http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15605041 Nigeria's militant Islamist group Boko Haram - which says it bombed the UN headquarters in the capital, Abuja - is fighting to overthrow the government and create an Islamic state. Its followers are said to be influenced by the Koranic phrase which says: "Anyone who is not governed by what Allah has revealed is among the transgressors". Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society. This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education. This seems to be the what unrestrained Islam is really like. Next ...?
I'd suggest that it's more a power crazed lunatic subverting religion, to be honest. It does highlight one of the problems with faith, though. If something demonstrably real clashes with it, in this case science, then it probably won't end well.
What a ****ing surprise eh? Give them all a gun & let them shoot each other. Less of them left to breed.
"This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education." Shouldn't be too hard to spot them then.
Disagree with this, in relation to this case specifically, what these guys have done/are doing (again if reported accurately) is just plain wrong and against the religion they are saying they are upholding. A lot of the time the faith itself is portaryed wrong from both angles. the 'fundamentalists' are wrong but then so are the 'moderates'. In this case (Islam) there are some issues such as the clothing for example which are haraam if revealing but not just because they are 'western'. dont quote me but wasnt a form of 'trousers' actually a muslim invention?
In your opinion. Which parts of it are specifically anti- or un-Islamic? Yeah, I didn't understand the bit about not wearing pants or shirts, either. I guess they've found some way of interpreting scripture to suggest it.
from the report most of it tbh. probably would need more details/specifics to give an honest answer though. eg voting itself isnt an issue but depends what you are voting in for example if the party you are voting in is going to be your 'representative' but believes for example, that they want to allow drinking then you cant vote for them as Islam forbid alcohol. etc...... Not sure if its scripture tbh, more about either 'anti-western' or media exaggeration, IMO
I wasnt jumping to anything tbh its an either or IMO They are either messed up in their views or there is more to it than simply an anti western agenda ie the shirts and trousers hence the quite clear opinion 'Not sure if its scripture tbh, more about either 'anti-western' or media exaggeration, IMO '
I think you just looking for a row I clearly believe its an either or their faith, or interpretation of it. or anti western agenda on their part or the media have exaggerated/not told the truth as regards to why they have doen what they have done. I havent dismissed faith If anything I have said those who are 'fundamentalist' are wrong and those who are moderates are wrong. This was in my first response so addressing the faith element
Why would the media exaggerate? It's virtually a non-story to the western media. Not sure why, as Nigeria has plenty of oil! What's your definition of fundamentalists, by the way? I generally take it to mean someone who takes literal interpretation of scripture.
I didnt say it was 'western media'. It may well be a non story generally, but I responded to it as a post on Not606 and the media are prone to getting things wrong/confused etc, although my view was not an assertion that it was an exaggeration, more a question as for the definition of fundamentalist, its a difficult one at the moment hence the use of ' '. In general i dont see fundamentalism as necessarily wrong. It can mean 'true' to beliefs. however the meaning in the current climate it is generally has negative connotations and seems only applicable to Islam. which i disagree with i am sure at one time it was used to described good christians
People use it to describe Christians all the time. The Bible Belt in America is full of them, like that Harold Camping twat. Dangerous loons, the lot of them.
Is that the old geezer predicting the end of the world by using numberology or something? The question is though are they actually christians? people can call themselves what they like doesnt make it so IMO for example (and I use this as I think you agree) a homosexual can either be a bad (insert religion) or not a (insert religion). To expect a religion that bans/opposes/condemns it to suddenly accept it is making a mockery of the scriptures and that religion is no longer thta religion if it changes.
