Muslim preacher ‘who advocated dying while fighting jihad’ given platform at London U

[May90]

It can mean both 'dying whilst fighting against jihad' and 'dying whilst fighting for jihad', it is somewhat ambiguous.

However the statement “Dying while fighting jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure” is less ambiguous and clearly meant as 'dying whilst fighting for jihad'. What he means by jihad is up for debate.

Pretty clear what he means by it from the cited part of the article:

"He said: “Jihad wasn’t a dirty word 20 years ago. Now if you say ‘jihad’ you probably think of terrorism or Isis. I don’t encourage anyone who lives here to go and participate and to go abroad and fight.” The preacher also denied encouraging violence against women and claimed he now only advocated “self-improvement”."

[Kalis]

Pretty clear what he means by it from the cited part of the article:

"He said: “Jihad wasn’t a dirty word 20 years ago. Now if you say ‘jihad’ you probably think of terrorism or Isis. I don’t encourage anyone who lives here to go and participate and to go abroad and fight.” The preacher also denied encouraging violence against women and claimed he now only advocated “self-improvement”."

Not so clear when you research him and find out his views on homosexuality (not too keen), non-Muslims (not too keen on them either), beating women (quite keen on that) and the West (he's not a fan).

I'm not going to take his statement on jihad at face value, you can if you wish.

[The Casualty]

Not so clear when you research him and find out his views on homosexuality (not too keen), non-Muslims (not too keen on them either), beating women (quite keen on that) and the West (he's not a fan).

I'm not going to take his statement on jihad at face value, you can if you wish.

After listening to some of his views and speeches, he does not come across as nice, pleasant, or reasonable.

I think the common theme of a lot of his thoughts I would use is anti-semitic.

[Deleted]

The only thing grimmer than a salafist is a convert salafist. Free speech line dancing like Anjem Choudary used to before he got caught up with.

The only platform he should be on is if its a debate and someone reasonable is slamming him. Wouldn't give this cunt a free talk platform.

[garr21]

Not so clear when you research him and find out his views on homosexuality (not too keen), non-Muslims (not too keen on them either), beating women (quite keen on that) and the West (he's not a fan).

I'm not going to take his statement on jihad at face value, you can if you wish.

This is why i find it funny that some here would give this guy a platform, The guy is everything that they hate about white people but he gets a pass because hes muslim?

[Kalis]

This is why i find it funny that some here would give this guy a platform, The guy is everything that they hate about white people but he gets a pass because hes muslim?

Apparently he is an honorary brown person...

Yeah but if I'm not gonna blindly rage at brown people, what would I do with all my outrage??

Don't confuse people with level headed arguments, terrorists brown person rawr rawr!

[Saucexorzski]

Obviously he is a shining example of a moderate Muslim and thus is why he was given such a platform. I'm sure he has plenty of enlightened notions to teach the western world in the pursuit of multiculturalism.

[Deleted]

The issue is really that all "jihad" means is "struggle". An alcoholic fighting his addiction is fighting a jihad. A feminist like Malala Yousafzai fighting for women's education rights in Afghanistan, that's jihad. There's no explicit connection to violence in there. It's a term that can INCLUDE violent struggles, just like the English word "fight" can refer to both non-violent struggles (fighting an illness) and violence. Really, people mostly react badly because it's OH MY GOD SCARY ARABIC WORD. Like ALGEBRA.

"Dying while fighting jihad" is basically just a way of saying "fighting to the death". That's it. You could paraphrase Voltaire as "i disagree with what you say, but I'll engage in jihad to the death to defend your right to say it". And that doesn't change the meaning.

Regardless the word has been co-opted by salafist extremists and is now commonly used to refer to Holy war against the west. You liberals wanting to normalize it's usage doesn't change that.

[Wells]

Let's take shit out of context instead of actually reading and understanding it! The traditional meaning of jihad is the internal struggle one has within oneself against sin. In an academic context it gets used a lot in discussions of philosophy and theology.

Instead of just having a split-second reaction you guys could try to actually learn something for once.

The degree to which people will just buy shit without a second thought when it agrees with them is staggering isn't it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It is kind of scary to think of the kinds of people who get deplatformed (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and the people who get platformed. It's almost as if they're trying to rig the game in favor of Islamists.

It's as if people don't know the meaning of words like Jihad and never care to learn.

That's what it takes to preserve single viewpoint ignorance though.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If he was talking about suicide bombing, you'd have a very good point.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless the word has been co-opted by salafist extremists and is now commonly used to refer to Holy war against the west. You liberals wanting to normalize it's usage doesn't change that.

Do you actually believe this stuff?

Jihad has been a generic term for a struggle in ones life for them for a long time. Americans have associated Jihad with suicide bombing because that's when most of them were exposed to it, al qaeda declaring their jihad to be blowing up Americans. I can see why you people would get easily confused with no further research on your part.

[Deleted]

The degree to which people will just buy shit without a second thought when it agrees with them is staggering isn't it.

You are just arguing semantics.

The definition of Jihad is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

Yes it can also mean an internal struggle but the first definition is the common usage of the word. You are simply trying to normalize it's usage which is dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you actually believe this stuff?

Jihad has been a generic term for a struggle in ones life for them for a long time. Americans have associated Jihad with suicide bombing because that's when most of them were exposed to it, al qaeda declaring their jihad to be blowing up Americans. I can see why you people would get easily confused with no further research on your part.

The definition of Jihad is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

You conveniently left out the FIRST definition of the word. Who are you trying to fool? Are you an ISIS sympathizer?

[Cthulhu 2020]

\The definition of Jihad is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

You conveniently left out the FIRST definition of the word. Who are you trying to fool? Are you an ISIS sympathizer?

You conveniently left out the SECOND HALF of the FIRST defition of Jihad. We'll show people why you didn't link the dictionary where you got it from:

"a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

Or maybe Oxford?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jihad

1A struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam:
‘he declared a jihad against the infidels’
[mass noun] ‘the importance of jihad as a uniting force’
1.1 also greater jihad The spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...m.html?start=9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...023_jihad.html

Gotta love how American Christians/gnostics/atheists are the ones who claim that jihad means holy war.

Give it up, you were wrong, now own up to it like a man and don't try to pussyfoot about it and play dumb.

[Wells]

You are just arguing semantics.

The definition of Jihad is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

Yes it can also mean an internal struggle but the first definition is the common usage of the word. You are simply trying to normalize it's usage which is dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -



The definition of Jihad is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

You conveniently left out the FIRST definition of the word. Who are you trying to fool? Are you an ISIS sympathizer?

You don't seem to understand what "semantics" are, and the definition they're using is the normal one. You're the one trying to "normalize" the wahhabist interpretation.

[Deleted]

You conveniently left out the SECOND HALF of the FIRST defition of Jihad. We'll show people why you didn't link the dictionary where you got it from:

"a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

Or maybe Oxford?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jihad

1A struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam:
‘he declared a jihad against the infidels’
[mass noun] ‘the importance of jihad as a uniting force’
1.1 also greater jihad The spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...m.html?start=9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...023_jihad.html

Gotta love how American Christians/gnostics/atheists are the ones who claim that jihad means holy war.

Give it up, you were wrong, now own up to it like a man and don't try to pussyfoot about it and play dumb.

The definitions literally say it means holy war.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't seem to understand what "semantics" are, and the definition they're using is the normal one. You're the one trying to "normalize" the wahhabist interpretation.

You're a terrorist apologist. It literally means holy war.


[Infracted - Flaming]

[Wells]

The definitions literally say it means holy war.

It means a "holy fight" or "holy struggle". Standard interpretation of this in Islam is a struggle to better comport with the will of Allah. For instance, trying to lead a cleaner life style.

Wahhabists, and to a lesser extent some other extremist schools, interpret this as a literal holy war against basically everyone else. The problem is, lots of people in the west don't know any muslims and don't care to learn anything about them beyond the scary ones they see on the news.

[Deleted]

It is kind of scary to think of the kinds of people who get deplatformed (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and the people who get platformed. It's almost as if they're trying to rig the game in favor of Islamists.

Nice to see taxpayers money at work.

[Deleted]

The issue is really that all "jihad" means is "struggle". An alcoholic fighting his addiction is fighting a jihad. A feminist like Malala Yousafzai fighting for women's education rights in Afghanistan, that's jihad. There's no explicit connection to violence in there. It's a term that can INCLUDE violent struggles, just like the English word "fight" can refer to both non-violent struggles (fighting an illness) and violence. Really, people mostly react badly because it's OH MY GOD SCARY ARABIC WORD. Like ALGEBRA.

"Dying while fighting jihad" is basically just a way of saying "fighting to the death". That's it. You could paraphrase Voltaire as "i disagree with what you say, but I'll engage in jihad to the death to defend your right to say it". And that doesn't change the meaning.

Your mother should have aborted you.



Infracted.

[Ethris]

Let's take shit out of context instead of actually reading and understanding it! The traditional meaning of jihad is the internal struggle one has within oneself against sin. In an academic context it gets used a lot in discussions of philosophy and theology.

Instead of just having a split-second reaction you guys could try to actually learn something for once.

Oh right, I forgot. Religion of peace.

It's always good to tell everyone to bury their heads in the sand while the religion of peace continues to pacify more innocent people.


[Infracted]

[Cyberowl]

First I was like "They really shouldn't give those kinds of people a platform..." *clicks thread*

Oh, it's Blast, who's only existence consists of posting anti-Muslim threads, it's probably exaggerated and or/taken out of context.

*reads through the post, the usual suspects (=morons)*

Yup, I was right.

[May90]

Not so clear when you research him and find out his views on homosexuality (not too keen), non-Muslims (not too keen on them either), beating women (quite keen on that) and the West (he's not a fan).

I'm not going to take his statement on jihad at face value, you can if you wish.

Sure, but if this somehow makes him a radical supporting terrorism, then me liking apples makes me a radical supporting Chinese Cultural Revolution. I prefer to judge people's words, not their background; people change their views over the years, and it doesn't matter to me personally what he said somewhere 10 years ago. We are talking about him being given a speech platform at London U, so in this context it only matters what he says nowadays and what he is going to say there, not what he believes "deep inside".

It seems to me that people only are against it because he is a Muslim who has said something controversial. No one seems to have a problem with people like Pence speaking at universities, who is actually an open homophobe advocating for forced "conversion therapy". Free speech either is applied to all, or to none. It is stupid to only allow those people with controversial views speak who happen to be on the side of your civilization, this isn't what free speech is about.

I have no love for all these preachers with semi-totalitarian views. At the same time, we are already giving the platform to many of them, so I don't see how this case is any different.