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

[Kalis]

You do realize that what you're describing here is textbook prejudice, right? People reacting irrationally based on personal bias.

Hardly irrational considering the issues we have had with radical Islamists declaring jihad in the UK.

[garr21]

Why? I don't think white men should be beheaded and "deplaformed" so hard they get a "wiplash".

Everyone has the right to invite someone.
If you disagree with their choice to invite him, you could have complained about it and you could have tried convincing them to uninvite him.

Nice backpeddling there. Oh and how do you know i did not log a complaint? Unlike 99% of this forum i say what i mean and i do what i say.
The logic behind it is that this guy hates gays(who i am), beats women, among other things. Everything that white males get shit for yet gets to speek freely. It would not be the same if it was a white male and you know it.

[Kronik85]

Nice backpeddling there. Oh and how do you know i did not log a complaint? Unlike 99% of this forum i say what i mean and i do what i say.
The logic behind it is that this guy hates gays(who i am), beats women, among other things. Everything that white males get shit for yet gets to speek freely. It would not be the same if it was a white male and you know it.

He is a white male......

[Endus]

Nice backpeddling there. Oh and how do you know i did not log a complaint? Unlike 99% of this forum i say what i mean and i do what i say.
The logic behind it is that this guy hates gays(who i am), beats women, among other things. Everything that white males get shit for yet gets to speek freely. It would not be the same if it was a white male and you know it.

There's a pretty simple way to demonstrate how completely bankrupt your position on this subject is.

Here's an image of Abdur Raheem Green;



He is a "white male".

[nextormento]

The argument from Arabic doesn't hold when you actually meet non-Arab-speaking Muslims. They too use the word "jihad" with every violent connotation, and prefer to use their native, or acquired, languages when describing the Quran concept of "striving".
I don't know how prevalent that understanding is, but it's certainly easy to find. Particularly when decrying the violent and orthodox schisms, and pursuing reformation.
I don't think it's in their best interest to try and prevent their own co-option through genetic fallacies, appeals to etymology and white-washing: that only serves to wedge ridiculous kulturkampfs among folks with little to no contact with actual Muslims.

[Kronik85]

Germaine Greer isn't even a conservative, she is a prominent 1970s feminist, but she doesn't regard transsexuals as women and that view is a no-no under identity politics, so she gets the banhammer.

If I'm remembering this correctly and if it only concerns Cardiff (IIRC) University then she wasn't banned. There was a petition but it wasn't accepted and she spoke anyway. Same could of happened here, not saying it did or didn't just pointing out that it's a possibility.

[Endus]

The argument from Arabic doesn't hold when you actually meet non-Arab-speaking Muslims. They too use the word "jihad" with every violent connotation, and prefer to use their native, or acquired, languages when describing the Quran concept of "striving".
I don't know how prevalent that understanding is, but it's certainly easy to find. Particularly when decrying the violent and orthodox schisms, and pursuing reformation.
I don't think it's in their best interest to try and prevent their own co-option through genetic fallacies, appeals to etymology and white-washing: that only serves to wedge ridiculous kulturkampfs among folks with little to no contact with actual Muslims.

I have met non-Arab-speaking Muslims, and it still holds true there. The religious concept of "jihad" is not an inherently violent one. You're simply expressing prejudice, based on some biased sample of your own personal experience.

[THE Bigzoman]

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.

It's not.

Not only did he renounce his statement instead of clarify (if he meant something less extreme, he would've just clarified on the spot), but he also gave reasons for why he renounced it when he was banned from speaking in Australia.

Per Broadcast by The World Today: ABDUR RAHEEM GREEN: Living in Egypt had a profound effect on me. Why? Because I saw the manners and the morals and the mentality of those people.


He and his defenders also argue that he isn't extreme, not because his views were moderate at the time, but because he has since moderated them.



http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...5/s1435557.htm


Good on him for changing, but let's not change the meaning of his statements to cloud the issue. He meant what most think he did.

[Kronik85]

You ruined it
I wanted to tell him after three more posts.

Ahhh shiet. I'd apologise but Endus also spoiled so once you've asked him for an apology and they have apologised then I can issue a formal one to you.

[garr21]

There's a pretty simple way to demonstrate how completely bankrupt your position on this subject is.

Here's an image of Abdur Raheem Green;



He is a "white male".

Don't matter Endus He still breaks the social justice rules, not even you can deny that. I am just using the soc Just rule book, unless you are saying you can bend the rules and still get away with it(bit like your moderation eh). I wil say again you can live by social justice rules but you better die by them as well. Oh and if we are going down that road untill you change your skin color i out rank you as i am a gay black guy.

[Kalis]

If I'm remembering this correctly and if it only concerns Cardiff (IIRC) University then she wasn't banned. There was a petition but it wasn't accepted and she spoke anyway. Same could of happened here, not saying it did or didn't just pointing out that it's a possibility.

I thought she was barred and then had it rescinded.

[nextormento]

I have met non-Arab-speaking Muslims, and it still holds true there. The religious concept of "jihad" is not an inherently violent one. You're simply expressing prejudice, based on some biased sample of your own personal experience.

The bolded is entirely compatible with my remarks.
The rest of your post doesn't follow. It's just yet another silly projection in your long tally. And an entirely useless one at that: these are not the bigots you're looking for. I suggest you put more effort in reading comprehension and less on playing "spot the intolerant".

[Melkandor]

Don't matter Endus He still breaks the social justice rules, not even you can deny that. I am just using the soc Just rule book, unless you are saying you can bend the rules and still get away with it(bit like your moderation eh). I wil say again you can live by social justice rules but you better die by them as well. Oh and if we are going down that road untill you change your skin color i out rank you as i am a gay black guy.

I can't believe people like Endus are actually defending this sub-human piece of shit.
If you advocate jihad you are a radical, plain & simple.
Nothing wrong with being radical, but radical people shouldn't be given a platform to shit out their hate-speech from their asshole of a mouth.

[Deleted]

The more the left cosies up to these people the more they make themselves unelectable.

[Melkandor]

Good on him for changing, but let's not change the meaning of his statements to cloud the issue. He meant what most think he did.

Some people in this thread, even a moderator, believe that "jihad isn't violent".

[THE Bigzoman]

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”."

Look closer. It's pretty clear what he meant by his statement after you research it a bit.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people in this thread, even a moderator, believe that "jihad isn't violent".

"Well, technically" has been a common defense for people that like to cloud shit with euphemisms as long as i've been here.

Always has been, and probably always will.

[Endus]

Don't matter Endus He still breaks the social justice rules, not even you can deny that. I am just using the soc Just rule book, unless you are saying you can bend the rules and still get away with it(bit like your moderation eh). I wil say again you can live by social justice rules but you better die by them as well. Oh and if we are going down that road untill you change your skin color i out rank you as i am a gay black guy.

These "rules" are nonsense made up by folks like yourself who don't understand the principles in question. You seem to be hinting at the "progressive stack" nonsense, which only regressives actually believe in; it isn't a progressive concept in the first place, just a baseless condemnation of progressive values while ignoring what those values are.

Some people in this thread, even a moderator, believe that "jihad isn't violent".

Yeah, because we understand what the word means, and don't freak out because someone used an Arabic word in our presence.

[Kronik85]

I thought she was barred and then had it rescinded.

Only sources I can find are The Guardian and The Independent which I know you aren't keen on lol. Neither ever mention that she was banned and a quote from Cardiff University said:

Professor Colin Riordan said: “We are committed to freedom of speech and open debate. Our events include speakers with a range of views, all of which are rigorously challenged and debated. This event will be no different.

[Trollhammer]

ITT People defending a guy who equated guy marriage with "killing Muslims"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iXVuQofLY

[Deleted]

ITT People defending a guy who equated guy marriage with "killing Muslims"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iXVuQofLY

Funny thing this piece of shit complains about democracy and its the same democracy that lets him says this fuckin idiotic things .

Amazing that idiots complain about trump and defend this piece of shit