New president IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth !

[Sixpack]

'Israel is occupying holy muslim land'.

Like a broken record those Iranian arseclowns keep repeating the old islamic political core-message. However it's been a while since that came from government level. Go figure.

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic. And I dont care if I insulted Konovalov or anyone else calling himself 'muslim'.

Another example: I started a navigation course (sailing) and there is a muslim student (30 y old) in the small group. The teacher had travelled the globe for maritime work and technical stuff. In class he told this guy: I did the water in Mekka, so people can drink fresh water there. In utter disbelief the moron cried out in reply: But YOU cant come there. You're not a muslim !!! The teacher replied: Forget it ! As a matter of fact: The King gave me a golden lighter because he liked me so much !

I bit my tongue as not to tell the muslim: "Hey freakin goatherd, you are allowed to live HERE, aren't ya ?....."

The true intent of the Iranian nuke program should now be obvious. As is the true attitude of muslims in the West.

Stop the terrorist supporting region-destabilizing bastards. It's war, and that's too bad, but it's reality.

Dubiya: Sorry for doubting ya now and then....
:arrgh!:

[darksythe]

Either way you look at it Iranians with nuclear devices scare me.. :yep:

[Konovalov]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic. And I dont care if I insulted Konovalov or anyone else calling himself 'muslim'.

Sorry to hear it.

[Gizzmoe]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic.

It´s the people, not the religion!!!

[The Avon Lady]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic.
It´s the people, not the religion!!!
It's the people AND the religion.

Anyway, there is nothing new under the sun (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502). :nope:

[Terrax]

I see you're still politically correct as ever Sixpack .
:up:

While I think all religions have retarded and moronic aspects to them, the Christians and Muslims have been fighting (directly and indirectly) for thousands of years. When the Christians rapidly spread across the planet, they peacefully converted all who would listen, and forcefully those who wouldn't. The Muslims, for the most part stayed home, and as a result Christians were the majority, and Islam and other religions were the minority. Now, as Muslim countries become rich, their citizens are traveling the world converting all who will listen, slowly but steadily eating away at the Christian majority. Some are preaching peace, some are preaching war. Muslim countries are also buying better weapons, including nuclear weapons as they, ironically, become richer selling oil to Christian counties.

I think about 10 - 25 years from now, this will all come to a boiling point. All the major players on both sides will have WMD, and will get down to business of solving this centuries old conflict for good.

[The Avon Lady]

I The Muslims, for the most part stayed home
Home? Ever hear of Andalusia?

When in Islamic history and how did Islam spread from Arabia to India, Asyria, Egypt, N. Africa - all the way to Morocco and to much of southern and eastern Europe?

[Terrax]

No, I've never heard of Andalusia, but I will see what I can find. I've done some research, but I'm definitely no expert on Islam, let alone its history. I've read some of your posts in other threads, and you are obviously far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.

When I said the Muslims stayed home, I didn't mean that literally. While some Christian countries were scrambling to build vast empires and spread their religion, Islam's spread was more slow and gradual. Islam has gradually spread over time to the countries you listed, and now, most are firmly Islamic counties. In the last 25 years, air travel has become more common in those countries, allowing more Muslims to travel to counties where Christians have been for hundreds of years. That's why I think it's spreading to the rest of the world faster now that it ever has before.

[The Avon Lady]

When I said the Muslims stayed home, I didn't mean that literally. While some Christian countries were scrambling to build vast empires and spread their religion, Islam's spread was more slow and gradual.
Islam was founded by Mohamed around 610. Spain was invaded by Muslims in 711.

Not bad for a small sect that started off in the Arabian peninsula and had no trains or planes to expedite their movement.

[Kissaki]

If you focus on only one side, naturally you're going to have a one-sided view. I could choose to focus on the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or Charlemagne or Olav Haraldson, and come to the conclusion that Christianity is an intolerant, hateful and extremely violent religion. However, then I would have to ignore the other, ideological aspects of it. Sure, I could pick the most violent quotes from the Bible I could find to make the argument that Christian ideology is inherently violent, but you'll find anything if you look hard enough. To blame it on religion lacks reflection, when there are clearly peaceful interpretations as well.

Using Iran as the stock example of what Islam represents is particularly unfortunate. Not even the Iranian people themselves are happy with their fanatical government. Back when Iran had a secular government, they were among the most liberal of all Muslim countries, and that spirit is still firmly rooted in many Iranians.

As for this quote:

I bit my tongue as not to tell the muslim: "Hey freakin goatherd, you are allowed to live HERE, aren't ya ?....."

I don't know what to say. Mekka is a holy city, and the mosque and the city itself are indeed off-limits to non-Muslims. And why not? That's their prerogative. Christians and Jews also have various dos and don'ts. And you'll find examples of exclusion in all major religions.

Here's an unrelated case: The Chinese eat cats and dogs. Many Westerners are utterly repulsed by this, and would probably react by a shocked exclamation if they found out from first-hand accounts. It is perfectly understandable to act with shock and disbelief when one is presented with something totally different to anything encountered before.

People in different parts of the world have different customs. If you can't accept that, how can you expect anyone to accept yours?

[Kissaki]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic. And I dont care if I insulted Konovalov or anyone else calling himself 'muslim'.


I just wanted to add that if you don't care if you cause offense, you have no right to be offended.

[Terrax]

When I said the Muslims stayed home, I didn't mean that literally. While some Christian countries were scrambling to build vast empires and spread their religion, Islam's spread was more slow and gradual.
Islam was founded by Mohamed around 610. Spain was invaded by Muslims in 711.

Not bad for a small sect that started off in the Arabian peninsula and had no trains or planes to expedite their movement.

Not sure if your'e just being sarcastic, but
I agree, Islam's spread has been impressive without the massive resources Christianity had. But it has had centuries to spead as far as it has.

[August]

Comparing the practices of ancient Christianity (or for that matter Judiaism, Hinduism, Buddism etc) with modern Islam is both inaccurate and unfair.

After all, what Christian city currently bans Muslims?

What Christian country tells Muslims if they practice their religion openly they'll be persecuted and murdered with at least the defacto approval from the government?

What Christian nation makes religious war on Muslims?

Bottom line here is Islam has to learn to tolerate Infidels and Pagans. This is something every major religion has had to accept and Islam will have to as well or it won't survive the century.

[Kissaki]

Comparing the practices of ancient Christianity (or for that matter Judiaism, Hinduism, Buddism etc) with modern Islam is both inaccurate and unfair.


I was making no comparisons. Quite the contrary, I made up that example precicely because it is unfair - that was my point. Just like it's unfair to point to Iran and say, "THAT's what Islam is like", or to bring up Muslim expansion in the first millennium as a pointer to modern Islamic practices.


What Christian country tells Muslims if they practice their religion openly they'll be persecuted and murdered with at least the defacto approval from the government?


What Muslim country does? Even Iran recognizes Christians' rights to practice - what is not permitted under any circumstances, though, is for Muslims to convert to something else. But that's it.


What Christian nation makes religious war on Muslims?


Why are you talking about Christian nations, when I am talking about Islam? Islam is a religion, not a country. You should be talking about Christians, not Christian nations, or your parallells are invalid.


Bottom line here is Islam has to learn to tolerate Infidels and Pagans. This is something every major religion has had to accept and Islam will have to as well or it won't survive the century.

The Islam definition of "infidel", correct me if I'm wrong, is anyone not belonging to the "book" faiths, ie. any of the Judaeic religions. However, having friends in foreign countries are quite helpful for insight, and I'm happy to report that your views on Islam are due for a critical update. Case point: Islam has a solid foothold in parts of India, where Hinduism is dominant. An Indian friend of mine says that Hindu and Muslim neighbours get along just dandy with one another, but what's more:

Hindus are not allowed to eat cows. Muslims are not allowed to eat swine. Through cultural standards, however, they are obligated to be good guests and eat what is being served. So Hindus will go visit their Muslim friends when they feel like eating cattle, and Muslims will visit their Hindu friends when they want pork. However, bound by the aforementioned cultural standards, they are also obligated to be good hosts. So the Hindus will avoid putting pork on the menu in consideration for the Muslims, and the Muslims will avoid putting cow on the menu in consideration for the Hindus! :D

[Type941]

those Iranian arseclowns

I believe the more politically correct term is towel-heads. :|\

[tycho102]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic.
It´s the people, not the religion!!!
It's the people AND the religion.

I disagree, but only with the specifics. I think it's the current hierarchy of the religion. It's the madarassas (however it's spelled; Muslim school) and the Imams and Ayatollahs and clerics. It's the way they are "teaching" the religion. They are focusing on the second half of the Koran, after Muhammed conquered Mecca, and not the Medina side of the Koran. Plus all the hadith.

They just pick and choose what to teach, and for the past 1000 years, the violent side has been the most successful. People like power, and the Ayatollahs want as many "believers" as possible, since they get to rule over more people.

We end up fighting the religion, yes. Because of the way it's been taught, and because of the feudal systems of government that Muslim leaders enjoy. Control literacy, and you can control the people; it's been that way since the Incans and Egyptians flourished. Since North Korea was founded.

Also, there is something to be said for subjugating an area, rather than liberating it. Subjugate then liberate; vice versa doesn't work, and hasn't worked. At least, I cannot think of a single historical example with populations larger than 5 million; liberation worked for the French during their civil war, but that was just the Bastille. :)

[Hitman]

So this discussion starts again.... :roll: ad it looks to me as it will be here to stay :88)

Ever hear of Andalusia?

Yes, it is a place in Spain where our Kings Ferdinand and Isabella (Who called themselves the "Catholic Kings") threw all jews off, in the name of the christian catholic god.

We have had this discussion already, there are historic episodes that show both muslim radicalism and christian radicalism, and in all they lived together in relative peace. True, christians payed more taxes, and had some disavantages, and of course some small muslim Kingdoms (Taifas Kingdoms) showed terrible episodes of intolerance. But that was not the general thing here. But of course we can dive in history to find examples of genocides and terrible things done in the name of all existing religions. Even nowadays.

My opinion about this question remains unchanged: It's people who are bad, not the religions or ideas. As long as there is a single muslim who does a peaceful and honourable interpretation of the Islam, and lives in peace with the rest, I will not change my mind. And there is nowadays not a single one, but a large amount of them who show daily how they can live in respect and peace with neighbours from other religions.

Sixpack, don't you really know a single muslim who deserves a different judgement than the one you made at the beginning of this topic? Not a single one? Think about it :)

:up:

[XabbaRus]

Hindus are not allowed to eat cows. Muslims are not allowed to eat swine. Through cultural standards, however, they are obligated to be good guests and eat what is being served. So Hindus will go visit their Muslim friends when they feel like eating cattle, and Muslims will visit their Hindu friends when they want pork. However, bound by the aforementioned cultural standards, they are also obligated to be good hosts. So the Hindus will avoid putting pork on the menu in consideration for the Muslims, and the Muslims will avoid putting cow on the menu in consideration for the Hindus! :D

Hope to hell they don't ban eating chicken........ :-j


Oh and Saudi Arabia is a country that stops you taking in a bible...But no one has a go at them, they are our allies... :roll:

[August]

I was making no comparisons. Quite the contrary, I made up that example precicely because it is unfair - that was my point. Just like it's unfair to point to Iran and say, "THAT's what Islam is like", or to bring up Muslim expansion in the first millennium as a pointer to modern Islamic practices.

Muslims very often mention the Crusades as justification for all kinds of anti western activities so why isn't turnabout fair play?

What Muslim country does? Even Iran recognizes Christians' rights to practice - what is not permitted under any circumstances, though, is for Muslims to convert to something else. But that's it.

Theres more to it than that. See the plight of the Coptics and Chaldeans for two examples, then ask yourself how many Christian churches there are in Mecca. I would venture to say that whatever tolerance Christians enjoy in Muslim countries is pure tokenism.

Why are you talking about Christian nations, when I am talking about Islam? Islam is a religion, not a country. You should be talking about Christians, not Christian nations, or your parallells are invalid.

The point i was making is there are no Christian "nations", at least not anymore, on the other hand how many modern Arab and Persian nations have official state religions?

The Islam definition of "infidel", correct me if I'm wrong, is anyone not belonging to the "book" faiths, ie. any of the Judaeic religions.

Actually "Infidel" is the (rather disparaging) term for the book faiths, sort of like "******" or "goyim".

"Pagan" (translated) is how everyone else ie Hindus, Buddists etc, are referred to, and who don't enjoy any protection under Islamic law at all.

However, having friends in foreign countries are quite helpful for insight, and I'm happy to report that your views on Islam are due for a critical update. Case point: Islam has a solid foothold in parts of India, where Hinduism is dominant. An Indian friend of mine says that Hindu and Muslim neighbours get along just dandy with one another, but what's more:

Hindus are not allowed to eat cows. Muslims are not allowed to eat swine. Through cultural standards, however, they are obligated to be good guests and eat what is being served. So Hindus will go visit their Muslim friends when they feel like eating cattle, and Muslims will visit their Hindu friends when they want pork. However, bound by the aforementioned cultural standards, they are also obligated to be good hosts. So the Hindus will avoid putting pork on the menu in consideration for the Muslims, and the Muslims will avoid putting cow on the menu in consideration for the Hindus! :D

Oh yeah Pakistanis and Indians get along swimmingly. :roll: :D

But it is true that Muslims tend to get along better with non Muslims when they are in the minority, however as recent history has shown, especially in Africa, when Muslims are in the majority they tend to try to impose Islamic law on non Muslims.

[Kissaki]

Hindus are not allowed to eat cows. Muslims are not allowed to eat swine. Through cultural standards, however, they are obligated to be good guests and eat what is being served. So Hindus will go visit their Muslim friends when they feel like eating cattle, and Muslims will visit their Hindu friends when they want pork. However, bound by the aforementioned cultural standards, they are also obligated to be good hosts. So the Hindus will avoid putting pork on the menu in consideration for the Muslims, and the Muslims will avoid putting cow on the menu in consideration for the Hindus! :D

Hope to hell they don't ban eating chicken........ :-j


Oh and Saudi Arabia is a country that stops you taking in a bible...But no one has a go at them, they are our allies... :roll:

Well, the US still execute people, but nobody has a go a them, they are our allies... ;)

See how it's possible to find objectionable qualities in every country/culture? :)

[Kissaki]

Muslims very often mention the Crusades as justification for all kinds of anti western activities so why isn't turnabout fair play?

The arguments I've heard used the most is how the West (and the US in particular) has imposed themselves in foreign, Muslim lands. And this argument is not without merit. The Coca Cola company alone - one of the really big symbols of America - is responsible for several humanitarian disasters such as drought and pollution. I am not defending terrorist attacks or statements, but to view today's terror as completely unprovoked is both misleading and dangerous. We can't combat terrorism without understanding its true causes.



Theres more to it than that. See the plight of the Coptics and Chaldeans for two examples, then ask yourself how many Christian churches there are in Mecca. I would venture to say that whatever tolerance Christians enjoy in Muslim countries is pure tokenism.


And I would venture to say that the tolerance Muslims enjoy in several Christian countries (I'll defend my use of the term further down) is equally just tokenism. There are plenty of people like you who only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law.


The point i was making is there are no Christian "nations", at least not anymore, on the other hand how many modern Arab and Persian nations have official state religions?


Actually, Norway is a Christian country in the traditional sense, in that we do not have a separation between state and church. Still, our culture is far more secularized than e.g. the US, where there is supposed to be such a separation. Still, how many times do I hear "God bless" this or "God bless" that? In Norway, no politician would get away with it - and we're a Christian nation! Our King is bound by Constitution to be Lutheran Evangelical Christian, our official state religion. All children born are born members of the Church unless otherwise specified.

But I would call any country with a clear majority of Christians a Christian country. The US is a prime example, particularly when considering the Bible belt. How much tolerance for Islam do you find there?

Actually "Infidel" is the (rather disparaging) term for the book faiths, sort of like "******" or "goyim".

"Pagan" (translated) is how everyone else ie Hindus, Buddists etc, are referred to, and who don't enjoy any protection under Islamic law at all.


Actually, I remember now, you're right. Christians also used the word "pagan" for anyone not belonging to the book faiths.

Oh yeah Pakistanis and Indians get along swimmingly. :roll: :D


That's a political issue, not a religious one. Blame the Brits for that one, they drew the borders.


But it is true that Muslims tend to get along better with non Muslims when they are in the minority, however as recent history has shown, especially in Africa, when Muslims are in the majority they tend to try to impose Islamic law on non Muslims.

This is true, but you must also take into consideration that in modern history they have become very defensive because of Western foreign policies, and they perceive us as wanting to impose our way of life on them. That's why they fear our "decadence"; for the same reason we feared Communism during the Cold War (and especially during the McCarthy period).

[Onkel Neal]

I think we should spend less time obsessing over Sixpack's generalization and concern ourselves with the Iranian head of state who wants to repeat the Holocaust. :roll:


Muslims, this is your house, who among you is going to clean it?

[TLAM Strike]

Why are you talking about Christian nations, when I am talking about Islam? Islam is a religion, not a country. You should be talking about Christians, not Christian nations, or your parallells are invalid.

The point i was making is there are no Christian "nations", at least not anymore, on the other hand how many modern Arab and Persian nations have official state religions? Vatican City is a sovereign nation. :yep:

[Dead Mans Hand]

My vote?

Let Iran attack Israel with everything it has....


... but take the kid gloves off of Israel and let those boys have their fun, anyone remember the Six day war??? :rock:

[Torpedo Fodder]

If Iran attacks Israel, Tehran and all major Iranian cities west of it will become blackened glass fields. Years ago I would have assumed even Iran would have been sane enough not to do this, but now with tier new president and other likeminded individuals rising to positions of power in Iran, I'm not sure if they could be counted to remain sane, or whether they would believe that Allah would protect them from Israeli reataliation, or that their own national suicide would be worth the destruction of Israel. One thing's for sure, I certainly do not want them to posess nuclear weapons.

As for the reliegious dicussion, let me just say this: I am an athiest (former Christian) who became dissolutioned with organized religion. Lets face it, almost all organized religions have extremly questionable bits to their beliefs, like the Koran specifically calling for the destruction of Jews, ordering believers not to be friends with Jews or Christians, then theres also the infamous "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them". The Bible has plenty of nasty bits as well, especially in the Old Testement (thus by extension the Torah has these problems as well), including advocating mysoginism, slavery, summary execution of homosexuals, and genocide. Now, I'm sure there are many members of organized religions whose faith genuinly compels them to be altruistic, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews or whatever. But in the end, organized religion has caused far more harm throughout history than good, which is why I want no part of it.

[Shock Troop]

Excuse me for using “he” when referring to God. It’s my belief that God is “like” a father.

Anyways…….

Each individual religion can blame the other until the end of time. Every religion has its own shameful past. It’s not a matter of debate, it’s a historical fact.

The problem isn’t any one religion but religions in general. Religions divide people into separate groups. Each of these groups attempts to prove its closer to God than others. Religious groups have spent more energy pointing fingers, casting stones, and killing in the name of God, than they have EVER spent trying to emulate God.

People now have more faith in books, idols, and self serving religious leaders, than they do in God. Do you honestly think that the most powerful and all-knowing being would rely on things such as books to guarantee the authenticity of his word? You’ll have to forgive me but I think the almighty is smarter than this. As far as I’m concerned most religions spread an image of a stupid, lazy, and prejudice God.

I am not an atheist but I do not bind my loyalty to one religion. Truth is truth, no matter where you find it. If you want to spend your life devoted to words in a book, radical ideas, or doctrines set by men, realize that you are devoting your life to everything else but God.

If you kill for God, you are a fool. You are a lost soul that hasn’t got a single clue about the will of God, and I have pity for you. Do you honestly believe that God can’t do it without you? Who are you to pre-empt God’s judgment or wrath? Is God’s plan not moving fast enough for you? Why force men to your version of God when God has clearly given man free will? While you’re at it, make sure you let God know that he’s been fired and you’ve taken over his job.

In my opinion, there are many GOOD things that religions have in common. Those aspects are common between religions because they are truths. Things like giving, forgiveness, caring, love, and honesty. Concentrate on those truths because they are the only things that endure. Understand that your religion should be YOUR relationship with God based on the answers you have discovered, not what everyone else decides for you. Realize that NO ONE knows all the answers about God and anyone claiming to, is a damned liar.

My 2 cents…

[Damo1977]

The actual statement was,
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."


Like a broken record those Iranian arseclowns keep repeating the old islamic political core-message.

Substitute Iranian for American, and take out the Islamic part we get Mr Bush, :huh: OMG I am American Ally.


Not bad for a small sect that started off in the Arabian peninsula and had no trains or planes to expedite their movement.

You call me Nazi (lol), Avon Lady. I believe you would come close with your true love for Israel, I gather from reading your writings.



It´s the people, not the religion!!!

So true.............


Anyhow,

I HATE NUKES........get rid of them!!!!!!!

[The Avon Lady]

The actual statement was,
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."
I feel better already! :nope:
Substitute Iranian for American, and take out the Islamic part we get Mr Bush, :huh: OMG I am American Ally.
Why? I fail to see the correlation.

Not bad for a small sect that started off in the Arabian peninsula and had no trains or planes to expedite their movement.
You call me Nazi (lol), Avon Lady. I believe you would come close with your true love for Israel, I gather from reading your writings.
Go ahead and base your claim. I don't recall calling you a Nazi. I do recall saying you were an anti-semite and posting your explicitly anti-semitic posts for all to see here.

Go ahead. Put up or shut up.


It´s the people, not the religion!!!

So true.............
So Islam does not advocate holy wars? Conquest of infidel lands? Decapitations? Subjugation and domination of non-Islamic populaces? Death of idol worshipers? Imposition of Islamic Sha'aria law once the possibility arrises? How about lying to deceive infidels?

All of the above?

None of the above?

You seem to know.

[Konovalov]

I think we should spend less time obsessing over Sixpack's generalization and concern ourselves with the Iranian head of state who wants to repeat the Holocaust. :roll:

Neal, If Sixpack confined his post to the topic talking about the Iranian president and Iran's pathetic "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" foreign policy then that would be fine. The problem is he didn't. Instead he used it as a vehicle to vent his unashamed ignorance and hate of muslims. It is the month of Ramadhan and at present I am fasting so I will return to this topic this evening.

Muslims, this is your house, who among you is going to clean it?

What do you mean exactly by this? Could you please expand or clarify on this thanks? For the record as far as I know there are only two Muslims on the Subsim forums, those being myself and Caspofungin. Again, if you could just clarify what you mean by this question?

[Konovalov]

My opinion about this question remains unchanged: It's people who are bad, not the religions or ideas. As long as there is a single muslim who does a peaceful and honourable interpretation of the Islam, and lives in peace with the rest, I will not change my mind. And there is nowadays not a single one, but a large amount of them who show daily how they can live in respect and peace with neighbours from other religions.

Sixpack, don't you really know a single muslim who deserves a different judgement than the one you made at the beginning of this topic? Not a single one? Think about it :)

:up:

Thankyou. :yep: :yep:

[Happy Times]

Thought this would be the hot topic here also, i was right. Clash of the cultures comes one step closer. :know: Cant see how the EU could continue the talks. EU was the last chance for the Iranians to stop the nuclear program. They count that US cant afford a nother war and that EU is too weak to enforce the security councils decisions. I hope that neither is true. :roll:

[Torpedo Fodder]

One thing's for sure, this does not help Iran's case at all if this issue goes before the UN Security Council, especially when all the major EU countries (including permenant UNSC members France and Britain) have now strongly condemned Ahmadinejad's statements. I am beginning to doubt even Russia or China would veto a bill authorizing force against Iran to end it's nuke program if the issue was voted on by the UNSC, which is the only body of the UN that has any power or relevance. Hell, only the permanant members of the USNC have any real power, because the temporary members cannot veto, so they're basically just along for the ride.

[Type941]

that's the thing.

We have a muslim religion that's bordering fascism in certain countries. Yet we are being politically correct about it and get b!tch slapped by these towelheads. There's no money for a second full war like Iraq (and no people). So Iran will keep pushing it's nasty agenda until one day they get nuked for it by americans who ran out of patience to deal with this bullsh*t. That's what it looks like and this is bloody scary.

Man, the world is so complicated. Before if there was this kind of crap - there was war. It was nasty, but it resolved the problems and established a winner and loser. Today it's so different. And fekin towelheads and mullahs do whatever they like, i.e. call for destruction of a country, in the open. Slap the with embargos, and starve them to death. Stop buying their oil, and they can eat their sand, camels and kuskus.

[Hitman]

I am beginning to doubt even Russia or China would veto a bill authorizing force against Iran to end it's nuke program if the issue was voted on by the UNSC, which is the only body of the UN that has any power or relevance.

No I don't agree :down:

China has a special agreement with Iran to get oil from them, and will never allow that the country gets harassed by a war. They will vote "no", and if the US does something in Iran, they will not make an open war to them, but probably an echonomic one (If they release to the market the huge amount of external debt from the US they own, the dollar will collapse and the US will not have capacity to import anything). Iran is well aware of this, that's why they are acting like that.

Russia will probably negotiate a bit....they have their own problems in Thechenja, so they might agree voting for it if the US supports firmly in the UN Putin's antiterrorist campaigns.

Anyway, my belief is that Iran is just trying to make a provocation and abuse from the fact that China supports them. I don't think they will really do anything against Israel, but if an armed conflict starts, it will sure not involve DIRECTLY nor the US or China....it will be some kind of "underground" war. Doing it openly would be too risky, and also unnecessary. :huh:

[Torpedo Fodder]

they will not make an open war to them, but probably an echonomic one (If they release to the market the huge amount of external debt from the US they own, the dollar will collapse and the US will not have capacity to import anything). Iran is well aware of this, that's why they are acting like that.

I doubt very much the Chinese would do that, as they'd be hurting themselves far worse than the US. The Chinese economy is mostly driven by the American consumer, and without US trade, their economy would collapse and their citizens would probably be stuck with North Korea standards of living. China needs the US far more than it needs Iran.

[bradclark1]

I doubt very much the Chinese would do that, as they'd be hurting themselves far worse than the US. The Chinese economy is mostly driven by the American consumer, and without US trade, their economy would collapse and their citizens would probably be stuck with North Korea standards of living. China needs the US far more than it needs Iran.

What he said. Several years ago China got all upset because some wanted to drop China as "Most Favored" trade status. Besides they like Buicks over there now.

[Kapitan]

russia is acctualy supporting bush in the war against terror the chechen rebels are acctualy al quieda terrorists and as soon as bush announced the war putin also said we will fight along with britain.

iran was to have more submarines from russia but russia stopped it russia doesnt agree with iranian polotics and there fore wont trade anything anymore

thats my understanding on it

wether or not it happens another thing

[Type941]

Lavrov said that this is absolutely rediculous thing that this Ahmedinzadzzzanaan said. They did the same thing as other have done, and issued note of protest to the local ambassador. He also said today that if anyone wanted support for taking the whole issue to the security council, now it's much easier in the light of what was said, and it put their credibility (what credibility) about nukes into another perspective. I think the whole thing came in as a shock to Russia as much as it did to the US.

There is definately something's going on, because all of a sudden this thing's happening, while for like 30 years nothing of this nature was said in public. But this guy just went out onto this Anti Zionist World Forum and said wipe it off the face of the earth (Israel). IT's very interesting because I don't want to underestimate and just say the guy is an idiot and racial moron. So it has to be a political move. To test how far the west will go? To test it for others to see?

And yes, Russia should get it's sh*t together and knock it off with the Iran energy stuff, its just money, short term, what's Iran as a LT partner ? - a backstabbing muslim/fascism state. Bleh. (would be a bit bizzare but imagine if tomorrow Israel just does a 'strike' on them, takes out that loud mouth president of theirs' and that's that.)

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) They've been fighting from the beginning of time and they'll fight to the end of time, or until they're all gone. It's really not worth the amount of media attention it gets as it doesn't affect our day to day lives.

[Onkel Neal]

I think we should spend less time obsessing over Sixpack's generalization and concern ourselves with the Iranian head of state who wants to repeat the Holocaust. :roll:


Neal, If Sixpack confined his post to the topic talking about the Iranian president and Iran's pathetic "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" foreign policy then that would be fine. The problem is he didn't. Instead he used it as a vehicle to vent his unashamed ignorance and hate of muslims. It is the month of Ramadhan and at present I am fasting so I will return to this topic this evening.

Talk about unashamed ignorance, if it wasn't for the ignorance of massive regions of the Middle East--mainly Muslims--we wouldn't be dealing with this ****. After decades of Muslims swearing their love of Allah and murdering thousands of innocent people in suicide attacks, many of us infidels are getting fed up with it. Basically, people here are beginning to fight hate with hate, tolerance is not going to last forever, you know.

Muslims, this is your house, who among you is going to clean it?


What do you mean exactly by this? Could you please expand or clarify on this thanks? For the record as far as I know there are only two Muslims on the Subsim forums, those being myself and Caspofungin. Again, if you could just clarify what you mean by this question?

I mean you peace-loving and educated Muslims better put a lid on the nutcases who are bringing down your religion. If Iran attacks Israel, the US will pull the gloves off, we all know that.

[Onkel Neal]

China has a special agreement with Iran to get oil from them, and will never allow that the country gets harassed by a war. They will vote "no", and if the US does something in Iran, they will not make an open war to them, but probably an echonomic one (If they release to the market the huge amount of external debt from the US they own, the dollar will collapse and the US will not have capacity to import anything). Iran is well aware of this, that's why they are acting like that.

Anyway, my belief is that Iran is just trying to make a provocation and abuse from the fact that China supports them. I don't think they will really do anything against Israel, but if an armed conflict starts, it will sure not involve DIRECTLY nor the US or China....it will be some kind of "underground" war. Doing it openly would be too risky, and also unnecessary. :huh:

I don't know, mate. This kind of thing could easily spiral into nuclear war. It would be a lot better if the civilized countries could stop wasting time and agree to impose limits on nuclear proliferation. This is dangerous ground.

[retired1212]

honestly saying..both parties should have nukes. Then they can threaten each other as much as they want :D

Welcome to the jungle
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You'll take it eventually
You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me

Oh! this is a good animation:
http://www.antimult.ru/antimults/antitoons/001smokekills/antimult011-smokekills.swf

06:00 and now time for sleep :zzz:

[Konovalov]

I think we should spend less time obsessing over Sixpack's generalization and concern ourselves with the Iranian head of state who wants to repeat the Holocaust. :roll:


Neal, If Sixpack confined his post to the topic talking about the Iranian president and Iran's pathetic "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" foreign policy then that would be fine. The problem is he didn't. Instead he used it as a vehicle to vent his unashamed ignorance and hate of muslims. It is the month of Ramadhan and at present I am fasting so I will return to this topic this evening.

Talk about unashamed ignorance, if it wasn't for the ignorance of massive regions of the Middle East--mainly Muslims--we wouldn't be dealing with this ****. After decades of Muslims swearing their love of Allah and murdering thousands of innocent people in suicide attacks, many of us infidels are getting fed up with it. Basically, people here are beginning to fight hate with hate, tolerance is not going to last forever, you know.

Thanks for the admission. But the old schoolyard excuse, "He started it or did it first" doesn't cut it for me. I doubt that Islamaphobia, intolerance, and hate is going to solve the problem but then again I guess for some its the easiest and the weakest thing to do.

Muslims, this is your house, who among you is going to clean it?


What do you mean exactly by this? Could you please expand or clarify on this thanks? For the record as far as I know there are only two Muslims on the Subsim forums, those being myself and Caspofungin. Again, if you could just clarify what you mean by this question?

I mean you peace-loving and educated Muslims better put a lid on the nutcases who are bringing down your religion. If Iran attacks Israel, the US will pull the gloves off, we all know that.

This problem was years in the making. You ask Muslims to put a lid on these nutcases? How can you expect a problem like this to just be solved by us in no time. This is going to take years to sort out. There are no bandaid solutions. You can either try to support us in dealing with this issue or you can take the easy route as exhibited by people like Sixpack. I remember when Caspofungin introduced himself on the forum you made a comment that it is good to have some people from Middle Eastern or Muslim backgrounds on this forum. I doubt though that this diversity in people is going to grow though with some of the discourse on this forum. Sad really.

[Damo1977]

My vote?

Let Iran attack Israel with everything it has....


... but take the kid gloves off of Israel and let those boys have their fun, anyone remember the Six day war??? :rock:

I ask one question......Are you on the one going to serve on the front line?



I don't know, mate. This kind of thing could easily spiral into nuclear war. It would be a lot better if the civilized countries could stop wasting time and agree to impose limits on nuclear proliferation. This is dangerous ground.

So now the Americans are stealing 'mate' from us Aussies like the 'Ugg boots' :-j

On a serious note, I would like to ask what is a 'civilised country'? I know to me it is living in a western democratic country, like you Mr. Stevens. But to others it maybe different, it depends on what you grow up with IMHO. Also how can you really stop another nation developing nuclear weapons, when Mr Bush was talking about developing new and also using them like the 'Bunkerbuster'.

Look I know I sound like a broken record, I don't hate you Americans, but who else is there to talk about. Ain't going to say you are like 'Rome', the problem begins with the Russians, the Russians they don't do much except die in a drunken vodka mess since '91, the Germans don't even know what has happened to them since '45 as Cartman says "Beep tree loving hippies." The French well they keep getting stomped on, but keep eating swamp food (snails and frogs!), maybe that is the problem. And than come the bloody English, who gave them the right to build the 'Greatest Empire'. Did you? Did I? I reckon not, especially since they stole Ashes off us!!! Only Crims come from England!!!

West Indies v Queensland
WI 3/300 +
(is it the time of the mighty West Indies back?)

[Damo1977]

I was making no comparisons. Quite the contrary, I made up that example precicely because it is unfair - that was my point. Just like it's unfair to point to Iran and say, "THAT's what Islam is like", or to bring up Muslim expansion in the first millennium as a pointer to modern Islamic practices.

Muslims very often mention the Crusades as justification for all kinds of anti western activities so why isn't turnabout fair play?

:rotfl: Which race or country don't cry about history when things have gone wrong for an entire people? :hmm: Lets see

Anyhow as a practicing Atheist (yes I am Heathen), I couldn't really give a crap about your religion. If you want to play 'religious wars' (the biggest fairytale is religion) go frig off to another planet (make sure it is inhospitable) cause your hatred passes to the next generation.

And AVON LADY, I ain't anti-semite either......I hate religion full stop!! For religion brands people, and 'normal' people have the same beliefs. And actually since that night :oops: , been doing abit of reserach and watching programs about Israel (am I getting ill :D) . 'The Two Caves' I think the story is called, where the Romans built a fort on a cliff and waited for the few remaining Judeans who had escaped from the smashing of the great temple and fortress of Judea. (see the Jews always causing troubles, caused another revolt :P ). Anyhow I learnt that land should be actually name Judea, not Palestine, Palestine is basically from when the ROmans smashed the lands and drove the Jewish peoples away.

[jumpy]

Some interesting viewpoints here...
some of which I can understand, some not.
Here in the UK there is a growing trend to sacrifice rules and beliefs of the denizens of this land to the all powerful god of PC. This is particularily the case (or so it sometimes seems in the press) where 'minorities' are concerned rofl -reality check- who are the minorities in say, Birmingham or Bradford? not the muslims or pakistanis anymore that's for sure... not that this really matters much to me either way, it's just a point of clarification.
However, there is one thing which really pisses me off, allow me to explain: When I lived if a foreign country (Bahrain) it was my choice to respect local laws and customs of the land- when in rome, and all that. If you behaved appropriately you could stay and enjoy the hospitality of that land for as long as you wished; rock the boat and they'd deport you as soon as look at you, which in my estimation is a fair way to do business. I cannot imagine being allowed to publicly demand with plackards, for the death of the Emir of Bahrain, in the same way some here cry for the death of Blair, without some serious repercussions.
Question: why does this attitude no longer exish in the UK? how is it that any old tom, dick, or akhbar can come to my country and use to their advantage the laws protecting its citizens right to freedom of speech and expression, to promote hatred and to undermine the local status quo, and when anybody shouts STFU! they call the race card or hide under some leftie liberal mantle of political correctness?
This makes no sense. Indeed such aggressive people only see our freedom to say and do more or less as we please as weakness to be exploited to their own ends- how typical of those who live under the yoke of oppression (in whatever form, be it religious fundamentalism, or political extremism) to view something they have not, as something to look down on and to be taken advantage of.
How is any of this relevent?
Well, for a long time I have been serously reserved in my judjment of others and their actions, after all what right do I have to say how they should live their lives? This is changing- given the current world climate and trouble with radical islam, this is hardly supprising. Neal says who among the muslim community is going to clean their own house of those who give them a bad name? For sure this is not something we in the 'west' can advocate or promote overtly lest it be deemed as some kind of anti muslim sentiment to be resisted by 'our muslim brothers accross the world to stand against the infadel oppressors'. Yet as time goes on, I am tired of tip-toeing around people who would (to all intents and purposes) pass a sharp blade accross my throat in the name of islam, without a second thought.
Why should I, when walking through my home town of Leicester minding my own business, accept abuse and racist comments from a bunch of 'local' muslim lads calling me "white fu**er" and "christian dog" in leicestershire accents and listen the the vitreolic statements from so called 'muslim leaders' about how the faithful masses are going to rise up and overthrow the established rule of law and institute a 'muslim nation' in my country? what is so wrong here that this is deemed acceptable? Were it the other way round with me spouting the abuse, there would be an outcry about hatred and rights, but because it's a 'minority voice' we have to put up with their despite in the name of fairness- this is no minority anymore, it's a large proportion of the community here in the UK, one in which we should take steps to curb fannatical and offensive statments, just like any other section of the peoples of this country.
Is it really so supprising that the majority of moderate, civilised muslim devotees are being tarred with the same brush as the nutters? Afterall, is doing nothing to halt or prevent outbursts of such hatred and violence a tacit agreement to the overall cause? certainly there are plenty of people here who, rightly or wrongly, are starting to come around to this point of view.
There's always plenty of shouting when the question of race or antisemitism is envolved to the point where if an oppinion which differs or is controversial is aired, the speaker is accused of being a nazi or a fascist "wo*-hater" (I don't use this language to offend or infer my own personal feelings, it's yet another 'comment' I was on the recieving end of from those 'local lads' from my above paragraph. It could be said that I find such comments directed to wards me as racist and antisocial as anything to come out of the BNP recently).
All of this is symptomatic of the breakdown in relations between communities and within communities. Maybe I'm using the wrong words here, but where is the public jihad, in the muslim world at large, against radical, extremist islam? I cannot see it. Nor do I believe it will be forthcoming in the near future from the leaders who can really have an impact on the situation. Such sabre rattling as has come out of Iran recently is a clear indicatior of this.
I don't hate muslims, I don't really hate anybody (except perhaps and ex girlfriend of mine who lied and cheated on me :roll: but that's another story), but I can't see any real end or solution in appeasment of radicals (be they muslim, christian, jew, or other) in the hope that they'll be satisfied when the get what they want... *newsflash* they'll never be satisfied. Until we stamp them out the world will never be safe from bloodletting and suffering- whatever way I look at it, I don't like either choice; do nothing and suffer or take action and suffer. pfft I'm all for educating the ignorant, but some people are ignorant by choice and there is no changing them or enlightening their thoughts towards others and their beliefs.
As Superintendant Chalmers says: "Religion has no place within these walls!"
It's my position that the world should start taking notice and do something about sorting itself out, and soon, starting with the arab world first- wakeup and smell the coffe boys, you don't live in the dark-ages any more (I might add the same sentiment to anyone who is overly zealous in their religious duties or moves countries to 'support' their brethren in any religious endeavour or land dispute).


Only Crims come from England!!!
lol Damo, but remember, we packed all of our miscreants of to ZO where they belong centuries ago, :lol: surely that has to count for something? :rotfl: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

And AVON LADY, I ain't anti-semite either......I hate religion full stop!!
You are one big contradiction. Here's what I received from you in my PM inbox several weeks ago. Maybe it will refresh your memory:

GO CRY TO THE AMERICANS...............U JEWS ARE PATHETIC........WE GAVE U A CHANCE, US ROMAN CATHOLICS.........WE ALSO NOTICED YOU TRY TO SHRINK OUR WRITING...............GIVE YOU ANOTHER BUT ................

Not only is it anti-Semitic, it shows your positive affiliation with your own religion, while you've just claimed here that you "hate religion full stop".
For religion brands people, and 'normal' people have the same beliefs.
Rhetoric.
And actually since that night :oops: , been doing abit of reserach and watching programs about Israel (am I getting ill :D) . 'The Two Caves' I think the story is called, where the Romans built a fort on a cliff and waited for the few remaining Judeans who had escaped from the smashing of the great temple and fortress of Judea. (see the Jews always causing troubles, caused another revolt :P ). Anyhow I learnt that land should be actually name Judea, not Palestine, Palestine is basically from when the ROmans smashed the lands and drove the Jewish peoples away.
Indeed, the term Palestine was give by Rome's brutal general, Titus, to the land of Judea and Samaria when the Romans wanted to obliterate a Jewish connection to their homeland. He turned to his historians and asked the worst enemy of the Jews. When Titus learned the worst enemy was the Philistines, he renamed the area Palestine or Philistine.

[tycho102]

Regarding the original topic:

I like how Chirac called the Iranian statement "totally irresponsible". First rule of "diplomacy", don't talk about your actual goal. Second rule of "diplomacy", don't talk about your actual goal. The only irresponsible act the President of Iran made was to talk about their actual goal. By French reckoning, it seems you can do whatever you want just as long as it never makes the newspapers.

And then there's the spin-off:

On Friday the Iranian Embassy in Moscow tried to soften the impact of Ahmadinejad's comment.
"Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict," the embassy said in a statement following the international criticism.
It added that Ahmadinejad "underlined the key position of
Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel;_ylt=A0SOwkQnHWJDpqAAWA.s0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

It's like when the Mullahs are giving a speech to their own people, inside of a Tehran mosque, and they say "it's our right to persue nuclear weapons". If it accidently hits the satellite and that broadcast is beamed to every other nation on the planet, they shut down the broadcast station responsible for actually filming the sermon. Then they have their ambassadors spin it as out-of-context "peaceful power production".


Use our democracy against our democracy. I guess you can't really fight democracy with democracy.

[Sixpack]

[quote="jumpy"]Is it really so supprising that the majority of moderate, civilised muslim devotees are being tarred with the same brush as the nutters? Afterall, is doing nothing to halt or prevent outbursts of such hatred and violence a tacit agreement to the overall cause? [/quote="jumpy"]

Thanks for sharing your story and your opinion, Jumpy. In answer to your rethorical question: No, it is no surprise. I am beginning to allow myself to firmly believe that the so called moderates are having the best of both worlds: Enjoy our high economical standards and thinking: "Heh, I am doing okay like this. And if my muslim brothers in the HOLY-ME are one day taking over world power, my good muslim family will welcome it. We will have paved the way so to speak. Either way we win. Allah Akhbar !"

Disclaimer: Like my sig states: I am a k.i.s.s. apostle and one could write volumes on this issue. I am not interested in a debate with Konovalov and Damo. Only people who have both a rational and intuitive understanding of the issue, and are liberated from PC, can grasp this. I am happy to see the Un-PCness is spreading throughout the West. Maybe it's not too late to collectively clean up the mess as much as possible or at least limit the virus to spread further...

[quote="jumpy"]
All of this is symptomatic of the breakdown in relations between communities and within communities. [/quote="jumpy"]

Yep, and I personally dont think we natives are primarily to blame for the apartheid between natives and immigrants. However I do blame our hippy-politicans from the 60-ies onward for being grossly naive. Also the Iron Curtain has an extra negative dimension for me, for without it Europe would have obviously developed better. The massive need for an islamic labor force would no doubt have been much smaller.

In the core the problem we are having in the West with primarily 'our' muslims is:
For a muslim there is basically only one distinction in life: Allah's/Mohammed's set of rules and the infidel's 'living in sin' unapproved of by Allah (jews, christians, atheists etc.). Guess in which camp we natives are projected ? Now who is generalizing ? We can not fully trust the muslim communities. Our governments are finally making harsher policy. And let me tell Konovalov, that's not because Sixpack told the PM he should do something about the hate preaching imams who are abusing our basic rights to forward radical intolerant crap straight from Iran, SA, Marrocco and what have you.

And on a final note, that moron in my class: As a teacher I would not have him in my class after his gross insult which expressed volumes about his deeper feelings and disrespect toward non-muslims (this teacher is not doing this to make money). Maybe he'll make the headlines a few years from now, after obtaining his navigation certificate: "Terrorist cell hijacks oil tanker on the North Sea and blows it up in industrial "Europoort" Rotterdam".

Okay, that's enough from me for now. Have a nice day :sunny:

[Kissaki]

In the core the problem we are having in the West with primarily 'our' muslims is:
For a muslim there is basically only one distinction in life: Allah's/Mohammed's set of rules and the infidel's 'living in sin' unapproved of by Allah (jews, christians, atheists etc.). Guess in which camp we natives are projected ? Now who is generalizing ?


I fail to see how this is any different from what anyone else is doing. Christians believe you go to hell if you don't accept Christ as your saviour, but that doesn't mean they bear this in mind when socializing with non-Christians. The same applies to Muslims: it's not like they look down on their non-Muslim neighbours and think, "you're gonna FRY, wretch". They are people, just like us. Sure, there are Muslims who have a disdain for non-Muslims, just as there are Christians who have a disdain for non-Christians. But I wager they're in a minority in both camps.


And on a final note, that moron in my class: As a teacher I would not have him in my class after his gross insult which expressed volumes about his deeper feelings and disrespect toward non-muslims (this teacher is not doing this to make money). Maybe he'll make the headlines a few years from now, after obtaining his navigation certificate: "Terrorist cell hijacks oil tanker on the North Sea and blows it up in industrial "Europoort" Rotterdam".


I still don't see what he said that was so insulting. His statement was in reaction to something he did not think possible, and in that light I find it perfectly reasonable. How would you react if a Satanist told you he had dinner with the Pope dressed in full goth attire?

Furthermore, it is a teacher's job to educate, not discriminate. Prejudice in a teacher is the worst kind, and as a teacher let me say that you won't last long if you bruise easy. I cannot sympathize with your decision to refuse to teach anyone based on your personal feelings of toward an individual. If you are unable to establish positive contact, fine - give him another teacher. But to exclude someone because of ego is not something a good teacher would do. Shouldn't you rather feel all the more motivated to teach him? What is a teacher if he doesn't improve people?

[August]

And I would venture to say that the tolerance Muslims enjoy in several Christian countries (I'll defend my use of the term further down) is equally just tokenism. There are plenty of people like you who only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law.

"People like me"? I thought you were the champion of civil discussion here, I guess you don't practice what you preach. FYI you have no clue what or who i'd tolerate or welcome in my country so don't try to act like you do.

But I would call any country with a clear majority of Christians a Christian country. The US is a prime example, particularly when considering the Bible belt. How much tolerance for Islam do you find there?

Probably a lot more than you are willing to believe. Heck we won't even target people that look middle eastern at our airport security because racial profiling is against the law.

Actually, I remember now, you're right. Christians also used the word "pagan" for anyone not belonging to the book faiths.

That was true at one time but if you're willing to look back far enough you could also find examples of Christians burning accused witches at the stake. That doesn't make it valid in the modern sense though.

This is true, but you must also take into consideration that in modern history they have become very defensive because of Western foreign policies, and they perceive us as wanting to impose our way of life on them. That's why they fear our "decadence"; for the same reason we feared Communism during the Cold War (and especially during the McCarthy period).

Define "they" Mister Expert. Are you talking about the Muslim terrorist or Muslim businessman, Muslim college student attending western universities, Muslim breadmaker or Muslim Politician/member of their nobility?

Nothing, not a McDonalds, rerun of the Simpsons or a single bottle of Coca Cola makes it into those countries without the blessing of their rulers. If anyone is imposing "our" (another overgeneralization) way of life on "them" it's their own people, not "us".

[Kissaki]

And I would venture to say that the tolerance Muslims enjoy in several Christian countries (I'll defend my use of the term further down) is equally just tokenism. There are plenty of people like you who only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law.

"People like me"? I thought you were the champion of civil discussion here, I guess you don't practice what you preach. FYI you have no clue what or who i'd tolerate or welcome in my country so don't try to act like you do.


I apologize, the sentence was ill-phrased. I honestly didn't mean to offend, but there's not many ways to write "people like you" without it sounding offensive. Please allow me to rephrase myself: There are plenty of people who, like you, only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law. And you have to admit, you have said plenty in this thread alone to demonstrate your lack of tolerance for Islam and its followers.

EDIT: I'm terribly sorry, I just checked and realized that it was SixPack, not you, who started this thread. Because of your post-counts your avatars are the same, and I'm used to recognizing forumites by their avatars. My bad.

Probably a lot more than you are willing to believe. Heck we won't even target people that look middle eastern at our airport security because racial profiling is against the law.


I get the feeling from your words here that if it was up to you, there would be. And I know there are many who would welcome it. Governments tend to be more level-headed than the people they govern, though. I remember immediately after 911, anyone with a turban was a murderer, and some (I grant you, not many to my knowledge) mosques were attacked. But Bush had to make a public statement almost immediately telling America that such retribution was not tolerated.


That was true at one time but if you're willing to look back far enough you could also find examples of Christians burning accused witches at the stake. That doesn't make it valid in the modern sense though.


Didn't say it was, mate. But on the same token, the "infidel" cliché isn't valid for all Muslims, either.

This is true, but you must also take into consideration that in modern history they have become very defensive because of Western foreign policies, and they perceive us as wanting to impose our way of life on them. That's why they fear our "decadence"; for the same reason we feared Communism during the Cold War (and especially during the McCarthy period).

Define "they" Mister Expert. Are you talking about the Muslim terrorist or Muslim businessman, Muslim college student attending western universities, Muslim breadmaker or Muslim Politician/member of their nobility?


By "they" I naturally mean those who want to - or feel the need to - fight back. That bill fits eg. the Al Qaeda, the Iranian government and anyone who believes their propaganda.


Nothing, not a McDonalds, rerun of the Simpsons or a single bottle of Coca Cola makes it into those countries without the blessing of their rulers. If anyone is imposing "our" (another overgeneralization) way of life on "them" it's their own people, not "us".

When it comes to those examples, then yes. But Iraq was, for example, subject to a debilitating embargo which caused a humanitarian crisis, plus they had little alternative but to trade its oil with the West. Sure you may argue that "Saddam started it", but the average Iraqi citizen just knew where the embargo came from.

[August]

EDIT: I'm terribly sorry, I just checked and realized that it was SixPack, not you, who started this thread. Because of your post-counts your avatars are the same, and I'm used to recognizing forumites by their avatars. My bad.

No problem i've nearly done the same thing myself more than once.

I get the feeling from your words here that if it was up to you, there would be.

Well you're wrong. Racial profiling is a bad thing because of its potential for abuse. On the other hand in our zeal to avoid any appearance of such impropriety our airport security wastes valuable time and resources strip searching little old ladies, members of Congress and detaining octegenarian retired Airforce general, medal of honor winners from Texas. All i'd want is to see is some common sense applied when selecting which airline passengers should be scrutinized more closely.

And I know there are many who would welcome it. Governments tend to be more level-headed than the people they govern, though. I remember immediately after 911, anyone with a turban was a murderer, and some (I grant you, not many to my knowledge) mosques were attacked. But Bush had to make a public statement almost immediately telling America that such retribution was not tolerated.

Here in Providence, on 9-11, a couple of hours after the attack, the cops detained a Sikh for a short time, reportedly because of the ceremonial knife he was carrying, but more likely because of his appearance, primarily the turban he was wearing, so there is some truth in that. However, some over reactions on the part of individuals is just human nature and is to be expected in any emergency situation. The true test is how the government and people as a whole deal and discourage such things.

On the whole I thought the US did a good job of respecting the rights of Muslims throughout that entire period. Contrast that with an unsubstanciated report of disrespecting a Koran by a Guantanamo guard that results in mass riots and demonstrations by 10s of thousands across the middle east, resulting in the death and injury of westerners who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Didn't say it was, mate. But on the same token, the "infidel" cliché isn't valid for all Muslims, either.

Unfortunately it's valid for enough of them that organizations like al quaeda and others are tolerated and recieve fairly large amounts of support, right up to and including at the governmental level.

When it comes to those examples, then yes. But Iraq was, for example, subject to a debilitating embargo which caused a humanitarian crisis, plus they had little alternative but to trade its oil with the West. Sure you may argue that "Saddam started it", but the average Iraqi citizen just knew where the embargo came from.

I disagree. Saddam did more than start it, he deliberately created that humanitarian crisis in order to put pressure on the west, by redirecting and withholding the humanitarian aid the west was rendering to ease the suffering of the Iraq people. Far from blaming the coalition, I think Iraqi citizens like the Kurds and the Shiites knew exactly who was the real cause of their misery.

[Hitman]

I think that this discussion is missing an important point: Not all the muslims are the same. You can't say that automatically all muslims do this or that just because the Iranian president said that nonesense, or because Al Qaeda commited the horrible terrorism acts they did. Even if the muslim doctrine (And I must remember here that there are several different interpretations of Quran) said this all, you should at least distinguish between those who follow it strictly and those who don't.

Come on guys, one of the most terrible errors one can commit is to put a large group of people in the same bag and label them independently of their daily behaviour. :nope: The fact that the Iranian president is an as***ole doesn't mean that literally thousands of muslims who live among us here in Europe are potential terrorists.....

Be more reasonable. The first thing the radicals want you all to do is see an enemy in every muslim. That way they can recruit more terrorists, grown up by that hate. Do not follow that game!! :stare:

Neal Stevens wrote:

I don't know, mate. This kind of thing could easily spiral into nuclear war. It would be a lot better if the civilized countries could stop wasting time and agree to impose limits on nuclear proliferation. This is dangerous ground.

If Vietnam and Korea wars did not trigger a nuclear war between US and USSR, this will not do. Unlike in that cold war era, China and US are mutually dependant and will not enter a direct conflict easily. And in any case, nuclear weapons are always last resource for the looser in case his homeland is theratened. But the US would never dare think about invading China. It would be impossibel to control that country....

I believe we are nowadays safer from the nuclear danger than ever since Hiroshima & Nagasaki :yep: .

[Iceman]

I think about 10 - 25 years from now, this will all come to a boiling point. All the major players on both sides will have WMD, and will get down to business of solving this centuries old conflict for good.

I think you hit the nail on the head here my friend....maybe sooner...


Matthew 24
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Where's my animated nuclear xplosion gif? >>>
http://www.aracing.tmfweb.nl/design/Drawings/ExtremeNuke.gif

[Type941]

I think that this discussion is missing an important point: Not all the muslims are the same. You can't say that automatically all muslims do this or that just because the Iranian president said that nonesense, ....

Come on guys, one of the most terrible errors one can commit is to put a large group of people in the same bag and label them independently of their daily behaviour. :nope: The fact that the Iranian president is an as***ole doesn't mean that literally thousands of muslims who live among us here in Europe are potential terrorists.....

Be more reasonable. .

Here's my reason.

I'm sick and fed up quite frankly with this voice of reason that says what you say. Oh, not all muslims are the same, etc. Okey dokey, but they chose not to do anything about their radical 'collegues'. Well **** that. They are all the same than. Muslims, arabs (the ones that live 'over there in middle east') are probably the most racist nations there are. They used to be all about math and sciences thousands years ago, but now it's all about holy jihad against the Infidels.

And if they aren't waging jihad - they are quetly supporting it!!! Ok, on individual level people are different, unique and nice. But guess what - overall they give an impression of a nasty group of people who are anti christian, anti european, anti white, anti capitalist.. eh, of course, anti-jew. I'm sick of this political correctness bullsh*t when all we do is afraid to name the problem - muslim religion - and put the blame on people and countries that follow it - certain arab countries and arabs. It is a cultural clash. It is. Why do the arabs and muslims feel they are so important that they can come here to Europe for jobs that aren't there, dictate their laws, and get offended if they aren't allowed to pray in mosques. Go back to Arabia and do all you like, but if you go to European country - have some damn respect for the laws of that country, its religion, and its people. Afterall, they are that way in arab coutries. My friend worked there for Porsche dealership for a few months, and in general, it was like this "If you do this - you are screwed, If you look at woman - you are screwd, if you do that - you go to jail, and so on and on' (Dubai). So it beggs the question - why does a foreigner has to follow rules when coming to arabia, but they arabs when coming to Europe want to live in their own way anyway.

Sorry, pack the camels and get the hell out if you can't accept local laws. If someone doesn't take a stand against this 'cultural' clash, there will be an all muslim world, no israel, and my kids will be writing right to left. Racist, anti-semitic, disrespectful to women, and inciting violence - that's Muslim religion in 2005. And I don't care what Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it! Why is fascism not ok, but these bastards mullahs in UK are ok? Ship them all out to where they've come from.

That's concerning the lack of any inability to shut up this towelhead from Iran. Oh let's be politically correct and 'issue a diplomatic nota'. Bleh. They are laughing their arses off right now at all this 'international outrage'. We are so much in the pre WW2 state where everyone was afraid to say anything to Hitler. The one that was bluffing like hell.

PS> I lived among arbas and muslims. And I interracted with many. So I'm not JUST using some 'common' stereotype before you brand me as racist. I'm not. I base my view on real life experienes.

Finally, wihtout ever getting into history, OMG what has the TINY Israel done to piss off so many arab nations that they want it gone!!! Ok, the US is big and got armies all over the world, sponsoring governtment revolutions, overthrowing dictators, interferering pretty much into every countries policies, but for the life of me, why the tiny Israel causes so much hatred! They haven't nuked anyone, haven't killed 1000000million people in death camps.... All the seemingly have done is (arguably) displaced a small tiny nation, and kicked some ass in the 60s. And they are sponsored by US. And they like to eat Kosher food. I've never heard a single logic reason behind why Israel is so bad. All I see is unshaven, dirty men, screaming out of their lungs and burning flags, but how can such small nation cause so much hatred is beyond my understanding. Surely something theat happened 2000 years ago isn't a reason for it.

So in conclusion - they are all idiots. They have tons of natural resources, yet they live in mud houses. That's gotta be our fault. :nope:

[Onkel Neal]

PS: I have nothing against you, Konovalov.

[Kissaki]

I'm sick and fed up quite frankly with this voice of reason that says what you say. Oh, not all muslims are the same, etc. Okey dokey, but they chose not to do anything about their radical 'collegues'.[quote]

What do you expect them to do? What can they do? After a bombing caused by Muslim radicals, the Muslims are always the first to denounce it. I have noticed this gets very little media coverage, though, and takes up even less space in people's memories. I've heard people say, "if they don't approve of these suicide bombers, why don't they speak up against it?" Then I point to various news articles demonstrating that they do just that, and the argument becomes, "well, of course they say they're against it," implying that "that's what any guilty person would do". No matter what the law-abiding Muslims do, they can't win, because the media invariably focuses on the Muslims that hate the West. You'll never see a headline about Muslims who never do anything wrong. That wouldn't sell papers, and it's not news. So people are given the false impression that we're infested with terrorists. People can't see the forest for bare trees.

What more than denounce the atrocities can Muslims do, anyway? The ones living in the west have no power of any kind in Muslim countries, and even those living in Muslim countries can do little to weed out terrorist organizations and aggressive nations like Iran. How can the Algerian people stop the Iranian government?

[quote]
And if they aren't waging jihad - they are quetly supporting it!!!


"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC." :roll:


Ok, on individual level people are different, unique and nice. But guess what - overall they give an impression of a nasty group of people who are anti christian, anti european, anti white, anti capitalist.. eh, of course, anti-jew.

And whose fault is that? The media. Individually, none of us have enough first-hand experience to form an educated opinion on Muslims as a whole.


I'm sick of this political correctness bullsh*t when all we do is afraid to name the problem - muslim religion - and put the blame on people and countries that follow it - certain arab countries and arabs. It is a cultural clash. It is. Why do the arabs and muslims feel they are so important that they can come here to Europe for jobs that aren't there, dictate their laws, and get offended if they aren't allowed to pray in mosques. Go back to Arabia and do all you like, but if you go to European country - have some damn respect for the laws of that country, its religion, and its people. Afterall, they are that way in arab coutries. My friend worked there for Porsche dealership for a few months, and in general, it was like this "If you do this - you are screwed, If you look at woman - you are screwd, if you do that - you go to jail, and so on and on' (Dubai). So it beggs the question - why does a foreigner has to follow rules when coming to arabia, but they arabs when coming to Europe want to live in their own way anyway.


Certain things are illegal here, certain things are illegal there. And particularly considering the totalitarian regimes of such countries as Iran, are you surprised? And maybe that's why they're here in the first place, to escape oppression?

There is no basis for blaming it squarely on religion. All over the world, religious practice is influenced greatly by culture. And not all things associated with Islam has anything to do with religion, either. The burka, for instance. The Qaran does not tell women to cover up, that's purely a cultural thing. I've asked about the reason, and was given this reply: "We cover up our women because as everybody knows, the man is weak to the pleasures of the flesh. Showing too much is just inviting men to temptation."

And why shouldn't they be allowed to pray in mosques, anyway? Christians can pray in churches. There's supposed to be religious freedom in the West, so it is their right.


Sorry, pack the camels and get the hell out if you can't accept local laws. If someone doesn't take a stand against this 'cultural' clash, there will be an all muslim world, no israel, and my kids will be writing right to left. Racist, anti-semitic, disrespectful to women, and inciting violence - that's Muslim religion in 2005. And I don't care what Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it! Why is fascism not ok, but these bastards mullahs in UK are ok? Ship them all out to where they've come from.


You just argued my point, there. "I don't care what the Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it!" Then how can you blame it on Islam, if Islam is not being followed? Those negative things you mention are all culturally dependant, and are created by custom - not religion. Culture dictates religion, not the other way around, which is observed in Christian practice as well. Here in Norway, we traditionally place a bowl of porridge in the barn on Xmas eve for Santa (a pre-Christian ritual where we would sacrifice to the family's ancestral spirit). In Japan they crucify Santa. If religion was such a uniform thing, we would see uniform behaviour all over Europe and all over the US as a result, but we don't. It's not Christianity's fault if its teachings are not being followed, so why blame Islam when people are not following Islam?



PS> I lived among arbas and muslims. And I interracted with many. So I'm not JUST using some 'common' stereotype before you brand me as racist. I'm not. I base my view on real life experienes.


That's the problem, you base your views on your experiences. But I've had different experiences than you have, so how can you use yours to generalize? Londoners are Englishmen, but are all Englishmen like Londoners? If one has only been to London, that's the impression one would get, but it's not accurate.


Finally, wihtout ever getting into history, OMG what has the TINY Israel done to pee off so many arab nations that they want it gone!!! Ok, the US is big and got armies all over the world, sponsoring governtment revolutions, overthrowing dictators, interferering pretty much into every countries policies, but for the life of me, why the tiny Israel causes so much hatred! They haven't nuked anyone, haven't killed 1000000million people in death camps.... All the seemingly have done is (arguably) displaced a small tiny nation, and kicked some ass in the 60s. And they are sponsored by US.

There you have it, right there. First of all, naturally Muslim nations are going to side with Palestine. Then they see the mighty US supporting Israel. Not to mention the way modern Israel was founded. I can understand why Muslims would be upset, especially because of the US support.

[Abraham]

I have had it with that crazy religion. Retarded and moronic.
It´s the people, not the religion!!!
It's the people AND the religion.

Anyway, there is nothing new under the sun (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502). :nope:
Wise words, Avon Lady!

We might understand the relation between the three religions involved a little bit better when we generalize a little bit and consider this:

The Jewish religion has strict rules and commands for everydays life. It is not a missionary religion.
The Christian religion was in the very beginning not much more but the Jewish religion, accepting Christ as the Messiah and adapted for non-Jews.
It dropped the rules (Love fullfils the Law) of Judaism. Because of its target group it is a missionary religion. It was a minority religion in a vast state; the Roman Empire.
The Islam came about 600 years later. It was the religion of a small Arab tribe in a stateless desert. It much from the other two religions, like a strict set of rules and commands from Judaism and the missionary character from Christianity.

Furthermore we should realise that mankind tends to fight between themselves and that it is an interesting but unsolved question whether religion promotes fighting or limits fighting that would have happened anyway...

Judaism had no interest of spreading all over the glode and converting others. It basicly says: Let us alone and we won't bother you. Under that condition religious Jews are quite capable to integrate in other and modern societies. In their own country, Israel, they fight of course fierce battles about the relation between State and Religion.

Christianity could spread over much of the globe without too many problems and violence (some mostly state-induced, but still surprisingly little) because one could convert in one's soul and continue living as an integrated part of one's historic society. Just stick to the Ten Commands and accept the authority of the state, as long as it gives you the basic freedoms that Christianity needs. This finally led to the modern concept on separation between State and Church, to the benefit of both.

Islam is missionary but imposes a strict set of rules upon others, the Sharia, the strict Quranic law. Since Islam was conceived in a stateless society it has some state-like features itself: the Sharia supersedes all local legal systems, the Islam is foreign to the principle of separation between State and Church (=religion). All this leads to a rather violent religion, violent in it's missionary drive and violent towards people with other believes and convictions.

Islam as such just does not fit into the modern world as we in the West know it. This causes frictions. Our basic attitude: "They can be here and believe whatever they want as long as they leave us alone" does not work. Islam is fundamental in it's strive towards a Caliphate where ever Muslims live. Modern Islam theologists and scolars have great difficulty with integrating the philosophy of Islam into Western society in a non-violent way and are not even sure that their concepts will be succesful. And modern Islamic scolars are a tiny, tiny minority in Islam.

There are only two solutions: Islam has to change drasticly to fit into our modern society, or our modern society has to change drasticly to fit into Islam.

[Kissaki]

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious. Strict rules were enforced, yes, but they would prefer people did not convert. It was easier to control them that way, because as non-Muslims they had fewer rights, and were not allowed to carry arms among other things. There was also the benefit of increased revenue from non-Muslims.

Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.

[Happy Times]

I think that this discussion is missing an important point: Not all the muslims are the same. You can't say that automatically all muslims do this or that just because the Iranian president said that nonesense, ....

Come on guys, one of the most terrible errors one can commit is to put a large group of people in the same bag and label them independently of their daily behaviour. :nope: The fact that the Iranian president is an as***ole doesn't mean that literally thousands of muslims who live among us here in Europe are potential terrorists.....

Be more reasonable. .

Here's my reason.

I'm sick and fed up quite frankly with this voice of reason that says what you say. Oh, not all muslims are the same, etc. Okey dokey, but they chose not to do anything about their radical 'collegues'. Well **** that. They are all the same than. Muslims, arabs (the ones that live 'over there in middle east') are probably the most racist nations there are. They used to be all about math and sciences thousands years ago, but now it's all about holy jihad against the Infidels.

And if they aren't waging jihad - they are quetly supporting it!!! Ok, on individual level people are different, unique and nice. But guess what - overall they give an impression of a nasty group of people who are anti christian, anti european, anti white, anti capitalist.. eh, of course, anti-jew. I'm sick of this political correctness bullsh*t when all we do is afraid to name the problem - muslim religion - and put the blame on people and countries that follow it - certain arab countries and arabs. It is a cultural clash. It is. Why do the arabs and muslims feel they are so important that they can come here to Europe for jobs that aren't there, dictate their laws, and get offended if they aren't allowed to pray in mosques. Go back to Arabia and do all you like, but if you go to European country - have some damn respect for the laws of that country, its religion, and its people. Afterall, they are that way in arab coutries. My friend worked there for Porsche dealership for a few months, and in general, it was like this "If you do this - you are screwed, If you look at woman - you are screwd, if you do that - you go to jail, and so on and on' (Dubai). So it beggs the question - why does a foreigner has to follow rules when coming to arabia, but they arabs when coming to Europe want to live in their own way anyway.

Sorry, pack the camels and get the hell out if you can't accept local laws. If someone doesn't take a stand against this 'cultural' clash, there will be an all muslim world, no israel, and my kids will be writing right to left. Racist, anti-semitic, disrespectful to women, and inciting violence - that's Muslim religion in 2005. And I don't care what Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it! Why is fascism not ok, but these bastards mullahs in UK are ok? Ship them all out to where they've come from.

That's concerning the lack of any inability to shut up this towelhead from Iran. Oh let's be politically correct and 'issue a diplomatic nota'. Bleh. They are laughing their arses off right now at all this 'international outrage'. We are so much in the pre WW2 state where everyone was afraid to say anything to Hitler. The one that was bluffing like hell.

PS> I lived among arbas and muslims. And I interracted with many. So I'm not JUST using some 'common' stereotype before you brand me as racist. I'm not. I base my view on real life experienes.

Finally, wihtout ever getting into history, OMG what has the TINY Israel done to pee off so many arab nations that they want it gone!!! Ok, the US is big and got armies all over the world, sponsoring governtment revolutions, overthrowing dictators, interferering pretty much into every countries policies, but for the life of me, why the tiny Israel causes so much hatred! They haven't nuked anyone, haven't killed 1000000million people in death camps.... All the seemingly have done is (arguably) displaced a small tiny nation, and kicked some ass in the 60s. And they are sponsored by US. And they like to eat Kosher food. I've never heard a single logic reason behind why Israel is so bad. All I see is unshaven, dirty men, screaming out of their lungs and burning flags, but how can such small nation cause so much hatred is beyond my understanding. Surely something theat happened 2000 years ago isn't a reason for it.

So in conclusion - they are all idiots. They have tons of natural resources, yet they live in mud houses. That's gotta be our fault. :nope: Didnt think this day would come..I agree with you 100% Type941 :yep: I also feel that one way to go would let the Israelis have their way and sit back :lol: And i would be willing to fight but our goverment is so soft that it wont happen.Maybe someone will have me as a volunteer if the conflict gets big.

[Abraham]

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious...
Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.
Come on Kissaki, get serious with us.
Islam is a missionary religion, period. There are very few who would argue with that. And because there is no clear concept of state in Islam, something like a "Political Islam" exists. A missionary religion with a political agenda forms a dangerous mix.

Let's wait till the Shabbat is over and The Avon Lady bombards your position with a few smart links...
:D

[Kissaki]

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious...
Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.
Come on Kissaki, get serious with us.
Islam is a missionary religion, period. There are very few who would argue with that. And because there is no clear concept of state in Islam, something like a "Political Islam" exists. A missionary religion with a political agenda forms a dangerous mix.

Let's wait till the Shabbat is over and The Avon Lady bombards your position with a few smart links...
:D

What is your basis for saying Islam is a missionary religion? You are the first person I've come across to even be adamant on that point, and most people I've talked to have had a contrary opinion. I've never even heard of Muslim missionaries, and it doesn't make sense when considering the fact that mosques and the centre of Mekka is off limits to non-Muslims. If they want people to convert to Islam, they're making it awfully difficult for them.

[Abraham]

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious...
Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.
Come on Kissaki, get serious with us.
Islam is a missionary religion, period. There are very few who would argue with that. And because there is no clear concept of state in Islam, something like a "Political Islam" exists. A missionary religion with a political agenda forms a dangerous mix.

Let's wait till the Shabbat is over and The Avon Lady bombards your position with a few smart links...
:D

What is your basis for saying Islam is a missionary religion? You are the first person I've come across to even be adamant on that point, and most people I've talked to have had a contrary opinion. I've never even heard of Muslim missionaries, and it doesn't make sense when considering the fact that mosques and the centre of Mekka is off limits to non-Muslims. If they want people to convert to Islam, they're making it awfully difficult for them.
Here's the answer:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/new_sign_24.jpgnot including the non Arab Muslim countries...
They don't call it a "mission", but "Salafi jihad".
Muslim "missionaries" are currently spreading the good news in the Phillipines, Indonesia (especially Ambon and Bali), Nigeria, Great Brittain, Isreal, Kashmir, the Caucasus and the list goes on and on.
Just watch CNN...

[Happy Times]

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/iraqilove.html :o

[Kissaki]

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious...
Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.
Come on Kissaki, get serious with us.
Islam is a missionary religion, period. There are very few who would argue with that. And because there is no clear concept of state in Islam, something like a "Political Islam" exists. A missionary religion with a political agenda forms a dangerous mix.

Let's wait till the Shabbat is over and The Avon Lady bombards your position with a few smart links...
:D

What is your basis for saying Islam is a missionary religion? You are the first person I've come across to even be adamant on that point, and most people I've talked to have had a contrary opinion. I've never even heard of Muslim missionaries, and it doesn't make sense when considering the fact that mosques and the centre of Mekka is off limits to non-Muslims. If they want people to convert to Islam, they're making it awfully difficult for them.
Here's the answer:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/new_sign_24.jpgnot including the non Arab Muslim countries...
They don't call it a "mission", but "Salafi jihad".
Muslim "missionaries" are currently spreading the good news in the Phillipines, Indonesia (especially Ambon and Bali), Nigeria, Great Brittain, Isreal, Kashmir, the Caucasus and the list goes on and on.
Just watch CNN...

Like I said before, their expansion was a political one, and did not have any missionary purpose. The fact that people converted to Islam was a side-effect from their occupants being Muslim. People will be affected by outter influences, whether it's intended or not. And I have yet to meet a Muslim who talks about his religion unless I ask him. I have heard none of them preach.

Example: back when I was studying archaeology, a field trip was arranged to Turkey. I didn't get the opportunity to go, but a good friend of mine told me something that stuck: He had been exchanging jokes with some of the locals, and wanted to know what sort of Christian jokes they had (because we have more than plenty Muslim jokes). The local men looked surprised, and a little shocked, and said they would never think to make fun of Christians. They took their faith seriously, and as a consequence, they took other faiths seriously as well. Anything less would be hypocritical.

Islam does not - nor did it ever - have a policy to "spread the good word". Islam has become more prevalent in the recent years in the West, this is true, but this is due to Muslim immigration, not any missionary activity. There are precious few converts.

[Abraham]

When Islamists are spreading the Islam violently into neighbouring countries I see that as proof of the missionary element of Islam.
You see it as proof of an agressive policy.
In the end the result is the same: Submission of all to the Sharia, so your argumentation is really about semantics.

I will spell out the missionary element in Salafi jihad:
Islam is the spirit of complete submission to Allah and the Sharia in all spheres of life to form an 'umma' (a Muslim community). The 'dawa' (call to Islam) frees mankind from servitude to other men and delivers men from manmade laws, value systems like democracy and traditions.
'Dawa', call to Islam, to form an 'umma' (Muslim community).
It can hardly be more missionary, can it?

The real point is that fundamental Islam doesn't accept non-Islamic states, with non Islamic governments holding non-Islamic power and making non-Islamic rules.
Islam clearly states that the Sharia is superior to and overrules any national legal system and in Holland our legal system is regulary addressed as "the rule of the suppressors" by Muslim Dutchmen from Arab origine (sorry I don't have the Arab word right now).
That's why Islam is having great difficulties being a minority religion in a secular state.
That's also why Islam acknowledges a clear difference, or antithesis, in this world between 'dar al-Islam' (the land or nation of Islam) and 'dar al-kufr' (the land or nation of infidels). Where ever the borderline is there are two 'subversions' of 'dar al-kufr', the 'dar al-suhl' (the land or nation of the treaty) when there is a temporary break in fighting and the 'dar al-harb' (the land or nation of conflict).
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental Islam. That's why president Ahmadinejad statement was strictly adhering to fundamental and political Islam in his statement and can hardly be dropped or excused by fundamental Muslims.

I read that you call a country with a Christian majority a Christian country compared to a country with a Muslim majority a Muslim country.
You are making a mistake with such a comparison. Christianity almost everywhere (apart from for instance Greece) knows the division between State and Church. America is a secular state, with equal rights for any religion, whether or not the majority of Americans is Christian. Traditional and cultural habits like saying "God bless America" and swearing an oath on the Bible are not proof of America being a Christian nation, but proof of its Christian heritage.
Such equal treatment of religions does not exist in Muslim countries, because - again - there is a strong political (=power) component in fundamental Islam. That's why there are many discriminatory rules against other religions in Muslim countries, even in countries like Indonesia and Turkey...

[Skybird]

Just hopping in every couple of days now, I see this thread and it makes we start thinking about writing a long essay again on the history of Islam in the first two hundred years after Muhammad's death, and the outbrake of still-standing orthodoxy in the time after that. Just to clean some of the very dangerous and potentially culturally suicidal illusions some people here expressed about the "non-expansive" and "tolerant" nature of Islam. Islam by heart and core of it's own religious self-definition is neither tolerant, nor non-expansive. And it regards western ratio and christianity (as well as Jewish belief) as exact anti-thesis to itself, that'S why a true dialogue in the meaning of a give-and-take of ideas with both "partners" on the same eye-level is simply impossible and a Western folly that loves to babble with itself in an endless, narcistic monologue. As a matter of fact I see Islam - in a historical context as well as from a perspective of social commands - as a militant, totalitarian ideology that poses a very strong claim for the right of sole reigning and forcing other to surrender to it. The historical events during and after Muhammad's life are telling a very clear language here. It is not enough to read the koran to learn aboiut Islam, kno0wuing it's history is far more important (although Islam itself rejects the need to accept that there is a changing, flowing history). Although I may have given the impression in the past that I defended Islam - I do not, quite the opposite, I fight against it, as far as the spreading of Islam in the Western cultural sphere is concerned, because it is totally incomatiable with the western developement of mental and rational traditions and our concepts of individuality and freedom (or "democracy", for that reason). I just defended the right of foreign people to live to their liking in their own places, wether it be the arabs in arabia or the Persians in Iran, who are about to raise a first-class world entertainment program with their new president, it seems :x ). but we have no reason to welcome Islamc habits in our own communities, if we do so, it will try not stay as a guest, but to become master in the hoiuse. This is it's declared mission and self-perception. And this is very dangerous for our own cultural identity that is already heavily wounded by excessive materialsim that created a spiritual vacuum in which Islam now willingly flows into, much like it did in the social conditions of Arabia in the 7th century. The historic parallels are stunning. The West is already highly vulnerable due to it's cultural falldown, it is bad advise to play around with Islam in such times.

Hm, but I do not want to get engaged in an ongoing discussion about this. Maybe I just write a summarizing essay on history and post it here the next days.

[Fish]

Just hopping in every couple of days now, I see this thread and it makes we start thinking about writing a long esssay again on the history of Islam in the first two hundreds years after Muhammad's death, and the outbrake of still-standing orthodoxy in the time after that. Just to clean some of the very dangerous and potentially culturally suicidal illusions some people here expressed about the "non-expansive" and "tolerant" nature of Islam. Islam by heart and core of it'S own religious self-definition is neither tolerant, nor non-expansive. and it regards western ratio and christianity as exact anti-thesis to itself, that'S why a true dialogue in the meaning of a give-and-take of ideas with both "partners" on the same eye-level is simpl yimpossible and a Western folly. As a matter of fact I see it as a militant, totalitarian ideology that poses a very strong claim for the right of sole reigning and forcing other to surrender to it. The historic events during and after Muhammad's life are telling a very clear language here. Although I may have given the impression in the past that I defended Islam - I do not, quite the opposite, I fight against it, as far as the spreading of Islam in the Wesxtern cultural sphere is concerned. I just defended the right of foreiogn people to live to their liking in their own places. but we have no reason to welcome them and their Islamic habits in our own communities. this is very dangerous for our own cultural identit that is already heavily wounded by excessive materialsim that created a spiritual vakkum in which Islam now willingly flows into, much like it did in the social coditions of Arabia in the 7th century. The historic parallels are stunning.
Hm, but I do not want to get engaged in an ongoing discussion about this. Maybe I just write a summarizing essay and post it here the next days.

Looking forward. :yep:

[tycho102]

Sixpack was generalizing out of anger; my point is most Muslims are pretty quiet about this problem, you only hear from them when someone says "Muslims this" or "Muslims that".

This is the direct problem with the religion, today. The moderates are scared to speak up, just like I'd have been scared to speak up in East Berlin. I think the extremists are a minority; but a 30% minority can still be effective. What they (the Muslim leaders) have done is spread out that minority, just like an counter-intelligence agency would. They are not clustered, and they depend on a hierarchy for their operations. Each individual gang is directed by the local Don, and from time to time, multiple gangs band together to wipe out a rival or weak gang.

So, when you get a "moderate" Muslim that condemns any part of Jihad, the local Imam issues a fatwah against the apostate (a Muslim who turns away from Islam, for which it carries a sentence of death in the Koran). The "moderates" don't speak up because they will be executed, and likely a portion of their family. Not just in Egypt or Pakistan, but right here in the good old USA.

Collective punishment works (and collective rewarding), which is why Europe wanted it banned in all of their international treaties. We are dealing with 1300 years of a selective breeding program, and I'm not even remotely joking. This same kind of mentality is why the Muslims are raping women in Darfur. It's just the way you waged Jihad back in the 700's AD, and it's been working for them ever since.



So, there's three issues here of why the moderates don't condemn Muslim aggression, and these are not far-fetched or trivial:

1. The distributed Jihadist structure in every mosque in the world. You executioner could be anyone.

2. Collective punishment, and in some cases, collective rewarding (Saudia Arabia has given billions of dollars to the families of suicide bombers, making many "families" a suicide bomber factory).

3. 1000 year selective breeding program. The people who protest are killed, just like when all those University kids in Iran were protesting and the moral police went through beating and shooting them.

[Type941]

All violent forms of Islam gotta be outlawed as fascism and racism - in a nutshell. Russia is dealing with it in Chechnya - vakhabism and sheriah law. If something's not done to prevent it from spreading - France, UK, Germany and other countries will end up with their own checnhyas, lead by these very fanatical bastards of human beings, who all cluster into groups for greater strength, and are like cockroaches and parasites. They will use our own freedom system to say what they like, and get a result they want, while we'll stand and be happy because by allowing them to speak we protected our freedom of speech. Isn't this absolutely rediculous?? But it's what's happening!

[Kissaki]

When Islamists are spreading the Islam violently into neighbouring countries I see that as proof of the missionary element of Islam.
You see it as proof of an agressive policy.
In the end the result is the same: Submission of all to the Sharia, so your argumentation is really about semantics.


Ok, so using your logic, I might argue that the Indian wars wasn't about territory but about spreading Christianity throughout America. Semantics, indeed.


I will spell out the missionary element in Salafi jihad: Islam is the spirit of complete submission to Allah and Sharia in all spheres of life to form an 'umma' (a Muslim community). The 'dawa' (call to Islam) frees mankind from servitude to other men and delivers men from manmade laws, value systems like democracy and traditions.
'Dawa', call to Islam, to form an 'umma' (Muslim community).
It can hardly be more missionary, can it?


In countries governed by a religious caste, the laws are naturally going to be those of the religion. Hence, whereas in the strictly religious sense only the Muslims need mind the Sharia, non-Muslims have to abide by it too, because it's national law. They are not obligated to worship, however, nor are they obligated to fast, stay chaste before marriage etc. They are allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't conflict with the law - which happens to be the Sharia.


The real point is that fundamental Islam doesn't accept non-Islamic states, with non Islamic governments holding non-Islamic power and making non-Islamic rules.

Now you're talking about fundamental Islam. I've been addressing general Islam.


Islam clearly states that the Sharia is superior to and overrules any national legal system and in Holland our legal system is regulary addressed as "the rule of the suppressors" by Muslim Dutchmen from Arab origine (sorry I don't have the Arab word right now).
That's why Islam is having great difficulties being a minority religion in a secular state.

What can I say? Our experiences differ.


That's also why Islam knows a clear difference, or antithesis in this world between 'dar al-Islam' (the land or nation of Islam) and 'dar al-kufr' (the land or nation of infidels) where ever the borderline is there are two 'subversions' of 'dar al-kufr', the 'dar al-suhl' (the land or nation of the treaty) when there is a temporary break in fighting and the 'dar al-harb' (the land or nation of conflict).
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental Islam. That's why president Ahmadinejad was strictly adhering to fundamental and political Islam.


It's all pretty black and white for fundamental anything. Again I must reiterate that I am not defending the fundamentalists, but Islam on a general basis.


I read that you call a country with a Christian majority a Christian counrtry compared to a country with a Muslim majority a Muslim country.
You are making a mistake with such a comparison. Christianity almost everywhere (apart from for instance Greece) knows the division between State and Church. America is a secular state, with equal rights for any religion, whether or not the majority of Americans is Christian. Traditional and cultural habits like saying "God bless America" and swearing an oath on the Bible are not proof of America being a Christian nation, but proof of its Christian heritage.

There is no seperation of Church and state in Norway, but we still have religious freedom. As for the US, there are many laws that are the direct result of religion (most of them sleeping, thankfully). Until the '60s, some states forbade the teaching of evolutionary theory, and certain other Christian curiosities could be seen in laws here and there such as no dancing, no card-playing, no pre-marital sex etc. To this day, oral and anal sex remain criminal offenses in certain states, though like I said, today these are "sleeping" laws. Also, the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s demonstrates that separation of Church and state is like Communism - looks great on paper, but doesn't quite work as it's supposed to in practice. Sure, there is religious freedom, but America is very much a Christian nation.


Such equal treatment of religions does not exist in Muslim countries, because - again - there is a strong political (=power) component in fundamental Islam. That's why there are many discriminatory rules against other religions in Muslim countries, even in countries like Indonesia and Turkey...

Here you are using a very broad brush indeed to pain all Muslim countries as fundamentalist. In many countries where the government itself is Muslim, yes, fundamentalist laws may apply. But there are also countries - like Iraq - which has a secular government, and consequently is quite liberal in religious matters. Furthermore, I am not aware of any laws in either Indonesia or Turkey which is particularly discriminatory against other religions. There are probably little bits here and there, but not more discriminatory than our laws to the Muslims here.

[Type941]

Kissaki - what you are saying is pointless because these people don't listen to reason. It's all okey dokey if they were a civilized breed, but the problem is these people seem to behave, preach and act like animals, and they deserve an appropriate treatment.

Go to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and say Christianity is good, ask them to give you reason why Israel isn't, etc, have a civilized conversation. Than tell us about it... I suspect you never will, because you can't talk to those people. Sorry, it's such a different culture and mentality, that we are better off just buying their oil and not going there, and not letting them into europe. They are a very jealous bitter racist people who want nothing good for you. Why do you keep defending them is beyond me.

A good thing is to see people actually speaking out about this probelm and not buying into this whole 'Islam is peaceful religion' crap, that's shoved down our throats just to 'prevent' some potential 'revolution'.

Stop hiding the head in the sand about this issue like an ostridge... they might put the road there.

[bradclark1]

When you are in conflict with a country or a difference in thinking there really is no separation of good bad guys and bad bad guys. ie:
Axis vs Allies
Catholics vs Protestants
and so on.
If I was an American and you were German you were the enemy period.
If I was Catholic and you were Protestant you were the enemy period.
If you were a nazi and I was a jew I was an enemy period.
In this case if I'm western and you are an islamic what does that make you?
And that is what the world is coming to. Islam uses freedom as a weapon.
Send Billy Graham to Saudi Arabia or Syria and see how long he would live.

[Kissaki]

Kissaki - what you are saying is pointless because these people don't listen to reason. It's all okey dokey if they were a civilized breed, but the problem is these people seem to behave, preach and act like animals, and they deserve an appropriate treatment.


That's exactly what the Nazies said, and believed, about the Jews. And don't try and tell me that "the Nazies were victims of propaganda - I, on the other hand, rely on hard facts". Because that's exactly what the Nazies said, too. The real facts are, as they have always been: people are people. And people are human, with real human personalities. There is no such thing as comic book villains in real life. Also, propaganda is propaganda, and in your quote above I see history repeating itself.


Go to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and say Christianity is good, ask them to give you reason why Israel isn't, etc, have a civilized conversation. Than tell us about it... I suspect you never will, because you can't talk to those people. Sorry, it's such a different culture and mentality, that we are better off just buying their oil and not going there, and not letting them into europe. They are a very jealous bitter racist people who want nothing good for you. Why do you keep defending them is beyond me.


Show me where I've defended the fundamentalists or terrorists. What I have done is refuse to accept misinformed, racist generalizations based on hate - in fact, I refuse to accept anything based on hate. I have defended Islam from attacks by people who make judgements based on radicals they see on the news.

Furthermore, I'd like you to think on the following: How many symbols of Christianity have been attacked by Muslim radicals? The answer is none. What they have attacked are symbols of capitalism and Western power. It's not our religion they hate, it's our culture. You may counter with such examples as the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statues, but they would still not attack Christianity.


A good thing is to see people actually speaking out about this probelm and not buying into this whole 'Islam is peaceful religion' crap, that's shoved down our throats just to 'prevent' some potential 'revolution'.


We have a conspiracy theorist in our midst.


Stop hiding the head in the sand about this issue like an ostridge... they might put the road there.

Hiding my head in the sand? I am not the one unwilling to see the case from multiple sides, here. I would rather urge you to stop covering your ears and going lalalala because you refuse to believe that Muslims can be anything but evil. I am often stunned by the levels of prejudice in people who accuse others of prejudice.

If you remember just one thing from this post, remember this: All generalizations are false.

[Kissaki]

When you are in conflict with a country or a difference in thinking there really is no separation of good bad guys and bad bad guys. ie:
Axis vs Allies
Catholics vs Protestants
and so on.
If I was an American and you were German you were the enemy period.
If I was Catholic and you were Protestant you were the enemy period.
If you were a nazi and I was a jew I was an enemy period.
In this case if I'm western and you are an islamic what does that make you?
And that is what the world is coming to. Islam uses freedom as a weapon.
Send Billy Graham to Saudi Arabia or Syria and see how long he would live.

Ultimately, there is no excuse for seeing things in black and white, and I don't care how much of a war is going on. If I was soldier A and you were soldier B, and there was a war between A and B, yes you would be my enemy. But only because it was my duty to view you as such. If however I was civilian A and you were civilian B, we would not be enemies. If civilians view other civilians as enemies, it's because of hate. And hate in most cases (this being no exception) is irrational.

[Type941]

If you remember just one thing from this post, remember this: All generalizations are false.


But you just generalized. :shifty: Ok look, I love people (women especially) regardless of race and color. I'm actually very friendly person. What usually gets me going is politicians, and how they manipulate people, how media manipulates people. IT's how islam has become what it is because of the greed for power of people who live the life style they urge the followers to fight against! But it's passed this point when one of 'them' is calling to wipe out a country from the face of the earth. I'm sorry man, I don't know what's life like in Norway - all I heard it's highest standard of living in Europe. So your perspective might be just a touch philosophical, and detached from reality. Theory is one thing, practice is another. There IS evil in this world. All human are human, but there are those who need to be put to death like mad cows. It's awful may be if you are a Humanitarian Watch, but take yourself down to inner human level, and into environment where the fittest survives. When I was a small, kids that bullied others, etc, in the end of the day got the living sh*t kicked out of them. It was that simple - they did something wrong, and paid for it. So same should happen to these people who are claiming YOUR way of life is deserving of death. Yet you advocate on niceties of their religion. Do I really care about it?? What if I don't belive in god at all - hypothetically speaking, since you like it. Than to me, all of this is pure nonsense! How can you reason with me than? Religion to me would be a nuiance, and it's down to pure evil of these people - who deserve to be exterminated.

We have a conspiracy theorist in our midst.
Ha, at least I'm not naive. This is such a cheap shot and a cliche to throw around. Do you honestly believe that people in politics CARE about what happens to the people more, than they care about themselves? Exceptions are of course present.. but I can reel you off dozens of example of what kind of laws get passed, and who in the end gets the sh8t end of the stick. Conspiracy theorist? Define conspiracy first! What I talked about dosn't imply some secret agreement. It's just a plain fact - I mean COMON, CNN isnt' a propoganda machine? .



I'm moving to Norway. :rock:

[Abraham]

One final attempt, but you really don't seem to be interested in a serious discussion:
When Islamists are spreading the Islam violently into neighbouring countries I see that as proof of the missionary element of Islam.
You see it as proof of an agressive policy.
In the end the result is the same: Submission of all to the Sharia, so your argumentation is really about semantics.

Ok, so using your logic, I might argue that the Indian wars wasn't about territory but about spreading Christianity throughout America. Semantics, indeed.Please don't use my logic, I feel you somehow misuse it..
The Indian wars were no Christian wars, sanctionned by a Church to spread Christianity, but a power struggle about land. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
I will spell out the missionary element in Salafi jihad: Islam is the spirit of complete submission to Allah and Sharia in all spheres of life to form an 'umma' (a Muslim community). The 'dawa' (call to Islam) frees mankind from servitude to other men and delivers men from manmade laws, value systems like democracy and traditions.
'Dawa', call to Islam, to form an 'umma' (Muslim community).
It can hardly be more missionary, can it?
In countries governed by a religious caste, the laws are naturally going to be those of the religion. Hence, whereas in the strictly religious sense only the Muslims need mind the Sharia, non-Muslims have to abide by it too, because it's national law.Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and here we fully agree. I guess you know the inferior position of women and non-Muslims under Sharia. You probably also know about the 'rights' of 'infidels' under Sharia.
They are ... allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't conflict with the law - which happens to be the Sharia. and which covers all aspects of life. That's why KLM stewardesses have to wear feals when they leave the airplanes in Jeddah or Tehran and are not allowed to look men in the face. That's why an Imam complains with the Mayor of Amsterdam when he sees two gays walking hand in hand in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam and asks for a small Caliphate in Amsterdam!Completely backwarded and not my cup of tea...
So in the end non-Muslims are not allowed to do as they please.

The real point is that fundamental Islam doesn't accept non-Islamic states, with non Islamic governments holding non-Islamic power and making non-Islamic rules.
Now you're talking about fundamental Islam. I've been addressing general Islam.I am indeed talking about general or fundamentalistic Islam. If there is a difference, please point it out, because I suddenly feel pretty ignorant missing some major distinctions in Islam.
Islam clearly states that the Sharia is superior to and overrules any national legal system and in Holland our legal system is regulary addressed as "the rule of the suppressors" by Muslim Dutchmen from Arab origine (sorry I don't have the Arab word right now).
That's why Islam is having great difficulties being a minority religion in a secular state.
What can I say? Our experiences differ.Well, I just keep my eyes open.
That's also why Islam knows a clear difference, or antithesis in this world between 'dar al-Islam' (the land or nation of Islam) and 'dar al-kufr' (the land or nation of infidels) where ever the borderline is there are two 'subversions' of 'dar al-kufr', the 'dar al-suhl' (the land or nation of the treaty) when there is a temporary break in fighting and the 'dar al-harb' (the land or nation of conflict).
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental Islam. That's why president Ahmadinejad was strictly adhering to fundamental and political Islam.
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental anything. Again I must reiterate that I am not defending the fundamentalists, but Islam on a general basis.A poor defense. Again I must ask for the difference...
I read that you call a country with a Christian majority a Christian counrtry compared to a country with a Muslim majority a Muslim country.
You are making a mistake with such a comparison. Christianity almost everywhere (apart from for instance Greece) knows the division between State and Church. America is a secular state, with equal rights for any religion, whether or not the majority of Americans is Christian. Traditional and cultural habits like saying "God bless America" and swearing an oath on the Bible are not proof of America being a Christian nation, but proof of its Christian heritage.There is no seperation of Church and state in Norway, but we still have religious freedom. As for the US, there are many laws that are the direct result of religion (most of them sleeping, thankfully). Until the '60s, some states forbade the teaching of evolutionary theory, and certain other Christian curiosities could be seen in laws here and there such as no dancing, no card-playing, no pre-marital sex etc. To this day, oral and anal sex remain criminal offenses in certain states, though like I said, today these are "sleeping" laws. Also, the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s demonstrates that separation of Church and state is like Communism - looks great on paper, but doesn't quite work as it's supposed to in practice. Sure, there is religious freedom, but America is very much a Christian nation.If you think that those rules constitute a Christian legal system comparable to the Sharia you are clearle daydreaming. And you acknowledge that those rules are "sleeping". Sharia is not...
="Abraham"]Such equal treatment of religions does not exist in Muslim countries, because - again - there is a strong political (=power) component in fundamental Islam. That's why there are many discriminatory rules against other religions in Muslim countries, even in countries like Indonesia and Turkey...
Here you are using a very broad brush indeed to pain all Muslim countries as fundamentalist. In many countries where the government itself is Muslim, yes, fundamentalist laws may apply. But there are also countries - like Iraq - which has a secular government, and consequently is quite liberal in religious matters. Furthermore, I am not aware of any laws in either Indonesia or Turkey which is particularly discriminatory against other religions. There are probably little bits here and there, but not more discriminatory than our laws to the Muslims here.Nonsense, Kissaki.
I'm using a very broad brush allright. The brush of Judeo-Christian Civilisation, which brought us - and went through - the Renaissance and the Enlightment and led to the prescious separation of State and Church that you clearly fail to distinguish from Sharia.
We are now facing a religion of which 90% of the followers are having Dark Age convictions, and I am afraid the number is growing...
They will quickly have to adapt their religion to modern society, like some are desperately trying to do, or either they will get irrelevant with their backward thoughts about infidels, women, Jews, homosexuals you name it... or our Western society will become irrelevant.
Our basic human freedoms are not a given but have to be defended every now and then. This is one of those moments.

[caspofungin]

been away from this board for a while, come back, what do i find? The same old arguments. Crass generalizations, as per usual.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." How true. I'd rather people knew nothing about Islam, and have it explained by a moderate Muslim, than take quotes out of context. Seeing only part of the picture -- with regards to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion -- is just as bad as blindness.

Regarding "Islamic intolerance" for all other faiths -- when you are learning the Quran, the 6th Surah you learn ends with "To you your religion, and to me my religion." Tolerance of other religions was -- is -- ingrained in my upbringing, just like that of millions of other Muslims. Sure, there's millions of Muslims that are anti-Semitic -- just like there's millions of Christians that are anti-Semitic, or millions of Hindus that are anti-Muslim. And spare me the "holier than thou" arguments that are forming while you read this. There's a sizeable element of the American or Israeli nations that wouldn't mind lining up a bunch of Arbas/Muslims and shooting them dead, regardless of their innocence -- just like theres many Muslims that would do exactly the same thing to Christians or Jews given the opportunity.

People are people -- they stick with those that are like them, and dislike or even despise those that aren't. Religion is just another category to base likes and dislikes upon, just like skin color.

Reading some of the comments on this thread -- some people have quite the knack of ignoring history. Calling Christianity a peaceful misisonary religion? Sure, the religion itself is one of peace, but it has been used throughout history to justify crimes of the highest magnitude. Wasn't the mantra of Spanish conquistadors "For God, gold, and glory?" Those guys wouldn't have won any peace prizes. But people (in general) are willing to separate someone's religion from their actions -- as long as that religion isn't Islam, right?

*********** edited - NS

[Kissaki]

One final attempt, but you really don't seem to be interested in a serious discussion:


I take it your goal is to change my mind, since you say this. Then you have failed to understand what the purpose of discussion is. Your words above deserve no further comment.


Please don't use my logic, I feel you somehow misuse it..
The Indian wars were no Christian wars, sanctionned by a Church to spread Christianity, but a power struggle about land. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

Exactly! Christianity had nothing to do with it. Nor did Islam's expansion in the 7th-9th centuries have anything to do with spreading religion. Was the Iraq/Iran war about Islam? Certainly not. Nor does modern Iran have any intention of spreading Islam. Fundamentalists want to attack the West (and Israel) to defend Islam.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and here we fully agree. I guess you know the inferior position of women and non-Muslims under Sharia. You probably also know about the 'rights' of 'infidels' under Sharia.


Covering up women and the treatment of women are actually not part of Sharia, but are cultural elements which have nonetheless passed into law. Also, in many Muslim countries you are allowed to go unveiled as a woman if you're a Western woman.

On an opposite note, you might have noticed that veils have been banned in schools in several European countries. But I guess this is ok, because they deserve all the restrictions we can impose upon them - but don't they dare tell us what to do!

and which covers all aspects of life. That's why KLM stewardesses have to wear feals when they leave the airplanes in Jeddah or Tehran and are not allowed to look men in the face. That's why an Imam complains with the Mayor of Amsterdam when he sees two gays walking hand in hand in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam and asks for a small Caliphate in Amsterdam!Completely backwarded and not my cup of tea...
So in the end non-Muslims are not allowed to do as they please.


Nor are Muslims in our countries. Though it may please you to think so. When we get to the bottom of things though, what seems perfectly normal here may seem backward there, and vice versa - it's a matter of cultural perspective. How can you expect people to act contrary to their cultural upbringing?

I am indeed talking about general or fundamentalistic Islam. If there is a difference, please point it out, because I suddenly feel pretty ignorant missing some major distinctions in Islam.


General or fundamentalist Islam, which is it? You can't talk about both in the same breath. Fundamentalist live by their respective holy books by the letter, but according to the modern usage, has a more aggressive and possibly violent interpretation. Muslims in general are just like Christians in general, though - they can't keep track of all the rules in day-to-day life. Even Christians who know their Bible by heart often forget themselves, and forget the most important aspect of their own faith: love thine enemy. Muslims are not robots - they have urges and feelings like everybody else. Very few people in this world have the willpower to put religion before themselves.

In conclusion: fundamentalists are in a minority in every single religion, because it's such a difficult thing to be.


Well, I just keep my eyes open.

How do you know?


Nonsense, Kissaki.
I'm using a very broad brush allright. The brush of Judeo-Christian Civilisation, which brought us - and went through - the Renaissance and the Enlightment and led to the prescious separation of State and Church that you clearly fail to distinguish from Sharia.


I nearly choked when I read the above. Judeo-Christian civilization is what necessitated the Reneissance in the first place! To give you a quick repeat history lesson, Reneissance means "rebirth". That should tip you off, right there. Rebirth of what? Of pre-Christian ideas and concepts, from which Christianity had reverted. Ideas and concepts, I might add, to which Islam had made absolutely priceless contributions.


We are now facing a religion of which 90% of the followers are having Dark Age convictions, and I am afraid the number is growing...


There are two kinds of statistics. Lies, and damned lies. I wonder where you got this particular one (I'm guessing "90%" is a figure you made up just now).


They will quickly have to adapt their religion to modern society, like some are desperately trying to do, or either they will get irrelevant with their backward thoughts about infidels, women, Jews, homosexuals you name it... or our Western society will become irrelevant.

In my cousin's daughter's kindergarten, there's a Pakistani boy who likes to wear dresses. His parents help him dress up. Real backward.


Our basic human freedoms are not a given but have to be defended every now and then. This is one of those moments.

Funny. That's just what the Muslim fundamentalists are saying. And I believe their way of life is under more serious threat than ours.

[Kissaki]

What if I don't belive in god at all - hypothetically speaking, since you like it. Than to me, all of this is pure nonsense! How can you reason with me than? Religion to me would be a nuiance, and it's down to pure evil of these people - who deserve to be exterminated.


Atheism is itself just a belief, and atheists need to respect other people's decision to believe in something else, on the same level as everybody else. It's not just the religious people who need to be tolerant.

Ha, at least I'm not naive. This is such a cheap shot and a cliche to throw around. Do you honestly believe that people in politics CARE about what happens to the people more, than they care about themselves? Exceptions are of course present.. but I can reel you off dozens of example of what kind of laws get passed, and who in the end gets the sh8t end of the stick. Conspiracy theorist? Define conspiracy first! What I talked about dosn't imply some secret agreement.

Your post came this close to actually containing the words "Great Muslim Conspiracy". It seems like the Muslims can't do anything right. If they don't speak up against atrocities, they support them. If they do speak up against atrocities, it's just to save their hides. They can't win no matter what they do, apparently.

I quoted Full Metal Jacket earlier - I think I need to do it again:

"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC."


It's just a plain fact - I mean COMON, CNN isnt' a propoganda machine? .


CNN is indeed a propaganda machine. There's no such thing as unbiased media. CNN is still a far better alternative than some really obvious propaganda-machines, though, like far-right FOX News for instance.


I'm moving to Norway. :rock:

I think you'll find Muslims preferable to our prices :-j

[tycho102]

CNN is indeed a propaganda machine. There's no such thing as unbiased media. CNN is still a far better alternative than some really obvious propaganda-machines, though, like far-right FOX News for instance.

Why, indeed, it's funny you mention bias. (http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2005/10/28/1192/)

Here’s what the NY Times wrote about Cpl. Starr:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents’ home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ‘’I kind of predicted this,'’ Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. “A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances”.

And now here’s everything else the NY Times conveniently LEFT OUT:

Yesterday’s New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey’s story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: “If we (Americans) don’t do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can.”

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: “Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what’s going on. It would honor Jeffrey’s memory if you would publish the rest of his story.



There's only so many hours in the day, and only so much space on the page (web or paper). So, certainly, all media is biased; they cannot report every single story that exists. But FOX is as far from the right as CNN is from the center. I don't agree with everything they report, but I find far fewer convienent omissions from FOX than I do CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/PBS/NPR/Discovery. Boy, those last three I listed are way the hell liberal. CBS is a group of warmongers in comparison to PBS and NPR and Discovery.

Works the same way with Guantanamo Bay. You might just think it's a facist prison, but only in comparison to the Monaco's prisons. In comparison to North Korea, Guantoanamo is a god damn health club.

[Type941]

"FOX NEWS - THEY DECIDE", as the Daily Show spotted very well. :rotfl:
CNN is crap and Fox is crap. you know a good news channel? Euronews. At least I'm not being abused by propoganda to same extent as O'Reily and Paula Zahn do. listen, they are SALESMAN. not newsman. They act like it, they are selling news. They'll scoop to anything to sell news. They'll find a moment to jerk a tear out of you, or be outspoken, etc, It's all been carried out to the dot during Katrina coverage. It's gone way off topic sorry.

I haven't seen any strong argument of why I should 'give a chance' to muslim religion and accept it as a peaceful religion with its own place in europe. The cons outweigh the pros, imo. All those good muslims who get offended by things said here - thank your fellow muslims who think it's ok to blow people up, kill children, and rape/drug women - those who gave you a bad name.

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things. And they took place hundreds of years ago. Islam is a danger to europe, today.

[caspofungin]

All those good muslims who get offended by things said here - thank your fellow muslims who think it's ok to blow people up, kill children, and rape/drug women - those who gave you a bad name.

so the majority is given a bad name by the minority, and that's enough to label evryone a danger. great. that's the logic neo-nazis use when they go and beat up immigrants because 1 guy robbed a store or some such.

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things. And they took place hundreds of years ago. Islam is a danger to europe, today.

how is islam -- the religion -- a danger? because the size of the minority is increasing? ok, then by that argument christianity in subsaharan africa is a danger -- we should lock up the missionaries. is islam a danger because the precepts of its adherents are different to your own, and they are a threat to the local traditions? ok, then you're using the same argument that people in the middle east use when they want the us and other western forces out. is islam a danger because some of its preachers are using it to bolster their power-grabbing or political maneouvering? if so, then christianity and hinduism are dangers too.

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things? I agree with you there. Religion -- specifically, Christianity -- was used as an excuse, as a motivator, as an adjunct to the base barbarity that's rife in human nature. But if I were to stand up and say Christianity is about the despicable things that are done in its name, would that be right? No. Maybe you should extend the same thoughtfulness towards Islam.

[bradclark1]

Ultimately, there is no excuse for seeing things in black and white, and I don't care how much of a war is going on.

You have a three muslim men in front of you. One is 18, the second is 21, and the third is 24 and you know one of them is a suicide bomber. Which one is it? The reality is you don't know. You let the wrong one go and a lot of innocent lives will be lost. The answer is all three are your enemy.

Thats cold blooded but you don't have much of a choice when Islamic extremist are not policed by there own countries or are even supported by their countries.

To kill an enemy you are probably going to have to fight like them.
You can't fight with rules when those you are fighting have no rules.

[caspofungin]

yep, it's pretty black and white when you put it like that. real easy when you're not one of the potential non-suicide bombers that's going to be put away just for being an arab at the wrong time in the wrong place. when they put me in jail, maybe you can send me a letter telling me how the world is so much safer now that i'm on ice -- i'm sure i'll feel better.

[bradclark1]

I added a bit more to that comment, but tell me a way that that you think it can be combated short of doing that or sending all muslims back to their homelands.
I do understand the cruelty of my comments but at times right isn't always right. When your enemy wears no uniform how do you identify them individualy?
I read somewhere a long time ago that it is only something like 4% of a countries population decides what a country will do. In arabian countries with extemist it's probably less then that.

[caspofungin]

you have to convince muslims living in the west that its in their best interests to combat extremism. and you can't do that by implementing policies that alienate the potentially helpful majority in order to subjugate the potentially dangerous minority.

my apologies if i come off as a bit snappish. nothing like a discussion of politics and religion to get the juices flowing, right? :-?

[caspofungin]

it's an unenviable position, a difficult position. i agree, right isn't always right, but taking the easy way out is just sowing the wind. Reaping the whirlwind is always much worse than the more difficult choice you had back when all things started.

[bradclark1]

my apologies if i come off as a bit snappish. nothing like a discussion of politics and religion to get the juices flowing, right? :-?

No apoligies needed. Politics and religion are always a bad mix. :(

[caspofungin]

you got that right. i'm always 50/50 deciding to post a reply to some of these posts/threads. i mean, i know i'm not going to change anyone's mind...

[Abraham]

you got that right. i'm always 50/50 deciding to post a reply to some of these posts/threads. i mean, i know i'm not going to change anyone's mind...
Not necessairily true.
I have changed a long held position after reading some links in discussions on this forum. And just reading the position of somebody else can be enlightening, even if it does not directly change my mind.

Lately I have been debating with Kissaki. He draws a clear distinction between fundamental Muslims and general Islam. I see less and less of that distinction when I hear about Muslim 'education' on religious schools in Pakistan. I also think that the 'Western' Muslims are realy having a hard time accepting Western values and being serious (fundamental) as a Muslim. I think they are a relative small group of progressive and enlighted Muslims.
But these opinions of mine are being formed right now and I appreciate it to be criticised...

Am I not right that Islam has a strong political component because the Sharia will always dominate any National or local law?
And isn't this because the idea of a separation between State and Religion is absent in Islam, basically because the concept of Islam is from the - pre-Nation - 7th century Arab peninsula?

[caspofungin]

you're absolutely right -- the quran and the hadith (holy laws) do have parts that relate to government of people. But at the same time, no arab country today follows those laws -- not even iran, or the taleban in pre-2002 afghanistan. a lot of it has to do with the responsibilities of a ruler -- responsibilities to his people's welfare -- and the responsibilities of people to society as a whole. There's a difference between true islamic law and islamic law interpreted through cultural bias. that's why even though 2 arab countries may claim to follow sharia law, it will be very different in each. there's things you can do freely in sudan that will get you thrown in jail in saudi arabia.

it would be like equating canada and australia, for example. both western democracies, both majority christian, both with a legal system derived from the uk, but very different societies nonetheless, due to cultural differences. some guy from yemen might see them as exactly the same, but someone from the us knows they're very different. same with arab countries.

and muslims that aren't against the west aren't the minority, they're the majority. unfortunately, the media and your politicians feel it makes a better story or gets more votes to show islam as exclusively the domain of mullahs burning the israeli flag. that's part of it. the other part is that the west, since 1923, has propped up monarchies and dictatorships to secure the supply of cheap oil. suddenly, when they realize the ong-term cost of such a policy, there's a clamour of "why can't you guys clean your house" or other such comments. well, how long did it take for modern western democracies to form? certainly more than a few decades.

take the us -- almost 200 hundred years from the bill of rights to actually allowing every citizen to vote. or the uk, or france, or germany. all went through a long and painful series of changes before emerging as true democracies.

[Type941]

we should lock up the missionaries.

well don't lock them up, but i have let's say a certain degree of skeptecism about the missionaries...


...is islam a danger because the precepts of its adherents are different to your own, and they are a threat to the local traditions?

Yes you damn right it is a danger. I don't want to live in a muslim state, and it's my country - that's my right. If some immigrants come here for better way of life, they should integrate into the culture, not assimilate. I'm from a familty that imigrated. There are things like respecting the local culture, local mentality and embracing it, being grateful for the opportunities it gives. From what I know, muslim immigrants prefer to gather into their own groups, lead their own way of life, and noone knows what's going on in these communities until some reporter finds out that this Imam Abduk Fehdik is preaching death to all christians and infidels, and my kid is going to school 2 blocks away. you guys are amazing when you try to use logic, say things like 'we should educate those moderates so they are critical or radicals'. It's blind hiding head in the sand.

It's like giving prisoners with 'good behavior' the role of keeping the rest under watch, running the prison, etc. Can you really trust them ?

[WutWuzDat]

I see you're still politically correct as ever Sixpack .
:up:

While I think all religions have retarded and moronic aspects to them, the Christians and Muslims have been fighting (directly and indirectly) for thousands of years. When the Christians rapidly spread across the planet, they peacefully converted all who would listen, and forcefully those who wouldn't. The Muslims, for the most part stayed home, and as a result Christians were the majority, and Islam and other religions were the minority. Now, as Muslim countries become rich, their citizens are traveling the world converting all who will listen, slowly but steadily eating away at the Christian majority. Some are preaching peace, some are preaching war. Muslim countries are also buying better weapons, including nuclear weapons as they, ironically, become richer selling oil to Christian counties.

I think about 10 - 25 years from now, this will all come to a boiling point. All the major players on both sides will have WMD, and will get down to business of solving this centuries old conflict for good.

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

[Abraham]

@ Type941:
I share your worries to a certain extend and I feel we can criticise each other on this forum (I have criticised and have been criticised) but please don't generalise the way you do in your answer to caspofungin. He could easily mistake your posting for a personal attack. We know caspofugin and Konovalov are Muslims but always willing to respond to positive criticism. Discussing religion is a touchy thing. Let's refrain from getting too personal, let's make them feel welcome and keep them on board, it makes for a much nicer discussion...you're absolutely right -- the quran and the hadith (holy laws) do have parts that relate to government of people. But at the same time, no arab country today follows those laws -- not even iran, or the taleban in pre-2002 afghanistan.That proves to me that those rules are outdated and can't be applied to a modern society anymore. And you really can't expect anything else from a 7th century concept in my view. Christianity does not pretend to have a concept of a Theocracy. A few feeble attempts have been made in history, but really by extremists. I think the reason is that Christianity was concieved within a state, the Roman Empire, and in it's origins never went after political power (of course Christianity was often misused by rulers for propaganda motives to fight wars, but that's a different question).
and muslims that aren't against the west aren't the minority, they're the majority.I'm absolutely convinced of that the majority of Muslims in Europe and the US want to be decent citizens and practice their religion in peace. However if 70% of British Muslims condem the 7/7 attacks, it still means that 30% does not. I guess we are talking about several hundred thousand people here. At the same time 60% says they would not report suspicious activities to the authorities.
If anything like recent terror attacks would be done by Christians, I would be very ashamed and clearly distance myself (as a Christian) from it. I see too little of that in the Muslim world (could perhaps be a cultural phenomenon though?). It's their problem first and formost and they should be eager to solve it.

Furthermore, to solve it we should openly name it Muslim terrorism and accept that it is a Muslim problem.
From history I know that the Christian church has been involved in politics - always wrong for a church - and has subsequently made bad mistakes. The only way to solve that has been to take responsability and get it in the open. Ducking the problem creates confusion amoug the believers. Don't blame others, don't compare with others, solve it yourself.
The Muslim terrorists of today are a result of (a false) Muslim ideology. The Muslim world should make it cristal clear that terror is not tolerated (but it doesn't!). That would really improve the relation between Muslims living in the West and their hosts.
And somehow we will have to live together in order to avoid a tragedy.

[Type941]

Furthermore, we should openly name it Muslim terrorism and accept that it is a Muslim problem.

Sadly or not, but it's no longer just a Muslim problem.


I wasnt't trying to offend someone peronally, but at the same time I feel like all to often being a white christian european we have to keep shut at whatever anyone's saying because supposedly we always racially abused anyone of different race and in shame, must be quite now. Not so.

I wish we could all live well and get along accept all religions and welcome all new, but at a financial and health risk to my family and myself? Sometimes it makes you think when enough is enough.

[Konovalov]

I wasnt't trying to offend someone peronally, but at the same time I feel like all to often being a white christian european we have to keep shut at whatever anyone's saying because supposedly we always racially abused anyone of different race and in shame, must be quite now. Not so.

:D I'm a white guy of Euro origin just like you. I'm of Australian birth with my family history going back to England and Sweden.

[Konovalov]

Ultimately, there is no excuse for seeing things in black and white, and I don't care how much of a war is going on.

You have a three muslim men in front of you. One is 18, the second is 21, and the third is 24 and you know one of them is a suicide bomber. Which one is it? The reality is you don't know. You let the wrong one go and a lot of innocent lives will be lost. The answer is all three are your enemy.

Thats cold blooded but you don't have much of a choice when Islamic extremist are not policed by there own countries or are even supported by their countries.

To kill an enemy you are probably going to have to fight like them.
You can't fight with rules when those you are fighting have no rules.

How do you know that these three men are Muslims? Do they have it stamped on thier forehead? I see so many Asian looking guys around London. Now unless they are wearing a Muslim prayer cap or shout at the top of thier lungs "I'm a Muslim" then there is no way for me to know. They could be Hindu, Seihk, Christian, Athiest, or something else entirely. Just like any great world religion that persons ethnicity could be anything. They could be white Euro, African, Carribbean, North American, South American, central Asian, or South East Asian.

[Konovalov]

Regarding "Islamic intolerance" for all other faiths -- when you are learning the Quran, the 6th Surah you learn ends with "To you your religion, and to me my religion." Tolerance of other religions was -- is -- ingrained in my upbringing, just like that of millions of other Muslims.

Indeed, you are spot on the mark. Alhumdulillah.

Sure, there's millions of Muslims that are anti-Semitic -- just like there's millions of Christians that are anti-Semitic, or millions of Hindus that are anti-Muslim. And spare me the "holier than thou" arguments that are forming while you read this. There's a sizeable element of the American or Israeli nations that wouldn't mind lining up a bunch of Arbas/Muslims and shooting them dead, regardless of their innocence -- just like theres many Muslims that would do exactly the same thing to Christians or Jews given the opportunity.

People are people -- they stick with those that are like them, and dislike or even despise those that aren't. Religion is just another category to base likes and dislikes upon, just like skin color.

Again so right you are.

[Type941]

Getting back to the focus of the topic. I think the iranian president has had to do it to identify his position to his own people, first and foremost, but also to all arab nations around. The arab nations or muslim nations, the bottom line is they all don't want Israel there. I think it's safe to say. And while A******zan chose a rather stupid way of announcing it, it doesn't matter if he says it or not. It's a fact - they will not live in peace until Israel is gone. That's the reality.

It don't think Iran actually means to destroy Israel as soon as possible and is preparing. But having said what he did, now it gives a very strong case for the US and its allies to go to UN and ask for sanctions, exclusion from UN, claim of nuke weapon development, you name it. Even Russia kinda of had to wash hands and say 'heck, now you've done it'. Russia is trying to sit on 2 chairs at the same time, be friends with US and trade with Iran. Unfortunately, Russia has no control over what Iran choses to speak about. And Iran knows that the threats US is waving at them are only threats (note, there is never a case of Iranian president calling a US Amabassador to its palace and giving him a note of dissatisfaction with the statements US makes! :rotfl: )

[Wim Libaers]

Nor are Muslims in our countries. Though it may please you to think so. When we get to the bottom of things though, what seems perfectly normal here may seem backward there, and vice versa - it's a matter of cultural perspective. How can you expect people to act contrary to their cultural upbringing?


I am not expecting anyone to act contrary to their cultural upbringing, that's unrealistic in most cases. Which is exactly why I am strongly opposed to multicultural societies if the cultures involved have seriously conflicting backgrounds. If they do not want to act contrary to their cultural upbringing, that's OK, but then they should not come to Western countries and start demanding that we conform to their desires. And that's exactly what's happening.

My subjective opinion: Western culture is superior to theirs. And even they seem to agree to some extent, for practical matters, as many come here for economic reasons. But then they still want to impose their culture and religion, because they feel ours doesn't quite fit their expectations. One would have to be insane to support someone trying to replace your superior culture with his inferior one, no? In fact, anyone doing so could be considered a traitor.

And yes, imposing their culture is what they want to do. We see a really bad trend in Europe, with Islamists trying to grab power in cities where muslims are numerous, threatening and even killing people who criticise their religion, raping girls that don't behave the way a muslim girl should behave (even if it is not a muslim girl), attacking Jews, and to make matters worse we also have quite a few Westerners who can be called traitors in the way described above.

But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them?

While it certainly is unfair to look at a group of people as if it were composed only of its nastiest members, one has to keep in mind that the nastiest ones are likely to be far more active than the average decent guy, and will have much more impact on the group.

[The Avon Lady]

Regarding "Islamic intolerance" for all other faiths -- when you are learning the Quran, the 6th Surah you learn ends with "To you your religion, and to me my religion." Tolerance of other religions was -- is -- ingrained in my upbringing, just like that of millions of other Muslims.
Indeed, you are spot on the mark. Alhumdulillah.
Which verse in Surah 6 is that?

What about Surah 6, verse 125:

Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

What about Surah 9, verses 29 & 30:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

BTW, there is no historical reference anywhere about Jews calling someone named 'Uzair' a "son of Allah" - unless this was some hereto unknown recluse sect of Jews somewhere in Arabia. It certainly doesn't make sense according to the traditional Islamic interpertation of 'Uzair' being 'Ezra' the prophet, who was critical in returning the Jews from their Babylonian exile and beginningn the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem. But this is a separate matter.

[caspofungin]

not surah 6, the 6th surah you learn -- starting at the end, since those are shorter. "Al Kafiroon" -- The Unbelievers.

I haven't read the Torah, but I have read the Bible -- and there's plenty of bits in there about how those that don't believe are doomed/cursed/whatever. Same in all religions, afaik.

And since we're quoting -- Surah 2, "Al Bagara" -- The Cow

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believe in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness -- their wages awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

[caspofungin]

they should not come to Western countries and start demanding that we conform to their desires. And that's exactly what's happening...

...But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them?

While it certainly is unfair to look at a group of people as if it were composed only of its nastiest members, one has to keep in mind that the nastiest ones are likely to be far more active than the average decent guy, and will have much more impact on the group.

i agree with you completely -- this is the crux of the problem. Solution? I don't know. But ignorance about Islam and Muslims, generalizations perpetuated by the media and self-serving politicians certainly doesn't help things.

[Type941]

they should not come to Western countries and start demanding that we conform to their desires. And that's exactly what's happening...

...But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them?

While it certainly is unfair to look at a group of people as if it were composed only of its nastiest members, one has to keep in mind that the nastiest ones are likely to be far more active than the average decent guy, and will have much more impact on the group.

i agree with you completely -- this is the crux of the problem. Solution? I don't know. But ignorance about Islam and Muslims, generalizations perpetuated by the media and self-serving politicians certainly doesn't help things.

= result of such stance though is that things are only getting worse / continuing on the same path. :doh:

[caspofungin]

so how do you fix things? bear in mind the problem of absorbing an immigrant culture into your own has been around for decades, even before the current issues we're talking about. Think about West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis in the UK, Algerians and Morrocans in France, Turks in Germany, East Indians in Holland... a long list, and not a single country has found a solution, whether it be multiculturalism or absorption.

[Col7777]

Whim Libears worte

< But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most Muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them? >

As an example of this how many of you have been to a trade union meeting and a show of hands has been asked for a certain motion to be carried, when SOME see the large show of hands for that motion they reluctantly put their hand up too because they don't want to be singled out later even though they don't fully agree?

[Abraham]

Since its independence, Holland has always had great influxes of emigrants, because of our freedom of religion. Percentagewise these influxes were as big or even bigger than the influx of Muslims immigrants (allochtones) we face now.
To name a few: French Hugenots, Flemish Protestants, Portugese Jews, Germans from the Münster & Colone region, British Protestants all in the first century of our independence. These people were happy to find a new place to live in peace, adapted - while often sticking to their believes/traditions. After WW II and during the decolonialisation period there have been several hundred thousend of immigrants from the East Indies and Moluccans, and from Surinam (Dutch Guyana) in South America. Their integration went traumatic, but after a generation it can be said that it was succesful.

With the Muslims there seems to be a more serious problem and I think it is caused by their religion (I'm generalizing for arguments sake).
A substantial group of them is not interested in taking part in Dutch society, although that society welcomed them and pampered them with social support in a way no other group of immigrants had ever experienced.
It's not an identifiable group, but a gliding scale of fully integrated Muslims - too few - all the way to those reactionaries, who do not accept the secular Dutch authority and call this 'dar al-harb' (land of conflict).
The majority of Muslims struggle somewhere in the middle, on the positive side those who struggle with the language, with our customs and which try to start little businesses, on the negative side those who are hardly interested in integration, speaking our language in an understandable way and those who switch on an Arab satelite station as soon as they come home.
I really wonder whether there is much progress within this group in terms of absolute numbers.
The appearence of traditional preachers from countries like Saudi Arabia certainly did not help integration, like the one who asked the mayor of Amsterdam last year for a special Muslim park in Amsterdam, where all women had to wear feils and where he would not be confronted with girls, sunbathing in shorts or bikini's, nor by homo's, walking hand in hand!
Nor did the slaughter of filmmaker Theo van Gogh on broad daylight by Mohamed Bouyeri ("for offending Allah" in the movie "Submission").

I cannot help but think that it is the Muslim religion that prevents Muslims from a succesful integration and a prosperous life in their new country.
For those who might not know I want to say that I am a Christian and I respect everybody who takes his religion seriously. But not being a Muslim, I see the moral message of the Quran (in my view of course written by Mohammed) encapsuled in a very limited and completely outdated social-political-cultural set of rules. Mohamed and the people who wrote the Hadith can't be blamed for that of course, they were living in 6th and 7th century in the Arab peninsula and had limited reference points.

Christianity accepts the Ten Commands as God's guidelines for a good and prosperous life, but does not know any strict set of social, cultural or political rules. Islam, if it wants to bring its followers progress, urgently needs to be liberated of its social, political and cultural ties that do not fit in the modern world and consequently must lead to undemocratic, backward dictatorships or (attempts of) theocracies...
Just like Christianity Islam should direct its religious and moral message to the hearts and minds of its followers and leave social, political and cultural rules to the evolving society.
It can only do so when it subjects itself to severe self-criticism. I doubt very much whether it is capable to do so. If not, it will always breed lunatics who will be all to willing to lend Allah a helping hand in exchange for eternal life and seventy-some virgins...

[Kissaki]

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

If you read the Bible it has places in there that says children who disobey their parents are to be killed. And all "sinners of the flesh" - so to speak - are to be killed. Now, does this mean that Christians actually heed or even pay attention to these ancient edicts? Certainly not. I know a handful of Christian fundamentalists (who believe in a literary interpretation of the Bible), and not even they would kill in the Name of the Lord (except in war).

If exceptions can be found in the Bible, why is it so strange that there are exceptions in the Koran as well?

[The Avon Lady]

not surah 6, the 6th surah you learn -- starting at the end, since those are shorter. "Al Kafiroon" -- The Unbelievers.
That would be Surah 109.

Still doesn't answer my questions, though.
I haven't read the Torah, but I have read the Bible -- and there's plenty of bits in there about how those that don't believe are doomed/cursed/whatever. Same in all religions, afaik.
Islam can curse me all they want. The problem is not with verbal abuse.
And since we're quoting -- Surah 2, "Al Bagara" -- The Cow

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believe in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness -- their wages awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
What's the rule in Islam of a later Surah that contradicts a prior one? Surah 5, verse 51:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

[Abraham]

Your suggestion that not killing childeren is an exception to a Biblical rule is ridiculous. So is the idea that consequently there must be exceptions in the Quran as well. You can't compare apples and pears, dear Kissaki!
I don't think the New Testament promotes killing, let alone the killing of disobedient children.
Perhaps you refer to texts of the Torah (the Old Testament), the first 5 books of Mozes. Even that I doubt, because contrary to its neigbouring tribes the offering and slaughtering of children was strictly forbidden in Israel. Anyway I would like to see your source. If there is any, you should realise that such text would be more than 3.000 years old.
For (fundamental) Muslims the text of the Quran is holy and untouchable and does not allow for exceptions.
That's why Dutch cineast Theo van Gogh was slaughtered (tomorrow one year) ago for 'offending Allah' based on texts 'only' 1.400 years old.
That's why a substantial segment of Muslims in Holland holds the opinion that he asked for it himself by making the movie 'Submission'.

[darksythe]

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

I have had Muslim friends.... Untill they no longer had a need for my aid. Then i was just a infidel again. such a shame that a religion that appears to be based on hate can still cause such problems for people today. :nope:

But hey what do i know i am just an Infidel, and anything i say is just words from the devils mouth anyway.

[Iceman]

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

If you read the Bible it has places in there that says children who disobey their parents are to be killed. And all "sinners of the flesh" - so to speak - are to be killed. Now, does this mean that Christians actually heed or even pay attention to these ancient edicts? Certainly not. I know a handful of Christian fundamentalists (who believe in a literary interpretation of the Bible), and not even they would kill in the Name of the Lord (except in war).

If exceptions can be found in the Bible, why is it so strange that there are exceptions in the Koran as well?

Dude....now your gonna get me stirred up with the Bible lol...Anything truly can be taken and twisted I'll grant you that but I guess the easiest thing to do for ya is to Skip....all the way to the End of the Bible....

He that is holy let him be holy still, he that in unholy let him be unholy still....and if you read just a little more ya get the whole point of the Bible...God doesn't force anyone in heaven or earth to follow him....but if the path one chooses conflicts with His way...ya can't live with a being like that....light and dark cannot dwell together...its all about choice.


Murderers..thieves...etc etc can go live where they want and God and His people will go to a place where He has prepared for them...the beauty of it is, is that a way back to be able walk again with God was paid for in blood...it is thru grace...this is the difference from what I gather from Christians,Jews and Muslims....Muslims and Jews think it can be earned...it can not be and live under the curse of the law...subjecting themselves to the law yet failing to fufill it.The law was meant to show sin it it's true light....hence an "Old" Testament and a "New" Testament in the Bible.


Sorry to go on but you try to draw compairisons between the Bible and what is taught in the Koran and I don't think you have studied the Bible enough to say that....if someone in the Bible was told to kill someone I think it may have been at least over 2000yrs ago...and is not taught at all anywhere in any sect of Christinaity...but from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?

There are no Exceptions...Thou Shall Not Kill has been a pretty big theme of the Christian God for a long time.

and ancient edicts ya got it..."New Testament" is what Christians go by.

If you are a Muslim and believe that non-believers are to be treated this way than be faithful to your faith don't be ashamed.

There are no exceptions....and I think the "True" Muslims will follow that as well....

Christians...No kill.
Muslims.....You tell me....ok or no?
Jews....I don't think so....but again enlighten me.

:)

[The Avon Lady]

Christians...No kill.
Muslims.....You tell me....ok or no?
Jews....I don't think so....but again enlighten me.

If you read your Old Testament (our Torah), there are numerous cases of capital punishment. The same Torah you quote as coining the law "Though shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments, also requires a person found guilty of violating numerous commandments to be punished by death.

The requirements for someone to receive capital punishment are numerous and were rarely met. Advanced and precise warning of the violaition he/she was about to commit by two or more witnesses, their accurate and precisely matching testimony, etc.

According to the Talmud, a court of law empowered to carry out the death penalty that executes a criminal more than once in seventy years is considered a "murderous court." Capital cases were forbidden to be judged in Jewish courts of law over 2000 years ago because of the degeneration of the Jewish people's obedience to the Torah's laws. Mass executions was never what the Torah wanted to lead to. Hence the Sages back then disbanded capital court cases.

I haven't read it through thoroughly and I am not a big fan of theirs but Chabad have this related article out: Replacing Fundamentalism... With What? (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=173414). Might be of interest.

[Iceman]

Thank you Avon Lady for the link and the response.

[Abraham]

@ Iceman:
I remember from my law studies that the Mozaic laws, while sounding brutal today, were extremely moderate compared with those of Israels neigbours. In those days fights tended to end in a spiral of violence and led to vendetta's between families, which could go on for generations - and still do in the Middle East.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", even without the Talmudic interpretation, meant to restore the peace of the land after a fitting retribution.
As far as penalties are concerned, when Israel received the Mosaic laws it was wandering around in the desert. No police stations and penitentiary or correctional facilities, which left very few options for any punishment, other than physical. The worst punishment was stoning, a lighter one was being excluded from the people and send away in the desert as a cast out. You still might have a small chance.
Usually smaller criminal acts could be retributed by atonement or some form of doing penance.

[caspofungin]

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous

...from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?:)

what verse quoted on this thread says that? So, yes, you are wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

There are no Exceptions...Thou Shall Not Kill has been a pretty big theme of the Christian God for a long time.

I agree -- it's been a theme, but not one that evryone has lived by. So if Christians have killed and slaughtered on a grand scale over the course of history, does that mean Christianity is a dangerous religion, and Christians are to be feared? No, because we are capable of recognizing the difference between a faith and those who interpret it to suit their ends. As long as that faith isn't Islam, because then terroristas and murderers are "just following their religion." Two-faced bollocks.

[The Avon Lady]

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous

...from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?:)

what verse quoted on this thread says that? So, yes, you are wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.
Surah 5, verse 33:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned [Pickthall and Yusuf Ali have "exiled" rather than "imprisoned"]


Surah 8, verses 12 and 13:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

[Abraham]

I agree -- it's been a theme, but not one that evryone has lived by. So if Christians have killed and slaughtered on a grand scale over the course of history, does that mean Christianity is a dangerous religion, and Christians are to be feared? No, because we are capable of recognizing the difference between a faith and those who interpret it to suit their ends. As long as that faith isn't Islam, because then terroristas and murderers are "just following their religion." Two-faced bollocks.I don't completely agree, I think.
There were many instances in history where Christianity was rightfully perceived as a danger by other religions. This started as soon as Christianity got a hold on political power (during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great - 4th Century) and lasted till the Renaissance. The final liberation for Christianity from the mortal danger of being percieved as a political threat came when as a result of the Enlightment and with the help of Humanism (which was in itself a result of critical Christianity) the separation between State and Church was established as a Western principle.
Only from the moment that Christianity lost political power it can rightfully distance itself from those who interpret it to suit their political ends.
A few well known examples:
Nazi's used the slogan: 'Gott mit uns' (God with us);
Apartheid policy in South Africa claimed a 'Christian' fundation;
IRA claimed to protect Catholics against Protestants.

Islam doesn't seem know it yet, but it will be a better religion when it gives up all political aspirations, including the submission to the Sharia, and sticks to its moral message.

[The Avon Lady]

Some more (unpleasant) reading material:

Christianity and Islam: more in common than differences? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008576.php)

[caspofungin]

i agree, that's a pretty unpleasant article to wade through.

That, after all, is what the Qur’an is: an overlay or mixture of passages, usually misunderstood or distorted from their original sources, taken from the Jewish and Christian holy books and mixed with pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliyya.

So are we expected to take this author's message as an objective, rational analysis? He seems to be wearing his heart on his sleeve.

From the discussion below the main article--

Christianity did indeed spread violently and in some cases, entire groups were either slaughtered en masse or driven into hiding, as happened in South and Central America and Mexico. Much of the gold stolen from the Aztec and Incan nations was shipped back to Europe and smelted into Christian momuments, gold leaf and other icons. The spread of Christianity was driven, in part, my the search for riches and trade routes in the names of their country or King...
Africa was dissected by Christian European settlers, the effects of which are still obvious to this day...
India had its time with violence and Christianity.
"In the early part of Portuguese rule, the Colonialists are also recorded to have forcibly converted temples into churches. As per local traditions in the villages around the Basilica of St. Francis Xavier near Panjim in Goa, There originally existed a Shiva temple on the site of the Basilica which was demolished by the colonial authorities to put up the Basilica"

Ignoring any or all of this while arguing that Islam is the "antithesis of Christianity" is the pinnacle of hypocrisy as well as intellectual dishonesty. Simply because your religon's violent past happened in lands far away, to people vastly different from you does not make it any less signifcant.
[/quote]

[caspofungin]

abraham i completely agree with you -- when the arab leadership, both political and ideological, sticks to the moral message of the quran, and lives and leads by those morals, the world will be a better place.

[caspofungin]

Surah 5, verse 33:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned [Pickthall and Yusuf Ali have "exiled" rather than "imprisoned"]


Surah 8, verses 12 and 13:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

First, there's plenty of passages in the Old and New Testament in which a wratchful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so. Why don't you quote those lines?

Second, there's a difference in the Quran between tolerance of those peacefully observing the Christian and Jewish faiths, and fighting against those who are actively persecuting Muslims or the Islamic faith.

[The Avon Lady]

i agree, that's a pretty unpleasant article to wade through.
That, after all, is what the Qur’an is: an overlay or mixture of passages, usually misunderstood or distorted from their original sources, taken from the Jewish and Christian holy books and mixed with pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliyya.
So are we expected to take this author's message as an objective, rational analysis?
Possibly more so than we are to take your personal response as such.

Speaking from a Jewish point of view, the Quran outrightly calls the Jews liars and corrupters of the Torah.

I'm sure there are similar feeling from Christians who believe in the concept of trinity, which the Quran completely negates as a lie.
From the discussion below the main article--
Christianity did indeed spread violently and in some cases, entire groups were either slaughtered en masse or driven into hiding, as happened in South and Central America and Mexico. Much of the gold stolen from the Aztec and Incan nations was shipped back to Europe and smelted into Christian momuments, gold leaf and other icons. The spread of Christianity was driven, in part, my the search for riches and trade routes in the names of their country or King...
Africa was dissected by Christian European settlers, the effects of which are still obvious to this day...
India had its time with violence and Christianity.
"In the early part of Portuguese rule, the Colonialists are also recorded to have forcibly converted temples into churches. As per local traditions in the villages around the Basilica of St. Francis Xavier near Panjim in Goa, There originally existed a Shiva temple on the site of the Basilica which was demolished by the colonial authorities to put up the Basilica"

Ignoring any or all of this while arguing that Islam is the "antithesis of Christianity" is the pinnacle of hypocrisy as well as intellectual dishonesty. Simply because your religon's violent past happened in lands far away, to people vastly different from you does not make it any less signifcant.

Did Christians do all this because Jesus instructed them to? Where is this commanded in the New Testament?

[caspofungin]

you're making my point...

specifically
1. that the interpretation of a religion by those with a political agenda casts a dark shadow upon that religion, that when we are examining it objectively, we should make an effort to separate

2. that islam is not the only religion that calls for punishment to be heaped upon the heads of those who are regarded as unbelievers or infidels or against the chosen of God.

Regarding my objectivity, I'm not hate-mongering, or calling my religion better than anyone elses. All I ask is for it to be viewed with the same objective, dispassionate lens that we view other religions through.

And I'm kind of upset that you think the author of that article is more objective than I am -- just because they lean towards your point of view doesn't make them right.

[The Avon Lady]

Second, there's a difference in the Quran between tolerance of those peacefully observing the Christian and Jewish faiths, and fighting against those who are actively persecuting Muslims or the Islamic faith.
So the people in the World Trade Center, the Madrid trains, and the London Underground were or were not actively persecuting Muslims or the Islamic faith? Or is it their countries, the US, Spain and the UK?

Does this mean that there can never be a legitimate attack of infidels against Muslims?

Who decides what constitutes "active persecutions"?

What did all of Mesepotamia, the Levant, Egypt and N. Africa, the Balkans and much of southern Europe do in the 700's to qualify them as being persecutors of Muslims or the Islamic faith?

[caspofungin]

and i'm loving my new avatar (Wild night in Bangkok LOL)

[The Avon Lady]

you're making my point...
You should be beheaded for bearing such an avatar! :o

EDIT: LOL! cant stop laughing

[caspofungin]

So the people in the World Trade Center, the Madrid trains, and the London Underground were or were not actively persecuting Muslims or the Islamic faith? Or is it their countries, the US, Spain and the UK?

to paraphrase you
Did Christians do all this because Jesus instructed them to? Where is this commanded in the New Testament?

Did the terrorists do all this because Allah instructed them to? Where is this commanded in the Quran?

legitimate attack

When was the last time in history that an attacked people wnt, "Oh, OK, I guess we deserved that. It was legitimate, let's sit back and chill."

[Konovalov]

Regarding "Islamic intolerance" for all other faiths -- when you are learning the Quran, the 6th Surah you learn ends with "To you your religion, and to me my religion." Tolerance of other religions was -- is -- ingrained in my upbringing, just like that of millions of other Muslims.
Indeed, you are spot on the mark. Alhumdulillah.
Which verse in Surah 6 is that?

Regarding Surah 109 AL-KAFIRUN (Those who reject faith) I would just like to make my comments on that. I interpret this in the same way as Caspofungin. Firstly this was one of the early Makka surahs. It defines the right atitude to those who reject faith: in matters of truth we can make no compromise, but here is no need to persecute or abuse anyone for his faith or belief.

1. Say: O ye
That reject faith! (a)
(a. Faith is a matter of personal conviction, and does not depend on worldly motives.)
2. I worship not that
Which ye worship,
3. Nor will ye worship
That which I worship. (b)
(b. Verses 2-3 describe the conditions as they were at the time when this surah was revealed, and may be freely paraphrased.)
4. And I will not worship
That which ye have been
Wont to worship,
5. Nor will ye worship
That which I worship. (c)
(c. Verses 4-5 describe the psychological reasons.)
6. To you be your way,
And to me mine. (d)
(d. 'I having been given the Truth, cannot come to your false ways: you, having your vested interests, will not give them up. For your ways the responsibility is yours: I have shown you the Truth. For my ways the responsibility is mine: you have no right to ask me to abandon the Truth.')

[What about Surah 6, verse 125:

Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.?

Now looking at Surah 6 AL-AN'AM, this was revealed during the late Makkan period. The greater part of it was revealed entire. It's place in the traditional order of placement is justified by logical considerations. In summary it says that -

The nature of God and the method by which He reveals Himself are first expounded, and the weakness of Paganism is exposed (6:1-30).
The emptiness of this world's life is contrasted with the evidences of Allah's wonderfull handiwork in all Creation. It is he who holds the keys of the Unseen and the secrets of all that we see (6:31-60).
Allah's working in His world and His constant care and guidance should give a clue to His unity as it did to Abraham when he argued with those who worshipped false gods (6:61-82).
The succession of prophets after Abraham kept Allah's truth alive, and led up to te Holy Qu'ran. How can man fail to understand the majesty and goodness of Allah, when he contemplates Allah's nature and His messages to Mankind? (6:83-110)
The obstinate and the rebellious are deceived: they should be avoided. Though they turn to assistance to each other, they will receive due punishment (6:111-129).
Allah's decrees will come to pass, in spite of all the crimes and superstitions of the ungodly (6:130-150).
The better course is to follow the straight Way, the Way of Allah, as directed in the Qu'ran, with untiy and the full dedication of our lives (6:151-165).

Now with specific regard to Ayah (verse) 125 of Surah 6 I wll address that in detail as best I can.

Those whom Allah (in His Plan)
Willeth to guide - He openeth
Their breast to Islam;
Those whom He willeth
To leave straying - He maketh
Their breast close and constricted,
As if they had to climb
Up to to skies: thus
Doth Allah (heap) the penalty
On those who refuse to believe. (a)
(a. Allah's Universal Plan is the qada wa qadr, which IMO is so misunderstood. That Plan is unalterable, and that is His Will. It means that in the spiritual world, as in the physical world, there are laws of justice, mercy, grace, penalty and so on which work as surely as anything we know. If then, a man refuses Faith, becomes a rebel, with each step he goes further and further down, and his pace will be accelerated; he will scarcely be able to take in effect what IMO is spiritual breath, and so his recovery - in spite of Allah's mercy which he has rejected - will be as difficult as if he had to climb up to the skies. On the other hand, the godly will find with each step, the next step easier. Jesus as I see it expressed this truth paradoxically: "He that hath, to him shall be given; but he that hath not, from his shall be taken away even that which he hath:" Mark. iv. 25. John (vi. 65) makes Jesus say: "No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father."

That is it for now as Iftar is close approaching so I must have the dates and food all prepared for the breaking of fast as obviously we are in the month of Ramadhan.

[The Avon Lady]

1. that the interpretation of a religion by those with a political agenda casts a dark shadow upon that religion, that when we are examining it objectively, we should make an effort to separate
I have read and listened to numerous Imams, Sheiks and Muslim religious scholars, who can rattle off the Quran and Hadiths in a flash, all saying pretty much the same thing and quoting the same passages.

You would think it would be so simple to disprove all of them by counter-proofs from the same books. Yet it's mostly working the other way around.

What do they all know that you don't know?
2. that islam is not the only religion that calls for punishment to be heaped upon the heads of those who are regarded as unbelievers or infidels or against the chosen of God.
Anyone else around calling for and actually practicing dismemberment of their enemies and based on religious texts, no less?
Regarding my objectivity, I'm not hate-mongering,
I'm not saying that you personally are. Nevertheless, the lack of hatemongering does not guarantee objectivity.
or calling my religion better than anyone elses.
That is not the point here.
All I ask is for it to be viewed with the same objective, dispassionate lens that we view other religions through.
So is criticism allowed? What do we do when we detect contradiction? What about when one religion's highly observant to the letter followers affects the lives of everyone else - not just in some Islamic country - but in much of the rest of the world?
And I'm kind of upset that you think the author of that article is more objective than I am -- just because they lean towards your point of view doesn't make them right.
You know that goes both ways. I can't prove the author's words are more objective than yours but you can't do the reverse either.

[caspofungin]

i can't and won't ban criticism. But I'll do my damndest to correct misinformation.

anyway, i'm off to operate on an infidel -- i'll try not to slip and cut her aorta, because somewhere in the past some imam told me it was my duty to do so :doh:

later, al, 1 last point

What about when one religion's highly observant to the letter followers affects the lives of everyone else - not just in some Islamic country - but in much of the rest of the world?

what terrorists are doing has more to do with the policies of the targeted countries than the fact that they are Christian or democratic. there's no bombs going off in Oslo or Zurich or Mexico City or Punta Arenas.

[The Avon Lady]

First, there's plenty of passages in the Old and New Testament in which a wratchful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so. Why don't you quote those lines?
I missed this one earlier.

I can't respond for NT quotes but I'll be happy to respond to any from the Torah, if you please. :yep:

But I'm also low on time now. Maybe later tonight.

[Abraham]

abraham i completely agree with you -- when the arab leadership, both political and ideological, sticks to the moral message of the quran, and lives and leads by those morals, the world will be a better place.I really appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness.
We may agree or disagree (and we certainly do), but respect for the other is as good to give as it is to receive.
:up:

[Abraham]

First, there's plenty of passages in the Old and New Testament in which a wratchful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so. Why don't you quote those lines?Ola caspofungin!
No texts in the New Testament "in which a wrathful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so" as you say.
Sources please!
The New Testament basically says that Christians are sinners as much as anybody, that God will judge afterwards, that here and now we should love our neighbours, be good citizens and obey the government, unless it really suppresses Christian fait and values, like in a Third Reich situation...

[Iceman]

Yep..Not in the New Testament.

Period.

Have you been watching the Ten Commandments movie again?...thats "Old" Testament...You should read up on why there is an Old and New Testament perhaps.

[caspofungin]

you're right, i'm wrong. i haven't read those texts ina long time (14 yrs, to be precise) and i don't quote them on a daily basis. perhaps i'm not as well read up as i should be.

Have you been watching the Ten Commandments movie again?...thats "Old" Testament...You should read up on why there is an Old and New Testament perhaps.

then again, at least i'm willing to a. admit when i'm wrong; and b. educate myself to prevent another mistake. can you say the same? or is sarcasm the limit? i'm not the one getting my idea of what islam is from watching tv.

[Iceman]

You are wrong...I have read it...have you?

My sarcasim is meant to goad you into seeking for yourself.Which is why I ask about the Koran and Jewish Faiths...Hey where are the Buddahists in all this anyways?

The Bible is preached to be a guide and as is taught in the Old Testament in Ecclesiastes...


[12] And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


Do we Really need a book to tell us that cutting off heads is wrong?....Come-On!

[caspofungin]

no, the thing all faiths have in common is respect for and love of your fellow man. too bad not everyone lives by those rules, right? and i'll try to make time to check up on the NT. :up:

[Kissaki]

First, there's plenty of passages in the Old and New Testament in which a wratchful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so. Why don't you quote those lines?Ola caspofungin!
No texts in the New Testament "in which a wrathful God smites "unbelievers" and encourages his followers to do so" as you say.
Sources please!
The New Testament basically says that Christians are sinners as much as anybody, that God will judge afterwards, that here and now we should love our neighbours, be good citizens and obey the government, unless it really suppresses Christian fait and values, like in a Third Reich situation...

Doesn't Paul suggest that all governments are sanctioned by God, by virtue of being governments? I've misplaced my Bible, been looking for it for weeks now, and can't readily quote from it. So please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Skybird]

Hey where are the Buddahists in all this anyways?

If you happen to understand written German, I could immediately help out.

http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/Worum%20es%20geht.doc

This text was written by me many years ago, although I did not want to write it, but many students in my meditation courses started to ask for something that they could hold in their hands and carry home, and asked time and again until I thought that I really should put their minds at peace again :). I revisoned it two times in later years, three years ago for the last time. the text was meant for especially this kind of audience, that explains it's - still tame! - polemic tone in the last passages - it was intentional.

[Kissaki]

There are no Exceptions...Thou Shall Not Kill has been a pretty big theme of the Christian God for a long time.

<snip>

Christians...No kill.


Actually, Avon Lady does justice to this commandment when she quotes it as "thou shalt not murder". As I understand it, this is a more accurate translation of the Hebrew verb (well, she'd know, anyway :) ), and it does not include killing in the name of God (ie., in war and such). So it's really only in recent times that Christians have started interpreting that commandment as "no kill". But in light of the NT, that's the meaning it indeed has, because Jesus preaches "love thine enemy" and "turn the other cheek". Of course, this is precicely what Christians find the hardest edicts to follow, which is understandable.

Still, you have Christians who are still fond of (and who indeer quote) "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Something Jesus specifically rejects in his Sermon on the Mound. The "do not revenge" bit, which is in the same vein, is also conveniently forgotten.

So where am I getting at? People will be people, for better or worse. This is not something religion can change. People want to get even, they want to hate. Only truly insightful individuals can rise above such things.

[Kissaki]

My sarcasim is meant to goad you into seeking for yourself.Which is why I ask about the Koran and Jewish Faiths...Hey where are the Buddahists in all this anyways?


I'm Buddhist. Non-denominational, but leaning mostly toward Zen.

Some of you may recall me declaring myself as atheist before, which is also true. I'm atheist because I don't believe in the existence of gods. I'm Buddhist because I agree with their ideas and principles (for the most part). I'm skeptical in regards to reincarnation, but contrary to popular belief this is not an essential point. Buddhism, like any other philosophy (or religion), is ultimately about happiness.

[August]

So where am I getting at? People will be people, for better or worse. This is not something religion can change. People want to get even, they want to hate. Only truly insightful individuals can rise above such things.

I'd say it's the duty of these insightful individuals to work to prevent barbarism in their own society.

Islamic terrorism exists only because Islam allows it to exist. Why this is so is debatable but Islam is the only force that can stop it.

[Kissaki]

I'd say it's the duty of these insightful individuals to work to prevent barbarism in their own society.


Believe me, they do, all the time. It's just that there are so few of them, and those charismatic enough to actually sway a large portion of the people (the Dalai Lama, Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc.) are one in a million.


Islamic terrorism exists only because Islam allows it to exist. Why this is so is debatable but Islam is the only force that can stop it.

I'm not so sure. The majority of stories of neo-Nazies, Klansmen etc. converting from hate to love speak of close, positive contact with the groups they hate. By positive contact I mean eg. a Jew showing patience and compassion towards a neo-Nazi, because hating him back isn't going to prevent anything. It's ingrained in human nature to react positively to compassion, and negatively to hatred. Of course, being compassionate is not without its risk - it involves caring for your fellow man to such an extent that you're willing to sacrifice a great deal. Both Gandhi and King knew they would eventually fall victim to assassins, but they were undeterred. Gandhi even said that when that day came, he hoped to be able to face his assassin with a smile.

[Sixpack]

Economic aid, humanitarian aid or whatever is ofcourse oh so sweet, but won't cut it for the radical muslim faith.

Unless we in the West will appreciate Islam as the world's only valid religion (Allah as God and Mohammed as God's true prophet) and help obliterate Israel as we know it, there will be no peace.

Their Jihad must go on. They're brainwashed to never allow peace until their perceived divine work is done. To me it's plain unholy, that goes without saying.

And Allah's heaven is never too cramped to allow millions more cowardous islamic martyrs in.

Maybe we should oblige by our own initiative :arrgh!:

[August]

Economic aid, humanitarian aid or whatever is ofcourse oh so sweet, but won't cut it for the radical muslim faith.

Unless we in the West will appreciate Islam as the world's only valid religion (Allah as God and Mohammed as God's true prophet) and help obliterate Israel as we know it, there will be no peace.

Their Jihad must go on. They're brainwashed to never allow peace until their perceived divine work is done. To me it's plain unholy, that goes without saying.

And Allah's heaven is never too cramped to allow millions more cowardous islamic martyrs in.

Maybe we should oblige by our own initiative :arrgh!:

I firmly believe that if everyone in the west were to convert to Islam and wipe Israel off the map tomorrow, the Jihadists would just find another reason to fly airliners into our buildings and set off bombs in public places.

This isn't about advancing religion, it's about building a power base.

[Type941]

Hey guys, what every happend to Libia?

remember Kaddafi was all up in arms, nuclear stuff, etc. Than all of a sudden, it's mr. nice guy, we were bad, now good, we love EU, let's be friends. So from national terorist the guy just got invitations to burssels... what was done right with him, that can't be done right with Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc..

[Sixpack]

Economic aid, humanitarian aid or whatever is ofcourse oh so sweet, but won't cut it for the radical muslim faith.

Unless we in the West will appreciate Islam as the world's only valid religion (Allah as God and Mohammed as God's true prophet) and help obliterate Israel as we know it, there will be no peace.

Their Jihad must go on. They're brainwashed to never allow peace until their perceived divine work is done. To me it's plain unholy, that goes without saying.

And Allah's heaven is never too cramped to allow millions more cowardous islamic martyrs in.

Maybe we should oblige by our own initiative :arrgh!:

I firmly believe that if everyone in the west were to convert to Islam and wipe Israel off the map tomorrow, the Jihadists would just find another reason to fly airliners into our buildings and set off bombs in public places.

This isn't about advancing religion, it's about building a power base.

True ! I implied in their wet terrorist dreams they'd be in total control with their own perverse set of rules

[Sixpack]

Hey guys, what every happend to Libia?

remember Kaddafi was all up in arms, nuclear stuff, etc. Than all of a sudden, it's mr. nice guy, we were bad, now good, we love EU, let's be friends. So from national terorist the guy just got invitations to burssels... what was done right with him, that can't be done right with Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc..

Not quite sure I understand your post, but it sounds like the start of a promising extension of this thread :-j

[Type941]

LOL
no, he was one of those radical muslim dictators that wanted nuclear weapons, similar to Iran i suppose. but the whole thing got neutralized when he said he had enough of isolation and wanted be part of modern world, and said he won't do any more nuclear research. And now, we don't hear anything about Lybia. So I wonder what was done right in Libia, that can't be done in Iran..

[WutWuzDat]

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

If you read the Bible it has places in there that says children who disobey their parents are to be killed. And all "sinners of the flesh" - so to speak - are to be killed. Now, does this mean that Christians actually heed or even pay attention to these ancient edicts? Certainly not. I know a handful of Christian fundamentalists (who believe in a literary interpretation of the Bible), and not even they would kill in the Name of the Lord (except in war).

If exceptions can be found in the Bible, why is it so strange that there are exceptions in the Koran as well?

Show me where. I use the KJV. I've never read that.

[Kissaki]

Show me where. I use the KJV. I've never read that.

Deuteronomy, 21:18-21. Here's from the KJV:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

[August]

LOL
no, he was one of those radical muslim dictators that wanted nuclear weapons, similar to Iran i suppose. but the whole thing got neutralized when he said he had enough of isolation and wanted be part of modern world, and said he won't do any more nuclear research. And now, we don't hear anything about Lybia. So I wonder what was done right in Libia, that can't be done in Iran..

It may also have been the fact that he may have saw himself as the next target. Given that Reagan once ordered an airstrike to take him out after Lockerbie it wouldn't be hard for him to imagine it happening again.

[The Avon Lady]

Show me where. I use the KJV. I've never read that.

Deuteronomy, 21:18-21. Here's from the KJV:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Yep. That's a "Ben Sorer U'moreh".

The severe punishment of an incorrigible son described in the Torah (Devarim 21:18-21) was never administered, according to a Tannaitic statement (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 71a).

[kiwi_2005]

Israel should have no fear from people such as these. Israel can never be wiped of the earth, God wouldn't allow it.

[Onkel Neal]

Muslims need to address this issue of islamic extremism and put a stop to it. How many Muslims have demanded their religious leaders fight against it?



This is what we need a lot more of.
Jordanians turn against al-Qa'eda leader over bombings
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/12/wjordan12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/12/ixworld.html

Sympathy for al-Qa'eda's leader in Iraq turned to hatred in his home town yesterday as clan members and ex-neighbours dismissed the justification for the Amman bombings.



Of course, it would be nice if they had opposed al-Qaeda BEFORE they murdered some of their own :roll:

[tycho102]

Of course, it would be nice if they had opposed al-Qaeda BEFORE they murdered some of their own :roll:

It also would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans were absolutely committed to passing a balanced budget.

It's just gotta get worse before it can get any better.

[P_Funk]

Of course, it would be nice if they had opposed al-Qaeda BEFORE they murdered some of their own :roll:

It also would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans were absolutely committed to passing a balanced budget.

It's just gotta get worse before it can get any better.

Whats with peoples obcessionw ith balanced budgets? Its been proven that they dont work. The Great Depression was so Great because of great attempts to balance budgets. Tax cuts and balanced budgets wont lead to stability. And I dont think Democrats ought to be fingered when talking about expenses. Republicans always tout about how Democrats, if they got their way, would drive the country into deficit and empovrish every one but Im always amazed how people ignore the fact that Republicans always do that exact thing. I mean the current bunch of Republicans just went from the biggest surplus in American history, 2 trillion dollars, to the biggest deficit in American history, 3.5 trillion dollars. And as far as I can tell there arent any new social programs or star trek transporters moving people around. I mean how do you burn through 5 and a half trillion dollars without anything to show. Oh wait, sorry I forgot about the new military hardware and the bodies draped with american flags, nevermind.

Really its incredible. If there are 300 million Americans and lets say that 15% of them dont need anymore money well I mean... I cant even think of how much money person that could have been spent . For that much you could, maybe.... I dunno... provide free health insurance to everyone! But I know a great way to save money. Cut about 10% of the military's budget and you could run a few small countries. But war must and war will. Just dont vote for democrats unless you want peace, long life, and prosperity.

Oh my... I think we were talking about budgets?