"ISLAM: What West Needs To Know" before It to Late

[USS_shipmaster]

How Dare Are You?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php
-Yes I dare. I recommend to watch ISLAM: What West Needs To Know?
Its 99 minute documentary, made from different from official position.
Looks like its true. Islam is in XIV century of its development. And Its time for fanatics. If you remember christianity its witchhunting and inquisition (XIV-XV AD), Juidaism is time of crusifiction of the Jesus. And according to some sciensists Islam is not so peaceful like some try to ensure us.
"The title of the shameless, alarmist documentary "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" isn't complete without the phrase "Before It's Too Late!" (wikipedia) Why it can be too late? Nowadays , Jihadists try to conquire the world by using everything including posession of WMD.
Look at the
http://whatthewestneedstoknow.com/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam:_...o_Know#Reviews

link to The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260131/ref=ase_robertspencer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books

Preview @

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1396962027661549226&q=islam+what+the+west+needs+to+know&total=124&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/MGXQLZXQJTWV4WU2QSL4AG33ASQM6NIH.jpg

[Reaves]

ROFL Robbo!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/Reaves_42/rofl.jpg

[darius359au]

The world has a bigger problem than islam

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4615/killerdogrz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


;)

[The Avon Lady]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/MGXQLZXQJTWV4WU2QSL4AG33ASQM6NIH.jpg
Yes, Islam does cause hair loss (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004943.php). :ping:

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/MGXQLZXQJTWV4WU2QSL4AG33ASQM6NIH.jpg
Yes, Islam does cause hair loss (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004943.php). :ping:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[NefariousKoel]

I found my options rather limited. Much like an Islamic woman. :lol:

[Reaves]

I found my options rather limited. Much like an Islamic woman. :lol:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::shifty:

That's not nice. :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

I found my options rather limited. Much like an Islamic woman. :lol:
Not necessarily (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2007/July/theworld_July77.xml&section=theworld).

[robbo180265]

The world has a bigger problem than islam

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4615/killerdogrz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


;)

I'll take your fluffy and raise it to Longcat V tacgnol:D

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/EEI6NXNPMUF3OR3OB3DNKEXWJ2ZY4ZXT.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4323/4966466500ac6.jpg

[darius359au]

The world has a bigger problem than islam

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4615/killerdogrz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


;)
I'll take your fluffy and raise it to Longcat V tacgnol:D

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/EEI6NXNPMUF3OR3OB3DNKEXWJ2ZY4ZXT.jpg

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[robbo180265]

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4323/4966466500ac6.jpg

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Skybird]

One can disagree with launching this thread, however in the face of it'S immense inherent threats I see no reason to laugh about Islam - for that it simply is too dangerous.

Islam is naturally opressive and violant an ideology, background of it's creation is a warrior tribe culture. Options 2 and 4 for me.

Used by a gangster to justify his deeds and prevent criticism to him, he installed the understanding that his words, as collected in the Quran, are the words of God, ever were, ever will be. This is what makes it totally different than for example the bible, where churches usually agree that it is a collection of reports made by humans. The literal understanding of the quran as the word of God forbidds to even think about changing it, correcting it, modernize it, delete it in parts. It is not up to mortal, imperfect man to correct the word of God, right - that would be the ultimate sacrileg and heresy. Quran is not open for interpretation (one of the ultimate misunderstandings of Westerners abiut Islam). So, the literal understanding and word-believing in Islam and it'S heavy dependance on the Quran is not by random chance, but is a logical consequence, making the western conception of "fundamentalism" or "extremism" (which we usually perceive as a perversion of Islam) the true and natural identity of the only Islam there is: Muhammad's Islam. And this Muhammad's Islam cannot accept not to be the only ruler there is. Thinking about "modernizing", changing Islam for these reasons already is a severe violation of Islam, necessarily.

Western debate on this is characterised by enormous ignorrance and wishful thinking without knowing the basic behind Islam. Only this explains why we have opened our gates and doors for it voluntarily. We must be insane, and our decision is suicidal in the long-term of the coming 70-150 years.

I must say that darius'post is foolish. Not only is the Islamic ideology in it's self-understanding a threat to all other cultures and religiuons of the world, it also educates a culture where pragmatically maybe the competence of others is made use of, but if you look at the past centuries, you can hardly say it was creative in laying the basis for scientitifc, medical, agricultural and technological progress achieved by itself. Islamic universities practically play no role in contributing to the global knowledge treasure: since it is forbidden to seek answers to existential questions outside the Quran, and Sharia being the tool that should help to make believers believe in the right way, this is no wonder. Belief still has the ultimate primacy over science. Who dares to trust that we could survive the challenges of the future and can adapt our societies to climate changes and running out of oil sooner or later - with such an attitude of mind? It can copy what was imported by the West, but it will have extreme problems to generate answers and methods to new emerging questions. It compares to being pragmatical students, but not being a teacher or inventor. - seen this way, Darius, without needing to point at political issues and cultural invasions I can very well insist on that Islam ranks well amongst the biggest problems the world has today. Word-believing is always rigid and dangerous and limits your perspective. It leads to fundamentalism (Christian fundamentalism as well), and last but not least to the tyrannizing of the capabilities of the human mind. Islam mutilates both mind and intellect, nothing else.

[The Avon Lady]

One can disagree with launching this thread, however in the face of it'S immense inherent threats I see no reason to laugh about Islam - for that it simply is too dangerous.

Islam is naturally opressive and violant an ideology, background of it's creation is a warrior tribe culture. Options 2 and 4 for me.

Used by a gangster to justify his deeds and prevent criticism to him, he installed the understanding that his words, as collected in the Quran, are the words of God, ever were, ever will be. This is what makes it totally different than for example the bible, where churches usually agree that it is a collection of reports made by humans. The literal understanding of the quran as the word of God forbidds to even think about changing it, correcting it, modernize it, delete it in parts. It is not open for interpretation (one of the ultimate misunderstandings of Westerners abiut Islam). So, the literal understanding and word-believing in Islam and it'S heavy dependance on the Quran is not by random chanmce, but is a logical consequence, making the western perception of fundam,entalism or extremism the true identity behind the only Islam there is: Muhammad's Islam. And this Muhammad's Islam cannot accept not to be the only ruler there is. Thinking about "modernizing", changing Islam for these reasons already is a severe violation of Islam, necessarily.

Western debate on this is characterised by enormous ignorrance and wishful thinking without knowing the basic behind Islam. Only this explains why we have opened out gates and doors for it voluntarily. We must be insane.

I must say that darius'post is foolish. Not only is the Islamic ideology in it's self-understanding a threat to all other cultures and religiuons of the world, it also educates a culture where pragmatically maybe the competence of others is made use of, but if you look at the past centuries, you can hardly say it was creative in laying the basis for scientitifc, medical, agrucultural and technological progress itself. Islmaic universities practically play no role in contributing to the global knowledge treasure: since it is forbidden to seek answers to existential questions outside the Quran and Sharia is the tool that should help to make believers believe in the right way, this is no wonder. Belief still has the ultimate primacy over science. Who dares to trust that we could survive the challenges of the future and can adapt our societies to climate changes and running out of oil sooner or later - with such an attitude of mind? It can copy what was imported by the West, but it will have extreme problems to generate answers and methods to new emerging questions. It compares to being pragmatical students, but not being a teacher or inventor. - seen this way, Darius, without needing to point at political issues and cultural invasions I can very well insist on that Islam ranks well amongst the biggest problems the world has today. Word-believing is always rigid and dangerous and limits your perspective. It leads to fundamentalism (Christian fundamentalism as well), and last but not least to the tyrannizing of the capabilities of the human mind. Islam mutilates both mind and intellect, nothing else.
Fully agree but Fluffy still gives me the creeps! :dead:

[robbo180265]

One can disagree with launching this thread, however in the face of it'S immense inherent threats I see no reason to laugh about Islam - for that it simply is too dangerous.

Islam is naturally opressive and violant an ideology, background of it's creation is a warrior tribe culture. Options 2 and 4 for me.

Used by a gangster to justify his deeds and prevent criticism to him, he installed the understanding that his words, as collected in the Quran, are the words of God, ever were, ever will be. This is what makes it totally different than for example the bible, where churches usually agree that it is a collection of reports made by humans. The literal understanding of the quran as the word of God forbidds to even think about changing it, correcting it, modernize it, delete it in parts. It is not up to mortal, imperfect man to correct the word of God, right - that would be the ultimate sacrileg and heresy. Quran is not open for interpretation (one of the ultimate misunderstandings of Westerners abiut Islam). So, the literal understanding and word-believing in Islam and it'S heavy dependance on the Quran is not by random chance, but is a logical consequence, making the western conception of "fundamentalism" or "extremism" (which we usually perceive as a perversion of Islam) the true and natural identity of the only Islam there is: Muhammad's Islam. And this Muhammad's Islam cannot accept not to be the only ruler there is. Thinking about "modernizing", changing Islam for these reasons already is a severe violation of Islam, necessarily.

Western debate on this is characterised by enormous ignorrance and wishful thinking without knowing the basic behind Islam. Only this explains why we have opened our gates and doors for it voluntarily. We must be insane, and our decision is suicidal in the long-term of the coming 70-150 years.

I must say that darius'post is foolish. Not only is the Islamic ideology in it's self-understanding a threat to all other cultures and religiuons of the world, it also educates a culture where pragmatically maybe the competence of others is made use of, but if you look at the past centuries, you can hardly say it was creative in laying the basis for scientitifc, medical, agricultural and technological progress achieved by itself. Islamic universities practically play no role in contributing to the global knowledge treasure: since it is forbidden to seek answers to existential questions outside the Quran, and Sharia being the tool that should help to make believers believe in the right way, this is no wonder. Belief still has the ultimate primacy over science. Who dares to trust that we could survive the challenges of the future and can adapt our societies to climate changes and running out of oil sooner or later - with such an attitude of mind? It can copy what was imported by the West, but it will have extreme problems to generate answers and methods to new emerging questions. It compares to being pragmatical students, but not being a teacher or inventor. - seen this way, Darius, without needing to point at political issues and cultural invasions I can very well insist on that Islam ranks well amongst the biggest problems the world has today. Word-believing is always rigid and dangerous and limits your perspective. It leads to fundamentalism (Christian fundamentalism as well), and last but not least to the tyrannizing of the capabilities of the human mind. Islam mutilates both mind and intellect, nothing else.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/P6LJQMPIUIDJNY3V4U4C6ARXQRQ54HZ3.jpg

[Skybird]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/P6LJQMPIUIDJNY3V4U4C6ARXQRQ54HZ3.jpg
Nosferatu plays chess.

[Skybird]

And btw, USS_shipmaster, option 1 lacks precision. There is no such thing like Islamofacism. facism is a form of totalitarianism typically used to descrivbe it's face in Nazi-Gemrany and mussolini'S Italy. In Japan it was the imerial nationalism. You can talk of "Islamototalitarianism", but Islamofacism does not make any sense.

[The Avon Lady]

And btw, USS_shipmaster, option 1 lacks precision. There is no such thing like Islamofacism. facism is a form of totalitarianism typically used to descrivbe it's face in Nazi-Gemrany and mussolini'S Italy. In Japan it was the imerial nationalism. You can talk of "Islamototalitarianism", but Islamofacism does not make any sense.
See defintion for fascism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism?r=75).

Why does it not apply? :hmm:

[Reaves]

Robbo... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Funniest thing i've ever seen here.

[Skybird]

And btw, USS_shipmaster, option 1 lacks precision. There is no such thing like Islamofacism. facism is a form of totalitarianism typically used to descrivbe it's face in Nazi-Gemrany and mussolini'S Italy. In Japan it was the imerial nationalism. You can talk of "Islamototalitarianism", but Islamofacism does not make any sense.
See defintion for fascism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism?r=75).

Why does it not apply? :hmm:

Every fascism is totalitarianism, but not every totalitarianism is facism. Fascism, from the Italian (!) word fascismo, was the name for that Italian movement founded by Mussonlini where they all wore black shirts. The term describes a specified, clearly defined political movement that was typical for Italy. In the present the term is understood by many to be a bit wider in meaning, but it is not precise in my opinion.

Using weak if not wrong concepts and terms in criticising Islam only helps Islam to hold it's ground, for it's speakers can point fingers at you and tell the world: "Look, they dare to debate about Islam, but they even do not know it! Look at theri wrong definitions and wrong terms! How could they come to right conclusions on Islam when they even do not understand the terms of their own language!?" The public will pick up this lament thankfully, and so critizism of islam is successfully brought into discredit.

In "The dialogue that never was" I said why Islam must be considered as totalitarianism, and I have quoted that passage several times now, I think.


The MS Encarta 2005, German version, defines totalitarianism like this:
Translation: Totalitarianism - typology for a political type of rule,
- that is conducted by means of dictatorship,
- that does not know the system of separation of powers,
- that does not allow democratic rights or suppresses them,
- and that uses open or hidden force to subjugate all economical, social, political and cultural life in the name of an ideology that is asserted by the state.

(German original: Totalitarismus, Bezeichnung für eine politische Herrschaftsform, die mit diktatorischen Methoden ausgeübt wird, das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nicht kennt, demokratische Rechte nicht zulässt oder unterdrückt und sich mit offener oder verdeckter Gewaltanwendung das gesamte wirtschaftliche, gesellschaftliche, politische und kulturelle Leben im Namen einer staatlicherseits geltend gemachten Ideologie unterwirft. (…) )

And:

(…)Im Unterschied zu den schon vor den totalitären Systemen des 20. Jahrhunderts existierenden autoritären Herrschaftsformen (…) gibt es im totalitären Staat keine erkennbare Grenze mehr zwischen dem öffentlichen und dem privaten Bereich, weil nahezu alles den staatlichen Bedürfnissen, Erfordernissen und Anordnungen subsumiert und jegliche Kritik und Freiheitsrechte des Individuums nötigenfalls gewaltsam unterdrückt werden. Gemeinsam war und ist den meisten totalitären Staaten trotz ihres diktatorischen Charakters ein mit ihm verknüpftes populistisches Element, das zwar in keiner spontanen Massenbewegung wurzelt, aber dank moderner Massenkommunikationsmittel und der über sie propagierten Staatsideologie sowie einem mehr oder weniger ausgeprägten Führerkult (siehe Führerprinzip) relevante Teile des jeweiligen Staatsvolkes zu Anhängern eines totalitären Staates macht. (…)

Islam, understood in the meaning as laid out in the Quran and the example set by Muhammad’s life, fulfils these conditions.

And the Wikipedia defines Totalitarianism like this:
Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which
- the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.

Totalitarian regimes
- mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology,
- and do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals.
- They maintain themselves in power by means of
o secret police,
o propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media,
o regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism,
o and widespread use of terror tactics.

Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which are often classified as totalitarian may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, since they may hide a political process in which several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, and others, compete for power and influence .(…)

Again, Islam, understood in the meaning as laid out in the Quran and the example set by Muhammad’s life, fulfils these conditions.

The theory of totalitarianism is under criticism for summarizing too many different regimes of different ages and cultures under the same general typology. Some of these arguments are valid, imo, but nevertheless I think many of them are not valid with regard to Islam. I am aware of this dispute around the term, but for the purpose of this essay I refuse to go deeper into it. And honestly said, some of this criticism appears to be hairsplitting only anyway, in an attempt to raise Western understanding and tolerance for brutal regimes of the past and present.

The community of believers, the Ummah, has the Sharia to secure that individuals stay enforced in line with the rules and principles of the Quran. Islam never had allowed a theology with rules that would allow an open-ended discussion, discussion on Islam’s principles are only allowed by rules that make sure that in the end a predetermined outcome is guaranteed: that Quaran and Sharia is right. Thus, Islamic theology is only for reassuring the validity of Allah’S will and law by ritual practice, not for checkings it’s validity, authenticity (especially in this Islam is extremely weak), and eventually correcting it or adopting it. The totalitarian link between the individual and community also is expressed in speech. The Arab word for “president” is “Ra’is”, a word with a linguistic root in the word “ra’s”, which means “head, head of a body”. It means the head being in ultimate control of the body, it can be understood the same way as the “Führerprinzip” of the Nazis. The Ra’is is controlling the community on the basis of the Sharia, and he gains that position by being strong and ruthless enough to get there, which is acceptable for Islam as a legitimization as long as the new leader uses his power and will to fulfil the will of Allah: spreading Islam, Sharia and Quaran. Here you find one reason why Muslim societies show so little willingness to get rid of tyrants ruling them all by themselves. In their view, it is very much okay to be ruled by a tyrant if he uses is power also for spreading Islam. Even corrupt leaders and a corrupt administration is acceptable, if they nevertheless do not forget to fulfil this condition: spreading Islam. As long as the people do not perceive it to be different with their leaders, they will show not much enthusiasm to raise against them.

The totalitarian dominance of collective over individual of course penetrates deep into the private sphere of people, and it also affects the relation between the sexes. Muhammad/Islam defined the nature of being human almost exclusively as “male.” What separates man from animals is that man obey the daily obligations: practicing the daily rites, defending and spreading Sharia, engaging against “Non-Islam”, and controlling the obedience of women. That in so many “cartoons” infidels are compared to animals, especially apes, pigs and donkeys, is not by chance, but expresses a simple truth: true Muslims really do not recognize an infidel as a human, but an animal, for infidels do not obey the daily obligations that Islam names as criterion to differ between humans and animals. It’s much like with the Nazis, who invented the industrial utilization of parts of human bodies, and commited incredible cruelties against the victims in concentration camps, because they/the camp guards/a.s.o. simply had conditioned themselves not to see Jews as humans anymore, but as animals, and so jews got treated like animals, cattle in a slaughterhouse. It’s the same mechanism at work. Piously ask Islam to show more tolerance will not change that much. It is a deep-anchored conditioning that is beyond reach for rational requests. Same is true for Islam’s sick attitude towards women. They fail to qualify the criterion of being male in order to be regarded as human, and that they are not is a reality for Islam, like for you the fact that a clear sky is blue, is a reality as well. Women, as important tools for reproducing and raising the community’s numbers of potential djihadists and true human followers (males) of Islam, are under total control and under uncompromised obligation to obey, like it would be demanded from dogs as well. Their husband has a legal right for their readiness to practice koitus, which is laid down in the marriage contract, that is more a bill of sale and that includes the function of sexually using the wife as a lot that had been payed for. Quranic law regards females in their sexual function of reproduction in comparable ways like a cattlefarmer may regard the value of a cow in the amount of milk that she gives. “Moderate Muslims” that disagree on this and demonstrate by their own examples that they treat their wifes better than this (thank God!), are not practicing according to Quran and Sharia. For the ideology of Islam, the value of females does not go beyond that function of reproduction. If they refuse to obey and serve in that role exclusively, this is a threat to the community’s future existence, and thus triggers violence and penalties like other people would beat a dog that had bitten them. The totalitarian nature of Islam dictates indirectly the role females are playing in the community. To change the status of females threatens Islam at it’s very heart.

[The Avon Lady]

Why couldn't I just shut up! :damn: :damn: :damn:

;)

[Skybird]

Why couldn't I just shut up! :damn: :damn: :damn:

;)

http://www.smiley-channel.de/grafiken/smiley2007/froehlich/smiley-channel.de_froehlich020.gif

[Takeda Shingen]

Alright, I have had enough. The members of this forum would not tolerate a thread entitled 'Christianity: What the world needs to know before it is too late', nor similar threads regarding Judaism, Hinduism or Shinto.

SubSim.com forbids hate speech in the user agreement. Labeling all of the followers of one specific religion as dangerous and in need of erradication is exactly that. I do not care what your thoughts on Islam are. If you want to argue that Islamic extremists are going to be the end of Western civilization, no problem, be my guest. However, no member will be permitted to denegrate an entire religion as has been done with Scientology lately, and with Islam in the past and, well, right now. This type of behavior has been a pox on this forum.

Remember, SubSim.com is a privately-owned website. Your membership hinges on compliance with the forum regulations, and some of you really need to roll things back a bit.