Im sure your aware of the thread Im referring to
As should you of the response from the moderators on that issue, as in the case of calls for the killings of Blackwater employees in Pakistan.
To date not a single person who has been proven to belong to the Taiban has been tried and convicted of the oft repeated allegations your making.So much for the rule of law and not parroting unsubstantiated claims.
Most of them have been killed trying to fight the troops deployed to restore order and the rule of law by the Government of Pakistan, and their leadership continues to proudly claim the suicide bombings and threatens to continue the rape of Pakistan under the excuse of spreading "Shariah'.
I didn't see any threats of a ban or the stern warnings we are so used to witnessing every time someone makes Islamic statements.
No one has been threatened with a ban for making Islamic statements - people have been threatened with bans for supporting anarchists and terrorists, and trying to disguise such support for terrorism and anarchism under 'Jihad' will not cut it either.
We have a government and a constitution that governs our country - that alone must be followed. If you do not think it is Islamic enough, peacefully convince people to put your guys into power and change the system.
Its not your job to talk about Allah's deen without knowledge.
It is my job to talk about my faith as I see it - and that is a useless argument on your part, I could merely retort that it is you and people like you going around branding so and so Muslim and non-Muslim on the basis of your own personal narrow interpretation of Islam as being a case of 'talking about Allah's deen without knowledge'.
Allah is the only judge and his authority has not been delegated to any mortal, so do not commit blasphemy and act like Allah.
On the other hand we'll get a rabid secularist foaming at the mouth declaring bush and obama to be Muslims and amir ul mumineen that should be obeyed no matter what.
Rather contradictory argument - why would a rabid secularist be declaring Bush and Obama Muslims and Amir-ul-Momineen who should be obeyed first of all?
I am not sure how your hypothetical case fits here.
If Bush or Obama declare themselves Muslims, then great, so they are, as far as we know, since we cannot look into their hearts. Allah will be the judge in the hereafter.
Without doubt Allah azza wa jal is not weak and he subhana wa ta ala is well aware of who is a Muslim and who a kafir not to mention the MUNAFIQEEN.
Wonderful, then since only he can look into peoples hearts, he will decide in the hereafter.
Having said that there is a need for the Muslims to be aware of what constitutes being a Muslim and what constitutes being a Kafir.Every Muslim must be safeguarded against the false claimants to Islam and that is why the Muslims have the right to declare those who have disbelieved as disbelievers.Not only is it a right but its an obligation.
Muslims are not children who have to be 'safeguarded'. Are we genetically inferior to people of other faiths that we need the protection of some two bit Mullah declaring who amongst us is pure and not?
What nonsense - I have a mind, I can discern truth and validity for myself, I do not need 'protection', nor is there any need for the self appointed 'Guardians of Islam' to run protection rackets.
There are many interpretations of verses in the Quran and the Sunnah, and many disagreements - promote your version as best you can, provided you are not promoting hate and violence and illegality, and people will choose what seems true to their hearts.
As always when it comes to matters related to Islam you get it WRONG again, Judgment day is for the akhira (hereafter) not
al hayat u dunya (worldly life).
And I could once more merely retort that it is you who are wrong - judgment day is for the passing of 'judgment on our worldly lives'.
I haven't seen "MUSE" being warned publicly for his anti Islamic, rabid, mouth frothing, lunacy, hatred etc.
He has not advocated killing anyone, or forcibly imposing (outside of the constitutional bounds of a democratic State) on anyone a particular ideology. He has argued vehemently against any inclusion of religion in the affairs of State, and we have allowed others to vehemently argue in favor of a Shariah State.
However, too often those who argue in favor of a Shariah State, end up exhibiting support for the Taliban and other criminals of their ilk - that is not acceptable.
Pakistan today is neither a purely secular country nor is it a pure 'Shariah' based nation (according to some Islamists) - we have nothing against both sides arguing out their positions and advocating change
peacefully - we do have issue with people supporting any sort of violence or anarchist behavior to achieve those goals.
This should be a simple enough rule to follow.
I will do my best to point out when your biases overwhelm your judgment.
Thank you, and while it may not seem like it now, sometimes I do accept fault and back down, but it takes convincing.