^^No even in kindness and all things noble there is a difference. Glad to know you are ABLE to agree. Not much to debate with Serenity, really she agrees with me, she is just looking for entertainment. Resistance I agree.

^^EDIT: Not you: Jibaaber: It seems Serenity is not confused and got it: But for your benefit, application of rules and treatment of individuals as prescribed in Islam is not equal or the same in Islam for people who believe and those who don’t. I.e. people are treated according to their believe and status, there is no we are all equal and the same regardless of religion. So the thought, views and actions of none muslims are not equal to those of Muslims and you are not required to treat a Muslim person the same as a none-Muslim. There are different set of guidelines and rules which govern each camp; those who believe and those who do not. EDIT2: P.s. I’ve always been quick to distance myself from hypocrites and people who use religion as a backdrop to make what is clearly wrong palatable. Perhaps you should not be so quick on labeling people hypocrites, I can't comment on these people you are speaking of because you give no details. Do they include me, or someone else on this thread, or you mean the shike you quoted or do you mean a group. If you are throwing general statements around, then sure, I'm glad you distance yourself from hypocrites and people who lie or misuse the deen, you should. :cool: P.s. You know I tried getting off that high horse and stating basic assumptions but then you never know where people stand on certain things, particularly when you cannot decided if they are arguing simply because work is a bit slow today

^^Hold your horses in your hurry to issue your own condemnation :rolleyes: I merely said I will REPLY to you later. I don't see the worth of debating with you since you are more or less saying the same things that you are so outraged about. In your hurry to distance yourself from what you see as hypocritical attitudes you have your own contradictions to address. Don't worry faaro waweyen baan kuu qoori inshallah. But first you have to understand there is a difference between Muslims and none Muslims in their treatment, the application of principles, the value fo their views particularly with regards to OTHER Muslims. If we don't agree on this basic level, we won't agree on anything else. It is NOT mix and match and take the best view. When you get the time watch the BBC link above it is 30mins. P.s.s. I did not read what Khyra wrote because it was addressed to you, so take it up with him. P.s.s When did you join the crew that posts Quranic verses to "support" your own theories, without the necessary tasfir and context as agreed by the experts.

Today's Headlines in the telegraph Pupils told to think like a suicide bomber The exercise is part of a teaching pack aimed at secondary school pupils that has been adopted by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. It requires children to prepare a presentation on the July 7 atrocity – in which 52 innocent people died – "from the perspective of the bombers". They are asked to summarise the reasons why they thought the bombers wanted to carry out their attacks and even suggest some more. It has been produced by Calderdale council in Halifax, West Yorks, which borders the area where two of the July 7 bombers lived, and has been adopted by schools and even police forces across the country. The pack, which is called "Things do Change", is intended as a way of addressing issues such as terrorism and suicide bombing through the national curriculum. But it was criticised yesterday by victims, educational experts and politicians, who feared it could be "dangerous" to ask children to adopt the mindset of a terrorist. Jacqui Putnam, who survived the Edgware Road bomb on July 7, said: "I can't see why anyone would think it is a valuable exercise to encourage children to put themselves in the position of men who treated people in such an inhuman way. "To encourage children to see the world in that way is a dangerous thing. Surely there must be a better way of achieving their objective?" Mavis Hyman, whose daughter, Myriam, was killed in the July 7 bombings, said: "I don't think that anyone can put themselves in the minds of these people. I have tried to see it from their point of view. I have read books and watched films and it has not succeeded. " Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, said the pack risked "encouraging the sort of belief we're trying to work against". "They should be looking at it from the victims' view," he said. "Whoever thought this up has no understanding of the communities where we are fighting against extremist beliefs." Patrick Mercer, the chairman of the Commons terrorism sub-committee, said: "How useful is it to pretend to be a suicide bomber if it defeats the object of the lesson? Imagine the uproar if we suggested that children play-acted the role of Hitler." The pack was made available through a Government-­sponsored website called www.teachernet.gov.uk A section entitled "Community Cohesion" requires pupils to "prepare a brief presentation on the 7/7 bombings from the perspective of the bombers". After watching a DVD from the pack, which costs £200, the class is supposed to be split into four, with one group asked to adopt the perspective of the bombers. Sail Suleman, the author of the pack, told the Times Educational Supplement : "We're looking at why people become extreme. Why do young people go out and do what the bombers did? Was it pressure from individuals they were hanging out with? Hopefully, we'll encourage pupils to stay away from those individuals." Other groups are asked to imagine the bombings from the perspectives of Muslims in Britain, non-Muslim Asians and British people in general. The teaching pack is already being used in Islamic schools and mosques in West Yorkshire, as well as in local authority-run schools. A number of other authorities, including Birmingham, Sandwell in the West Midlands and Lancashire, have begun using it in schools and several police forces, including the Metropolitan, West Yorkshire, Thames Valley and Greater Manchester, have adopted it. Tahir Alam, the education spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This isn't any different from any educational tool people use all the time. Pupils imagine they're living in the 12th century. The important lesson is that these things are never morally justifiable." The education department withdrew the pack from the teachernet website yesterday. A spokesman said: "While the resource in no way looks to justify or excuse the terrible events of 7/7, and is designed to educate against

Although it has yet to come clean on the issue, the Government believes that our commitment in Afghanistan will last for generations. Our ambassador to Kabul blithely mentioned us being there for "30 years". But what are we there for? Any discussion of strategy among commentators tends to revolve around one of two opposed views. The first adheres, doggedly, to the post-9/11 mission: to ensure no return to when the Taliban harboured the mass murderers of al-Qaeda. This view is bolstered by considerable evidence that terrorist plots in Europe involve Anglo-Pakistanis "holidaying" in the badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan; it is overlain with the liberal interventionist belief that we should not allow the Afghan people to revert to the clutches of demented creatures who throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls after they have burned down their schools. Problems in that mission, though, have given rise to the second view: that we should cut our losses and get out. It is as well to spell out these problems; they are grave indeed. On their walls, US commanders have maps of Afghanistan dotted with red and yellow squares illustrating the allied nations' undertakings. Yellow indicates what missions individual Nato governments might allow their troops to perform; red that, for example, the Luftwaffe will not be flying at night. John Hutton calls on Nato allies to pull their weight, but the existing command structure is hopeless. Different forces are pursuing mutually contradictory, rather than compatible ends: some are building villages, while others get blown up in error. In the prevailing climate of uncertainty, the Taliban have taken advantage of the no-man's-land that is the amorphous Pashtun belt, and of the opportunities provided there by the failed state that is their Pakistani neighbour. For fear of alarming Islamist sensibilities, any co-operation between the US and Pakistani armed forces has to be virtually invisible – always assuming that the armed forces are loyal to Islamabad rather than the Taliban. Each stray missile that kills a Pakistani civilian (another 31 dead a few days ago) makes that co-operation less likely, regardless of the money showered on the Pakistani armed forces. But the second view is voiced less often – except by generals in private. That is because a depressing uniformity of outlook prevails among politicians in the two major parties, namely that a critical view of what is happening in Afghanistan might undermine the western alliance. Our young soldiers are being killed just to show willing in Washington, doubly so now that a popular Obama has replaced Bush. History bulks large in what the critics have to say, namely that Afghanistan has always proved to be a graveyard for foreign interlopers. They are in sympathy with Kipling's "Jest roll out your rifle and blow out your brains / An' go to your Gawd like a soldier" when you lie wounded on the Afghan plains. Meanwhile, Nato and the US have not succeeded in eliminating al-Qaeda (in north-west Pakistan), only in turning the Taliban into the spearhead of an Afghan nationalist insurgency. Paradoxically, the Taliban have become the solution to the lawless chaos they create, as they were before 9/11. It is impossible to build a central government in a country where local leaders resent all outsiders, and whence anyone of any ability has fled. With an abundance of opium, rather than oil, there is little prospect of creating an Afghan national army equivalent to that now patrolling Iraq. Hence further confusion. Is it the West's task to engage in drug eradication – without giving Afghan farmers any alternative – let alone to reverse the religious Reformations the Islamists represent? The failure to have a wide-ranging debate about Afghanistan and to reach any mutual conclusions has meant the policy drift of the past six years and the strategic confusion today. Meanwhile, President Obama has ordered 17,000 more troops into the fray, although he is not calling it a surge, since the preconditions that there were in Iraq do not exist in Afghanistan. He has half-met military demands, even before his regional envoy Richard Holbrooke has reported, and while Secretary of State Clinton is doing the big-picture stuff among Muslims in South Asia. Obama's hesitancies reflect his worries that too precipitate a withdrawal from Iraq might destabilise the fragile stability there. He also has to calculate what price the Russians may demand for providing alternative logistics routes into Afghanistan, replacing those interdicted by the Taliban, abandonment of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic being top of Moscow's priorities. They switched off the Kyrghyz route just to bolster their hand. Recent events in Pakistan's Swat Valley illustrate the extent of our logistical dilemmas. Without informing the US, the Pakistani government concluded an open-ended deal with the Taliban, who were outnumbered four to one by the Pakistani army. The Taliban militants were convinced to lay down their arms in exchange for the restoration of Islamic law to the region. US officials called it a "surrender disguised as a truce", concerned that the agreement could create a haven for extremists. The shops reopened and a "caravan of peace" arrived to celebrate the return of justice and order. But the caravan's Taliban escorts shot dead a Pakistani TV journalist covering the spectacle, flagrantly violating the 10-day ceasefire they had just agreed. So much for talking to the Taliban, and al‑Qaeda now has another potential enclave to move into, should Waziristan prove too hot or Somalia too remote. Instead of compounding past mistakes, perhaps it's time to refocus on the original mission: eradicating al-Qaeda, a task we can all agree on. That can only be done by intelligence-led air or Special Forces operations, rather than by doubling the number of US troops on the ground. That should also minimise the likelihood of the war creeping further into Pakistan itself, in the manner of the US seeking victory in Vietnam in Laos and Cambodia. The prospect of Pakistan disintegrating into half a dozen failed states suits no one, least of all our ally India. Instead of doling out enormous amounts of aid to bumptious Afghan and Pakistani leaders, we should restrict it to providing a judicial system and decent secular schools, thereby satisfying what ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis want most. And last but not least, if we are worried about Islamist terrorism in Britain, then the solution lies with what we are prepared to do to stop it ourselves, rather than chasing phantoms in a land already dotted with the white tombstones Kipling also memorialised. Do British troops die in Afghanistan to show willing in Washington?

According to documents seen by the Guardian, the government is planning to move its counterextremism "prevent" strategy from targeting those that promote violent extremism to those that endorse extremist ideas in general but condemn violence. The idea being that there is a "conveyer belt" from people finding extremist ideas appealing to then becoming violent extremists themselves, and that by the government working with non-violent extremists (which the government has apparently been doing) to tackle violent extremists simply legitimises and emboldens the world view of said extremists and hence makes their followers easier prey for the violent extremists. Got it? But who is an extremist? To provide us with the answer, the state will do your thinking for you and will apparently provide a checklist against which you can tick off the various criteria. Anyone calling for an Islamic state, who believes in Jihad, who thinks sharia law is important or who considers homosexuality to be a sin becomes an extremist. What about just going all the way and extending it to anyone who believes God is the sovereign of the heavens and the earth, and that Islam is his chosen religion? Or maybe it would be easier to just get al-Qaida to draft the manual on "How to categorise every Muslim as an extremist". There is much debate in Muslim communities on what an "Islamic state" actually is or should look like in the modern world; what is the nature of Jihad; what does sharia law actually mean; how Islam and other Abrahamic faiths view homosexuality and so on. To circumvent and undermine the evolution of Islamic thought and simply opt for al-Qaida's definitions shows a government that has lost its marbles in pursuit of counterterrorism (fuelled by a threat that is being exaggerated, as Stella Rimington reminds us again today). The government is being driven by short-term political expediency than the longer term view necessary for our collective safety. Rather than encourage Muslim groups and civil society to widen the space for young Muslims to discuss contentious issues and take the time they need to come up with their own answers, we have a state-sponsored proposal to essentially close down and criminalise perfectly legitimate and much needed debate. More and more young Muslims are getting politically active (not least because of events in the world) and want to do their bit to fight injustice. Civil society needs to be able to capture this dynamism and energy into the democratic framework where real change is possible. The government needs to keep out of debates on theology, it is not their role to interfere - we do not live in a theocracy - and keep their focus on those that peddle violence. They already have sufficient powers to use against preachers of violence without needing to start policing ideas and the terms of the debate too. The excessive throwing around of the term "extremist" or "Islamist" by certain groups with such broad brush definitions will turn every Muslim activist into a defacto Islamist and render the word "extremist", an otherwise vital term, meaningless. Any Muslim active in community work is going to have derived at least some of that sense of community spirit from Islam. What on God's earth is wrong with that? Isn't that sense of faith-based decency a good thing? The government already has precious little trust in grassroots British Muslim circles on their preventing extremism agenda - and if the suggested plans are true then that disconnect will simply extenuate the circumstances, making us all that much less safe. Asim Siddique Source: Guardian

C&H what Malika is saying, the dude thinks he's been fasting for three yrs for nothing So to make-up offer some candy (via marriage of otherwise) I need some shoes, so many weddings to go to this summer. II wanna gangesta walk to faith with me

HERE is the BBC Panorama The Somali Mosque Al Huda, Khalid Yasin and many others are featured as well as the government sponsored project.

^^^I don't side with one Sheikh Johnny, because they are on the same side, as even the one being criticized is saying I did not mean what I said in the context you took it in. He just did not say it very well. In fact I expect a speech or written response soon agreeing with all the others.

^^^I've seen a number of replies from other esteem shikes. But I've seen others from his institute defending him, but even they stop short of agreeing with him, instead saying it was not his intention and he is a good Muslim, which people don't doubt, but he just needs to correct his words I guess, but if he does the anti terror big dogs will be after him for lying to them or rather will be "mullah does a U-turn in being an ally after pressure from radicals"

Antara, thanks, Serenity I'll reply to you after you deal with what Khayr has said above. Johnny WHAT?

^^^ You have the wrong end of the stick, but still manage to highlight the whole point he is making serenity. Yes a criminal ‘Muslim’ brother/sister who has indiscriminately bombed a bus, is a crime against Islam. In this situation you are siding with Islam rather than a none Muslim. Everything should be read in its context and bare in mind he is responding to the issue of ideological warfare and who as a Muslim you ally yourself with. A Muslim should always side with a Muslim; either by correcting them (i.e. Siding with Islam) or supporting them when they are right. there must be some ground rules to co-exist peacefully which all parties must agree to and then adhere to sincerely. There are, and Muslims should follow those rules, as long as it does not come to conflict with their deen and yes a crime is a crime. However again I think you are missing the issue, which is preempting "radical extremist" in cases where there is no crime or there is an alleged crime, but no evidence regardless of what the so called democratic state says, Muslims are required to side with the Muslim. Lastly, yes we get your point (which is the same point most ulams have been making since dawn), but you are applying a blanket rule to the Muslim intelligentia, particularly as it seems that you have not been following the discussions in those circles in recent times (or if you have it is not evident in your response)

^^Hello, It does not matter now, but lets just leave it as I got ripped off.

^^^Suxanallah, I got played. Its okay, each will be rewarded for that which he intended. YEah that fatherly innocent face made me doubt myself. LOL

^^^YEah clean shaved and little white Muslim hat, he did not look mad nor homeless. Very clean, only the back of his shoes were a little oldish. Do you know him?

^^BarakAllah fii. Ngonge sii daas baa laag raab. Why can't you overstand like NinBrown Ngonge, my apologies if it seemed like I was issuing a ruling on Bokero [please do dig up the thread to refresh my mind], I am not in position to do so, but what I wanted to say is as above. UN in Afghanistan is helping the invaders, Muslims working with them are therefore part taking in the occupation and suffering of their fellow Muslims. Antar Not to sure about the reply there brother, what is your source?

I got ambushed and followed for four stops on the tube then 5mins on the street to reach a ATM. I believe there is 60% chance I was ripped off. An elderly clean dressed Pakistan old man, around 60yrs old approached me; SalamAlikum, do you speak Arabic? (I thought he wanted directions, so I answered in Arabic (I thought he was Arab at this stage) He continued in broken English, proceeded to pull out all his pockets, saying Walahi I lost all my money, I was on my way to the airport to collect my wife and children, I took £100 with me, I put it all in this pocket and I lost it, yad yad ya. I did not have any money with me, just change, so I tipped out my burse and said, sorry I don’t have anything. I walked away and got on my train. I sat down and leaning on the side closed my eyes. Then a heard a voice. Sister do you have a bank card? I looked up and the old man was standing there! WHAt? Do you have a bank card he repeated. Yes :confused: So could you not take any money out? (by then everyone on the carriage is kind of looking) Yes I can but there is no cash machine here. You can get off next stop, please he pleaded. I can’t, sorry I’m late for work. Where do you get off? [i gave the station named] Okay if I come with to your stop will you go bank and help me please? Sure. So he sat on guard for five stops, till we got off. Turns out he does not speak Arabic, in fact he is Pakistani, apparently been in the country for two yrs, his state pension is coming on Monday and he lives in Epping, his wife and children are coming to join him today. He was planning on getting a taxi back to his house. He has no relatives in the UK aside form them. He told me tomorrow is jumca and he is going to make big duca for me. Hello everyone

^^^You can say what you like of course, but does not amount to much, because you start off point is from a different point of view all together. Re-read your first response. Ashkiro: I can only agree with that take if i close one eye and squit from the other. I don't know about the US, but strange things are happening in the UK. Ngonge: Islam is open to helping None muslims help other muslims SOS stand is for him to defend, my stand was not a personal one against Bokero but on principle, go ahead and read what I said to him.

^^I still stand by that the general principle is very very clear. Of course no one can make a ruling on an individual case whether it be Bokero or someone else, I'm not willing to take that burden, but the general principle is what he and his defenders deny. Lazy: I thought you mean something new, as in recent. Yeah I've seen this before.

^^^LOL I missed that, been stressed with general life. Link please. Guerilla, I cannot side with one priest over another simply because I do not share the same faith nor values with them. What you think about the ins and outs of something you have rejected is not going to help, as far as you are concerned they are both lost and misguided soo maaha. Ngonge, I do get why you keep trying to push it but I don't intend on going in the direction you are pushing me to because as I said the details are not so clear cut. I think you are wrong in trying to appeal to my emotional or humanitarian side by trying to compare UN humanitarian work with occupational strategies that UN is involved in. While I can appreciate the immediate short term relif provided by UN humanitarian agency, this does not become a blanket to cover UN military interventions (including Somalia 1991) and strategic regime changes supported by different arms of the UN

^^^I'm not a Mullah, we already discussed the humanitarian side of the UN, must we go in a circle. Nevertheless I'm sure you can understand the difference between the role of the UN in different countries, I never took u one for emotional arguments Ngonge.

OH WOW Look who is commenting ^^^ NGonge, the thread is dedicated to him and his defenders yes, that does not mean I am going to argue with each and everyone of them, particularly as I know Ngonge just argues for the sake of it. North, the details are not clear cut, the general principle is.

NGonge I will discuss Bokero's job with him, adigu move aside, simply because his job (AS you see it, might not be so, let him answer for himself, maaxad uu hoor boodisa? :confused: ) As for your dare to the shikes, it is irrelevant and insignificant, after all they were already having their discussion before you. Just watch and learn. :cool:

^^^Forget the guys, look at the issue. The issue is the role of a Muslim in this day and age with regards to siding against other Muslims. Whether is via the UN or government is neither here nor there, I already said in Bokero thread that the UN is part and parcel of spreading western ideology and practice in routing out other ideological forms of governments. I told him in his thread that I saw no difference between him and US/UK occupation. I think this dialogue will be useful to him.

I found Chowdhury other response and his promised to expand on this views, which is good news. InshaAllah this will be the last post on this article and we can carry on discussion at a near future when I have more time to write a detailed part 2 to clarify how our terms of engagement should be. 1. No doubt, the points that I have made are clouded by people’s interpretation of the particular words that I have used to phrase them. Based on this, people have jumped to conclusions and yet others have read through my clarifications and understood what I intended in the article - and we hope for guidance for everyone. 2. Sh Anwar’s article on my piece is largely sensationalism and picking on wordings devoid of context - except for one important point which I believe is the core argument that I will address - that of maslahah of the dawah and the maqasidus-Shariah versus core principles of our deen such as wala and bara and tawheed. This is really the main issue - because categorically in no case was I ever suggesting that we ever work for anti-terror agencies, take funding from them, take our agenda from them, let them dictate our mandate, let them tell us what deen to follow and what not to, tell us who to work with and who not to, tell us what is extremism and what is not. Never at all. If we were to do that, we would cease to be independant and would loose all credibility. And if I knew of an individual who does that, then I would distance myself from him and would never work with him much the less associate with him. It is under these and similar conditions Yusuf alaihis salam cooperated with the non-Muslim government of his time. 3. Lastly, I urge everyone including myself to be objective in their criticism and to not draw conclusions on an individual. We may disagree on the manner of engagement of the authorities but that does not mean that anyone is a sell out or anyone has left being the people we once were. I would urge myself and everyone to be restrained in their choice of words and to be careful on the implications of our words on our brothers and sisters who know very little of what is going on. Jazakallahulkhair and I will inshaAllah ponder deeply on what everyone has written and hope to carry on discussion of these points in the future when time permits. Tawfique Maybe we'll get some insight into the manner of engagement of the western authorities and the confusion felt by so many will be lifted as result.