View Full Version : Warning to Disruptors
This is a warning to all disruptors on this site. I am sure i speak for the whole Shura Council and all the Moderators.We will not tolerate people who continuously break the rules of this site after repeated warnings.
Non Muslims who wish to discuss matters pertaining to religion within the framework of the rules and regulations are welcome. However, we have observed that some non Muslims here do not care to discuss but just insult Islam. This is intolerable and this is a warning to all such disruptors that they will be dealt with strictly. As for those who have many IP addresses, and think that we cannot ban all those IP addresses. Then they're wrong, and have seriously underestimated the determination of the Moderators of this site.
I request the moderators of this forum to kindly tackle these disruptors in the most strictest of manners henceforth. If necessary, ban them.
Also Insha Allah i would request brother Tayeb to kindly look into this matter.
Wa Salaam,
Asif.
Hans Defth
11-07-2001, 23:58
What are you going to do? Start a war (as per usual muslim traditions)
Indian Man
12-07-2001, 23:41
Very good point.
However, if you wish to test my intellegence, then you will certainly fail.
I am a lecturer from Oxford, mastering in Philosophy. I have been studying Islam and have no doubt that I have drawn the correct and only conclusions.
I have never said that all humans are bad - for you to suggest I have further condemns your intelligence.
I notice you have not explained the reasons why Islam is behind so many conflicts, wars and fighting. The scales of the previous range from Street Fighting to all out international conflict - all in the name of Islam.
Why? Are all these people using Islam as a mask or an excuse for their violence, or are they following their religion, which would further re-itterate many of the non-muslim's point.
Please do not delete this discussion - just answer the previous question, if you can.
With All Due Respect,
Indian Man
hello Indian Man
Pretty suprising that a "lecturer from Oxford" should resort to such dishonourable tactics as profanity and one-liner baseless remarks. And to say you have "studied Islam", after getting oh so many fundamental topics incorrect.
And more suprising is your change of tone, undoubtably humbled I presume.
Anyways, now you tell me. If you have "studied Islam" so well, you will notice that Jihad is only permitted in self-defence. Modern war tactics dictate that pre-emptive strikes are in the category of self-defence as well.
If you mistake pre-emptive strikes with offensive strikes, then I cant help you. People who are not aware of the politics of the region will give untrue reports. Usually saying the first shot was an offensive one. But if you would understand the nitty-gritty of the whole thing, you would think otherwise.
Just a camera and a talking head wont be enough. You have to understand each argument of both sides in the conflict, to see the real reason why the fighting is going on. For that, you need to have analysed the past of the conflict.
A very common mistake there. Today's media just hears that something happened somewhere, tells a correspondent to get-over-there-and-start-filming. And to keep up with the schedule, they take snippets of the reason of the conflict and present that to the world.
Some channels like the BBC do further study and present their findings later on, correcting any previous errors in reporting.
And some dont.
Who would you believe? How would you know whats the truth?
The fact is, you wont know it. Unless you did real RESEARCH into it. But alas, we humans are too lazy and hasty. We want to just argue argue argue, baselessly, with whatever small snippet point we get.
Sameer Arshad
>World War 1,started by?
Central Powers:
Germany
Austro-Hungarian Empire (first to fire a shot)
Ottoman Empire (Possibly the largest Islamic empire ever).
hhmmm....be careful.
>Incorrect.
What part?
>Sir, you've got your history all
>wrong.
I think not.
>Gavrilo Princip shot the ArchDuke Franz
>Ferdinand.
Yup.
> Were they Muslims?
Ottoman Empire.
>Due to a series of complex
>alliances in those days WW1
>started and all between Christians(the
...so it was Christian Churches who did this? No way. How silly.
>beginning). However, The Ottoman Empire
>later joined the Central Powers
..and that's all I was saying. The Ottoman Empire was a part of the agressor nations. I said no more, no less.
>when the British failed to
>supply the battlecruisers it had
>ordered and the Germans did
>so. So to say that
>the Ottoman Empire initiated it
>is ridiculous and condemnation of
>the History known to this
>world.
>
>So Sir, i suggest in a
>most sincere manner, you be
>careful instead. :)
Salam
The Ottomans wished to liberate the Islamic lands like Trucial States, Oman, Syria, Jordan etc. from further occupation by the British. Indeed, this could not be done on its own, therefore, when Britain became the enemy of the Central Powers, the Ottomans found that with the combined strength of the Central Powers and themselves, they could liberate the Islamic lands and restore Islamic rule to Islamic countries. Well I guess it never turned out that way did it? With Britian recruiting Arabs to fight their own brethren.
I'm not that knowledgeable in this field, so please excuse me if I have made any mistake.
Sameer Arshad
LAST EDITED ON 17-07-01 AT 00:02 AM (GMT)[p]> Were they Muslims?
Ottoman Empire.
You're telling me that Gavrilo Princip and Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand were Muslims? Not only that, they were the "Ottoman Empire"? I see. Interesting.
>Conveniently ignoring the facts won't do
>you any good Mr. Ender.
>
>
>Are you telling me that the
>Germans and Serbs,etc. were not
>Christians? I did not say
>that this violence was instigated
>by any Church, and saying
>so is putting words in
>my mouth, which has been
>done many times in the
>past.
If it wasn't part of Church, how could it be an example of doctrine? If a man claims a faith and acts against it, what is he?
>They were Christians, ideal examples or
>not, but they were.
"not ideal examples" or simply fakes?
>It is highly judgemental of you
>to say they were amongst
>the aggressor nations. One may
>say it was radical Serbs
>who were aggressors (although that
>cannot be said, because it
>was only a group, a
>party).
This seems to be a common method in this forum. Hop from one topic to another to point a finger.
> As i said, it
>was a series of complex
>alliances. If one is to
>declare nations aggressors, then why
>is it that France and
>Uk wanted to interfere. I
>can all that an act
>of aggression conveniently. treaties were
>signed, alliances made, and the
>war began.
>
>Russia and Turkey had always been
>at loggerheads with each other
>for years before that. The
>Turks needed the battleships and
>armaments from the West (particularly
>UK) to defend their nation.
>However, the British refused to
>give them arms or weapons
>because it would make their
>ally, Russia, angry.
>
>Talk about aggression ! Refusing to
>help a nation just because
>the enemy nation is your
>friend. The natural inclination was
>to take help from the
>Germans against their enemies the
>Russians. So it would be
>highly objectionable and ignoramous to
>declare that so and so
>nation committed aggression. I say
>all nations committed aggression.
(Yawn) Okay, that's it. From now on I am not posting about "history" nor "transgressions." I am to focus on only the faiths.
Good day.
>I absolutely agree with you if
>you decide not to post
>on History. The articles you
>have posted on it as
>of yet are really not
>helping you in any way
>and really are going against
>you. Good for you. :)
I'm not posting on the subject because of two simple reasons: 1.) There is blatant revisionism on this site. 2.) Everytime an issue is brought up about Islam, INSTANTLY the subject changes to an accusation against another faith. Take a look back and see how many times the word "Serbs" are used when we aren't talking about that.
>As for "fakes". Well perhaps in
>Christianity if someone does a
>sin (major or minor) he
>becomes a non Christian or
>a "fake Christian". This is
>perhaps the ideology of your
>religion or your people or
>perhaps your personal view. In
>Islam, Muslims, if they are
>sinners, they are not ideal
>examples or representatives of the
>faith perhaps. But in no
>way will any Muslim dare
>to call him a "fake"
>or a disbeliever as that
>in itself is a major
>sin. Only when the act
>is an act of disbelief,
>then the person can be
>a disbeliever.
Oh really? What about the different divisions and denominations in Islam? Are they just "bad examples"?
>As for changing the topics, the
>topic was absolutely in line
>with the one being discussed.
Not by any stretch of the imagination. Pointing fingers to defend is a very old, very useless debate tactic.
>You, as usual, jumped to
>a wrong conclusion, about World
>War 1 in totality and
>the Ottoman Empire in particular
>by saying "joined the aggressor
>nations", and i just pointed
>out to you when and
>why it joined WW 1
>and who are the aggressor
>nations.
So now they are the aggressor nations. Before you said that they weren't. Interesting.
> But i can understand
>your feelings. No one feels
>good when History proves him/her
>wrong.
It's easy to disprove history when you have your blinders on. :^0
>As for yawning, yawning once in
>a while is good for
>your health for the release
>of Carbon Dioxide from your
>body. As for excessive yawning,
>as in this case, then
>be careful, lots of bacteria
>lurk in the air, and
>some may damage the brain
>cells too.
>
>Take care,
>Asif. :)
Don't talk to me anymore. You are rude and offensive.
Bye.
as salaam alaikum
>
>If i remember correctly, sis Nzignah
>in a debate once said
>to me "stop parroting" or
>something likewise. I have never
>ever stopped calling her a
>sis even after that. And
>i have respect for her
>still. >>
LOL :) yea that was me hehe
and the respect goes both ways brother. even with all our differences i still respect that you are truly out to learn and can disagree even harshly and still accept the one your disagreeing with :)
ma salaam
nzingha
Hello Ender
Your statement:
..and that's all I was saying. The Ottoman Empire was a part of the agressor nations. I said no more, no less.
---
I beg to differ.
Britain, a country that had captured Muslim lands that were previously under the Ottoman empire, and refused to help the Ottomans against the Russians.
I don't see how allying against such a country could be an act of "aggression"? Is liberating brethren Muslims from occupation and persecution (by Britian) and protecting them from impending attack (from the Russians) your idea of an act of aggression?
I'm sorry but I do not know what perverse definition you have for the word "agression". Please learn to use the word properly next time.
Sameer Arshad
LAST EDITED ON 20-07-01 AT 11:35 PM (GMT)[p]
Salam Asif
These arguments were not intended to be discussed by emotionless robots. We are humans and we should not be ashamed of being human.
I don't see anything really wrong in your postings to Ender. And the fact that Ender has made you apologise more than once for whatever superficial comment that he disliked, only goes to show how sincere you are in trying your best to be a gentleman in these matters.
I think Ender wishes to cast doubt on your integrity by saying how "rude" you are (if integrity CAN be lost that way anyhow). But it only goes to show how desperate he is to keep the argument going, trying to revive it. If an argument has ended and all points have been proven or disproven, then revive it in such a way that would be intellectually stimulating. I don't see any reason why Ender wished to revive some threads, like "The Quran" thread, with his pointless points, showing how much about Islam he really does not know.
But listen, we can't keep changing and adjusting ourselves and explaining ourselves to appease any little whim or opinion of every person we meet. Just BE YOURSELF, speak sensibly of what you feel and what you believe. If any passions flow with it, then GOOD! This is you being a human about it. But of course, no one should transgress any limits with their passion by using obscenities and other such nonsense, like the user "Indian Man".
Everyone should be a gentleman (or a lady) here. And everyone should be a human as well.
Sameer Arshad
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.