Describe the Al Qaeda flags the colour of the lettering and what it says and any other symbols on the flag.

A black flag with white lettering of the shahada "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God" is not the Al Qaeda flag.

However as their ideology is Islam, and Islam certainly defines quite clearly what a Muslim controlled state should be like and does indeed inspire much hatred against those who are non Muslims, then the construction of the state, or Caliphate, is as allowed in Islam and Islam allows, and in many cases encourages, violence in the seeking of its rule. It clearly discriminates against women and the society discriminates by removing any rights other than those defined by the Islamic state as acceptable.
It is not necessary for Islam to rule by majority all it needs to do is rule. How that rule is attained is open to interpretation but is not limited by any need to be peaceful. They also refer to Muslim lands as though this is some fixed notion of ownership of land but within which many Christians, Jews and others live. The belief that land belongs to all is not in their ken and even HopeNotHate find them hate filled and that almost beggars belief.

Your point being?

According to the UK government they are a peaceful political religious movement with no ties to terrorism or violent acts that want to create an Islam Caliphate through peaceful means.

Is your point you think because they are Muslims they should be violent because that is your understanding of Islam? One they as Muslims appear not to share.

The point being that if ones stated ideology is hate filled, discriminatory and allows and encourages violent acts then it is rather foolish to suppose that one is, and always will be, peaceful. Is that not what the RW party has been banned for what its literature says?

Not because they are Muslim but because of what Islam says and their own statement as regards what type of society they wish to see in the caliphate, which of course includes many Christians, Jews and about 50% women. Something for those women to look forward to no to mention the Christians and the Jews and Islam is fairly clear on polytheists, Idolators and Aetheists.

And the truth, you miss that too.

By peaceful means. Same as most of those who want a united Ireland.

Is there a book that defines what a United Ireland is, what it will be like and how to attain it and also defines those who do not want a united Ireland are? The Islamic ideology that this peaceful group follow has such a book and it is that that they state quite clearly that they follow. Should one just ignore what it says?

What does the BIB mean?

It usually means that they wish the video to be only shared to people who will instantly believe it, rather than a wider sharing where it can be easily debunked.

So a Muslim organization that wants to achieve a Islamic Caliphate through peaceful means should be assumed to be violent despite having no links to terrorism or violent acts because you think Islam is hate filled, discriminatory and allows and encourages violent acts? Despite most Muslims not being violent criminals or terrorists.


Far right group National Action were proscribed by the UK for being concerned in terrorism, promoting and encouraging acts of terrorism in the UK. In particular I think the government took exception to their links to murderer of MP Jo Cox and their actions after the murder glorification of the murder and encouraging acts of terrorism. The group training members in combat and their founder posing with a assault rifle also did not help their claim of not supporting violence.

Isn't breitbart a site for people who'll believe any old crap?

It is indeed, but they only want their viewers to see their incredibly narrow view of the world.

Don't worry, one of them will be in the white house soon. So then their narrow view of the world will be the one America will be expected to follow.

Many of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir have been linked to violent acts worldwide, individual members have specifically supported acts of violence. They publicly disavow violence yet they state clearly their ideology is Islam which states quite clearly that violent acts are allowed and in instances actively encouraged. They have encouraged violence against Jews in Europe in literature, they advocate all Muslims to detach themselves from any Western values as the only value is Islam, the murder of Avijit Roy is closely linked to the group.
Do you think that all National Action members are violent criminals or is the group banned for encouraging violent acts? If Islam encourages violent acts, and it does, that is enough, irrespective of how many actually carry out those violent acts. IN fact in UK law it does not matter if anyone carries out a violent act all that is required is incitement to either carry out the crime or incitement to hate, and there is little doubt that Islam has many references to hating others not of the faith.

The UK government has repeatedly threatened to and considered proscribing the group. The evidence from UK intelligence agencies and police was they are peaceful. The expert legal advice was they do not meet the criteria to be proscribed. The UK government has not proscribed the group because it is peaceful it does not glorify, encourage, fund, recruit for, enable, or engage in terrorism.

The connection to Avijit Roy's murder I believe is via a early arrest of someone who months, years, earlier had made death threats against Avijit Roy. The Bangladesh police arrested him after the murder and claimed he was a member of the group and involved in the murder. The group is banned in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh police latter released him and arrested other people for the murder. The UK intelligence service presumably view it as not relevant or not compelling evidence against the group.


The group was proscribed because it was concerned with terrorism, glorifying and encouraging acts of terrorism in the UK.

To be proscribed an organization must be concerned in terrorism, and commit or participate in acts of terrorism or prepares for terrorism or promote or encourage terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or otherwise be concerned in terrorism. Terrorism defined as acts of serious violence, endangering life, serious risk to public health and safety, serious damage to property, serious disruption to electronic systems that are done to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Proscribing the organization also has to be proportionate.

While you may think Islam or peaceful Muslim political and religious organizations somehow qualify the UK government does not. It just proscribes those groups there is evidence against if it deems it proportionate to do so.

No doubt many members of the IRA were also members of the DUP and the DUP had many members who supported violence.

The Tories supported Al-Qaeda in Syria by bombing ISIS.

Is this your Christianity you're talking about or Islam?

No, one should leave it's interpretation to those who have a clue.

Did you read and interpret the bible yourself or have lessons?

No you shouldn't ignore what it says, but conversely you shouldn't interpret it in a way that fits your agenda, especially if you're not fluent in Arabic/Urdu

It's a difficult one I know, but trying to make comparisons with a banned far right group and Islam is a tall order especially when one looks at the numbers, actions and ethnicities involved, there is more commonality in the smallest of the two.

Do we really need to interpret it, when we can look back on how Muslim nations and the previous caliphate did things.

No worse than looking back on how Christian nations did things.

Im still looking for this modern day Christian nation you are referring too

Hint there is none left...

You think members of the DUP were in the IRA? Are you posting from an alternative universe?

Your not looking very hard then.
To get you started here are some.
Eritrea 63% Christian. One of the worst human rights records in the world. Also a major source of refugees fleeing to Europe.
Rwanda 83% Christian. Genocide committed by Christians with the Anglican church implicated in the atrocities.
Multiple African nations. Christian practice of murdering witches including by burning them alive.
Multiple African nations. Christian practice of female genital mutilation.
Central African Republic, Nigeria, Sudan. Christian militias attacking Muslims including mass beheadings and including people being forced to choice convert to Christian or die.
Lesotho 90% Christian and South Africa 80% Christian. High rates of rape, 28 to 37% of men have commit rape 7 to 9% gang rape, and the practice of raping lesbians as a gay conversion therapy.

Then there are the Christian terrorist organizations like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo that another poster already mentioned on this thread. They have the aim of creating a Christian theocracy. They have committed numerous mass murders of civilians, mass mutilation of civilians cutting off both hands at the wrist or at the elbow, slavery including child sex slaves.

And its not just Africa that has a problem with barbaric Christians. From USA fundamentalist Christian terrorist organizations bombings and White Supremacist Christian groups committing murders, and past problems with Christian cults including murders and mass suicides, to fundamentalist Christian terrorists in China trying to create a Christian theocracy. Barbaric Christians have over the years and currently are a problem in numerous countries across the world. From occasional bombings to acts of genocide.

I am not asking for it to be proscribed I am just pointing out that although it may state it is peaceful it is also clear from its supporters actions and the literature that it clearly states is the base of its ideology that peaceful is not always its modus operandi.
For some reason you keep ignoring what their literature actually says. Even HopeNotHate have swallowed their apparent 'Islam can do no wrong' stance and defined them as a Hate group.