honda repsol фото
конкурÑ? ламановой фото
фотографии Ñ?екÑ?а Ñ?емейной пары
ролики анальный Ñ?екÑ? беÑ?платно
попов конÑ?тантин олегович толÑ?тые голые жопы голые гейши кунтÑ?камера фото

квеÑ?Ñ‚ хочу любви
вечер фото

тайна знака mother порно невинномыÑ?Ñ?к Ñ?ауны интим sex xxx yabb
ебут корову
целлюлитные порно фото шакира нароÑ?тить грудь k lite

люительÑ?кое фото порно
игры на много ру
девки порно Ñ?качать
Ñ?ротика текÑ?Ñ‚Ñ‹

голаÑ? нова
п вагон
голые бёдра цезарь белек фото мучины геи голые мужчины трахаютÑ?Ñ? девушка отрезала Ñ?ички

порно фота малолеток
голые звёзда
фото Ñ?очи хоÑ?та адлер
девочка текÑ?Ñ‚
Ñ?екÑ? краÑ?ивых женщин

Islam is consisted of Qur’an and Sunnah (traditions and practice of Prophet Muhammad saw). So if you want to discover the real Islam, you must read and learn both Qur’an and Sunnah yourself. How the muslims live or practice the religion, does not really and necessarily show the true Islam.

No doubt the fall of the Karimovs¨*will* turn nasty and bloody well beyond the the positive possibilities opened up by it. There will be killings, stand-by executions and lynchings. I mean, that will by far not be as extreme as in Iraq or certain African states but still. Yet that will not be because of ‘Islamist extremists’ who have (no matter what Starr/Akiner-like bozos pretend) no social base or real capacity in Uzb. That will be because there is too much cropped-up hatred and frustration, and because of the brutalisation and bestialisation of Uzb society under/by the Karimovs. It’s a phase one will have to go through/sweat out, like a flu or diarreah.

Allah biz menen!

For instance, let’s say (just an example) you lead a revolution, openly inspired by Islam but against an Islamic state. Like many revolutions things get real messy and don’t go according to plan. Don’t you think there would be a serious risk that the original plan could get hijacked by people who feel more extreme than you?

Demagoguery is real popular everywhere: in WWII it was really easy to blame innocent Japanese civilians and have them locked up in America. It’s scary how easy it is for extreme viewpoints to rise to the surface when you stir the pot. That’s why I say that basing any kind of violent act on religion is opening a can of worms.

Do you mean the (in the meantime completely discredited) Arab socialist movements like Nasserism, Baathism, Fatah, … who sometimes threw in Islamic lingo to mobilise the poeople?

As for Jihad, I clearly said that “the Physical Jihad (…) which often takes violent forms (even if violence if NOT THE ONLY FORM OF LESSER JIHAD)”. In fact the main Jihad is to let Islam play its role as a values and norms framework and as a catalyst for social welfare initiatives, i.e. ’social Islam’ as I advocate it already since a long time on this and other forums.

“All religions are about peace, and none about violence.”

Yes, Jamiat. They are and so does Islam. But at the same time Islam takes into account that not everyone wants peace that evil lurks in many forms, and that one must be prepared to fight if necessary instead of turning the other cheek like the Christian slave morals preach.

“is one reason why I don’t think it would ever be a good idea to drive a revolution based on Islam (or any religion).”

As I said on other occasions, I am 500% opposed to an Islamic state. And I do not believe that an overthrow of the Uzbek regime will be led by an Islamic movement even if many Uzbeks want be and to live more like Muslims. You can be inspired by Islam without wanting an Islamic state à la Iran or Sudan under Al Turabi. Once the Karimovs, their cronies and all these IFI consultants are done with, Muslim faith-based groups will play their social role at least in some parts of teh country and some segments of Uzbek society. But that is not necessarily bad. We have seenwhat ‘alternative’ the West and all these IFIs had to offer after all.

Other than that, Brian, how would you deal with the karimovites then? Maybe organise another seminar or government-civil society dialogue (with a gender dimension of course)? :) lol

While the principle of this statement might be debatable, I think it can draw us into a good example of how this kind of thinking can be dangerous. The problem with many violent revolutions / struggles / insurgencies / coups / etc. is that often times the initial principles of the revolution are eventually replaced by those more extreme than what the original leaders intended. Sometimes those original leaders are disposed of to make way for the ‘real’ revolutionaries who implement a more severe form of their ideal.

Did the original leaders of the French revolution expect the Terror? Or in China, Cambodia, or Russia? I doubt if anyone thought that at the beginning of things that they would eventually cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Those revolutions were fixated on an ideal: communism, socialism, maoism, etc. The violence caused by them tarnished those ideals… but those ideals generally didn’t last more than a few decades and didn’t span more than a few countries.

But what happens when you base your revolutionary zeal on a vast, thousand year old religion? What happens when that revolution inevitably gets pulled by its more extreme members and things get a lot more bloody than people imagined? It ends up tarnishing an entire religion… and all 1.2 billion people that belong to it.

This is one reason why I don’t think it would ever be a good idea to drive a revolution based on Islam (or any religion).

All religions are about peace, and none about violence.

Islam, I think, wants peace where and if possible. But it takes into account that reality can be different. That whether one likes it or not, life, nature and history have violent sides and phases. They are a constant struggle: for survival; and between the forces of darkness who are prevalent in today’s world and the forces of life. And it is ever more going to be that way until world chaos destroys the very decadent, evil order that set it into motion.

Who says struggle in Islam says Jihad, which is what it means (’struggle’ or ‘effort’ in Arabic). As many fo you may know, there are basically two forms of Jihad in Islam:

1. the Internal Jihad (aka ‘Jihad al Aqbar’ or greater Jihad) which is basically one’s spiritual and intellectual development;

2. the Physical Jihad (a.k.a. ‘Jihad al Asgar’ or lesser Jihad) which often takes violent forms (even if violence if not the only form of lesser Jihad) and is justified in several cases, eg.: agression against Muslims and Islam; blatant injustice; oppression of Muslims by non-Muslims or their vassal rulers; etc.

Sometimes you have to be realist and see what enemy you face. Is violence againt the karimovist tiranny in Uzb and those who support it, for example, wrong? I don’t think so, for the enemy is thoroughly evil and depraved and only understand the logics of violence and oppression. Also, in Uzb, several conditions for lesser Jihad are present.

Also, in what perspective do you place Islamic violence? What about the rage caused by the double standards that feed the violence?

On July 15, 1099, European Crusaders massacred about 70,000 inhabitants (most of them Muslims) of Al Quds/Jerusalem. And since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan thousands of Muslim civilians (eg. between 3,700 and 5,000 in Afg since 2001; and 12,000 in 2005 and first half of 2006 in Iraq) have died either directly, as ‘collateral damage’ or indirectly. By contrast, the number of Westerners killed on 9/11 (the event that triggered the Agh and Iraq invasions) was 3,000. As long as that is the ‘exchange rate’, hatred will flourish.

This is not a question about one justifying the other. It’s about putting things in context.

This being said, what some dub ‘terrorism’ is in several cases, in fact, justified resistance.

http://i19.tinypic.com/4t7idnb.png