You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Islamists step up campaign to stop Muslims voting
2005-04-22
The extreme Islamist group accused of threatening George Galloway and hijacking a meeting of moderate Muslims is planning to step up its direct action campaign to stop fellow believers from participating in the election. The Guardian can reveal that the gang of youths who stormed two election meetings this week are members of al-Ghuraaba, an offshoot of the now disbanded radical organisation al-Muhajiroun. The group's east London campaign is being run by Abdul Mueed, a student, who promised yesterday that al-Ghuraaba would continue to disrupt events and target candidates to get across its message to Muslims that they will go to hell if they vote on May 5...

"The Respect party is coming into mosques and calling us to join democracy and is calling us to join the British army." When told that Respect is an anti-war party and is calling for British troops to be removed from Iraq, Mr Mueed changed tack and said it was the Muslim Council of Britain calling for Muslims to join the army.
Edited for length, rest at link. Surprising that al-Guardian would allow this sort of thing in its publication.
Posted by:gromky

#4  PlanetDan

Just because a person is an apostate does not mean a muslim must kill them. Apostates who do not try to make others into apostates (call them non-outreach apostates) are supposed to be confronted and told the error of their ways. Apostates who are trying to lead others into apostacy (call them outreach apostates) are considered much more dangerous in Islam. Even there, however, there are some exceptions to the 'you must try to kill them' dictim. For one thing, there usually must be a fatwa (of course this is pretty easy to get nowadays - it wasn't always this way) unless there is an active war (of course, I suppose you could argue that since the bin laden decree of 1998 there is an active war).
Posted by: mhw   2005-04-22 2:03:18 PM  

#3  PD - I'd say that where "faith" pressure fails the Muzzies, violence necessarily follows. They have no other response.
Posted by: .com   2005-04-22 12:54:46 PM  

#2  I find this tactic a curious one. Telling people once that they will "go to hell" if they vote, and explaining the underlying reasoning, is probably enough to inform people. Beyond that, it's up to the listener to decide whether they believe it or not.

How does disrupting events and targeting candidates help illuminate the issue any better?

Unless, of course, they consider them apostates...in which case, in islam, it is their duty to kill the apostate, not simply disrupt meetings.

btw...the reason they are opposed to voting is because voting would mean they are agreeing to be led by a nonmuslim.
Posted by: PlanetDan   2005-04-22 12:43:28 PM  

#1  The real story here is that religious deception as practiced by 'moderate muslims' is thwarted by clear guidance jihad as practiced by 'extremist muslims'.
Posted by: mhw   2005-04-22 8:49:12 AM  

00:00