'Nobody can strike the Kabba in Mecca'

[Happy Times]

Or can they? I bet they havent thought about this when planning and funding to kill the infidels. This should be an official policy.

A Saudi official has condemned a radical US Republican presidential candidate's recent comment that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on America would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the Islamic holy sites, Mecca and Medina.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557447853&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[waste gate]

Mr Tancredo happens to be my congressman, and I voted for him.

I have no problem destroying the so called 'holy sites'. If the keepers/guardians of those sites will not keep our lives sacred, I see no reason to extend any other courtesy to them.

[Skybird]

I do know nothing about Mr. Tancredo, but that option he mentions should not be taken off the table easily. Which brings me in sharp confrontation with the european positions on such extreme scenarios. But there certainly is a line in the sand which to overstep at no cost ever should be tolerated, or remained unanswered.

German news reported on this guy some days ago. As was to be expected, the answer was poltical correct, hysteric "Wischiwaschi" (=drivel). Somewhere I even read of one lunatic who argued that if an Islamic faction ever strikes by a nuclear attack, maybe the western nations have provocated it and in a way are responsible for that all alone. :doh: The author's conclusions: we should not be so tough and selfish in negotiations on nuclear issues, for example with Iran, and always remind ourseolves of the immense violance and damage Europe has cuased since the crusades. The author was no muhammedan, but some local politicians nobody ever have heared of. But his view unfortunately is quite a bit representative for parts of public opinion. :down:

There should be a law that makes it obligatory to be of sound mind before being allowed to have and articulate one's precious personal opinion. having an opinion is cheap, and not impressive at all. how one is able to found it and being reasonable about it is what counts. - I'm sure even a dog doing it's business between the trees has it's opinion on something.

[SUBMAN1]

Last I checked, the Persians and Turks have caused more unprovoked destruction than Europe throughout history. Maybe they should return the favor. Whom invaded Europe? The Turks. So the Crusades had a purpose - to drive them back out. The Crusades were not started by Europe, but maybe Europe should finish the job?

-S

[AntEater]

Problem is, today's Islam has somehow managed to convince many in the west of their view of history.
The Ottoman empire was a tolerant state, not a brutal oppressor (as any Greek, Serb, Bulgarian or whatever about that!) yadda yadda.
Strange is that double standard.
I'm pretty sure that Muslims killed far more Muslims in the middle ages than the Crusades did.
Godefrey's Crusaders may have massacred 30,000 in Jerusalem, but the Crusader state let Muslims in afterward pretty soon after that.
But didn't Timur Leng (Tamerlane) raze Bagdhad, killing 70,000?
Timur was a muslim as was his army, as were the citizens of Baghdad.
Timur's Mongols destroyed the libraries of Bagdad, while the Monks that followed the Crusaders eagerly took home everything they could find on science.
As someone mentioned the Turks. They may have given the death blow to the Byzantine empire, but most of the early conquests of the Seldjuks and Marmeluks were brutal occupations of arab and persian muslim countries.
I suppose turks massacred more arabs than any Crusader army ever.

To prove that point, the actual holiest of the relics in Mecca is the black stone.
This is most likely a meteorite worshipped in Mecca since ancient times (no one can be sure as no muslim site is allowed to be scientifically examined). Mohammed himself had it set into its place as a cornerstone of the Kaaba.
Problem is, the stone is broken and is held in place by silver bracings.
Who broke that stone?
It was during sectarian fightings in the 12th century that a muslim sect from Yemen took Mecca, massacred a lot of people and took the black stone with them, during which it apparently broke into pieces.
:D

[Skybird]

In Britain they prepare a law to defend against the violation of religious sentiments. Under this new law, I have read, it is practically impossible to say ANYTHING critical about any religion, since this would hurt the religious feelings of that people.

This law will be the final word on enforcing peaceful coexstince in multicultural societes. Clap your hands everybody. Religion is left totally unavailable to reasonable questioning, critically analysis. Every Peter and every Paul can claim that this or that si their relgiion - and from that moment on you can't touch them.

The only problem is the price for this omnipotential solution. the price is total forging of history, arbitrary deleting of unwanted historical episodes, censoring of ideologies' content and meaning, educating the people in simplified and silly ways, reducing the qccess to information on unwanted historical episodes. In other words: an orwellian method of controlling a society by controlling language (and by that: thinking), designed by people who alredy are brain-amputated and cannot tell the differences between their left and their right hand.

I'm sure the EU will further push this. The anti-racism-laws of recent origin are already a step into that direction. Has any of these brilliant British policy-makers ever considered how far-leading the consquences of this BS of theirs are...?

Hell, why had Bin Laden had to bomb the WTC? If he would focussed on getting us rid of these pseudo-intellectual moralists in Europe, I would applaud him until today and say "Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sir!"

Oooops - I forgot: every person is holy and untouchable. Even if he ruins and cripples all country, all nation, all community, all history, all reason, all identity, all culture we live in, and sends us back to the religious medieval where blind dumbness was a virtue and worth a ticket to paradise.

"Sind wir eigentlich noch ganz bei Trost...?"

[Chock]

We were actually talking about a way around this 'religious protection' legislation in the UK, and the best we could come up with, was to outlaw Halal meat on the grounds of animal cruelty, thus circumventing the notion of it being religious persecution. I must admit, I think such a thing is unlikely, but it is a clever notion to use someone's religious beliefs as a weapon against themselves! A little unfair perhaps, not every Muslim is a sword-wielding maniac after all. What I'd like to see is all religions stamped on, that way, it wouldn't be classed as persecution, rather, common sense.

Frankly the laws on this sort of thing in the UK are ridiculous. I gave up hope when I saw those protesters in London carrying banners with 'behead those who offend Islam' etc, and not even being cautioned, let alone arrested. Kind of makes that guy's 'Don't Piss Me Off' T-shirt seem a bit tame in comparison.

Beats me why the guy even wanted to come here to be honest. Living in the UK is crap.

:D Chock

[Letum]

The intollerance of some Islamists towards the west must be stamped out.

Declareing war on them, invadeing their lands, killing them and destroying the things they see as holy is one good way to make them more tollerant to the west and to ensure that those who are allredy tollerant of the west remain so.
:up:

[CCIP]

"An eye for an eye" - you know what Ghandi said about that one. I tend to agree, though the proposal itself already sounds rather blind to me. :hmm:

[joegrundman]

To get back to the point of the topic: What is the point of threatening to blow up the Qaaba?

Deterrence or revenge?

There are strong anti-idolatory feelings in Islam and the Wahhabist groups that provided much of the ideology for the Bin Laden wave of terrorism are not just iconoclastic regarding other faith's sacred objects. There are influential forces in Saudi Arabia that also want to destroy the Qa'aba and the Grand Mosque on the grounds that these mere objects have become an idolatrous focus of worship among the Muslim masses, distracting from the entirely sublime nature of God.

Don't assume that they are obsessed by the sanctity of material objects.

A deterrence has to threaten to hurt what the other side holds valuable, otherwise it is no deterrence. As for revenge, well...big deal. Whatever would make you feel better...

Think again, chaps. Perhaps you'd be better off suggesting you'll bring the whole thing to Disneyworld instead.

[The Avon Lady]

Well, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, either. :88)

[The Avon Lady]

"An eye for an eye" - you know what Ghandi said about that one.
Was it "please, poke out my other one"? :hmm:

[Oberon]

Or can they? I bet they havent thought about this when planning and funding to kill the infidels. This should be an official policy.

A Saudi official has condemned a radical US Republican presidential candidate's recent comment that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on America would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the Islamic holy sites, Mecca and Medina.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557447853&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There was a funny comment on Mock the Week about this, went something like:

"Do they really think that by bombing Mecca they'll stop extremism... like Independence Day, you take out the mothership and all the radical Muslims are like 'Oh, I don't think I'll bother with that any more.'?"

[Skybird]

Difficult to believe that what some are writing here is meant serious.

An interview, featuring the statement that it is needed to fight a 100 year long cold war in Islam:

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,druck-499223,00.html

If I find the time this afternoon, I'll translate it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Sie haben vor kurzem gesagt: "Wir brauchen einen Kalten Krieg gegen den Islam." Wollen Sie das wirklich?

Warraq: Ja, ich meine es ernst. Wir werden einen "heißen Krieg" gegen den Islam nie gewinnen, selbst wenn es uns gelingen sollte, Gruppen wie al-Qaida zu vernichten. Denn jeden Tag werden neue Islamisten geboren. Wir müssen gegen die Ideen, gegen die geistige Verfassung ankämpfen, und dabei können wir aus den Erfahrungen lernen, die wir im Kalten Krieg gegen den Kommunismus gesammelt haben. Dazu gehört ein kritischer, ein rationaler Blick auf die Ursprünge des Islam, die Quellen des Koran.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Warum sprechen Sie vom "Kalten Krieg", warum sagen Sie nicht einfach "Aufklärung" oder "Information"?
Warraq: Weil es ein Kampf ist, der an vielen Fronten geführt werden muss. Es geht um nationale Sicherheit, um Erziehung und um Information. Etwas, das ich für sehr wichtig halte, ist die Verteidigung der Rechte von Nicht-Muslimen in muslimischen Gesellschaften, also der Christen in Pakistan, der Juden im Iran, und so weiter. Denn sobald ein Muslim in einer muslimischen Gesellschaft die Rechte eines Andersgläubigen anerkennt, befindet sich die Gesellschaft schon auf dem Weg in die Säkularisierung.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Sie glauben nicht an die automatische Säkularisierung des Islam durch Handel, Technik und Globalisierung?
Warraq: Nichts passiert automatisch. Wir brauchen einen rationalen Blick auf die Geschichte des Islam, seine heiligen Schriften. So ein Blick kann nur aus dem Westen kommen, von draußen.

[samniTe]

If they targeted Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, that would be the final injustice to Islam and the arabs. And I sincerely would wish a hundred more 9/11's would happen.

But the west wouldnt do that.

I think

[joea]

If they targeted Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, that would be the final injustice to Islam and the arabs. And I sincerely would wish a hundred more 9/11's would happen.

But the west wouldnt do that.

I think

I don't think they would, I hope not, and I think the consequences would be as you wrote...except I don't wish for that.

Oh IBTL

[Happy Times]

If they targeted Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, that would be the final injustice to Islam and the arabs.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9469/crybabyua7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)




But do tell what are the prior injusticies?


And I sincerely would wish a hundred more 9/11's would happen.

Wondering how you feel about the first one?


But the west wouldnt do that.

But the east would do that.



I think
I know

[STEED]

Frankly the laws on this sort of thing in the UK are ridiculous. I gave up hope when I saw those protesters in London carrying banners with 'behead those who offend Islam' etc, and not even being cautioned, let alone arrested. Kind of makes that guy's 'Don't Piss Me Off' T-shirt seem a bit tame in comparison.

My uncle worked a lot in the Middle East and African country's and he said to me this country will give Islam the upper hand some 15 odd years ago and at the time I dismissed it. Now 15 odd years latter there is clear evidence this is happening, why are we bending over back wards when a group of british follows of Islam want to destroy my way of life?

As Skybird pointed out early in one of his posts we have a law where we can not speak out against these religious nutters, it's crazy.

Why is it the followers of Islam who know of any warp minded person in there ranks report them to the police? Why don't they all stand up in a big rally and say we will hand over these extreme people and denounce them.



Beats me why the guy even wanted to come here to be honest. Living in the UK is crap.

:D Chock


Too true Chock, far too many people are asleep. Wake up the clock is ticking.

[The Avon Lady]

Beats me why the guy even wanted to come here to be honest. Living in the UK is crap.
Too true Chock, far too many people are asleep. Wake up the clock is ticking.
Buh-bye (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15642/4,000-people-a-week-trying-to-leave-UK).

[tycho102]

I don't think they would, I hope not, and I think the consequences would be as you wrote...except I don't wish for that.
It's kind of interesting. At some point, the all the gangs would start the normal power struggle. It would start when one rival imam told his followers to pray in one direction, and another iman (or ayatollah) was telling them something else. Mecca, Medina, Karbala, Najif. Losing those four would, eventually, significantly fracture islam as it was fractured in ~632 AD. All of the rituals would be displaced and vying imams and ayatollahs would use the opportunity to grasp influence.

At some point, after enough kuffar had been killed, the gangs would begin killing amongst each other in a struggle for dominance. The only question, for me, is when that would occur.

[STEED]

Beats me why the guy even wanted to come here to be honest. Living in the UK is crap.
Too true Chock, far too many people are asleep. Wake up the clock is ticking.
Buh-bye (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15642/4,000-people-a-week-trying-to-leave-UK).

Last poll put 69% of the population want to leave. :huh:

[samniTe]

If they targeted Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, that would be the final injustice to Islam and the arabs.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9469/crybabyua7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)




But do tell what are the prior injusticies?


And I sincerely would wish a hundred more 9/11's would happen.
Wondering how you feel about the first one?


But the west wouldnt do that.

But the east would do that.



I think I know

1: are you serious?
2: saw it coming
3: Nope
4: No, you don't

[Tchocky]

Yay, let's bomb Mecca. That should sort this whole thing out.

[Happy Times]

1: are you serious?

Yes i am, enlighten please?

2: saw it coming

So was it deserved?

3: Nope

They have targeted everything in the west.

4: No, you don't

Not going take your word for it.

[Skybird]

Just imagine for a monent the Kaaba, Mekka and Medina get completely destroyed. Some people automatically fear that this would enrage sentiments around the globe amongst Muslims. I could imagine another reaction as well: that of total psychological paralysis, a time-out of encrusted superstitious belief: "The stone is gone, the cities are gone, and Allah did nothing to prevent or revenge it". this could lead many minds to ask the simple question: "How could this be?" And this could be a chance to brake into the self-powering cycle of self-feedback that always, always turns and thinks in cycles and never leads anywhere than just back to conclusions that the Quran is always right. It would be the chance of their lives for them to learn how to ask the question IF the Quran necessarily must right, and to start to examine history and origin of islam and muhammad'S real biography by using modern examination standards of reason and academical analysis. there is a reason why the West technically and scientifically and philosophically is so superior in developement compared to Muhammedan nations, who do not climb to these levels by their own effort, but by just buying and importing our knowledge without asking for the ways and methods by which we gained it. After all, everything in Islam always just leads back to Muhammad, and what Muhammad has said that Allah is, and what Muhammad has said that Allah expects of man, and what Muhammad said what should be done, and what Muhammad said about this situation in life, and that constellation in life, and another special event in life. all there is is the unchecked statements of just one single man whose life was dominated by fighting, robbery, bloodshed, intimidation, and war. So, after 1400 years it may need some substantial shock indeed to shake the long-held habit to believe that this single man, of highly questionable reputation and with blood-dripping biography, could ever have been selected by any deity to be it's messenger - if this deity really wanted to lecture about peace, tolerance, and reason (in the Western understanding of these terms which is totally different than Islam's understanding of these terms). And if this deity does not wish for peace, tolerance and reason, man better sent it to hell where it belongs.

And if you fear the hysteria of the masses in some countries - why is it that you do not fear a nuclear attack by an Islamic faction against a Western target first? Could it become any worse than this? Is the anger of Muslims so much more terrifying to you that you use it as the argument to prevent - forgive the archaic word - retaliation? What would you try to negotiate with somebody who wills to massurder your people and shatter your cities by use of nuclear weapons? Retaliation as a display of determination and strength and an effort to finally delete the problem by starting to kill it at it's roots - and mind you that strength always has been the only thing throughout history that ever was respected by Islam in that way that it was bringing it's advance to temporary halts? No dialogue and no mutual understanding ever acchieved that, it always was - superior force that was stronger than the forces of Islam. You can be as reasonbale yourself as you wish, if the other insists on archaic strnegth being the standard to decide difefrendces in opinions, you are lost. reason needs reason to communicate. Reason cannot communicate with or overcome violance. But violance can kill reason very well.

9/11 shook america to it's bones, because it was a first, Americans considerd themselves safe and and secure in america, and unattackable by foreign powers. Destroying the Kaaba would shake Muhammedans to their bones, too. and I doubt that it would be able and capable and psychologically equipped to produce an active reaction like the american military response (how ever misleading the longterm strategy of the US has been, if there has been any, that is).

So if an islamic faction is launching a nuclear attack and is not prevented from this by muslims and is supported by many muslims around the globe in fact, and funded by organizations and nations, then this is the point for me at the latest where I stop any further talking, or moral hesitation, and where i would give up all self-limitations and scruples immediately and would unleash all dogs of war and open fire with all weapons in an effort to wipe out this enemy doing this to me and prevent once and for all that he could ever acchieve the ability to do it again. To talk to somebody who nukes my people is absolutely undiscussable for me. Because then it would be not the time of words, but the time of swords. I have nothing to say to someone who masskills my people with nukes, that simple it is. It is either them, or us - that simple.

In other words: nuclear terror is where all subtlety is finally ending - at the latest. And the answer to it cannot be just to control the menace, but must be to try hard to annihilate all and every factors that led to it, which of course includes the ideology of Islam itself that motivates people to commit violance and conquest. It compares to the denazification of germany - here, no compromises were accepted, too, after all the horror the Nazi's ideology had been responsible for. If that is an unfriendly perspective for muslims, then I strongly suggest they try much harder to stop those who do terror in Islam's name, and I demand them to push much harder to educate Islamic people about how dangerous and inhumane islam'S message to mankind really is, and give up their following to this troublemaking set of queer ideas and superstitions, and stand up against it. It is either this, or that, there is really no in-between this time. Else it is: fly with the crows, get shot with the crows - I'm not sorry then. Everyone is responsible for the decisions he makes. who decides to follow islam is resonsible for it, like I would be repsonsible for supporting nuclear counterstrikes against an ideology and it's centres that motivates for global war and conquest and thus leads towards nuclear attack as well, if only you think it to a logical end.

islam will never be satisfied to just co-exist peacefully with others - this is in it's genes, that there is somethign that is not itself already is offending and needs to be overcome, no matter in what way and by what tools and means. There can be no peace as long as not all is Islam. This mission is true Islam, and not the nicetalking of it that has become a modern habit in the west. See where it has led us to: a state of cultural desintegration and self-denial. More and more of our fellow citizens can no longer say and do not even want to know anymore who they are and where they have come from.

The ship has already hit the iceberg, but nobody cares. Nobody tries to repair the damage, nobody even tries to save his life. Instead, everybody is denying as much as he can that there has been a collision, that there is a leak, that the ship is taking water, and that it will sink if nothing gets done. Lazy they sit in the bar, having drinks, giving toasts, and think it will be like that, forever, and if the floor seems to fall into growing angles, then this is not due to the water filling the ship, but because of becoming drunk from having had too much fun, too many drinks, too much laughter. So, nothing gets done. Life can be so easy, the music plays on, the party is wonderful, isn't it. Nice to meet you, how's your wife and kids?

Go figure how the story ends. Different to it, the Titanic actually had survivors.

[The Avon Lady]

I could imagine another reaction as well: that of total psychological paralysis, a time-out of encrusted superstitious belief: "The stone is gone.......
This could easily be done by dropping tons of electric kettle cleaner and water on the Kabba. :hmm: Maybe the scene in the Wizzard of Oz of the Wicked Witch of the West melting was prophetic. :hmm:

[Letum]

Just imagine for a monent the Kaaba, Mekka and Medina get completely destroyed. Some people automatically fear that this would enrage sentiments around the globe amongst Muslims. I could imagine another reaction as well: that of total psychological paralysis, a time-out of encrusted superstitious belief: "The stone is gone, the cities are gone, and Allah did nothing to prevent or revenge it". this could lead many minds to ask the simple question: "How could this be?" And this could be a chance to brake into the self-powering cycle of self-feedback that always, always turns and thinks in cycles and never leads anywhere than just back to conclusions that the Quran is always right.
That's a very, very big underestimate of the virility of religion. Time and time again religions have sprung back with vigor after disasters. See: Jews and Temples.

There is a reason why the West technically and scientifically and philosophically is so superior in development compared to Muhammedan nations, who do not climb to these levels by their own effort, but by just buying and importing our knowledge without asking for the ways and methods by which we gained it
Is that the same reason that lead to: the birth of algebra (al-jabr), the birth of optical theory, the development of the scientific method, the parachute, the sextant, coffee, glass, steam turbine, the syringe, the torpedo etc. etc. etc.
Islamic science only came in to decline after Christian and Mongol invasions.

. Reason cannot communicate with or overcome violence.
t'over way round. Violence cannot overcome reason.
See: Gandhi, Jesus

Islam will never be satisfied to just co-exist peacefully with others [etc.]
No, it is you who never be satisfied to just co-exist peacefully with Islam because you think like this. I have not seen evidence of any toleration from you at all. You do not seam to think that there can be any peace in the world whilst a Muslim draws breath.
It seams to me Skybird, that you wish to do to Islam what your countrymen once wished to do to Judaism.

[Skybird]

See: Gandhi, Jesus.

Look at India, and then tell me what is left of Ghandi. Nothing. Who messed it up? Corrupt politicians, feudal landlords, and - Muhemeddans. ghandi's dream did not last for even 50 years. and he had to deal with the relatively civilized Brits. If he would have had to deal with the Almohaeds, for example, today we even would not talk about that he had ever been born and killed. Jesus: his followers, the socalled christians, are in open retreat from Islam all over the world, and do not resist in any way to get moved away time and again. Tell us about the status of christian communities in Islamic nations. Where is the reciprocate answer of Islam to the enormous and voluminous favors islamic communitoes have enjoys in the West during the last 40, 50 years? where are the churches being built for the plenty of mosques being built in Europe? Islam spreads rapidly in the West and turns our own cultural and legal systems against us. the natives have started to move out of their traditional homes because they can'T stand it any longer. But Christian communities as well as Jewish ones in Muslim world are still in open decline.

No, it is you who never be satisfied to just co-exist peacefully with Islam because you think like this.

Yes, I do not have any willingness to tolerate with such an inhumane ideology with a record of intolreance and violance that is second to none,and see it as an equal. It is not. But I certainly do not expect you to understand that. your tolerance is apparently unlimited, even beyond all reason, it seems.

I have not seen evidence of any toleration from you at all. You do not seam to think that there can be any peace in the world whilst a Muslim draws breath.
No, I do not talk about an individual person, but the ideology, and the idoelgy is cause of hate, intolerance and quest for domination, becasue that is what the ideology is teaching. Islam is not a peaceful relgion, but an aggressive, intolerant one. that does not mean that there are no people who ignore the content of their cult, think that envertheless they are muslim, and are non-violant in their living ways and behavior. This does not chnage that the Islamic ideology is not any peaceful or tolerant at all. You just think so, but you are wrong.

It seams to me Skybird, that you wish to do to Islam what your countrymen once wished to do to Judaism.

Thank you. but the Jews did not attack Germany, they did not try to take over the country, and there believing and habits melt ionto the communities that are hosts to them, so they did not provoke the german crime against them, and thus were victims. I cannot say the same about Islam. It does try to overtake nations that are hosts to it, islamic communities integrate very badly and do not melt into the communities that host them, and it is Isdlam's declare dintention to make all world Islamic. One needs to be very much off reality to dare that comparison like you just did.

And note that this hread is running under one preassumption: that there will be or has been a nuclear attack of an Islamic faction against the West. And that is a very realistic threat. Unfortunately I must fear that I will live long enough to see it happen.

See the interview I had linked too yesterday. That guy is saying we need to weage a cold war against Islam, and that he expects that to last for a hundred years. He also said that we could benefit from the experiences we have made during the cold war with the Soviet Union. I would add that wether the cold war turns into a hot war or not, is left to Islam. It either accepts that we are not it's legitimate prey and that it's demands to possess all world need to be given up, or I accept to see it getting annihilated. To passively tolerate Islam taking all over is undiscussable for me. This is not in violation of my knowledge of Germany's dark chapters in history - but in explicit acknowledgement of it. I do not wish to see such primitiveness and inhumanity and lying coming to power again, like it was the case under the Nazi's reign. Once is more than enough.

[The Avon Lady]

Time and time again religions have sprung back with vigor after disasters. See: Jews and Temples.
Yeh! :yep:

Hit me again! :88) :doh: :dead:

[Happy Times]

Is that the same reason that lead to: the birth of algebra (al-jabr), the birth of optical theory, the development of the scientific method, the parachute, the sextant, coffee, glass, steam turbine, the syringe, the torpedo etc. etc. etc.
Islamic science only came in to decline after Christian and Mongol invasions.

I thought it was the muslims that started the invading? In Iraq, Persia, Egypt, Syria, supressing Cristians, Jews and Zarahustrians. Many of these later scientists claimed to be Muslims and Arabs are really Persian, Assyrian, Greek etc.. not all even Muslims.
Prior to the Crusades, Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and killed Cristian pilgrims and priests.

[Letum]

Is that the same reason that lead to: the birth of algebra (al-jabr), the birth of optical theory, the development of the scientific method, the parachute, the sextant, coffee, glass, steam turbine, the syringe, the torpedo etc. etc. etc.
Islamic science only came in to decline after Christian and Mongol invasions.
I thought it was the muslims that started the invading? In Iraq, Persia, Egypt, Syria, supressing Cristians, Jews and Zarahustrians. Many of these later scientists claimed to be Muslims and Arabs are really Persian, Assyrian, Greek etc.. not all even Muslims.
Prior to the Crusades, Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and killed Cristian pilgrims and priests.

Who "started" invadeing is not a concept that makes much sense.
It depends how far back you go and what you call an invasion. Further more there are many good reasons to inavade some one. i.e. the UK was the first to invade Germany in '44.
As for Persians, Assyrians and Greeks preteding to be scientists.....that just nuts and a few quick googles around will show you why! :doh:

[Skybird]

[quote=Happy Times]
Who "started" invadeing is not a concept that makes much sense.
Indeed, becasue that questions is very clearly answered. After having taken Palestine and controlling the Arbian peninsula, after Muhammad's death Islam turned on the Persian Sassanides in strength as well as Byzantium, stroke along the Northafrican coast and into Spain and central France, drove North and East until India and obliterated all local cultures and cults in it's way including the Indian one, conquered major parts of Greece, southern Italy, islands in the Mediterranean, the Balkan, then tried to push beyond Vienna, and felt as a innocent victim when europe partially decided to rrsist and defend and tried to recapture territories under former christioan adminsitration. While later crusades may have derailed into egoism and quests for wealth, land possession and influence, initially the motiavtion for the crusades was that of: defending against an attacking invader, and recapturing what he had been taking in former attacks and conquests. Northern Africa was under Byzantine administration and thus was orthodox Christian. It was not Islamic. nor were the european nations Islam attacked. India was not Islamic. Persia was not Islamic. If Islam really would have been peaceful and tolerant, it would not have stepped beyond the perimeter formed the the arabian peninsula - which was a side-by-side of many different cults and cultures and religions before Muhammad - after Muhammad was a sterile monoculture.

I have repeatedly adressed this thing of Islmaic inventions and said that before muhammad Arabia was superior in knowledge on certain scientific and mathematical fields. I do not repeat that again, since it seems to be wasted anyway. Fact is that within just 300 years, until rpughly the 10th century, the Islamic dogma had managed to successfully suffocate all scientific and philosophic creativity that promised to eventually become an alternative explanation of things that could coexist with Islam's dogma. Artist, philosophers, scientist were murdered, thrown into prison, intimidated until they were either dead, or submitted to Islam's dogmatic dominance. In doing so, Islam was far more unscrupelopus than the European inquisition, and it was far more successful than the church: for the churches had to give up to preserve their power this way, whiule islam was successful with this method untiol today. While many results of productive intellectual thinking still popped up after muhammad's death, this still must be seen as the fruits of a work that had not been done under Islam's rule, but derived from the time before islam came. Since this fundament was no longer supported, the Islamic culture started to fall back, while the blooming culture in Europe, especially after the influence of the churches was reduced step by step, led to the climax that we have seen in the not so far away past. the crusades have little or nothing to do with this stagnation in islam's develoepment. It is completely homemade. However, Islamic rulers were pragmatical enouh to opportunistally make use of the professionality and knowledge of those they had submitted, which is very obvious in the case of grenada, and the strange myth of Muslims having saved the christian heritage when preventing ancient scriptures of christian and Greek origin getting burned. But especially this episode I also have adressed SEVERAL times in the past three years. It was as much a peaceful coexistence between Muslim conquerers and subjugated Jews and Christians, as the propaganda ghetto in Warsaw was a paradise to live in.

Islam alwas was pragmatic enough to tolerate that mkind of intellectual research that led to undogmatic pragmatic results that could not question Islam'd dogma. however, all intellectual activites that could ask critical questions, was and is forbidden. sharia law says it quite clearly that all existential questions shall not be answered by independant thinking, but by believing in the Quran. Not obeying this command is threatened with death penalty. Sorry, but that is how it is, to be read by yourself in the Hadith.

Instead of continuing here, I cannot help myself and use a shortcut, which may seem dumb, but nevertheless has a message. It is about personalities, but you could compare science reaserach locations and universities as well. Muslim nations practically do not play any role in global comparisons, but the most famous, the Anzhar university in cairo, is a known breeding place of anti-Western hate-preachers, and islamic ultra-conservatism: and that is the sum total of it's international importance.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/03/muslim_inventions_nobel_prizes.html

[waste gate]

@Skybird
So what you are saying is that Islam stopped all scientific, social, and cultural progress in what we now call the middle east? And the focus is conquest in the name of Allah?

PS Not trick questions>

[Tchocky]

Here's a decent interview on the subject

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/08/13/taner_edis/

[Skybird]

@Skybird
So what you are saying is that Islam stopped all scientific, social, and cultural progress in what we now call the middle east? And the focus is conquest in the name of Allah?

PS Not trick questions>

The focus is to bring peace to all world by making sure the house of Islam defeats all of the house of war, since as long as house of war remaisn there cannot be real peace. A united Islamic world in which nothing exists that could rival or challange or querstion Islam- that is the Islamic undestanding of peace. Everything is just a beak, a cease-fire. Note that this descirpitioon features the magical words westerners love so very much: unity, peace.

For the "people of the book" special rules apply, it is enough if they accept to live as second grade humans under Islamic predominance and pay protection money and accept to have no equal rights in legal affairs as well as social life. It is a system of ordered discrimination. This freedom of the dhimmis not to get automatically killed, and accepting the superiority of islam, is the islamic understanding of "tolerance".

I further say, no, I refer to the historians who filled thiock books with the simpel facts is that most of reformers, mystics, alternative thinkers, philosophers that did not contribute to proove the superiority of islam, were killed, driven away, locked away, and that this persecution in principle lives until today, and that islam was successful in this persecution to a m uch wider degree than the inquisition or catholic churches ever was 8the latter effectively have lost their fight to keep their powers by persecuting "heresy").

This extraordinary successful "intelligencel-drain" from the creative fields of course had consequences that were to be felt. after the 10th, maybe 11th century, there were not coming enough intellectuals and independant thinkers anymore and in suffient numbers to make an impact in islamic society and culture. the dogma hardened, unchallenged. There are names, of course, which are remembered to have acchieved a certain level of tolerqance for alnternate ideas, but practically they did mostly fail to mark an enduring influence on the conservative dogma. The attack of the Mongoles, who were maybe the only ones to understand that in order to control Islam they need to shatter it, led to the loss of the mystical tradition as well (the destruction of Bagdhad), that was carefully trying to develope parallel to the conservative dogma ( I said in several threads why i have a problem with sufism being understood as the new Islamic "mystic"). Science and arts were allowed to develope as long as they were following paths that could not lead to results in contradiction with what the Quran says. That'S why you have pragmnatic, "tool-oriented" branches of academical research, but nothing that compares to what in german is named "Grundlagenforschung" and "Erkenntnistheorie". existential philosophies also is and was forbidden, for it could become a rival for allah being the cause of all things, and eventually could ask uncomfortable critical questions on statements in the quran. If you look at the ME and muslim world, you see almnost no innovation that is original - in fact, you see the massive copying of wetsern examples and technologies that had been developed elsewhere. That way they can hold a technical level - but they cannot develope beyond it, and when they buy the expertise they need to develope their indiustry, for example, or infrastructure, or media, or scientific centres, they buy the ability and training how to use the tools - they do not care so much for understanding how these tools were thought out, i mean the long tradition that leads towards a cultural cliomate in which a scientific progress is actively, creatively acchieved in a systemtical effort. On this level, Western and Russian and Chinese and Japanese and Korean "intelligence-centres" are superior, even India and Brazil should be mentioned.

In many muslim universities, if you study a nartural acinece, you spend half of your time with Quran studies. see the diffrence in approach on "studying"? compare that to the focussing on the pragmatic objective for example at Japanese schools. It is like me and my stereo equipemnt. I am clever enough to operate it and use the functionality, and i have some ver ybasic ideas on electricity, and radio waves. but in no way i am abale to build my own radio, or to repair ,my stereo when I oipen it. I can use it - but I cannot built it, and I cannot develope beyond it's current standard. If do not pay somebody to repair and to develeope it for me, I will always stay with this radio, and no newer one.

Now bring this picture to a global level, and the global challenges of environmental chnages and desaster. If the world would be run by islam, we would loose the abulity to adapt to future challenges. Historically, Islamic societies tend to fluctuate between to states: expansion into new territories whose ressources then are exploited, and stagnation. If all world is Islamic, there is only stagnation left of these two options. Islam lacks the newrgy and originality to renew itself and transform itself into something new, it can only always revoke its former self - that of the 7th century.

This does not mean that a muslim person is silly or stupid and has no brains. But in a Muslim nation he/she is rasied in a cultural climate where these natural abiltiies of man are supressed, get not fostered, are taught to be ignored and repalaced with the dogmatic, repetitive schemes of the Quran.

On the Quran and Muhammad I can cut it short and only say that it is like what Ron hubbard said: "If you want to make real big money, don'T write books - but found a religion." Te result was scientology. Here, it is Muhameddanism - a cult desgined to strnegthen Muhammad's claim for power and make him unattackable for critics and rivals. I see giant deficits in authenticity in Islam. To me, as I said, it is not even a religion, but nothing more than a personal cult focussing on and constructed by a powerhungry mobster, dressed into a system of rags and pieces that were loosely patched together with elements and details from other traditions of which Muhammad had no real understanding. Realising his deficits, in the end led to the war against the three Jewish tribes at medina, and the genocide to which the third fell victim. Talking of offended narcissism here.

Today'S Middle East consists of many states that are articifical creations that ignore cultural, tribal, and other realities on the ground, that's why they are so instabile and easily become "failed states", Iraq is just an example. Isliam ideology does not know the conception of our western national states, it is not important. a tyrannic rule is acceptable as long as the tyrant appearts tpo be strong enough to serve the goals of Islam and honours his basic muslim duties. That is one of the reasons, beside the strong tribal orientations in many of these countries, why demovcarcy as we understand it is not so much a priority. Ten years ago,m the young in iran,l for exmaple did not really wish for a democracy like the western exmaples, they wanted some more freedoms in some fields, press, modern media, etc, and not being policied so easily in their religious practioning. Nevertheless - they strongly sticked to orthodox Islam being the basis of a future Iran. They did not really want a democartic society to that degree as we understand this here in the West.

In other countries, afghnaistan for exmaple, trivbal structures and traditons play an even greater role. I see no chnace to ever bring democracy to such places from the outside. They need to debvelope themselves and form such a conception from within their own tradition.

No tricky question, WG? All this has been said so many times before, and I'm sure that at one or two occasions you at least took some note of it.

And that is enough on Islam from me. There are several potentially "hot" threads being started in recent days right now, so we do not wish to crowd the forum with this kind of stuff again.

Should have translated that interview instead, anyway - that guy is, was Muslim and then hid and became atheist and publishes under pseudonym out of fear for the life of his family. He does not differ between Islam and islamism, like me, and says if one wants to make a difference than one should see that islam is an ideology of militant aggression and intolerance, but that there are "Muslims" who are peacefull while violating Islam.

Worth to rememeber: if you violate Siddhartas's or Jesus' teaching, you turn away from peace and tolerance and become hateful and violant. If you violate Muhammad's teachings, you turn away from violance and hate, and become tolerant and peaceful. Any more evangelic parsons wanting to tell me that Jesus and Muhammad compare and essentially tell the same message? Such idiots tend to pop up on German pulpits here and there, occasionally. they should be chased out of town.

[waste gate]

I'll take that as a yes to both questions.

[Skybird]

I'll take that as a yes to both questions.
Which for the first question is wrong (it is not total prohibition of sciences/culture, but extreme limitations to fields that cannot damage the dogma: religion rules over science/culture), and for the second question is right.

[waste gate]

I'll take that as a yes to both questions.
Which for the first question is wrong (it is not total prohibition of sciences/culture, but extreme limitations to fields that cannot damage the dogma: religion rules over science/culture), and for the second question is right.

Nice concise answer. Thanks