Cunts

[Gejon 2]

a racist is someone who discriminates against a race just because they’re not the same as their own

 

would it not fuck you off if someone walked into your house, uninvited, and wiped their shoes all over your settee and puked all over your furniture ?

 

For want of a better analogy.........

 

I'm off out now.

 

 

Fucking hell, straight out of an EDL leaflet that.

 

Enjoy the pub.

[PaddockLad 16511]

Religion was invented to divide and brainwash the people. It is the ultimate distraction and divider ever invented. We must all come together we are all brothers.

 

I agree. Some brothers are total mugs though. Look at the Krays.

 

Clever.

 

But seriously Steve the same people who manipulated us into two world wars are now manipulating the old religious dogmas and lies and fanning the flames of hatred cause they is worried, cause the shit is hitting the fan and they need us to think about little things and look for enemies amongst ourselves and forget about them and the broken promises and the broken lives across vast continents of pain and inequality. Don't fall for it. There are those in the muslim community and those in the far right who as history has repeatdly shown us are tools - tools of the old enemy: the elite - the elite who never got voted in and answer to no-one and contunue to plunder the world. THEY are the enemy. Always.

[Park Life 71]

Yeah that's it.

[Park Life 71]

One those really evil muslims

 

 

[Brock Manson 0]

One those really evil muslims

 

 

 

He was an amazing guy, absolutely appalling the manner in which he died.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

He was bisexual, but it's a touchy subject amongst his followers.

[Monkeys Fist 41318]

He was bisexual, but it's a touchy subject amongst his followers.

Denzil likes bum & blurt ?????

[LeazesMag 0]

a racist is someone who discriminates against a race just because they’re not the same as their own

 

would it not fuck you off if someone walked into your house, uninvited, and wiped their shoes all over your settee and puked all over your furniture ?

 

For want of a better analogy.........

 

I'm off out now.

 

 

Fucking hell, straight out of an EDL leaflet that.

 

Enjoy the pub.

 

enjoy your lemonade boy

 

Edit

 

As Stevie said, the unfounded accusation is even worse than the reality. Show me the proof, other than the voices in your brainwashed head, or shut the fuck up.

 

Some people will identify with what I have just said.

 

And go back to that other dismal message board you call home.

 

Edited July 31, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

He was bisexual, but it's a touchy subject amongst his followers.

 

Didn't Gejon say once he was bisexual ?

[Kid Dynamite 6818]

If we ever make contact with an advanced alien life force they will live as one race in harmony btw, with a common reverence for nature and their environment. Wish I could live there tbh as the way we run this planet is fucked beyond repair

[Kid Dynamite 6818]

He was bisexual, but it's a touchy subject amongst his followers.

 

Didn't Gejon say once he was bisexual ?

 

I'm not sure Roger irrelevant, did he? He probably loves blacks too the bastard!

[Gejon 2]

As a grown up, mature gentleman I would assume if I was bisexual it wouldn't make any difference at all, so just out of interest why did you bring that up?

 

You don't come across as the homophobic type Leazes, you just seem far too tolerant of anyone different to you.

[Barney 0]

If we ever make contact with an advanced alien life force they will live as one race in harmony btw, with a common reverence for nature and their environment. Wish I could live there tbh as the way we run this planet is fucked beyond repair

 

Or like the blue catmonkeys in Avatar?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

If we ever make contact with an advanced alien life force they will live as one race in harmony btw, with a common reverence for nature and their environment. Wish I could live there tbh as the way we run this planet is fucked beyond repair

 

 

I'll have what she's having; goddamn honky is trippin!

[acrossthepond 861]

The thing is though, what you really have to remember with this bunch of bell helmets when they start doing dickish things like this, the bottom line is before they start shoving Islamic dogma down your average whitey's throat (which'll never work anyway) they have to admit that a massive proportion of male UK Muslims flaunt Shariah law in any event. It's a separate debate to an extent, but the press love this sort of stuff because it goes down well with the 'we bend over backwards to accommodate them' 'Britain is turning into Pakistan' rhetoric when the reality is generally speaking, UK Muslims (amongst others) are far more Westernised as a result of living here than the indigenous Briton has become 'Muslimised' by waves of immigration and multiculturalism. OK we've got loads of curry houses on the high street now but you can't tell me your average white Briton is praying to Mecca 5 times a day just because his taste buds have changed a bit. And openness and acceptance of other cultures is a traditional (modern) British value anyway, so some things will look a bit different to how they looked thirty years ago. That's the sort of country we live in.

 

This lot genuinely are a lunatic bunch with far more worries about 'their own' leaving what they regard as Islam than harbouring serious intentions of turning Britain into a Sharia state. Seriously though, he must get millions of £'s free publicity that muppet, when really, as long as the authorities are monitoring him, he should probably largely be ignored by the press.

 

Not just UK Muslims, all Muslims. Most Muslim countries at least pay lip service to the sharia - although if you'd like an example of one that absolutely doesn't, look up Tunisia's constitution - but very few of them actually operate societies in which the sharia is strictly enforced. The ones that do are extremist paradises: Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. Almost all Muslim countries except the ones I just mentioned have (at least somewhat) advanced beyond disenfranchising their women and placing ulama, or Islamic scholars, in positions of power in society.

 

Can anyone show me "the sharia?" No, because it doesn't exist as such. It began as a few rules codified from what is expressly stated in the Qur'an, then started to swell and bloat until it reached the all-encompassing status it possessed through the 19th century. Why did this happen? Because of the ulama, who I mentioned above. In the time following the Prophet's death, there was no real distinction between the religious establishment and the political establishment. The caliph (the Prophet's successor), was known as the "commander of the faithful" - that is, head of both church and state. This lasted until Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed and the Umayyad dynasty took over. (All of this is happening in the 7th century.)

 

Although these Umayyads claimed to be the true successors to the Prophet, they were really interested in political power. They set themselves up as a dynasty (until this time, the caliphate had not been hereditary; instead, upon the caliph's death, a group of respected elders and scholars would reach a consensus on who the next caliph would be) and ruled Arabia until 768, when another set of usurpers called the Abbasids took over. They would rule until 1250, at which point the Mongols destroyed them, and in the 14th century the Ottoman Empire emerged.

 

Why am I telling you this? It is to illustrate the deviation of political power from religious authority. And following this deviation, the increasingly power-hungry rulers of (most of) Islam became more estranged from the religion. They committed endless excesses and flaunted the rules of Islam. Fearing that these excesses would turn the population against them - this is the important part - they granted their patronage to groups of regime-friendly religious authorities, or 'ulama.' Once the ulama realised that the rulers relied upon the weight of their religious opinions in order to legitimise their rule, they made more and more demands and became more and more rich and powerful. Now set up as a far-reaching religious semi-establishment, the ulama produced endless rulings on life and society, some at the prompting of their rulers and some simply at their own whim. These rulings became what we call the sharia today, and they emerged not from Islam, but from the greed of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman sultans, who empowered the ulama to craft a set of guidelines that would maintain their firm grip on power.

 

tl;dr version: The 'sharia' is not actually Islamic (although almost all of it is of course derived in some way from Islam) but was created as a means to power for rulers from the 7th-20th centuries. The caliphate is gone, the ulama have no power today, and the society that the sharia was devised in order to control no longer exists. We Muslims should recognise this and move on; most already have. Only revisionists who want to go back to the 'glory days of Islam' still bang on about the sharia and these revisionists represent the dangerous element within our religion, which needs to be removed before we can progress and become fully integrated with the rest of the world.

[Gemmill 42623]

That was informative, cheers for posting. That sounds sarcastic but isn't.

[McFaul 35]

The thing is though, what you really have to remember with this bunch of bell helmets when they start doing dickish things like this, the bottom line is before they start shoving Islamic dogma down your average whitey's throat (which'll never work anyway) they have to admit that a massive proportion of male UK Muslims flaunt Shariah law in any event. It's a separate debate to an extent, but the press love this sort of stuff because it goes down well with the 'we bend over backwards to accommodate them' 'Britain is turning into Pakistan' rhetoric when the reality is generally speaking, UK Muslims (amongst others) are far more Westernised as a result of living here than the indigenous Briton has become 'Muslimised' by waves of immigration and multiculturalism. OK we've got loads of curry houses on the high street now but you can't tell me your average white Briton is praying to Mecca 5 times a day just because his taste buds have changed a bit. And openness and acceptance of other cultures is a traditional (modern) British value anyway, so some things will look a bit different to how they looked thirty years ago. That's the sort of country we live in.

 

This lot genuinely are a lunatic bunch with far more worries about 'their own' leaving what they regard as Islam than harbouring serious intentions of turning Britain into a Sharia state. Seriously though, he must get millions of £'s free publicity that muppet, when really, as long as the authorities are monitoring him, he should probably largely be ignored by the press.

 

Not just UK Muslims, all Muslims. Most Muslim countries at least pay lip service to the sharia - although if you'd like an example of one that absolutely doesn't, look up Tunisia's constitution - but very few of them actually operate societies in which the sharia is strictly enforced. The ones that do are extremist paradises: Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. Almost all Muslim countries except the ones I just mentioned have (at least somewhat) advanced beyond disenfranchising their women and placing ulama, or Islamic scholars, in positions of power in society.

 

Can anyone show me "the sharia?" No, because it doesn't exist as such. It began as a few rules codified from what is expressly stated in the Qur'an, then started to swell and bloat until it reached the all-encompassing status it possessed through the 19th century. Why did this happen? Because of the ulama, who I mentioned above. In the time following the Prophet's death, there was no real distinction between the religious establishment and the political establishment. The caliph (the Prophet's successor), was known as the "commander of the faithful" - that is, head of both church and state. This lasted until Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed and the Umayyad dynasty took over. (All of this is happening in the 7th century.)

 

Although these Umayyads claimed to be the true successors to the Prophet, they were really interested in political power. They set themselves up as a dynasty (until this time, the caliphate had not been hereditary; instead, upon the caliph's death, a group of respected elders and scholars would reach a consensus on who the next caliph would be) and ruled Arabia until 768, when another set of usurpers called the Abbasids took over. They would rule until 1250, at which point the Mongols destroyed them, and in the 14th century the Ottoman Empire emerged.

 

Why am I telling you this? It is to illustrate the deviation of political power from religious authority. And following this deviation, the increasingly power-hungry rulers of (most of) Islam became more estranged from the religion. They committed endless excesses and flaunted the rules of Islam. Fearing that these excesses would turn the population against them - this is the important part - they granted their patronage to groups of regime-friendly religious authorities, or 'ulama.' Once the ulama realised that the rulers relied upon the weight of their religious opinions in order to legitimise their rule, they made more and more demands and became more and more rich and powerful. Now set up as a far-reaching religious semi-establishment, the ulama produced endless rulings on life and society, some at the prompting of their rulers and some simply at their own whim. These rulings became what we call the sharia today, and they emerged not from Islam, but from the greed of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman sultans, who empowered the ulama to craft a set of guidelines that would maintain their firm grip on power.

 

tl;dr version: The 'sharia' is not actually Islamic (although almost all of it is of course derived in some way from Islam) but was created as a means to power for rulers from the 7th-20th centuries. The caliphate is gone, the ulama have no power today, and the society that the sharia was devised in order to control no longer exists. We Muslims should recognise this and move on; most already have. Only revisionists who want to go back to the 'glory days of Islam' still bang on about the sharia and these revisionists represent the dangerous element within our religion, which needs to be removed before we can progress and become fully integrated with the rest of the world.

Good post. It educated me regarding sharia's origins anyway.

[The Fish 10429]

Whaddya think to that Leazes?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Was a terrific post. I think Afghan/Pakistan/Iran/Saudi are a big problem, because as atp says,

 

Only revisionists who want to go back to the 'glory days of Islam' still bang on about the sharia and these revisionists represent the dangerous element within our religion

 

It just so happens that some of these revisionists are in positions of political and clerical authority in the aforementioned countries.

[snakehips 0]

Excellent post, ATP

 

I wonder if there would be religious nuts who would argue the point in some way though, just like Christian zealots can 'quote the scriptures' to promote their way of thinking?

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to be contrary, btw, as I know very little about religion of any description but like to hear what knowledgable folk have to say.

Edited August 1, 2011 by snakehips

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I should add also formerly Saddam's Iraq to that list; though he may not have been strictly enforcing Sharia, there was a similarly brutal system of justice in place before he was removed and executed.

[snakehips 0]

I should add also formerly Saddam's Iraq to that list; though he may not have been strictly enforcing Sharia, there was a similarly brutal system of justice in place before he was removed and executed.

 

 

But is it merely brutal to our way of thinking? Are we just too soft and assume that our way is the right way and any other way is just wrong ?

[McFaul 35]

I should add also formerly Saddam's Iraq to that list; though he may not have been strictly enforcing Sharia, there was a similarly brutal system of justice in place before he was removed and executed.

 

 

But is it merely brutal to our way of thinking? Are we just too soft and assume that our way is the right way and any other way is just wrong ?

I think gassing 100,000 people for no reason other than to get rid of them is by any means a lot worse than the democratic capitalist way of life we have in the west.

[Park Life 71]

I should add also formerly Saddam's Iraq to that list; though he may not have been strictly enforcing Sharia, there was a similarly brutal system of justice in place before he was removed and executed.

 

 

But is it merely brutal to our way of thinking? Are we just too soft and assume that our way is the right way and any other way is just wrong ?

 

 

Let me pull yer fingernails oot and wire your willy to the mains and we'll find out..

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I should add also formerly Saddam's Iraq to that list; though he may not have been strictly enforcing Sharia, there was a similarly brutal system of justice in place before he was removed and executed.

 

 

But is it merely brutal to our way of thinking? Are we just too soft and assume that our way is the right way and any other way is just wrong ?

 

I assume you're not taking the piss, as astonishing as that statement is.

 

This is the most succinct way I've heard it put: Iraq under Saddam was essentially a concentration camp above ground, and a mass grave underneath - that is not an exaggeration, they are still uncovering mass graves to this day. You would prefer that to the system of government in England?