Letter To Islamists

xisaabiye

Ibnu Suxuufi Ibnu Al Dhoobe
Sunnis have a similar thing. It's called Misyar. It's the same as Mut'ah. You can bang the sister without living with her or paying for her upkeep. It's basically legalised prostitution. That's what your ulama have come up with.
Nigga making shidh up. War bidaarkaaga hadheeraado naclad yahay:pacspit:
 

xisaabiye

Ibnu Suxuufi Ibnu Al Dhoobe
Look at these bootylicking circumstancial gaalo. If they were alive in the Islamic golden age when the west and most the world was in the dark ages they'd booty clap for Islam. Circumstancial gaalo are the worst, they aint even real gaal they're just wannabees:drakelaugh:
 
more like maturidi and xanafi , buts its the same more or less.
less just say the ottoman culema were ahl sunna...

but to be honest the ottomans were secular even before tanzimat.
people think attaturk introduced secularism when attaturk was brought up in a secular state.
Well said. Secularism began under the Ottoman khalifas. Kemal Attaturk finished off what they began.

Our beloved emir Atatürk was not always right. He expelled the Greek community of Turkey. Totally wrong. Greeks are our brothers.
 

World

VIP
Well said. Secularism began under the Ottoman khalifas. Kemal Attaturk finished off what they began.

Our beloved emir Atatürk was not always right. He expelled the Greek community of Turkey. Totally wrong. Greeks are our brothers.
You mean the same Greeks who would have annexed a large proportion of Turkey including Constantinople if it weren't for Ataturk? The same Greeks who expelled hundreds of thousands of Muslims?
 
You mean the same Greeks who would have annexed a large proportion of Turkey including Constantinople if it weren't for Ataturk? The same Greeks who expelled hundreds of thousands of Muslims?
So tit for tat is Islamic? Gimmeabreak. Next you'll be endorsing infant rape just because some Greek did it.
 
The Republic of Turkey is/was a secular state, not an Islamic state.
Secularism just means politicians should not interfere with religion. Nothing else. Khalifas, sultans, and emirs have been waging wars against other Muslims over religion since the time of Muawiyah. The Kaaba was destroyed by Yazid because of religious differences. Politicians can never be trusted to handle religion.

But at least you're praising Atatürk for a change.
 
Secularism just means politicians should not interfere with religion. Nothing else. Khalifas, sultans, and emirs have been waging wars against other Muslims over religion since the time of Muawiyah. The Kaaba was destroyed by Yazid because of religious differences. Politicians can never be trusted to handle religion.

But at least you're praising Atatürk for a change.
You won't ever be able to convince these people, they are to focused on what a person is wearing(hijab), or if he is shia or sunni, notice everything they disagree with on someone is because of 'identity' reason not because of the actual idea being discussed!!! For example Imam Tawhidi, they will attack and criticize him on mut'ah in order to discredit his 'secular' views. Notice they are not addressing his secularism but attacking his 'identity'.

The height of ignorance is when people are focusing on identity and not the actual substance of what someone is saying!!! They will forever be stuck in this never-ending cycle of no progress.

But I agree with one good comment u made, god made us free and if they want to come against that, that's taking away what god gave humanity!!! the whole point of religion collapses once freedom is taken out, it has serious repercussions such as not being able to test someone anymore on their faith because they aren't free to choose or practise anymore as it has been 'forced' now. Religion is gone basically when freedom is gone, but the ignorant shababis don't see that.
 
You really are wasting your time debating these shababis. I really do say the only option is the ata-turk option and a bullet between the head, you can't change them. Even early caliphates couldn't change these extremist khawarij. The only option sometimes is just to eliminate because de-programming isn't possible after years of salafi exposure.
 
@DR OSMAN

That's a very astute point. Islam depends on the freedom to reject Allah because if you're not free to choose whether to love Allah or not, you are a munafiq acting under duress. The prayer, fasting, and zakat of such a person is not valid. That's why it makes no sense for parents to force their kids to pray. It is not coming from the heart. The kid is thinking about resuming his Xbox game during suratul Fatiha. You have to persuade them to pray. Alhamdulilah I never compelled my two kids to pray when they were youngsters. And now they wake me for Fajr themselves.

Yes, Tawhidi is attacked for telling the truth. He needs to do a better job of going after Shia cerics as well. He does on occasion, but not as much as he could. It would defuse the bogus allegation of sectarianism thrown against him. He rreminds me of another cleric, by name of Jamal al Din Allawi. He campaigns for secularism. A truly great man.
 
@DR OSMAN

That's a very astute point. Islam depends on the freedom to reject Allah because if you're not free to choose whether to love Allah or not, you are a munafiq acting under duress. The prayer, fasting, and zakat of such a person is not valid. That's why it makes no sense for parents to force their kids to pray. It is not coming from the heart. The kid is thinking about resuming his Xbox game during suratul Fatiha. You have to persuade them to pray. Alhamdulilah I never compelled my two kids to pray when they were youngsters. And now they wake me for Fajr themselves.

Yes, Tawhidi is attacked for telling the truth. He needs to do a better job of going after Shia cerics as well. He does on occasion, but not as much as he could. It would defuse the bogus allegation of sectarianism thrown against him. He rreminds me of another cleric, by name of Jamal al Din Allawi. He campaigns for secularism. A truly great man.
I agree he could focus on shia more also but lets be honest how many shia terrorists do you see attacking people for not following shia'ism? how many sufis you see attacking people for not following sufism? this extremism is coming from one sect, we can't deny that!!!! These salafists never really use reason to prove their points. If Allah wanted alcohol, pork, and all these bad things banned surely he wouldn't allow to exist in the first place? if he has allowed it to exist, how in the world can humans ban it? This world is a testing environment and all the good and evil must be present or else there is no way to test people if they will follow the right path or not. They basically trying to do something bann things which allah allowed to exist freely!!! Why you think Allah put that tree for adam, he could've taken it away and he would'nt of touched it. See how allah tests. He allows evil to exist, and allows u to decide if you follow it or not. THATS TRUE RELIGION. Not this bogus crap you see happening in the islamic world thats not religions that politics
 
@DR OSMAN

I would not give up hope on these youngsters so fast. @World, @Cognitivedissonance, and the others are just young adults full of raging hormones. Young people are always drawn to extreme views. That's why you never see an old SJW. It's a young man's game. I used to be a hardcore Ikhwani in my thirties. I gave out Muslim Brotherhood fliers outside masjids and screeched about the khilafa. So did Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain. But with time and experience you grow out of that nonsense, get a bundle of quality jaad, and smoke shisha with a hijabi sister.

We have to give them dawah. Remember Umar Ibn Khattab wanted to kill Allah's messenger, and yet he became a great Sahabi. Enemies are not forever. They will fight you when you counter their brainwashing, but later they will stop bootybending for Salafis and join the secular mujahideen.
 
Last edited:
Well said. Secularism began under the Ottoman khalifas. Kemal Attaturk finished off what they began.

Our beloved emir Atatürk was not always right. He expelled the Greek community of Turkey. Totally wrong. Greeks are our brothers.
Those greek bastards tried to take advantage of the chaos of the Ottoman defeat, they made up more than half of the coast the greeks were living in cities like Smyrna nearly 3000 years , the muslims never interfered with them.
When they had their chance what did they do? they started ethnically cleaning the cities insuring the muslim half of the population were either dead or living in refugee camps. They massacred thousands and raped even even more to instill terror so people would run for their lives and then they looted all their property.

At this time the Ottoman empire was dead, the British had a small army in Istanbul and the navy was their as well.
The Sultan was a british puppet issuing orders at gunpoint.
What is today Turkey was divided up by the western powers with the greeks allocated most of it, france had a big chare too and the british, the Italians were given a chunk of the coast too. Attaturk and the Independence movement regrouping in Ankara had 4 foriegn armies that were occupying the country to deal with.

Lucky for them they found an ally in the new Soviet government in 1920 that was also facing an invasion of several armies and a civil war with loyalists as well.
The found in the Turkish nationalists a perfect opportunity to distract the west and proceeded to troll them by recognizing them and then smuggling in 200,000 mosin nagant rifiles and their ammunition from spare stocks.

Attarturk and is movement used this well, they lured the Greeks into a series of traps and then defeated them,
then they moved towards the cities like smyrna and gave the greeks a taste of their own medicine , by massacring them.
They then moved south and defeated the french, after this the Italians got scared shitless and signed a deal and withdrew.
The british also decided to call it quits and the you had the treaty of laussane which gaurenteed the Turkey you have today.

Attatruk did not destroy the title of Sultan or the khalifate,
it was already dead by 1919.

He just formalized it.


So yes the damn greeks got what they deserved.
 
Those greek bastards tried to take advantage of the chaos of the Ottoman defeat, they made up more than half of the coast the greeks were living in cities like Smyrna nearly 3000 years , the muslims never interfered with them.
When they had their chance what did they do? they started ethnically cleaning the cities insuring the muslim half of the population were either dead or living in refugee camps. They massacred thousands and raped even even more to instill terror so people would run for their lives and then they looted all their property.

At this time the Ottoman empire was dead, the British had a small army in Istanbul and the navy was their as well.
The Sultan was a british puppet issuing orders at gunpoint.
What is today Turkey was divided up by the western powers with the greeks allocated most of it, france had a big chare too and the british, the Italians were given a chunk of the coast too. Attaturk and the Independence movement regrouping in Ankara had 4 foriegn armies that were occupying the country to deal with.

Lucky for them they found an ally in the new Soviet government in 1920 that was also facing an invasion of several armies and a civil war with loyalists as well.
The found in the Turkish nationalists a perfect opportunity to distract the west and proceeded to troll them by recognizing them and then smuggling in 200,000 mosin nagant rifiles and their ammunition from spare stocks.

Attarturk and is movement used this well, they lured the Greeks into a series of traps and then defeated them,
then they moved towards the cities like smyrna and gave the greeks a taste of their own medicine , by massacring them.
They then moved south and defeated the french, after this the Italians got scared shitless and signed a deal and withdrew.
The british also decided to call it quits and the you had the treaty of laussane which gaurenteed the Turkey you have today.

Attatruk did not destroy the title of Sultan or the khalifate,
it was already dead by 1919.

He just formalized it.


So yes the damn greeks got what they deserved.
Epic history lesson.

Why not punish the morons who attacked Muslims and leave innocent folks in peace. Greece is the cradle of philosophy and democracy. You really wanna f*ck with Aristotle's homies?

Let's not pretend the Turks were pacifists. The fellas occupied the Balkans till the outbreak of WW1. They were imperialists for centuries before Western colonialism. The Ottomans occupied the Arabs longer than the Brits occupied the Arabs.
 
Epic history lesson.

Why not punish the morons who attacked Muslims and leave innocent folks in peace. Greece is the cradle of philosophy and democracy. You really wanna f*ck with Aristotle's homies?

Let's not pretend the Turks were pacifists. The fellas occupied the Balkans till the outbreak of WW1. They were imperialists for centuries before Western colonialism. The Ottomans occupied the Arabs longer than the Brits occupied the Arabs.
Who is pretending they were pacifists? They colonized the balkans and brutally ruled them,
but ethnic cleaning and just exterminating people is a christian and western thing, the Ottomans did allot of horrible crimes
but wiping out people was just alien to their culture.
Attaturk was from a western background and was not religous, so was inonu hes right hand man, and the majority of the turkish leaders were secular and western.

So when they massacred the greeks and ethnically cleansed them they were following established western procedure.

for your information, bulgaria was 40% muslims they were ethnically cleansed , large parts of Romania,
Serbia and macedonia as well. Even the Caucusus.

Everytime the ottomans lost a battle, the christian civilians procedeed to exterminate their muslim neighbors rawanda style.
 
I agree he could focus on shia more also but lets be honest how many shia terrorists do you see attacking people for not following shia'ism? how many sufis you see attacking people for not following sufism? this extremism is coming from one sect, we can't deny that!!!! These salafists never really use reason to prove their points. If Allah wanted alcohol, pork, and all these bad things banned surely he wouldn't allow to exist in the first place? if he has allowed it to exist, how in the world can humans ban it? This world is a testing environment and all the good and evil must be present or else there is no way to test people if they will follow the right path or not. They basically trying to do something bann things which allah allowed to exist freely!!! Why you think Allah put that tree for adam, he could've taken it away and he would'nt of touched it. See how allah tests. He allows evil to exist, and allows u to decide if you follow it or not. THATS TRUE RELIGION. Not this bogus crap you see happening in the islamic world thats not religions that politics
I like the point about Adam. I have to use that sometime. The cleric I told you about, Jamal al-Diin Ayyad, says alcohol and gambling should be available because Allah does not say they should be banned, but that it should be avoided, which is a different thing. Example: Islam says divorce should be avoided, but that doesn't mean it is banned. The Quran says there is some good in them, as well as some harm. Imagine telling that to your hooyo: good in alcohol. She'd freak. This is proof that people's views are based on cultural norms, not derived from Quran al-Karim. Medical studies that show consumption of red wine in moderation is good for the heart bear out Allah's divine knowledge.

Such things are for people to decide. The Quran speaks of them in the expectation they are freely available temptations for plainly one can't "avoid" what is not available. Views to the contrary are based on bogus hadiths that contradict the Quran.
 
Who is pretending they were pacifists? They colonized the balkans and brutally ruled them,
but ethnic cleaning and just exterminating people is a christian and western thing, the Ottomans did allot of horrible crimes
but wiping out people was just alien to their culture.
Attaturk was from a western background and was not religous, so was inonu hes right hand man, and the majority of the turkish leaders were secular and western.

So when they massacred the greeks and ethnically cleansed them they were following established western procedure.

for your information, bulgaria was 40% muslims they were ethnically cleansed , large parts of Romania,
Serbia and macedonia as well. Even the Caucusus.

Everytime the ottomans lost a battle, the christian civilians procedeed to exterminate their muslim neighbors rawanda style.
The Armenian Genocide I guess was just normal to you right? Have you actually read the non muslim accounts of early jihad?

Maybe you think there were no christian or jewish records of the arab invasion and what they did. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html
 
The argument for secularism is confusing when you ignore the different cultural backgrounds.
By trying to fit europes experiences and culture into something quite different you will not understand whats going on.

The church was opposed to science and progress and had a stranglehold of the people and lands ,
the only way to progress was to destroy the churchs power and then relegate the role of religion into just private affairs.
Islam has no church and was never anti-science of progress, and there was never a clergy or organization.

So the arguments against secularism are meaningless,
we never had rule by priests, in a way most muslim states historically were secular.
 
I like the point about Adam. I have to use that sometime. The cleric I told you about, Jamal al-Diin Ayyad, says alcohol and gambling should be available because Allah does not say they should be banned, but that it should be avoided, which is a different thing. Example: Islam says divorce should be avoided, but that doesn't mean it is banned. The Quran says there is some good in them, as well as some harm. Imagine telling that to your hooyo: good in alcohol. She'd freak. This is proof that people's views are based on cultural norms, not derived from Quran al-Karim. Medical studies that show consumption of red wine in moderation is good for the heart bear out Allah's divine knowledge.

Such things are for people to decide. The Quran speaks of them in the expectation they are freely available temptations for plainly one can't "avoid" what is not available. Views to the contrary are based on bogus hadiths that contradict the Quran.
Half our medicine contain some form of alcohol. Tell that hoyo not to give her kid cough syrup when their sick, cause thats full of alcohol. These people are clearly stupid, alcohol has many benefits, just don't go and get blind drunk and have alcohol poisoning like what they used to do back in the day!!! Again this is up to people to decide themselves not regulated by the state or religion!!! These same people will chew khat all day which is like ICE and then cry about some guy smoking hashish or drinking alcohol!!!
 

Trending

Top