Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Norwegian Minister of Justice: Burn the Qur'an part of freedom of speech
Norway has taken a long hard look at Sweden and seems to be taking steps to stop the crap. I wonder if the UK will ever get this far, or indeed any other country

Quote:Published November 30, 2019 at 10:34 am
FOREIGN. Burning the Holy Scripture of Islam is part of freedom of speech and something that must be accepted.
This is considered by Norway's Minister of Justice Jøran Kallmyr (FrP).

Like the article on Facebook

It was a couple of weeks ago that the Norwegian Islam-critical group Stop the Islamization
of Norway (SIAN) burned the Koran during a square meeting in Kristiansand.
The incident created a great debate in the country, says the newspaper VG.

It also attracted international attention when Islamists in Pakistan responded by burning the
Norwegian flag. The question has been whether Koran burning should be banned or accepted
within the framework of freedom of expression.

During the square meeting, counter-protesters went wild and the Koran burners were physically
attacked by immigrants, as seen on film.

At the meeting in Kristiansand, the police also intervened and extinguished the fire.
But now a new police order is issued.
"Although we refrain from burning the Koran, we must accept it in our society because we
have freedom of speech, and that burning the Koran is part of that freedom of expression,"
says Norwegian Justice Minister Jøran Kallmyr according to VG.

Furthermore, the minister points out that Islam is not an individual or group, but a religion
that can withstand criticism. Because that's how freedom of speech works. But not everyone
understands that, he says.

Foreign forces should not, however, decide what Norway should have for laws and regulations,
the minister emphasizes. 
source  full story here ( use google translate )full story
Maybe Angela can explain better about free speech?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
The line that has to be drawn regarding free speech is difficult, at least for me.  I see where there has to be some rules set up, or else countries get these infiltrators coming in and before you know it... presto!  You are now under communist rule!
Just take this Catholic church who recently allowed Ilhan Omar to come in and speak to the congregation.  She read from her Quran, mentioned Islam, and praised Allah while standing at the pulpit. 
(Info from Twitter. I can't share it here.)

The Pope had to allow this, or else this never would have happened. They are trying desperately to rid our country of Christianity and replace it with Islamic religion.

I believe THIS is where the line is drawn... at least for me!!
(11-30-2019, 12:13 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Norway has taken a long hard look at Sweden and seems to be taking steps to stop the crap. I wonder if the UK will ever get this far, or indeed any other country

It also attracted international attention when Islamists in Pakistan responded by burning the
Norwegian flag. The question has been whether Koran burning should be banned or accepted
within the framework of freedom of expression.
source  full story here ( use google translate )full story

Point of clarification: Islam IS invading Scandinavia, so burning it's symbols is an appropriate response involving freedom of expression in protest of that invasion. Norway is NOT invading Pakistan, so burning her symbols are something of a "WTF? Meh..." moment. The two actions are not the same, not even in the same ballpark. There is no equivalency in the statement.

Of course, if it upsets the delicate sensibilities of Muslims to burn a Qur'an, we don't have to burn them. We could always pile a few in a metal drum and hire a few homeless winos to stand around pissing on them...

" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
(11-30-2019, 12:57 PM)BIAD Wrote: Maybe Angela can explain better about free speech?

I'm not sure I heard her correctly - the way to insure a "free society" is by placing more, and more draconian, restrictions on it? Something in that thought is not making logical sense to me...

" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
(12-02-2019, 05:36 AM)Ninurta Wrote: ...I'm not sure I heard her correctly - the way to insure a "free society" is by placing more, and more draconian,
restrictions on it? Something in that thought is not making logical sense to me...

It's quite eye-opening to see how a simple story as George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' can still offer an example
of social-control that's still relevant today.

In the book, a scheme was proposed from a favoured creature of the farm, a pig that dreamt of a idyllic world
where all the individual factions of animals would be equal and live by a set of simple rules. Ironically -or not,
the story explains a meeting in a barn where all the sheep came in together and the horses came into the barn
as respective groups, cows, horses, sheep, ect.
Separate cliques abiding together in one place.

'Old Major', the exalted boar explains to the the geese, the sheep and all the others, his plan of ousting the current
overlord and bring in a control structure that favoured all of them... all of the animals.
Now they were no longer sheep, cows, dogs and pigs, now they were all just animals, but they would be free animals.

Like in any society, rules were handed down and written on the barn wall. Also an anthem was given to them to sing.
The animals -now a collective, were content because they were part of something and saw themselves as more than
just single cogs in a machine.

But as the pigs sought more control, those rules changed to suit the pigs who had elevated themselves to governance.
In the real world, Angela Merkel is doing just that.

The 'free society' that the German Chancellor is talking about is a free society that is given and governed by those who
it benefits, not just a free and open commonality. To critisise those who are administrate and model the idea is to cast
doubt on the leadership and put the whole project in jeopardy.
So the rules of freedom must be altered.

Have you ever seen a set of guidelines or rules that actually put the ones proposing them at a disadvantage?!
No, Angela and the EU overlords want you to sing the same song and those who have different lyrics, well... they become
known as 'outsiders' or even -dare I say, persona non grata.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The European Union.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Classic " All animals are equal, some more equal than others "

Rules from animal farm:

Rules snowball made:

1. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.

2. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend.

3. No animal shall wear clothes.

4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.

5. No animal shall drink alcohol.

6. No animal shall kill any other animal.

7. All animals are equal.

Rules that napoleon changed to make the pigs benefit:
(at the end and through the book some of the rules are changed)

4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets

5. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess

6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

7. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
I think people need to understand the concept of " taqiya "  and how its been used by islam in Europe

Quote:Deception, Lying
and Taqiyya

Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences" or "gain the upper-hand over an enemy"
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya (the Shia name).  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.  (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..."
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  (see also 5:89)
Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means 'cunning,' 'guile' and 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."  The Quran defines the 'enemy' as "disbelievers" (4:101).

Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...  (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.  This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda'rat.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) which allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

Such was the reputation of early Muslims for lying and killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam (to avoid just such a demise). However, the others insisted that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were tied up and beheaded by the missionaries - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's apologists often rationalize Muhammad's murder of his critics at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Palestinian leaders routinely tell Westerners about their desire for peace with Israel, even as they whip Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.  Yassir Arafat even referenced "Hudaibiya" - an admission to conning guillible non-Muslims.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of this was true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization."  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject.  They take seriously the part of Sharia  that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory".  The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

In 2007, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:

Quote:[i]There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.[/i]

Hooper is not ignorant, of course, and knew what he was doing.  After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition "Muslims are taught," but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it as untrue - thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly.  He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of "guarding" yourself against them.

"Hiding faith" can mean deceiving others about Islam in order to make it appear more attractive.  For example, a prominent Muslim activist in the United States, Linda Sarsour, bills herself as a "progressive" and says that gays, women and religious minorities need not worry about Sharia being imposed.  She even says that money is lent free of charge under Islamic law (more about that here).  

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. 

There are a few early Quran verses that seem to encourage truthfulness: 70:32-33, and it bears mentioning that many Muslims are no less honest than anyone else.  But, when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - meaning the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Still, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
Quote:Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences" or "gain the upper-hand over an enemy"

Hmm... minusculethinking

It seems there are many in the US Congress who have taken up this "faith".  Guess it's a world-wide belief.
To assist Wallfire's fantastic posting of how this ideology endorses such duplicitous behavior for its own ends,
here's an article that -I believe is an ideal example.

Before you read this, it may be beneficial to explain certain terms used in the piece.

'Wag' is the media's short-cut title for 'Wives and Girlfriends' and is usually used when there's an opportunity of
showing images in the tabloids of a half-naked female in a provocative pose, who purports to be connected to a
famous soccer player in Europe and the UK.

'Wags' are often pictured on luxury yachts in a tight-fitting bikini or pursing their lips for a Reporter whilst visiting
some famous event and hanging of the arm of well-known sportsman. The access to money and the trappings
of wealth are assumed by the readers of such reports and beauty is implied the only way of acquiring them.

Like many acclaimed sport groups and teams, Liverpool Football Club employs such celebrated footballers.
Below, you'll see how the ex-'wag' played her part as a seductive women in the common selfie-snaps during her
time as a 'companion' of a soccer star and then the use of the Muslim Hijab during her court appearances.

Flirtatious for one reason and then pious for another.

Quote:Ex Liverpool WAG ‘who married Islamist fighter’ charged with funding terror.

A former beauty queen has been charged with funding terrorism after sending cash to an Islamist organisation.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6747]
Amaani Noor, who was in the semi finals of Miss Teen Great Britian 2015.

'An ex Liverpool WAG and former beauty queen who reportedly dreamed of marrying an Islamist fighter has been
accused of funding terrorism. Amaani Noor, a former Miss Teen Great Britain finalist, is on trial for funding terrorism
after she allegedly sent $45.51 (£35.18) to an Islamist organisation called Merciful Hands (MH), via Paypal, last year.

The 21-year-old, of Cinema Drive, Wavertree admitted sending the cash but denies that she knew or suspected it
would be used for terrorist purposes. A Liverpool Crown Court jury heard Noor had been introduced to MH by Victoria
Webster, 28, of Nelson in east Lancashire, who earlier this year pleaded guilty to funding terrorism.

Webster sent Noor, who according to MailOnline previously dated a Liverpool winger, a message on the day the
money was sent, suggesting “we must help” the family of a foreign fighter who had fallen on hard times.
The message said: “The father is a frontliner, and due to his circumstances and debts it’s hard to keep food on the table.”

Diana Wilson, prosecuting, told the jury that only a minute after sending the money Noor messaged Webster, saying:
“So will it go to a brother who is a fighter or ex-fighter and has a family?”
Ms Wilson told the jury: “The Crown suggests that message is of some importance to your considerations.”

She added: “The Crown, in this case, say that Amaani Noor knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that the money
would or may be used to support people fighting against the Syrian government for a political or an ideological cause.
“The Crown say this because of her extensive messages showing interest in and support for extremist organisations.

“The fact that her husband is an Islamist Syrian fighter, her support for Sharia law, the context with her messages
including the messages she has viewed on the Merciful Hands channel, the way the money was sent and the fact
that immediately after sending the money she sent a message asking if the money will go to fighter or ex-fighter.”

Ms Wilson added: “It is clear from the context that she did not think she was giving money to support Syrian government
forces.” She then told the court that ISIS propaganda videos, several showing foreign terrorist fighters torturing, executing
and beheading victims, were found on her phone.

Emails obtained after Noor was arrested in November last year show she had considered travelling to Syria to join her
fighter husband, after having second thoughts.
One of the emails read: “It’s been my dream to marry a fighter for a long time and my dream to be a fighter myself even
longer lol.”
Noor denies one count of terrorism fundraising...'

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6748]
Noor pictured leaving court in Liverpool.
Daily Star:

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)