Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads

[Enigma]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

[tycho102]

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

That's what is so funny. They're always calling the "blood libels" against the Jews, drawing cartoons and such, and then they turn right around and say stuff like that. Similar to when the Scientologists deride psychology, and turn right around with their 1940's lie-detectors and attempt to brainwash people into their banking scheme.

It's like having a 2 year old. "Momma! Michael's eating cookies!" And when Michael is hauled off to the gulag, Timmy's right up there in the cookie jar.

[Tchocky]

Dammit Trinity always get the best debates :(

[baggygreen]

SO why arent people like choudary and brooks locked up?

openly admitted to wanting to wage war against unbelievers (the west) which is their home...

[bradclark1]

SO why arent people like choudary and brooks locked up?

openly admitted to wanting to wage war against unbelievers (the west) which is their home...
They aren't anglo saxons.

[August]

SO why arent people like choudary and brooks locked up?

openly admitted to wanting to wage war against unbelievers (the west) which is their home... They aren't anglo saxons.

Do they have to be?

[baggygreen]

whats the fact that they arent anglo-saxon mean? that they wont be locked up because we dont wanna be accused of racism and religious supremacy blah blah blah?

[The Avon Lady]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html
What exactly is the purpose of your post here?

How would you contrast this topic you started with your reponse to my post on another thread earlier this week (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=389342&postcount=47):
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
And Powell has become a wimp in the fight against America's enemy, Islam.

I admit, I missed this earlier in the thread.....

So, America's enemy is Islam, eh? Right. :damn:
So America - and the non-Muslim world as a whole - is not Islam's enemy?

[The Avon Lady]

whats the fact that they arent anglo-saxon mean? that they wont be locked up because we dont wanna be accused of racism and religious supremacy blah blah blah?
Yes, I understand Brad's post as cynical.

[Konovalov]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html
What exactly is the purpose of your post here?

I thought that the purpose of the post was fairly obvious, at least it was to me. It highlights and is an example of the growing fight and debate within Islam. It is an example of the war for hearts and minds between people like me on the one hand and those on the other side such as the repugnant extremist figures of Omar Brooks and Anjem Choudary. However, I'm sure Enigma will clarify.

[The Avon Lady]

It is an example of the war for hearts and minds between people like me on the one hand and those on the other side such as the repugnant extremist figures of Omar Brooks and Anjem Choudary.
Free H&M classes are being given in Iraq as we type. :D

BTW, you can watch the video here (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/18/video-moderate-muslims-debate-radical-muslims-at-trinity-college/).

Regarding Brad's cynicism, it was picked up elsewhere: CNN's documentary on Muslims in Britain: "the effect is misleading and subtly racist — against white Britons" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014888.php).

[The Avon Lady]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"Will you listen to me O Meccans? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter."
- Muhammad, some of the earliest words spoken in Mecca, shortly after his first visit by "Gabriel", to people who rejected his claim to prophethood). "The Life of Mohamed", by A. Guillaume, page 131, quoting Islamic biographer of Mohamed Ibn Ishaq.

So where exactly are your heart and mind, Konovalov? What's inaccurate here? Gillaume's translation from Ibn Ishaq? Ibn Isaq? Or Mohamed?

[Konovalov]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"Will you listen to me O Meccans? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter."
- Muhammad, some of the earliest words spoken in Mecca, shortly after his first visit by "Gabriel", to people who rejected his claim to prophethood). "The Life of Mohamed", by A. Guillaume, page 131, quoting Islamic biographer of Mohamed Ibn Ishaq.

So where exactly are your heart and mind, Konovalov? What's inaccurate here? Gillaume's translation from Ibn Ishaq? Ibn Isaq? Or Mohamed?

No offence but I am done debating at Subsim with you on this topic since long ago. In the past whenever I have sought to explain the context or historical timing of said Surah and Ayah I get no response and instead the goal posts are moved onto a new Chapter and verse or another Hadith. So excuse me if I don't bite on this one. My priorities are elsewhere and have been for some time. :sunny:

[bradclark1]

whats the fact that they arent anglo-saxon mean? that they wont be locked up because we dont wanna be accused of racism and religious supremacy blah blah blah?
Thats what I think.

[Skybird]

This article describes just one of many, many examples from Germany. These guys may be non-violant, however, their determination to impose their presence on people in areas where Islam is not present and has no ground, and is told by over 90% of the people that it is not wanted, is nothing less than stubborness on display that I nevertheless call aggressive to the most. Incidents like this take place throughout Germany, and not only with regard to this special community.

I would consider it reasonable and polite that if you go to a foreign place and people living there tell you they do not want you to found a foreign colony there, that then you move away and avoid that place if you are not one of them. This article is not about a community of local residents, but foreigners from far, far away. Bear that in mind. many of them even are no Germans by official criterions (papers).

It is also misleading if in this article, like often in German media, it is pointed out that this community demands vows from its members that they help to spread Islam by missionary work. This is a demand not unique, but very typical for Islam in general. Expansion, even against resistance, is obligatory in Islam, every muhammedan is demanded and ordered to do his share of helping to strengthen and spread Islam. So what these people are showing is not so much typical for their special community, but Islam in general.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-456751,00.html

If it goes on like this I could at least imagine that one day in this country temples and cultural centres will go up in flames again, like in the thirties. What was an act of injustice and barbarism back then, in the futurte could have more in common with an act of cultural self-defense, and resignation about politicians betraying their own people and their will. What should a guy like me do , then? Standing up against the violance - accepting to get overrun by isklam becasue of that, or not resisting the violance - as the only way to get rid of Islam? It's a moral dilemma, and I fdeel undecided, but slowly shifting to the latter, like so many people as well. Of course, no one will ask if it was self-defense then - we will be the bad boys again, the always-Nazi, and everybody will point fingers at us. In recent two or three years, people's minds have come to disagree more and more with official policies on issues touching Islam. Most people look down on Islam in disgust, and also: fear now. The fear is not so much about terror, but the set of "values" it represent, the ignorration for our cultural values and identity, it'S stubborness not to integrate, the threat to our constitutional order - and it'S proven immunity to adopt, to change and to modernize itself. If I would need to estimate, I would say that at least 4 out of 5 native Germans would like to see Islam getting out of germany, and Europe. German papers in the last year repeatedly showed polls indicatin also a 70-85% majpoirty of people opposing any further friendliness towards pro-Islamic agendas.

Our political leaders ignore that reality, and prefer to continue to sell us away. Bastards.

Of course, Islam does not care. Instead it sendsa spokesman saying that "he is resignated" about the stubborness of local residents not to like Islam and not wanting it. Never a question on why this is so! And always, always it never steps back, but uses all means possible to stay, no matter if wanted or not.

One does not need a Kalashnikov, or blow ob crowds or buildings, in order to qualify for a description of being aggressive.

I believe nobody has a right to go to a foreign place and demand from the local residents that from now on they have to accept my presence, no matter if they like me or not. He has a right to ask if he is welcomed - nothing more. And when the answer is No, he has to move away, period. Ignoring this is arrogant, and utmost aggressive. Even more so if I do not adopt to the local's standards, habits, and values. Which Islam, in it's truly Quranic understanding, does NOT.

Last autumn there was a Pakistani military band playing in the shadow of one of Muenster's churches in the city centre. It was traditional Pakistani military music, which in my ears only was noise, but this question of habit and taste is not the issue. A band of a foreign nation representing that nation's military, a nation that is hostile to us and fools us at the cost of our soldier's life in Afghanistan, tells us lies and betrays us on the Taliban matter...??? The issue is that they were playing beside the entrance to a Christian church, in a christian country. There was a huge cowd, and many shook their heads. There also were manny foreigners, by appearance also Pakistani. I approached one of them, asking why he is smiling (most Pakistani obviously liked what was happening). He said in broken German and English that this was true multiculturalism happening. I asked him that certainly we could expect a military band from a Western Christian country to answer the cultural favour and soon to play in the shadow of a mosque in Pakistan? He turned angry almost immediately. Why one should wish to do that?, he asked, and that that would be a challenge and an insult of Islam that is totally unacceptable. Andnthat he was a german, he said. I asked how ling he has been here. Seven years, he said. And still you even do not speak your hosting nation'S language? I asked. "You only have a piece of paper with a stamp on it, and more you never wanted to have." I said he sounded hypocritical. He said the offsprings of the crusaders should better keep their mouths shut. We both were angry now, and I angrily called him and his faith the worst pleague mankind and reason ever had to suffer from, and left, with him trying to stare little holes into my back, and angry calls in a foreign language. They will never be Germans, only stamp-and-paper-holders. They are colonists trying to make our place like the one where they came from. Which I see in compliance with Islam.

I want them out, and the constitution being changed to explicitly exclude Islam from being protected by the guarantee for free practicing of religion. Islam does not differ between politics and religion in the understanding of wetsern nations who have established that as a basic principle for our communities, and abuses this constitutional protection to drive a politcal agenda, demanding all resistance to be given up, for pushing a political agenda were part of it's religion. Our constitution is not equipped to deal with this kind of enemy - he simply outmaneuvres it.

[The Avon Lady]

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."
"Will you listen to me O Meccans? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter."
- Muhammad, some of the earliest words spoken in Mecca, shortly after his first visit by "Gabriel", to people who rejected his claim to prophethood). "The Life of Mohamed", by A. Guillaume, page 131, quoting Islamic biographer of Mohamed Ibn Ishaq.

So where exactly are your heart and mind, Konovalov? What's inaccurate here? Gillaume's translation from Ibn Ishaq? Ibn Isaq? Or Mohamed?

No offence but I am done debating at Subsim with you on this topic since long ago. In the past whenever I have sought to explain the context or historical timing of said Surah and Ayah I get no response and instead the goal posts are moved onto a new Chapter and verse or another Hadith. So excuse me if I don't bite on this one. My priorities are elsewhere and have been for some time. :sunny:
Indeed they are.

[Konovalov]

Indeed they are.

Unnecessary.

[Enigma]

I thought that the purpose of the post was fairly obvious, at least it was to me. It highlights and is an example of the growing fight and debate within Islam. It is an example of the war for hearts and minds between people like me on the one hand and those on the other side such as the repugnant extremist figures of Omar Brooks and Anjem Choudary. However, I'm sure Enigma will clarify.
No, you did fine. Thankyou sir. :sunny:

[TteFAboB]

Last autumn...I approached one of them...I said he sounded hypocritical

My compliments to you, sir. That's the idea. These people must not be allowed to feel welcome nor comfortable. I pitty that active voices like you are spread thin all over Germany, even if the majority of the Germans oppose in silence events as despicable as the caricatural diabolic circus you've described.

**************************
BTW, you can watch the video here (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/18/video-moderate-muslims-debate-radical-muslims-at-trinity-college/).

Self-entitled Apostles? Mormons and some Protestants aside, this is heresy. The first guy, dressed in blue with a white cap, he laughs when the jihadist starts talking, is he one of "them"? Of the group of the Apostles? Or was he a "moderate"? If he was a moderate that's pathetic. The young-Ahmadinejad look-a-like then goes on and talks so kindly and softly I'm almost convinced he's afraid of the other guy or doesn't have enough faith in his own words. I don't believe anything he says, I need to see more conviction, if you show weakness in your own speech, why would I ever conceive putting strong trust in you or your words? "Oh, ladies and gentlemen, or should I say, boys and girls, this man is very naughty, sorry....but he's so bad, really, sorry, I didn't meant to offend you..... he's really evil, no, not at all, sorry, sorry I'll go back to my seat now like the good boy that I am....mommy!." Granted, the lawyer point was a good one.

Anyway, "Can I speak?"?! Do you think that's how you deal with a jihadist buffoon? You've shown respect! You must not respect him at all! He is using your tolerance in his favour you freaking idiot! He doesn't show respect for other people's right to live, to exist, and you're going to demand him to abide by the rules of a formal debate? Had it not been for the police this guy would've chopped your head off already! You don't say "can" I speak pleeeeease. You demand:

Silence imbelice, I will speak now. I've had enough of your insolence.

If he doesn't silence, you speak louder. Untill he either behaves and lets you speak, runs away from the debate or interrupts it.

Not that I don't recognize the attempt to answer the radicals. That's commendable, as long as it is honest and sincere, unlike some proeminent figures who are just playing a game of make-believe to pretend that the radicals are harmless and under control, like Tariq Ramadan.

I do recognize it. I applaud the effort to corner the radicals, congratulations to those who oppose them. My sympathies to the son of Ahmadinejad here, so long as he's being honest. The problem is that he's not up to par with the Apostle of Jihad.

Now, the art of rhetoric being available for the enforcing either of truth or falsehood, who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its stand unarmed against falsehood? For example, that those who are trying to persuade men of what is false are to know how to introduce their subject, so as to put the hearer into a friendly, or attentive, or teachable frame of mind, while the defenders of the truth shall be ignorant of that art? That the former are to tell their falsehoods briefly, clearly, and plausibly, while the latter shall tell the truth in such a way that it is tedious to listen to, hard to understand, and, in fine, not easy to believe it? That the former are to oppose the to melt, to enliven, and to rouse them, while the latter shall in defence of the truth be sluggish, and frigid, and somnolent? Who is such a fool as to think this wisdom? Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available for both sides, and is of very great service in the enforcing either of wrong or right, why do not good men study to engage it on the side of truth, when bad men use it to obtain the triumph of wicked and worthless causes, and to further injustice and error?

(...) If, however, the hearers require to be roused rather than instructed, in order that they may be diligent to do what they already know, and to bring their feelings into harmony with the truths they admit, greater vigor of speech is needed. Here entreaties and reproaches, exhortations and upbraidings, and all the other means of rousing the emotions, are necessary.

Muslims...:roll: If you intend to succeed Christianity you better do your homework or else let somebody more qualified do the talking. It doesn't matter what Mr. Jihad BELIEVES in, he can believe in gnomes, tooth-fairies and alien anal probes. A battle of beliefs, he believes that, you believe this, leads nowhere nor does it prove him wrong. He must be DEMORALIZED before the public, he must leave the debate ASHAMED and silent and nervous. You must make it absolutely clear that this is heresy and nothing else, if somebody wants to follow him and if they believe in 7, 14 or 21 virgins then they must also believe in hell because that's where they're headed to if they continue to follow this man. Religious speakers and debaters of any denomination, including non-denominational, learn:

(...) we must beware of the man who abounds in eloquent nonsense, and so much the more if the hearer is pleased with what is not worth listening to, and thinks that because the speaker is eloquent what he says must be true. And this opinion is held even by those who think that the art of rhetoric should be taught; for they confess that "though wisdom without eloquence is of little service to states, yet eloquence without wisdom is frequently a positive injury, and is of service never."(1) If, then, the men who teach the principles of eloquence have been forced by truth to confess this in the very books which treat of eloquence, though they were ignorant of the true, that is, the heavenly wisdom which comes down from the Father of Lights, how much more ought we to feel it who are the sons and the ministers of this higher wisdom ! Now a man speaks with more or less wisdom just as he has made more or less progress in the knowledge of Scripture; I do not mean by reading them much and committing them to memory, but by understanding them aright and carefully searching into their meaning. For there are those who read and yet neglect them; they read to remember the words, but are careless about knowing the meaning. It is plain we must set far above these the men who are not so retentive of the words, but see with the eyes of the heart into the heart of Scripture. Better than either of these, however, is the man who, when he wishes, can repeat the words, and at the same time correctly apprehends their meaning.

Granted, we've only seen a little part of the debate. I am simply assuming that the rest of it is on the same level.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

This is about the only time you're going to get me plastering my personal opinion on a religious debate, but here it is:

None of this should matter. Religion has become a weapon just as much as the rifle and bomb. In an ideal world, people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, worship who they want to worship. Be they Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jedi whatever.

Its about time people stopped getting up in arms about religion, and work on a sound principle, respect and be respected.

I'm in no way saying that any cause is right, but everyone seems to be shoving their beliefs down everyone elses throats, rather than just saying 'Here's what I believe' and accepting that other people are going to think different. I dont know about you folks, but just because someone's beliefs dont correspond with what people have been brought up with or what they have begun to believe sure as hell isnt a cause to start any conflict.

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.

Sorry, rant over.

[Skybird]

None of this should matter. Religion has become a weapon just as much as the rifle and bomb. In an ideal world, people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, worship who they want to worship. Be they Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jedi whatever.

Totalitarianism, Stalinism, Nazism, Tamerlan, Mao Tsetung, Inquisition, Scientology - believe whatever you want: well, really? Some belief systems include statements and demands that are exlcusive to the idea of mutual tolerance. In your list above, Islam qualifies for that. It has divided the world nicely into black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, peace and war, believer and infidel. Note that of the major world religions, no other brings me up to anger so easily - although I know that there are things like American Christian fundamentalism, superstitious pervertion in much of Buddhism, and widow burning in Hinduism. It's just that Hindus don't show up on my door and demand me to hand over my home to them. And at least all Buddhist I ever met had one thing in common: they asked if they are welcomed, and if not, they peacefully left and moved on. Not so Islam.

Its about time people stopped getting up in arms about religion, and work on a sound principle, respect and be respected.

And if you are confronted with an ideology that teaches to ignore such claims and demands like yours - what do you do, then? Live and let live, nice and well, but if the other does not obey this principles, moves toeards you, besieges you, says "I live and let you live only when you live according to my rules", if he wants to own what is yours, wants you to give up what is yours, wants you to obey HIS rules - what then? "Those without swords - nevertheless can get killed by a sword".

I'm in no way saying that any cause is right, but everyone seems to be shoving their beliefs down everyone elses throats, rather than just saying 'Here's what I believe' and accepting that other people are going to think different. I dont know about you folks, but just because someone's beliefs dont correspond with what people have been brought up with or what they have begun to believe sure as hell isnt a cause to start any conflict.

In Muslim countries, Jews or Christians certainly do no longer dare to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. We are talking of ethnical/religious cleansing in these countries, since centuries. You would risk a serious world war if you try to force them that for every mosque in Europe being built, not a synagoge or church should be built in Muhameddan countries in return. At the same time Muhammedans demand infidels in their own western home countries to give ground to Islam and serve it's interests more and more, directly and indirectly, and beouev in a version of Islam that hs little or nothing to do with the brutal reality to be found in the quran, laid down in a harsh plkace and a violant time 1400 ago. Islam comes to us and puts up demands that we shall accept it's presence, no matter if we like it or not. It demnds to be seen as an equal, although it wants to be a superior, but has given up the process that led to Arabia'S relative cultural superiority one and a half century ago - BEFORE Muhammad arrived. And you write the answer you did just above...? It is a dangerous move these days, that all and everything is relativised and put into relation until no more categories are left that could give us guidance what we may tolerate, and what we better refuse and shall not tolerate, for our own benefit. All scales of judgement are neutrlaised, all differences that are relaities are nevertheless ignored. Such lack of differentiation is neither tolerance, nor a sign of hukmanism or pacifism - it just leads into anarchy and the absence of any scales, rules and categories. And in anarchies not the reasonable ones survive, but the strongest.

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.
I wish the same. But although wishing so I still can get killed by an extremist, radical, terrorist or by war. What I hope reality to be, and what it really is, is two different things.

[bradclark1]

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.
I keep saying that to the Jehovah Witnesses that are always doing our neighborhood.

[August]

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.

You might as well wish we didn't have to breathe air or eat food to live. All those things you mention have been part of the human experience since man first climbed out of the trees. To deny it is to deny reality.

[Abraham]

I agree with much of what you wrote in your earlier post, Skybird. With your anger about the arrogant attitude of the Pakistani 'German'. But your anger carries you too far.
Your mistake is that you are generalising and targetting all Muslims in a 'Them against Us'-structure.

The result is this:
...
I want them out, and the constitution being changed to explicitly exclude Islam from being protected by the guarantee for free practicing of religion...
...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!

According to my standards your opinion deprives you the right to criticise others who promote the same kind of discrimination.
:down:

[U-533]

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.

Sorry, rant over.

Dont we all Kaptain _Phillips dont we all.

But complete tolerance breeds complete intolerance.

Rant on young man some one will have to carry the flag when us more experienced people are gone.:sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

[bradclark1]

...
I want them out, and the constitution being changed to explicitly exclude Islam from being protected by the guarantee for free practicing of religion...
...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!

According to my standards your opinion deprives you the right to criticise others who promote the same kind of discrimination.
:down:
I understand what he is saying and I understand what you are saying.
The simple question is how do you tell the good from the bad? You can't.
You call it discrimination. Skybird calls it survival.
Realistically though Skybirds stand just drives Islam underground which would only worsen the situation and probably ignite a growth.

Your mistake is that you are generalizing and targeting all Muslims in a 'Them against Us'-structure.
That is what has already started isn't it? It will be more pronounced with time as fear overrides PC.

[Skybird]

...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!


Wrong. I talk of political affiliation! You don't get even the basis of my argument. You do not understand how far-leading consequences it has that Islam does not differ in the way the West does between religion, and politics, and sociology. It's conception of a social community does not compare to that of modern Western communities - in no way. In Islam, Islam is ALL.

And that leads to a conception of a worl to live in that is too alien, too radically diffrent from what the Wetsern mind would like to see as if it could accept that such a conception couold even exist. That's why people like you with the best of intentions try their best to ignore it or try to evade realising it. It cannot be what shall not be.

What you want is a critical relation to what you consider to be Islam - but only your own conception of it. And under no circmstances the "critical" in your relation shall be accepted to lead as far as open confrontation, and conflict. That would mean to fight. You/we/the West does not will any fight anymore. That way you make sure that you deal with something that your own set of mental tools of analysis, negotiation and reason can handle. You are not adressing the real thing, and you are not aware of that. You and the wstern society in general does not have the tools to deal with Islam on it's own terms. No wonder then that what you consider to be the virtues of Western culture of mind and reason - is perceived as the most weak and disgusting by Islam, a weakness that is to be exploited and increased - and that is what is happening. We all know that when it gets to the real deal, the West will not be willing to face an open confrontation. If Islams pressure only becomes strong enough, our institutions will bow to it, will fall to it, will surrender. In parts this is already happening inside nations, and on a bigger scale inside the administrative structures of the EU. Islam ism willing to push that far, knowing that we will shy away. It's the fourth attempt to make Europe it's own, and this time it will win it all. Thanks to our own naivety and self-perception of being so irresistable as a cultural system that nobody could resist to wish becoming like we are. And this arrogance is what will destroy us. And it will be a long-lasting darkness that follows.

You call the behavior of that man arrogant. But his attitude is not an exception, it is a rule. It has not been the first time I clashed with Muhammedans in public, and hopefully it will not be the last. I also had debates in privbate, or with colleagues. "Islam is better than your world, and it simply will outsit you" - this attitude is what I meet - by far - the most often. Of course, this will not make you think or worry. Like Blair is not worried that such a huge ammount of Muhammedans in Britain want the Sharia replacing the British law system, and even accept violance if it helps that cause.

You have choosen your stand very unwisely, as I see it. It reminds me of psychologists and sociologists, many of whom also think they are perfectly equipped to totally understand man, without limits, and know no limits themseves in their ability to help or to change a man's life and attitude and perception. I call it the "God-complex" of psychologists, or the "syndrom of omni-potential helpers". To think that one's own ability to deal well with the other knows no limits,a nd that one knows him better than he does know himself. - But truth is - we are not half as attractive for Islam as we believe, to motivate it to change itself. No, not even that much. Our only attractiveness lies in that we are the next prey.

And if the kindly friendly Muhammedan neighbour living in that house is aware of that or not, does not change the going of the great game a bit. In Germany in the past, most Germans were no Nazis. but still a majority of them ended up in direcly or indirectly helping the regime to survive and going on with it's political and military goals. Because many thought deeds were not necessary, that they were too weak anyway, and that it is enough not to like Hitler. See where it led to. I oppose fascism. And for that reason, I nessarily must oppose Muhammedanism and any other kind of religious or politcal totalitarianism as well. It is a contradiction in itself to oppose the one, and accept the other.

[Abraham]

...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!


Wrong. I talk of political affiliation! You don't get even the basis of my argument.
Well, I said:
Your mistake is that you are generalising and targetting all Muslims in a 'Them against Us'-structure.

The result is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
...
I want them out, and the constitution being changed to explicitly exclude Islam from being protected by the guarantee for free practicing of religion...

...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!

According to my standards your opinion deprives you the right to criticise others who promote the same kind of discrimination.
:down:
And since Islam is generally considered to be a religion, you propagate religious discrimination.
You know me well enough to know that I understand the basis of your argument. 'Islam is politics as well as religion' and all of that. And you are right, as I have told you before on this forum. But again, don't target whole groups and don't discriminate religions - if only because it will be totally counterproductive.

How about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions - of Muslims who live in your country and mine and just try to make a living and be proper western citizens, be it with a non-western religious background?

Extreme Muslims call for a jihad against The West, so let's call for a dahij against The Muslims and start a nice little civil war in Europe.
Probably the US will have to invade Europe to restore order...

I love freedom, Human Rights and democracy, so I don't want to live in a country where on the basis of their religion (Islam) a part of the population is outcasted and/or deported.
:down:

[Skybird]

And since Islam is generally considered to be a religion, you propagate religious discrimination.
And this is the basis of it all - it is a misperception. Islam is NOT a religion, like others. It is a religionpoliticalsystemsocialtotalitariansim. It is not just a religion. You may have noticed that I used to call it an ideolgy, repeatedly. It is NOT just a religion, with some political ingredients. It is just one thing, no construction of three things. ONE. We have no parrallel to that in Western history. That's why minds like yours have so much troubles to understand this major, essential, all-decisive difference. Forget the scales of comparisons you are used to. They do not fit.

[The Avon Lady]

Thank you, Skybird.

[Skybird]

I love freedom, Human Rights and democracy, so I don't want to live in a country where on the basis of their religion (Islam) a part of the population is outcasted and/or deported.


That is heartwarming. But you are confronted with an ideology that does not share your attitude, and favours it's own scriptures thatz find your arguments disgusting, and weak.

there are people who argue that a democracy shall also embrace those who wants to destroy it, for leaving them out would not be democratic anymore. That is an idiotic splitting of hairs. Thankfully, the founding fathers of the German constitution have seen it like me. They gave every German the right to resist anybody who wants to overcome the constitutional order of Germany, and even to use force in that process, if necessary. Article 20, paragraph 4, Grundgesetz.: " Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese (verfassungsmäßige) Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist." That is reasonable enough a formulation for me.

[waste gate]

Extreme Muslims call for a jihad against The West, so let's call for a dahij against The Muslims and start a nice little civil war in Europe.
Probably the US will have to invade Europe to restore order...


Europe maybe headed in that direction 'civil war in Europe' without realizing it.
Islam has a long history of taking by force of arms what it cannot gain through political or social means.

As far as the US comming to your rescue.....don't count on the US saving your bacon. Many will remember the support which has been provided by 'old Europe' in the not too distant past.

[bradclark1]

As far as the US comming to your rescue.....don't count on the US saving your bacon. Many will remember the support which has been provided by 'old Europe' in the not too distant past.
If it came to that then the U.S. would have no choice but to come to Europe's defense because it would also have started here too.

[The Avon Lady]

As far as the US comming to your rescue.....don't count on the US saving your bacon. Many will remember the support which has been provided by 'old Europe' in the not too distant past.
If it came to that then the U.S. would have no choice but to come to Europe's defense because it would also have started here too.
It has already begun.

"Philistines upon you, Samson!" -Delila to Samson, Book of Judges, 16:20

[Abraham]

Thank you, Skybird.
Is thanking Skybird for his reply to me funny?
:-?
You know better; Islam is a religion. May be a weird one, but that's not the point.
I cannot believe my eyes seeing people state it is not a religion.

[Skybird]

I cannot believe my eyes seeing people state it is not a religion.
And more distortion of reality, in order to make it fit your agenda. I did not say such a simplification. I said this:
Islam is NOT a religion, like others. It is a religionpoliticalsystemsocialtotalitarianism. It is not just a religion.
But the difference probably intentionally escapes your awareness, no matter what I say. "If reality does not match your needs - create your own." (old politician's advice)