If you insist on the 'natural law' of Tit for Tat yes. But human nature is not being consistent or godly when it behaves that way. As far as I know Sharia courts in the UK cannot override UK Law and can only deal with those Muslim litigants who prefer to use them rather than the UK law courts. They cannot impose judgements which contravene UK Law. There are no, 'no go areas' in this principle. The Church of England has Bishops sitting in the House of Lords but cannot make or decide upon UK Law. That is done by Parliament through the Government. Being established only means it is recognized by the state as being the national church. In Wales it is not established. It is the Church of England, not Church of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Outside our province and having a system besides of laws devised by renegades and revolutionaries. Not our problem. That would be her affair, surely? In the top 10 could mean no. 9. That would not be so very high. There are a lot of possible names to chose from, William just dropped out to no. 11 perhaps, (that doesn't mean there are no williams being named though), but nearly ALL Muslims are called Muhammed, are they not? That puts them at quite an advantage when aiming for the top ten boys name charts. Still it isn't top of the 'Christian Name' charts, and is never likely to be. What's wrong with Olivia then? I understand you had a famous boxer named Muhammad. Was he part of a Muslim takeover of the USA or just a world class fighter?
And why you named the thread "Muslim invasion of Britain" as a statement rather than following it with a ??? question mark. Of course, now I see the truth of it. Carry on.
Again, you avoid the facts and cherry pick. If we are not to allow Muslims to have their own religious courts to deal with matters regarding Islam why should other religions have them? On what objective basis do you inform Muslims that they cannot have their own religious courts but other religions can. I suppose one could be honest and say it is because I am a bigoted Islamaphobe and not because I have any good reasons. No, you have never asked for clarification but as you ask for it now perhaps you could first substantiate your claim. Please tell me when Muslims can bypass English, Scots or Northern Irish law and have a case heard by a Sharia court rather than by the civil or criminal courts of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland.
I cannot read the article you cite from the Independent because I use an ad-blocker they will not let me view their site. As I refuse to be forced to watch advertisements I will not remove my ad-blocker. Common sense tells you, and statistics would do the same, as would a little rational thought that the most popular choice of name for a boy in the UK will not be Mohammed. If Muslims constitute such a small percentage of our population in the UK it is not going to happen unless a very large proportion of non-Muslims have decided to give their sons a Muslim name. Of course, the report at the ITV News Web site is telling us facts for London and not the entire UK. As I have said before Muslims are disproportionately distributed in urban areas. They also, on average, tend to have larger families. Therefore, I would accept the ITV News' claim. It does not, however, worry me. Many immigrant communities maintain their own cultures. Members of the Chinese community give their children Chinese names. I live close to a very large Jewish community and they give their children Hebrew names. I see nothing wrong with Muslims giving their children Islamic names and it does not surprise me that Mohammed is so popular. I had friends at school who were of South Asian heritage and the Muslim faith. All the boys were called Mohammed. But, not one of them was known by that name. This is because none of them had a single forename and all of them had Mohammed as one of their names. But, none used it as his name. It is simply a practice they adopt as part of their religion. It would be similar to Catholics adopting the practice of giving all girls Mary as one of their names. I could quite easily quote you articles that show the most popular boys names for statistics that represent the entire UK and not just a certain region. You will find British names in the top positions. However, I do not intend to waste my time searching for them. I have never known bigotry to be broken down by reason.
It's hard to find good info on the internet sometimes, so we appreciate the perspectives provided by you folks who live there in the UK. You are the 'boots on the ground,' so to speak, who feel the pulse of society and government; by contrast we in the US only know the stories we happen to be exposed to in print. I was doing some internet searching today and came across some articles which seem to provide good examples of the problems we face in deciphering truth from exaggeration, distortions, or outright fiction. First, here's a bit from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7232661.stm According to this 2008 BBC article, a bishop (Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali) stated that some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-muslims. And the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) that adopting parts of Sharia law (presumably into general UK law?) would help maintain social cohesion. Mind you, when we in the US see "BBC" we think "regular, reliable news outlet." So we are unlikely to drill down further to find, for example, that the Archbishop's words were taken grossly out of context. https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2008/02/the-archbishop-the-law-and-the-press/ http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005376.html I know I would normally have stopped looking after seeing the BBC article, but your recent comments caused me to look further and I found the two above links which came to the defense of Williams. As for the "no-go zones" allegation, my search yielded conflicting information. Snopes (a fact checker site which, ironically, I distrust as a liberal-owned site) states that they are a fiction: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/ But other sites suggest that actual residents of certain UK neighborhoods feel otherwise: https://www.nysun.com/opinion/londons-no-go-zones/73320/ https://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/britons_confirm.html The following website seems to suggest to my mind that even if there are not yet any such 'no-go zones' in the UK, there are some extremist muslims in the UK who are striving diligently to make it otherwise: https://www.defendevropa.com/2017/news/forced-marriages-sharia-uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html Note that these extremists seem to want the no-go zones to be areas where Sharia law predominates, and presumably displaces UK law to a large extent. At least one former muslim woman expresses grave concerns here: https://independencedaily.co.uk/united-kingdom-threat-sharia-law/ But I also notice that she now lives in the USA, so she may be out of touch with current UK events. As you can see, it's extremely easy for us folks who live west of the pond to become misinformed. There's potentially so much info to wade through and not enough hours in the day, so if we hear some report or other which happens to coincide with our personal pre-conceived views, we tend to accept it without further digging. We are grateful for your first-hand knowledge and reports about real life in the UK.
I think it must be fair to say that we suffer from the same kind of news myopia over here on the right hand side of the pond. Our impressions and preconceptions of life in the USA are colured in by 'filtered' news outlets. Even the BBC is now a suspect in this game of selective news diets offered to the British viewer, listener and reader. There seems to be an Alt.Rt. coup going on in which it is seen as strategically advantageous to sow distrust, division and confusion widespread, so that under this 'smokescreen' they can operate more freely to enhance their influence. When this is combined with the natural editorial effect of media time constraints and material selection on tv radio and front page 'news', (which goes for the lurid, sensational and extreme, for 'impact'), it is inevitable that we are getting an unbalanced view. If there is a school massacre with dozens of young students killed by a crazed gunman in Alabama, we will know all about it by tea time. If road deaths have reduced annually for the last 10 years in the USA due to better automobile design, highway laws and road improvements, we will probably never ever know of it. The worrying factor here is that there are subversive movements in our societies actively working to use this natural 'ignorance' of the general population to promote their own nefarious, evil agendas. That is why TRUTH is such an essential commodity for the welfare of mankind and why it, was/is, championed by Jesus Christ. It is also why lies are natural of Satan. .
Dr Williams was very heavily criticised for his comments. To be frank I am still not sure what he meant. I do not think that he meant that there should be two legal systems here: Sharia for Muslims and English Common Law for the rest of us. My principal criticism of Dr Williams is he does not, in my humble opinion, seem to address himself to his audience. He is a very erudite man but does not seem to grasp that his listeners may not be at the same level as him. When I read about no go areas I always take it with a pinch of salt. Two years ago I moved house. I was told several weeks ago that where I lived for 20+ years at my previous house is a no-go area. My response was to simply laugh. I do know of some local parks where white youths would not go on their own. However, young men have ever grouped in to factions and behaved stupidly. I think one reason that will drive people of various ethnic groups to stick together is racism. White people in the UK are not always as open or as accepting as they could be. If you are non-white and you see nothing but antagonism from white people who will you choose to associate with? I am reminded this works in all directions. An acquaintance of mine spends a large part of each year in Spain. Despite having done this for a very long time neither of them speak a word of Spanish. They live a life in Spanish where they only associate with other British people, only speak English, will only eat British food, only go to British bars. If people would integrate we would not have half the problems we have. Get under someone's skin and we are all the same inside: same anatomy, same physiology, same biochemistry. We all have the same concerns. The average Muslim in the UK is not seeking to establish a caliphate. He wonders if he can meet this month's mortgage payment, he worries his children may take drugs, he hopes his children make the grades for getting into university, wonders his he's going to get a pay rise, etc.
There is absolutely no reason to continually go on the offensive... I can't be said to have cherry picked, because my goal was not to give a balanced presentation, or even to give any kind of presentation at all... I merely wanted to ask and to have a discussion, on what I thought was a social discussion board, am I wrong? There seems to be a very simple answer to that: Islam is not only theological, but equal parts (if not more) a political and civil system, meaning that it has in its core elements, civil legal punishments, and not purely 'ecclesiastical' punishments It's not the same as having a community of Jews, of Buddhists, whose systems do not have a civil component to them,... Islam does Therefore in an Islamic community, if a woman is accused of adultery, she may be punished according to the nation's civil/common law, or according to Islamic law, inside Great Britain itself This is why Sharia law is completely illegal anywhere in the United States, because it isn't solely 'ecclesiastical' and we will not allow our people to be tried by the barbaric Sharia legal principles Then so you accept that it is possible for London, now run by an Islamic mayor, to also now have 'Mohammed' as its top boys name... And that's just fine? Would you stop that please, are we incapable of having a civilized discussion on this topic? Holding on to the 'Christian Name' charts won't save you for long if Christians as such become a minority in Britain (as they are already becoming), and the Muslims with 5-8 kids per family grow from 1% (twenty years ago) to 5% (today) to 10% (in a decade from now, extrapolating from current rate of growth)
You REALLY believe that, don't you. Just watch you don't guide someone else into the ditch along with you. A minority of something can't be becoming a minority until the something's numbers have declined already to half the total of all the somethings. Until that happens the supposed minority is still a majority and only becomes a minority when it is actually outnumbered. You seem to be trying to get others to believe that Christian somethings in the UK are already outnumbered by the Muslim somethings. There are some districts in some cities, in the UK where Muslims indeed outnumber Christians, London is not a 'district' though, it is a city, much bigger than a district. The UK is a Union of countries, much larger in area and population than any city and certainly MUCH larger than any district. Muslims are vastly outnumbered by people of other faiths and of no religious affiliations, they are indeed truly a minority in the UK. If however I were to compare the proportions of committed Christians in the UK, who live out the Christian ethic in a righteous and sober life, I think the comparison with Muslim numbers trying to do the same thing under Islam might reveal those 'Christians' to be a minority. The same could probably be said for the USA. 1 Kings 19:9-18. If non Muslims become a minority in the UK or the USA it will be the judgment of almighty God upon the 'Christian' non Muslims, and their own fault for departing from God's holy covenant and despising the stranger and soujourner in their land. Lev.25:35-38, Ex.23:9. Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts. Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts: Zech.7:9-14. .
You are making no attempt to have a civilised discussion. You are making claims that you cannot substantiate. You are cherry picking. It is when one selectively chooses what appear to be quotes supporting your claim, when those citations are often incomplete and taken out of their context. Another claim and as been your track record in this discussion so far unsubstantiated. I am not aware of Muslim women in the UK being punished under Sharia Law for adultery. The fairly standard punishment for that is to be put to death by stoning. We do not allow people to be put to death period in the United Kingdom. I am also unaware of a single women's group protesting that Muslim women who have committed adultery are being punished in ways that no other woman in the United Kingdom can be. Now I am not saying that members of the Muslim community may not punish a woman they deem to have broken the tenets of their religion. However, members of the Muslim community are not unique in disobeying the law. If you can provide evidence that Sharia Courts in the United Kingdom are issuing binding punishments against women who have committed adultery I would be most happy to read it. Yes, we have similar high principles in the United Kingdom. That is why our courts would never extradite anyone to the United States if in the United States a conviction could lead to the barbaric death penalty. Yes, but your original claim was not London. It was the entire UK. You obviously do not understand our system of government. The Mayor of London is not a dictator. One thing he cannot do is make people call their children Mohammed. Indeed I think you will probably find Sadiq Khan is more liberal than your own president. For more liberal I would say. I do not think there is the slightest risk of Mr Khan wanting to establish the caliphate of Londonistan. I do not consider it civilised when you are quite clearly taking an unfounded bigotted stance against Muslims but do not even take the trouble to substantiate your claims with solid facts. They are just name charts. No one claims they are 'Christian'. Quoting numbers by religious affiliation in the UK can be a challenge. The question on the census is now optional. At the last census 7.2% decided not to answer the question. Almost 60% of those who stated their religion were Christian and under 5% as Muslim. I'm afraid those figures don't support your claim. Fewer people in the UK identify as Christian and fewer go to church every Sunday. However, that is because of a situation someone in the USA may find difficult to grasp. In the UK many people identify as atheists. Atheists are very open here and the reduction in practising Christians is a phenomenon seen widely in Northern and Western Europe. It is because more and more people are choosing not to practise any form of religion. It is not because we are being overtaken by Muslims. I find it so surprising that a country, like the USA, where the vast majority of the population are immigrants and not indigenous that they are so xenophobic.
Xenophobia: a fear or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or people of different cultures; fear or dislike of the customs, dress, etc of people who are culturally different from oneself. I don't think US residents are particularly xenophobic, at least no more so than residents elsewhere. In general we get along fine with anyone who will make half an effort to assimilate to the culture, and those who do not assimilate are rarely feared or hated (there always will be exceptions among any people group, so one can always find a few haters of blacks, haters of Jews, etc, etc.). Let me ask this: when the Normans (or any of the many previous peoples) showed up and invaded your land, would it have been right to label as xenophobic the residents whom they conquered? Suppose there were Normans today and suppose they were to begin attacking the UK; would it be xenophobic to oppose them? If we look back at history, we observe a pattern of conduct and behavior prevailing within Islam: namely, to conquer and rule in the name of Allah. Islam is not merely a religious system. It is also a governmental/political system enshrouded by religious ideals, and a tool which is easily co-opted by evil men who seek great power. Islam has two faces, one violent and the other peaceable. Because of this, it behooves us to be ever-vigilant against complacency and blind acceptance of the more peaceful face of Islam. We in the US do not wish to soon forget the lesson of the Twin Towers. The complacency we had before 9/11/01 was only possible because we had forgotten the lessons of the past; as far back as the late 1700s our ships were being raided by muslims intent upon destroying the 'infidels' and we had to send fighting men (forerunners of our modern Marines) to North Africa. At first we sent diplomats (Jefferson and Adams) to meet with the ambassador from Tripoli in London in an attempt to negotiate peace, but the diplomats were told flat out that the Quran taught muslims it was their religious duty to make war upon and enslave all 'infidels' (such as Christians and Jews), so our only recourse was to fight for our safety in the first Barbary war. When the US set the muslims back on their heels, they signed a treaty; but before long the muslims became emboldened, broke the treaty, and resumed their attacks and enslavements, and Pres. Madison had to send our fledgling navy yet again (the 2nd Barbary war). The US was not alone in suffering their depredations; over 1,000,000 Europeans were enslaved by muslim raiders between the 16th and 18th Centuries. Don't forget about Baltimore, Ireland. During the past year (2019), worldwide there were 1747 Islamic attacks in 54 countries, in which 10,397 people were killed and another 10,677 injured. If one examines a list of countries in which the majority are muslims, one will see (coincidentally?) a list of nations in which, by and large, it is very unsafe for a Christian to live. Although we may have peaceable muslim neighbors or co-workers, we should not lose sight of the possibility that some who seem peaceful now may turn out otherwise at some time. Also, if muslims gain a majority or a large enough minority in some region, statistically the probability rises that more of them will be (or become) radicals and will influence (either by persuasion or threats) fellow muslims toward that mindset. Am I a xenophobe? I don't think so. I think I am a cautious realist. I am not bothered at all to be around everyday people who happen to be muslims; rather, I am bothered by the malign evil that cloaks itself in a religious ideology called Islam, leads people to perdition through worship of a false god named Allah, and uses the Quran and an army of deceived followers to kill, steal, enslave, and destroy.
You are right. It is not xenophobic to be opposed to bigotry and oppression. It is xenophobic to be implacably and mindlessly opposed to strangers, foreigners, or people of different cultures and the customs, dress, etc of people who are culturally different from oneself. What you seem to be opposed to is probably the same as any sane, God fearing, true servant of Jesus Christ is opposed to. It is called bigotted Islamism. It is not truly Islam though. Islamists, however are convinced that their bigotted perversion of Islam is truly Islamic and Islam is the corruption. I am opposed to the bigotted, distorted and corrupted, false, 'religiosity' of the KKK and other supposedly 'Christian' sects which fanatically claim to be servants of God and His Christ. That does not make me xenophobic. If my opposition to such people results in them persecuting me it means I am a prophet of Jesus Christ, just like God's prophets before me were persecuted by those possessed with a like spirit to those who would persecute me. All persecution is Satanically inspired. I continue to be bothered by the bigotry of various 'Christian' cults and movements gaining increasing acceptance and even popularity in the USA. which cloaks itself with the religious ideology called 'Christianity' and spreads a violent political system, long ago labeled 'Christendom'. That however makes me a proponent of the Christian faith, not an opponent of it. .
Rubbish. This just isn't so. Just as some of us in the US are prone to misinformation concerning events in the UK, likewise those in the UK are prone to being misled by MSM about events in the US. But this isn't the place to get into politics, so I'll leave it at that.
Not everyone understands the true nature of Islam. Wouldn't you agree that it would be best to ask someone who was a devout muslim and who studied the Quran under the guidance of approved teachers, and who subsequently became a Christian? Wouldn't that sort of person know much more than you or I concerning the real message of the Quran and of Islam? If you agree, please read "Christ, Muhammad and I" by Mohammad Al Ghazoli. The author is just the sort of man I've described. He states unequivocally that true Islam is a religion of violence and hatred, and that the pacifist, 'moderate' muslims are that way only because they are either 'nominal' believers or believers who have not been taught the entire message of Islam. This book will open your eyes, if you are willing to see. It is also an inspiring story of this man's journey to faith in Christ and of the power of the Gospel.
But I don't know whether Mohammad Al Ghazoli, (with a name like that), IS actually a Christian. What is his Christian name? How much does he understand about Christ and what he taught. For that matter how much do you? How much did he understand about Islam before his conversion and what kind of Moslem was he, Sunni, Shia'h, Hanafi, Sevener, Nizari, Mustali, Wahhabis, one of the 10 orders of Suffi? It would make a big difference to what he understood Islam to be. I have discussed the teachings of Jesus Christ with quite a few 'Christians' who clearly seemed to my mind not to understand what Christ taught or seriously disciplined themselves according to his teaching, so to base one's understanding on the one book of one person who was a member perhaps of one of the forms of Islam I have mentioned, is to have a rather limited view, I think. Still, if indeed, as you say, he is a Christian, then why are you so concerned that the name Mohammad has become popular. He seems to be at least one Mohammad that you trust. There may be more like him. Perhaps we have many more Mohammads like Al Ghazoli living in London, who knows? Why don't we meet and talk with them and see? Do you know any Muslims? Do you know any ex-Muslims? Do you know any pre-Muslims you can talk out of it? Let's think positively about this. .
The US had a large and active Nazi movement just before WW2. The only major difference between its ideology and that of Nazi Germany was that it was laregely 'Christian' in its religious makeup, rather than largely pagan, as they were in Germany. By 1942 the movement went or was driven underground in the USA. There are still popular factions in the USA closely aligned to Fascist Ideology which claim 'true Christianity' for themseves. Research it yourself. Simplistic solutions to complex problems involving people, are the property and stock in trade of simpletons, not 'faithful servants of the Lord'. .
First of all the whole point of this discussion was to ask and discuss what people thought.. I am allowed to make claims, to make mistakes, and discuss whatever I wish, for that is THE WHOLE POINT of online social communities... If you cannot participate in MY thread, then feel free to show yourself out, so that I can discuss what I want to discuss with others who are more civilized I have made several claims that I have substantiated: 1) Muslims are now mayors of several towns; in cities like London they are actual functioning mayors, and in other towns they are honorary symbolic mayors 2) Muslim baby names are now in the top 10 in the whole country, and #1 in large urban centers like London 3) Muslim growth rates are astronomical We can add a few others to that list---- 4) Christians are declining in Britain 5) By the simple extrapolation of numbers, within our lifetimes there will be more Muslims than Christians in Britain Yes I am, because the basis of a civilized discussion is not to always have to be right, but to always be respectful with those you are talking to... I can be wrong, and still be wholly civilized to you and everyone else in this thread, yes? And indeed, I have never attacked you personally or insulted you in any way, whereas you have personally attacked me (and Americans generally), in your endeavor to shield Muslims of any criticism, so who is the uncivilized anti-American xenophobe here?... It seems that Christian brethren are more foreign to you than your Muslim mayors, neighbors, and friends; may their reign be light upon your grandchildren I have seen many articles from the BBC and the British press on that over the last 5-6 years... I can pull them up here, if you are willing to have a civilized discussion after all, where I am not your enemy You keep ascribing a lot of value to his statements, whereas I ascribe more value to his actions... You must be a very trusting person.... Sadiq Khan will obviously never outright say that he wishes to establish the caliphate of Londonistan, but what he can do is offer exceptional patronage for Muslim families, unlimited licenses to build new Muslim mosques, vast unemployment and welfare assistance for huge Muslim families, unrestricted Muslim immigration into the city, and protection against the anti-immigration Tory policies under the Prime Minister Boris Johnson... In short he can do A LOT to grow the Muslim presence in the city, WHICH IS WHY there are now enough Muslims there to make 'Mohammed' be the #1 boy's name I frankly don't care about what you consider bigoted, or phobic, alright? Xenophobia has always been with us, is not a moral sin, and while sometimes wrong, wasn't wrong in every instance in the past, sometimes having value in human history... You may quake in your boots at those words, but I am not a baby-boomer, and to me those words mean absolutely nothing Now that we got that out of the way, get back to the substance of the topic if you wish to participate in my thread, please.. thank you!
Read the book, and all of those questions (and much, much more) will be answered. But if you wish to avoid having your world view adjusted by facts, best you do not read his book. Is a man obligated to change his name when he becomes a Christian? I know of many who do so when they become muslim, but not many for the other way around. This man kept his name. Does that somehow make his Christian testimony suspect? Do you doubt the sincerity of people just because they have names different from those you are familiar with?
The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect." Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo's al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: " Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity." Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. Believers in the West are often led to think that their religion is like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis say otherwise. (The above facts are copied from https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx ) Al-Azhar University in Egypt, the oldest and most respected school of Islamic jurisprudence, teaches that jihad warfare against unbelievers (non-muslims) is obligatory until the entire world is subjected to Islamic rule. Al-Azhar is today the most important religious university in the Muslim world with as many as 90,000 students studying there at any one time. (They are Sunnis by the way.) This basic tenet is not merely taught at the university level, however; it is inculcated in as many muslims as possible throughout grade school and secondary school as well.