to determine their authenticity. That guy was on fire in comparison. The proof that he is not reliable is in his own book But again thats all we have to work with so...


This has some of the things he is very different from the majority of scholars.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/adnan-ibrahim

Can someone please explain to me what the heck this has to do with the bombings?

 

[Hist]

Can someone please explain to me what the heck this has to do with the bombings?

are you really surprised that a terrorist attack by a group who claim to follow fundamental historical islamic texts, can become a conversation about Islamic History?

 

[delrey]

The middle east has a historical tendency to become violent. So its best to not $#@!ing meddle, and let them find their ways.

Instead, the US (not europe, but we cant really neglect our master) decides it stirrs $#@! up over there all the place, tries to overtrow goverments and places puppet ones wich fails every single time. Get rid of Hussein, who was a dictator but at least he kept the 3 main groups from going at each other. Then you get saudi arabia, wich is what happens if radicals find oil and maintain a strong grip the population can only slowly get under from. (no female drivers, not THAT bad idea tho). From the ruins of iraq, you get IS, who mostly recruit former military men who are now without a job, mostly funded by saudi princes. Oh yeah, those Saudi's all us westeren country's do deals with.

"oh $#@!ing hell no" if its Iran. But Saudi arabia, wich is literally 50 times worse on everything they do wrong, nope, cant touch that $#@!.


I quoted your post because you call saudi arabia and qatar puppet states. Roflmao. They are hardcore religious dictatorships, and we kneel for them, not the other way around.

Syria and Irak used to be quite beautifull country's. Iraq had a very good educational level and social security. Today, you see people in hopeless situations, ready to be brainwashed and recruited with few efford.

lol England brought Saudis to power.

- - - Updated - - -

*Some of them, not all. And by West you should mean certain corrupt parts of the government. I didn't do it, don't blame me.

- - - Updated - - -

EXCLUSIVE: Belgian Intelligence Had Precise Warning That Airport Targeted for Bombing

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.710572

Ok, you know what i mean. By west, i mean shadow rulers living and controling the west.

 

[Cronios]

Belgium was always defenceless and an easy target, that a shame that Isis choosed them to make a point, as i doubt that it has any real military presence in the disturbed areas.
Those fanatics know their place and attack anyone they can, they wanted an easy target in the heart of Europe, in an arrogant nation that thinks that its safe among its powerfull alies.
It is important that Europe stays united now and not throw around responsibilities, if Isis can win anything from this, would be to divide and terrorise Europe. From this pov i really wonder why Turkey was so hasty with their accusations that they had warned them about those certain terrorists, this only gives an excuse to someones to blaim everything on them and overlook the real matter...

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Belgium was always defenceless and an easy target, that a shame that Isis choosed them to make a point, as i doubt that it has any real military presence in the disturbed areas.
Those fanatics know their place and attack anyone they can, they wanted an easy target in the heart of Europe, in an arrogant nation that thinks that its safe among its powerfull alies.
It is important that Europe stays united now and not throw around responsibilities, if Isis can win anything from this, would be to divide and terrorise Europe. From this pov i really wonder why Turkey was so hasty with their accusations that they had warned them about those certain terrorists, this only gives an excuse to someones to blaim everything on them and overlook the real matter...

So it's not Marotta's fault this time?

 

[Cronios]

So it's not Marotta's fault this time?

sush troll!!

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

sush troll!!

That's gonna cost you €15m (cost of mediocre Italien SS or CM)

 

[DAiDEViL]

It is important that Europe stays united now and not throw around responsibilities, if Isis can win anything from this, would be to divide and terrorise Europe.

"stay" united? too late.

 

[king Ale]

I wish it was possible for the rest of the world to completely divorce itself from the situations of the middle-east. Let them figure it out themselves.

Hopefully technology can help spread education in those parts of the world and they can alter their religion themselves just like how other religions have been altered in the past (Christianity).

The divide between ALL muslims and ALL the other people of the world is becoming bigger and bigger as we go. That's a very bad thing.

That will help the middle east and not the rest of the world (i.e., the west). And that's exactly why it will not happen. The West is so dependent on oil that they don't mind these "minor" sacrifices. Saudi Arabia has been getting away with all their crimes both inside the country (extreme violations of human rights) and all over the world (fifteen of September 11 attackers were Saudi citizens) exactly because of the West's dependence on oil.

"Keen to secure oil contracts, Belgium’s King Baudouin made an offer to Saudi King Faisal, who had visited Brussels in 1967: Belgium would set up a mosque in the capital, and hire Gulf-trained clerics."

"Although the mosque was treated as the official voice of Muslims in Belgium, its radical Salafist teachings came from a very different tradition to the Islam of the new immigrants."

"In August, a WikiLeaks cable revealed that a staff member of the Saudi embassy in Belgium was expelled years ago over his active role in spreading the extreme so-called Takfiri dogma. The cable – between the Saudi King and his Home Minister – referred to Belgian demands that the ICC’s Saudi director, Khalid Alabri, should leave the country, saying that his messages were far too extreme, and that his status as director meant he should not be preaching anyway."

Read here.

It's not like the rest of the world is not keeping their distance from the middle east because they are busy bringing piece and democracy to it, it's because the middle east is economically and geopolitically important for your governments. If horrific instances in Belgium and France make the headlines for weeks and months (because they happened in Europe), people of Iraq literally lived it (and are still living it) thank to the "rest of the world".

Is Islam at fault? Maybe. The key suspect in Paris attacks was allegedly a homosexual who used to be a drug dealer (neither is a typical muslim who takes his religion seriously) but religion in general and Islam in particular is something a screwed up person can identify with and be easily brainwashed by its violent interpretation (and Islam, similar to other religions, has lots of room for such interpretations).

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Interesting read, Hoori

 

[campionesidd]

Saudi is pure scum, no better than ISIS. It's these guys Russia should be bombing.

 

[Ronn]

That will help the middle east and not the rest of the world (i.e., the west). And that's exactly why it will not happen. The West is so dependent on oil that they don't mind these "minor" sacrifices. Saudi Arabia has been getting away with all their crimes both inside the country (extreme violations of human rights) and all over the world (fifteen of September 11 attackers were Saudi citizens) exactly because of the West's dependence on oil.

"Keen to secure oil contracts, Belgium’s King Baudouin made an offer to Saudi King Faisal, who had visited Brussels in 1967: Belgium would set up a mosque in the capital, and hire Gulf-trained clerics."

"Although the mosque was treated as the official voice of Muslims in Belgium, its radical Salafist teachings came from a very different tradition to the Islam of the new immigrants."

"In August, a WikiLeaks cable revealed that a staff member of the Saudi embassy in Belgium was expelled years ago over his active role in spreading the extreme so-called Takfiri dogma. The cable – between the Saudi King and his Home Minister – referred to Belgian demands that the ICC’s Saudi director, Khalid Alabri, should leave the country, saying that his messages were far too extreme, and that his status as director meant he should not be preaching anyway."

Read here.

It's not like the rest of the world is not keeping their distance from the middle east because they are busy bringing piece and democracy to it, it's because the middle east is economically and geopolitically important for your governments. If horrific instances in Belgium and France make the headlines for weeks and months (because they happened in Europe), people of Iraq literally lived it (and are still living it) thank to the "rest of the world".

Is Islam at fault? Maybe. The key suspect in Paris attacks was allegedly a homosexual who used to be a drug dealer (neither is a typical muslim who takes his religion seriously) but religion in general and Islam in particular is something a screwed up person can identify with and be easily brainwashed by its violent interpretation (and Islam, similar to other religions, has lots of room for such interpretations).

I agree with almost everything, but cannot understand how it helps the Middle East? It won't stop Iran and Saudi Arabia of fucking with each other, will it?