Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Ruling on a Muslim eating with an infidel

So, Muslims suffer from "Islamophobia and racism", but they shouldn't make friends with us or even eat with us "unless it is necessary". Feel the love:

Ruling on a Muslim eating with a kaafir (infidel)

Question :

If a Muslim eats or drinks with a Christian or any kaafir, is that considered to be haraam?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

Eating with a kaafir is not haraam if it is necessary to do so, or if that serves some shar’i interest. But they should not be taken as friends, so you should not eat with them for no shar’i reason or for no shar’i purpose. You should not sit and chat with them and laugh with them. But if there is a reason to do so, such as eating with a guest, or to invite them to Islam or to guide them to the truth, or for some other shar’i reason, then it is OK. The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not mean that we have to take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we should eat and drink with them for no reason and for no purpose. And Allaah is the source of strength.

Conditions of it being permissible to settle in kaafir countries

What are the conditions of it being permissible to settle in kaafir countries?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) forbade settling in or going to countries where a Muslim is not able to practise his religion openly. The one who goes there to study, do business, or earn money, and those who are resident there all come under the same rulings and there is no difference between them. The rulings concerning all of them are the same as the rulings concerning those who are resident there, and there is no difference, if they are unable to practise their religion openly, and they are able to migrate from there. Claiming to hate the kuffaar whilst living among them is not enough. It is haraam to travel to them and settle among them.


At July 27, 2005 3:32 PM, Blogger erp said...

"It is haraam to travel to them and settle among them."

Why isn't this excellent rule enforced?

At July 27, 2005 6:48 PM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

"Why isn't this excellent rule enforced?"

Because that would break the rule that says you must live among them (as long as you don't take their ways) so that they can eventually be converted and the land can eventually be claimed as Muslim.

But I think it is an excellent rule and should be strictly enforced under penalty of death!

At July 27, 2005 11:19 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

One of the resaons that I "like" Sheikh OPmar Bakri s that he has advised muslims to leave Britain, as it now dar ul harb. Britain has ceased being a country that had a treaty with islam, as it attacked iraq - a muslim country.

Omarf Bakri is living high on the hog, on welfare benefits. He has ordered a brand new Toyota People's carrier A/C, GPS and all, worth over £30000, and charged it to Welfare. He lives in London in a detached 4 bedroom house; again on benefit. Despite all this, I would not begrudge him a penny, if only the ummah would take heed of this most learned and esteemed scholar of islam.

At July 28, 2005 12:14 AM, Blogger erp said...

"I would not begrudge him ... " Here's the problem. You should not only begrudge him, you and your fellow Brits should throw him and the rest of his ilk, out on their ears. No wonder they blow up your people, they know you aren't serious.

Oh pretty please, won't you behave like nicely. Here take whatever you want, but don't kill us.

It's maddening.

At July 28, 2005 12:38 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


The Jihad is here because the muslim population in Britain has reached a certain size. What is necessary is to reduce the size of this ummah, not just as a fraction of the total population but in absolute terms as well. Once that process starts, then the hope of conquest of dar ul harb will vanish, the jihad demoralised in Britain, and in Europe as a consequence.

Dearly though I would like to see the back of the ummah from the West, it is not politically or logistically possible.

I hear that Tony Blair has reached agreement with France that undesirable aliens will be sent back to their native lands. It is a start. Demoralisation of the Jihad in Europe will signal the departure of the radicals as well. Their families will follow. Slowly the ummah will start to fragment and the Jihadi fish will have less water.


At July 28, 2005 4:39 AM, Blogger erp said...

Gosh, DP111, I admire your ability to maintain that viewpoint against the proof in front of your eyes to the contrary.

They're not going to go quietly into the night no matter how much you want it to happen.

Wishing really doesn't make it so.

At July 28, 2005 6:26 AM, Blogger bordergal said...

Given the fact that 2/3rds of muslims said they had thought about leaving Britian after the attacks, DP111 may be right. Particularly if there are further attacks, and further pressure is placed on the British Muslim community.

At July 28, 2005 3:52 PM, Blogger PD111 said...


There are severe problems with what you advocate, not least a humane and humanitarian issue.

On LGF and on JW/DW watch, many have advocated that muslims should be expelled from the US/UK/Europe.

Fair enough, but there are a few severe disadvantages to such a policy.

1. Implementation.

2. The sight of weeping women as they leave with their few pitiful belongings, with confused children along with them, will be on every TV screen around the world. Are you sure you can stomach this?

3. The effect of #2, will most certainly cause a schism in our society. There will be huge opposition to such a policy and the result will be that all anti-islamofascist policies will be derailed.

4. A policy of expulsion, ie ethnic cleansing, will place a stigma on our society which will be hard to erase.

It is for this reason that I advocated an exchange of populations, muslims over here for the persecuted Christians in muslim nations. Such exchanges of populations have occurred several times in recent history, and are not considered illegal. Even the UN has helped in implementing such an exchange. This gets round the ethnic cleansing argument. I now term this policy as "separation".

Separation recognises that at this moment in time, Islam and democracy are irreconcilable. Thus a separation leaves hope for the future for everybody. This is important, as muslims like all humans will reach a stage in their social development, when they do indeed welcome democracy and pluralism. It is just that at this stage in their history, they are not ready for it. A war, which is where we are headed, will stop that progress, as well as cause a split within humanity, that will be hard to patch up. A civil war in Europe is the owrst thing one can have. Europe's cil wars have not been powder-puff affairs, and this commenter just does not wish to see that.

"Hope" is very important for humanity.

If society in the West is unable or unready to adopt such a policy, as it amounts to coercion, then the only thing left is to fragment the cohesion of the ummah. This can be done by deporting extremist clerics, disallowing the public call to prayer from the mosques, as it is an invasion of the secular public square, disallowing the use of the koran as a a book to take the oath in a court, as the koran advocates Taqqiya, banning the hiljab and the burqa, as it defeats the purpose of security cameras, etc etc. In other words, all but delegitmising islam in the public square without actually doing so.

Doing such and others, will cause many muslim families to leave of their own free will. They have to control their women, and veiling is part of that process. The ummah will fragment, and without the security of this, many others will leave as well. The few reamining will not be a threat, as the threat only comes when the ummah reaches a certain level.

I do welcome your posts.


At July 28, 2005 4:02 PM, Blogger PD111 said...


I have been fully cogniscant of the islamic threat to civilisation since May-June 1967. It was then that I read the koran, and was surprised to say the least. It was not just the writings in the koran but the way that the muslims were behaving around the world, fitted in with the prescriptions of the koran. That was what caused me to sit up and take notice.

This matter has been on my mind for several decades. Over the last 20 years, I have told anyone who cared to listen, both here in the UK and in the US, that muslim immigration would destroy freedom of expression (Note, that we have to adopt alliases when discussing such matters, cause terrorsim etc.The Rusdie affiar confirmed my predictions). I was listened with a mixture of bemusement and or polite patience. Not anymore.

I look forward to your response, as such debates clarify the issues.


At July 28, 2005 4:11 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

An interesting article in the Times.

“If 32 per cent of British Muslims really do think that Western society is immoral and should be brought to an end, then I ask myself: if they hate it so much, why live here?”........................So they can. If they want to join in and be valuable members of British society, they will experience a warm welcome. But if they don’t even want to try, they are always free to seek out a society more congenial to their tastes. They may find, however, that their sisters are unwilling to follow them.,,1071-1710602,00.html
The process starts.


At July 28, 2005 8:01 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

pd111: I am STRONGLY in favor of banning the veil. I plan to write a post about that, too. But I have so many posts I want to write now that I don't know when I will get the time.

At July 29, 2005 2:00 AM, Blogger erp said...

DP111-Reducing the number of Muslims won't make any difference and swapping populations is the height of naiveté. Where are the oppressed Christians you want to swap with?

The UK must enforce their laws. I'm sure there are laws against conspiring to overthrow the government. Religious leaders may not call for killing from mosques. Inciting to riot must also be against the law.

No women may cover their faces when out in public. That's it, and certainly not in schools. If Muslims want to live by sharia, stay in a Muslim country.

You get the idea.

I must tell you that I admire your kind heart, but in this instance, cooler and colder heads must prevail specifically to protect people like you and other innocents.

At July 29, 2005 4:02 AM, Blogger Mike H. said...

erp, if a muslim woman wants to wear a veil during the day it should be her choice. All identifying documents should be sans veil. All actions that require a positive id should be sans veil. Anyone arguing against that policy should be reminded of the freedom that he or she seeks back in the old country.

Former Marine (and still a good shot, if necessary)

At July 29, 2005 2:30 PM, Blogger erp said...

mike h, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. However, the veil is not a religious or cultural symbol anymore. It's a symbol of unleashed violence and terror, and there is precedence for imposing "dress" codes. For instance, we don't allow public nudity even if people belong to Nudist Organizations that might require it. Nor do we allow people to wear guns in holsters ala the old west even if carrying a concealed weapon is legal as it is in some states.

Islam has shown itself not content to be one among the equal religions and/cultures of the world, but has shown with murder and mayhem, its intention to conquer and oppress the rest of us and bring us all under their control and return us all to the ignorance and superstition of the dark ages of the 12th century.

That's why one of their most controlling symbols can't be tolerated. Wearing a burka isn't a fashion statement and you can't be serious when you say, a woman should be able to wear a veil "if she wants to." Do you imagine that any human being would, given their own volition, want to walk around swathed in a black shroud?

That statement is reminiscent of slave owners in the south saying their slaves didn't want to be free, but were happy and wanted to remain slaves.

Thanks for your service to our country. I, like most Americans, am very glad that you are still out there keeping a keen eye out for our safety.

At July 29, 2005 3:55 PM, Blogger erp said...

As a follow up to my last post, here's a reason why Dress Codes are necessary. From the Drudge Report.

At July 29, 2005 11:52 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

The burqa, in my view is a symbol of the oppression of women. I'm deeply offended that such a symbol is openly flouted in the West.

Why am I so repelled by a "simple" covering of the female form? On examination, "oppression" is really putting it mildly; in fact the burqa is a symbol of the enslavement of women, i.e., it is an open symbol of the institution of slavery. And this is why I find it so offensive.

Now I have nothing against a woman wearing a burqa in the privacy of her home, or in the course of a "rag" event or some such. What bothers me is that, we as a society have recognised the institutionalised slavery of women in islam, as legitimate in the West. This is absolutely absurd. Freedom and slavery are mutually incompatible. One can only expand at the expense of the other. It is a tragedy that we have allowed in, into the domain of Freedom, a society that practices slavery, and worse we give it legitimacy under the guise of multiculturalism.

So here we are, in the 21st century, right here in the domain of Freedom, and we have allowed islands of slavery to become established within this domain.
On the more mundane level, a burqa defeats the purpose of security cameras. Consider the difficulty of apprehending the jihadi bombers, if they had been wearing burqas.

One can use this aspect of public safety, to ban the wearing of burqas in public.


At July 30, 2005 12:13 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


I have written a piece on the equivalence of islam and slavery in Gates of Vienna.

I'm beginning to view islam as a religion of institutionalised slavery, and the Jihad's main purpose is to garner slaves, both men and women, from the lands of the Free. Muslims, both men and women, then become the first slaves of islam.

Two points come to mind immediately

1. The institution of slavery, crushes the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of islamic societies.

2. Runaway slaves used to be beaten, and oft executed, as a lesson to other would be runaway slaves. The same punishment is koranically sanctioned for the muslim apostate.

If one views islam in this manner, ie as institutionalised slavery rather then as an imperialist ideology of conquest, we are left with two quite opposing strategies to deal with it.


At July 30, 2005 12:42 AM, Blogger erp said...

Okay then. I guess we're all in agreement. Everyone -- have a nice weekend. We may have something to celebrate!

Bush may make the interim announcement of Bolton's appointment tonight.


Post a Comment

<< Home