He hoped the network would balance negative portrayals of Muslims

[Onkel Neal]

The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html)

Man, that's going to hurt his credibility. :shifty:

[A Very Super Market]

Well. This doesn't help at all. What the bugger was he thinking? And beheading her?

[Spike88]

Jeez. She looked like a man. No wonder he did it. :o Morbid jokes aside this will just give more criticism to the Muslims.

[SteamWake]

Jeez. She looked like a man.

OMG totallly looks like Micheal Jackson :oops:

[Aramike]

...many would have considered this guy a "Mainstream Muslim"...

Food for thought.

[SandyCaesar]

...many would have considered this guy a "Mainstream Muslim"...

Food for thought.

Yeah, that can't be good for Islam's reputation. All it takes is an already-suspicious public and one crazy idiot for that religion's name to be blackened forever.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, look at it from the other side. Fred Phelps. That is all.

[Aramike]

Well, look at it from the other side. Fred Phelps. That is all.The difference is that Phelps isn't really considered "mainstream" or "moderate" in any way.

He's also a Democrat... :D

[Spike88]

Jeez. She looked like a man.
OMG totallly looks like Micheal Jackson :oops:
Seriously. Maybe it was Michael.

[Happy Times]

Its usually the so called moderate muslims that get in these news for "honor" killings.
Wifes or daughters divorcing, resisting forced marriages etc, there are disproportionate number of muslim women in battered womens shelters.

[HunterICX]

''He hoped the network would balance negative potrayals of Muslims''

Well, he shows a fine example then :nope:

HunterICX

[Foxtrot]

Would this case get a publicity if he wasn't a Muslim?
If he had been truly assimilated into the society he would have just shot her.

[rubenandthejets]

Adulterous, homosexual, drug abusing, bigotted and muderous Christian TV envangalists, please form an orderly queue here.....

[Rockstar]

Any bets he is aquitted or given atleast a very lean sentence because it is permissable under shri'a law?

[Happy Times]

Any bets he is aquitted or given atleast a very lean sentence because it is permissable under shri'a law?

Europe maybe but not US, you still expect that the local laws and customs are respected.:shucks:

[Onkel Neal]

Adulterous, homosexual, drug abusing, bigotted and muderous Christian TV envangalists, please form an orderly queue here.....

That's true, there are always cases like this, Christian ministers who fall victim to sin, athletes caught smoking a bong or using steriods to will races and games, politicians who act all law and order only to be caught using $3000 call girls. Not saying this guy is unique or this is an iron clad example of Muslim hypocrisiy, but it is phenominally distrurbing.

And regardless of what the woman looks like, she should not have had that happen to her. :nope:

[Biggles]

Um, I'm not defending his deed, but is his religious beliefs relevant to the murder? I didn't catch that in the article.

[Foxtrot]

Um, I'm not defending his deed, but is his religious beliefs relevant to the murder? I didn't catch that in the article.
Nopes. He suffered from massive retardization like Neil Entwistle and Richard Crafts ("Woodchipper Murder")

[Aramike]

Adulterous, homosexual, drug abusing, bigotted and muderous Christian TV envangalists, please form an orderly queue here........and yet those character flaws don't result in a woman being beheaded...

[Kapt Z]

Adulterous, homosexual, drug abusing, bigotted and muderous Christian TV envangalists, please form an orderly queue here.....

That's true, there are always cases like this, Christian ministers who fall victim to sin, athletes caught smoking a bong or using steriods to will races and games, politicians who act all law and order only to be caught using $3000 call girls. Not saying this guy is unique or this is an iron clad example of Muslim hypocrisiy, but it is phenominally distrurbing.

And regardless of what the woman looks like, she should not have had that happen to her. :nope:

amen.

[Zayphod]

The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html)

Man, that's going to hurt his credibility. :shifty:

I saw that this morning, and was going to post it, but hadn't had a chance to log on here until just now.

I guess the above story could be classified as "ePiC fAiL", huh?

"Yeah, keep up that great PR for us....thanks a bunch."

[Rockstar]

Um, I'm not defending his deed, but is his religious beliefs relevant to the murder? I didn't catch that in the article.


The method of execution may be an option but simply put in answer to your question in every way yes.



.

[Biggles]

Um, I'm not defending his deed, but is his religious beliefs relevant to the murder? I didn't catch that in the article.


The method of execution may be an option but simply put in answer to your question in every way yes.



.

You mind explain that to me? I'm not following you here....

[Happy Times]

Um, I'm not defending his deed, but is his religious beliefs relevant to the murder? I didn't catch that in the article.


The method of execution may be an option but simply put in answer to your question in every way yes.



.

You mind explain that to me? I'm not following you here....


“Honor Killing” is Absolutely Islamic!

By Syed Kamran Mirza
Monday, 07 January 2008

Honor killings, which occur with shocking regularity in certain parts of the Middle East and South Asia, target women whose actions – actual or suspected – violate the honor of their family, an honor which is thought to depend on the sexual purity of its female members. Victims are always being killed/slaughtered mercilessly by her own family members. Honor killing is a manifestation of global phenomenon in general and Muslim nations in particular. Since this terrible inhumane practice does exists only among the Muslims of the world—very often civilized people do blame Islam as the precursor of this dreadful act. Most others do not agree with this notion at all; and they try to put the blame on the tribal/cultural practice, and do not consider Islam is anyway responsible for it. In this essay I shall analyze the real issues, cause and origin, and pattern of this heinous act amongst the Muslims of the world to postulate if there is any link, or incitements that originates from the very core of Islam.

What is honor killing?

Honor killing is the bone chilling horrific cruelty committed by the family members—father, mother, brothers, brother-in-laws, even in some cases own sisters also. In this terrible episode the victim is always the daughter/sister or other blood related young women who get killed. Perpetrators are always the family members stated above. Family honor is one of the core values of Arab society. Anything from speaking with an unrelated man, to rumored pre-marital loss of virginity, to an extra-marital affair, refuses forced marriages; marry according to their will; or even women and girls who have been raped—can stain or destroy the family honor. Therefore, family members (parents, brothers, or sisters) kill the victim in order to remove the stain or maintain, and protect the honor of the family. Killers are given light sentences, sometimes with little or no jail time at all. The killers mainly defend their act of murder by referring to the Koran and Islam. Family guardian will say that they are merely following the directives set down in their Islamic ethical beliefs.


These barbaric killings occur only to save the honor of the family, and not for any animosity or for wealth or gold. In 100% of cases—the killers have no animosity, rather they love the girl as their own daughter or sister, but they kill the girl anyway upon their ethical compulsion to save their family honor, or to erase family stigmas. The victims cry, beg for their life but the family members become merciless (out of their ethical prejudices and also religious burden of fear) and kill the victim. After killing family members usually mourn and cry for the victim (usually loving daughter or sister) but feel solace that they have done the right thing to save their family honor.

And this kind of cruel killings to save family honor had happened, still happening, and will remain to happen—only to a Muslim family. Honor killings happen only to some designated Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, the Gaza strip and the West Bank (Palestine), Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somalia, Turkey, Iran and some other south and central Asian countries. Bangladesh though a Muslim majority country—regular pattern of honor killings never happened as of today. But it is not unknown or impossible to record some stray incidences in Bangladeshi rural Muslim family (only) in which girl was poisoned by family members, or asked to commit suicide after being impregnated by unwed sexual intercourse. However, this same kind of case history was never heard, or recorded in the non-Muslim family of Bangladesh.


Honor killing is different from other killings


Honor killing should never be confused with wife beating, or wife killings by husbands or other relatives. Since pre-historic ancient time people assassinated, killed, or poisoned their wives or husbands, or other family members for either adultery, love affairs (Poro-keya prem) with other man besides her husband, or for property disputes—and these are simple homicide in English terminology. They are never called honor killing. This kind of homicides did occur, still occurs, and will occur in any nations, or race throughout the human history and these are not any race, or religion related happenings by any standard. Honor killings also should never be confused, or mixed up with killings for dowry, acid throwing by unsuccessful/disappointed love stalkers (as frequently happened in the Indian sub-continent), or any other violence against women. These are simply not honor killings, which is the topic of this essay.


Some sample cases of horrific honor killing:


Case-1: " Two months ago, when she tried to run away yet again, Kina (father of the girl) grabbed a kitchen knife and an ax and stabbed and beat the girl [his daughter] until she lay dead in the blood-smeared bathroom of the family's Istanbul apartment. He then commanded one of his daughters-in-law to clean up the mess. When his two sons came home from work 14 hours later, he ordered them to dispose of the 5-foot-3 corpse, which had been wrapped in a carpet and a blanket. The girl's head had been so mutilated, police said, it was held together by a knotted cloth."


Case-2: "Kifaya Husayn, a 16-year-old Jordanian girl, was lashed to a chair by her 32-year-old brother. He gave her a drink of water and told her to recite an Islamic prayer. Then he slashed her throat. Immediately afterward, he ran out into the street, waving the bloody knife and crying, 'I have killed my sister to cleanse my honor.' Kifaya's crime? She was raped by another brother, a 21-year-old man. Her judge and jury? Her own uncles, who convinced her eldest brother that Kifaya was too much of a disgrace to the family's honor to be allowed to live. The murderer was sentenced to fifteen years, but the sentence was subsequently reduced to seven and a half years, an extremely severe penalty by Jordanian standards."


Case-3: “A 25-year-old Palestinian who hanged his sister with a rope: "I did not kill her, but rather helped her to commit suicide and to carry out the death penalty she sentenced herself to. I did it to wash with her blood the family honor that was violated because of her and in response to the will of society that would not have had any mercy on me if I didn't . . . Society taught us from childhood that blood is the only solution to wash the honor."


Case-4: "Samia Sarwar, 29, mother of two boys aged 4 and 8, was shot dead today in lawyer Hina Jillani's office by a bearded man accompanying her mother and uncle. `He's my helper, I can't walk,' said the mother, when Hina told the two men to get out. As the mother went to sit down in front of Hina's desk, and Saima stood up from her chair, the bearded man whipped out a pistol from his waistcoat and shot Saima in the head, killing her instantly."


Case-5: ABU QASH, Palestine: Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud (mother of 9 children) killed her daughter ‘Rofayda Qaoud’ who had been raped by her brothers and was impregnated. Armed with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, Qaoud entered her sleeping daughter's room last Jan. 27, 2003. "Tonight you die, Rofayda," she told the girl, before wrapping the bag tightly around her head. Next, Qaoud sliced Rofayda's wrists, ignoring her muffled pleas of "No, mother, no!" After her daughter went limp, Qaoud struck her in the head with the stick. The 43-year-old mother of nine said. "I had to protect my children. This is the only way I could protect my family's honor."


Case-6: A 23 year old Rania Arafat, whose plight was broadcast live on national TV in Jordan. Rania was promised to her cousin as a very young child. Rania repeatedly told that she doesn't love him and she is in love with someone else. She pled with her family to allow her to marry her lover, instead. She ran away twice, including two weeks before her forced marriage. She wrote to her mother and pled for forgiveness and understanding. Her parents promised that she would not be harmed and she could return home. On August 19, 1997, Rania returned home. The same night, her younger brother, Rami, shot her five times in the head and chest, killing her immediately. Her youngest brother was chosen to commit the murder not only to allow his defense to find protection under the laws protecting so-called honour crimes, but also because he was a juvenile. Rami served six months in jail for his crime.


Case-7: Amal, another Arab woman and victim of honour killing was run away because she insisted on her independence. Her family said that they were ashamed because of that and the gossip of neighbors. One night, when she returned home and went sleep, her brother accompanied by Amal's father, strangled her. He said: "I strangled her. She didn't fight back. I recited the "Holly Koran" as she was dying… it took a few minutes and she was dead." He and his father both given light sentences.


Case-8: Death of Aqsa Pervez: A reflection on Canadian Muslim-Pakistanis-Honor killing in Canada!, December 16, 2007
A young Mississauga teenager (16-year old) Aqsa Pervez, was killed by her father last week who later called the police and confessed. Mohammad Pervez is now in police custody and his case hearings have begun. The young girl was killed by strangulation for her refusal to wear the hijab.


Case- 9: Texas manhunt on for father of slain his two girls (January 3, 2008)
Texas authorities continued a manhunt today for an Egyptian-born taxi driver accused of murdering his two teenage daughters. Yaser Abdel Said, 50, was wanted on a warrant for capital murder after police say he shot the girls Tuesday and left them to die in his taxi, which was found parked in front a hotel in Las Colinas, a suburb north of Dallas. Police said Mr. Said should be considered armed and dangerous.

Friends of Amina Yaser Said, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17, described the girls to the Dallas Morning News as "extremely smart — like geniuses," saying the slain sisters had been enrolled in advanced placement classes and were active in soccer and tennis at suburban Lewisville High School. Family and friends told reporters that the girls' Westernized lifestyle caused conflict with their Muslim father, who immigrated from Egypt in the 1980s.

"He was really strict about guy relationships and talking to guys, as well as the things she wears," Kathleen Wong, a friend of the girls, told KTVT-TV, the Dallas CBS affiliate. Two boys who said they had been dating the sisters told KXAS-TV in Dallas that Mr. Said was upset that his daughters were involved with non-Muslims.

"She just wanted a normal life, like any American girl wanted," one of the boys told the NBC affiliate station, adding that Sarah "was always kind, gentle, always cheerful, always had a smile on her face."



Honor killing is a cultural/tribal phenomenon!!!

Most Muslim apologists and also some gullible westerners want to argue that the ‘so called “honor killing” is not Islamic and it’s a tribal/cultural vice.’ This statement is utterly untrue and only a wish full covers up. It’s true that in pre-Islamic Arab culture this heinous honor killing of women did exist; likewise, many other uncivilized practices like stoning, flogging, beheading, slavery etc also existed in the pre-Islamic Arab society. But Islam did incorporate entirely most of these inhumane/uncivilized practices of pagan society, which they now call them Allah’s laws.

Had it been the tribal/cultural practice, ‘honor killing’ would exist amongst the Arabs only. But honor killing does happen amongst the non-Arab Muslims also. Also Arabs belonged to all religions (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhai etc.) would practice honor killing with equal prevalence. Fact of the matter is—no Arab Christians, Jews or Bahai etc do practice this uncivilized act at all. Only Arab Muslims do practice this heinous act with a regular pattern.

Honor killing does happen only amongst the Muslims and these honor killings get support and encouragement from the ethical teachings of religion Islam. In 1986 this kind of honor killing did happen in the United States of America in an Arab Muslim family. In 2003 honor killing happened in Sweden again in a Muslim family. However, some very rare, sporadic case of such killing might have happened in other society or people of other religion. But they are no where near to compare with the regular pattern, or routine feature of honor killings which do happen in the Muslim nations that I have mentioned. It has been reported that in Pakistan and in Jordan several hundreds of “honor killings” do happen every year. Perhaps, it will be more plausible to name this so called ‘honor’ as the “Islamic honor”, which Muslims stupendously try to save by killing their love one!


Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:

Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”

Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”

Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).

Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”

Now some sahih hadiths:

Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)


Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”

Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."

Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.

Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.

Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”





The above Quranic verses and authentic sahih hadiths clearly demonstrate beyond doubt that Prophet Muhammad, under Allah’s direction, stoned adulterers to death and flogged fornicators. Allah’s decree/choice of death for fornicators (Quran: 4:15) and flogging adulteress 100 times with no mercy (Quran: 24:2, which also could lead to certain death) has clearly sanctioned/dictated dreadful punishment for sexual intercourse outside marriage. It is from these scriptural divine spirits Iranian fundamentalist Islamic government practices stoning and flogging adulterers even today. The Iranian Supreme Court sanctioned that an adulteress should be buried up to her chest and stoned to death. Mullahs of Iran know the hadiths quite well. This august body is closely following Allah’s prophet. It is also quite prudent to consider that Muslim parents those who are practicing honor killing are directly motivated, or influenced by the above scriptural and historical (Hadiths) support; hence they are able to commit heinous crime called ‘honor killing’ with (almost) impunity, exultantly and with ample satisfaction that they are following the strict Islamic ethical code to guard chastity, as the holy Prophet repeatedly cautioned Muslims so seriously to guard their women’s chastity.


Islamic ethics for adultery:

The Arabic word ‘Zina’ means all extramarital sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. According to Islam “Zina” constituted social suicide—an entire society commits suicide over time if it allows fornication and adultery to go unpunished in the Islamic style. As per Islamic justice—unmarried fornicators receive a hundred stripes, but married adulterers must die by stoning, as described in the sahih hadiths.

Opinion of some famous Islamists about Zina

The Saudi Ambassador to London, Ghazi al-Qusaibi, says that stoning may seem irrational to the western mind, but it is "at the core of the Islamic faith." An intellectual, the Saudi ambassador to London asserted that stoning adulterers to death is a legitimate punishment for society. He also says that Westerners should respect Muslin culture on this matter.

Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:
“Adultery in Islam is one of the most heinous and deadliest of sins. Its enormity can be gauged from the fact that it has often been conjoined in the Qur’an with the gravest of all sins: shirk or associating partners with Allah.”

Hani Ramadan head of the Islamic Center in Geneva (Hani Ramadan is the elder brother of famed Swiss Muslim intellectual Tarek Ramadan, who are both the grandsons of Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.) stated,
“Islam has taken a firm and decisive stance against Zina (fornication or adultery). Allah, the Almighty, commands in explicit and unequivocal words: “And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way.” (Al-Isra’: 32).”

Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Illahi Muhajir Madani (Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Qur’an, Karachi, Pakistan, Zam Zam, 2003) also follows this tactic of describing society that does not undergo Islamic punishments for the two sexual crimes. Families fall into ruin, which means society also is ruined. Sexual sins also cause widespread disease (vol. 6, pp. 360-66).

Al Skudsi bin Hookah , (roving reporter and foreign correspondent for The Gaza Gajeera.):
“I am very unhappy. Our way of life is under attack. And we are not fighting back. Deep down, we know that when a woman has disgraced her family, nothing will restore honor except by killing her. This is understood in Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gaza strip and the West Bank. So why are we Arabs telling the Western press that honor killing is cultural, that it is not really part of Islam? Our way of life is based on maintaining our honor. And make no mistake about it: a woman does tarnish her family's honor by engaging in pre-marital sex, or by getting herself raped, when she seeks divorce and when she marries against her family's wishes. And keeping our women pure is a big part of our honor. So there's no point saying honor killing isn't really part of our religion. Honor and Islam are inextricably bound; they are what give our life meaning. A strong religion demands we choose to maintain our honor.”

Bassam al-Hadid, (A Jordanian with an American doctorate who spent 12 years as a hospital administrator in the United States): “I would do what I have to do,” said, when asked whether he would kill a daughter who had sex outside marriage."

Status of Women in Muslim society:

According to Islamic tradition the woman is an object owned by the man who assumes responsibility for her behavior and her life. The social and religious traditions lead to the isolation of the woman in her home. She is required to cover her entire body in order to maintain the honor of the man. In Qur’an, prophetic tradition and law, one finds a very strong presumption of women’s chastity along with numerous safeguards to prevent any imputation of un-chastity A Muslim feminist sexual ethics must help create the conditions for the Qur’anic and traditional values of modesty and chastity to be lived by Muslim women and men in ways that are faithfully chosen and equitably maintained.



A woman who is either raped or commits adultery becomes the source of shame to her family. People will not marry her because she has been spoiled; she and her family becomes the object of gossip of everyone in the society; hence the entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be killed even if she is a victim of rape.


Role of Misogynistic attitude in Islam:

Islam is dreadfully anti-women. This statement can be proven with 100% guarantee by the well known and established fact that—women folks in every Muslim country in general, and in every Islamic paradise (country where Islamic Shariaat is enforced) in particular, are severely subjugated, oppressed, and considered less than second class citizen. Women in Islam are considered half human and in the Quran women have half the rights of men, sister has half the rights of brother, and women are considered deficient in intelligence.

Practically and Literally Islam consider women as the sources of great shame. Prophet Muhammad said women are awrah which can be translated as object of shame. What is awrah? The Encyclopedia of Islam defines 'awrah’as pudendum, which is the external genitals, especially of the female. The word Pudendum derives from the Latin pudor which means sense of shame and modesty. Therefore, awrah signify an object of shame that needs to be covered.

Interestingly, in the Indian sub-continent (Bangladesh-India-Pakistan)—women have another alternative name calling, in spite of having their usual name for the English word woman in the respective language. And this famous name calling is “Auraat” and common in all the three countries of the Indian sub-continent. Obviously this common word “Auraat” for women came from the Arabic word Awrah. This common word “Auraat” is usually used as the synonym for woman with empathy, hatred, mercy and shame.

According to the following Hadiths, women not only have ten 'awrah, but the woman herself is perceived as 'awrah: "The woman is 'awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her" (Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut , Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p. 65. Reported by Tirmizi as a true and good Ahadith).

Hazrat Ali (rightly guided Caliph) reported the Prophet saying:
“Women have ten ('awrah). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten." ( Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 22, Hadith No. 858. See also Ihy'a).

In most fanatical Islamic nations when a woman loses her awrah by e.g. through rape, she becomes the object of shame for her entire family, and also for the society. Only way to remove that shame and restore the honor is to remove that defiled woman. It is practiced in most Islamic countries with a regular pattern. The more religious is a country, the more is widespread the honor killing. As for example, Pakistan a Muslim majority nation did not have practice of honor killing until the fanatic and despotic Military dictator General Ziaul Hoq came to power. This despotic ruler by his decade long dictatorship turned Pakistan into an Islamic Sharia country. Along with intense acceleration of making Pakistan into a hub of Talibans, and Islamic terrorist’s country, citizens of Pakistan also started vigorous practicing of honor killing on a regular basis.


Conclusion:

Judging everything I have described in this essay, one can very genuinely lead to the conclusion that ‘honor killing’ is indeed the vice of Islam. Islam has much to do with honor killing practices which only do exist amongst the Muslims of the world. Had it been un-Islamic practice, we would have seen some Muslim nations prohibiting such cruel practice by Sharia law. We have not seen any Muslim country did enact any such law to curve honor killing. We have seen innumerable cases of fatwas by Mullahs to prohibit alcohol drinking, pork eating or listening western music; but never ever heard any such fatwa against honor killing. Rather, honor killing has silent support from the devout Islamists of all kinds. Islamists condone honor killing silently! No wonder that the Al Skudsi bin Hookah (reported of Gazagejeera) so passionately said: “So there's no point saying honor killing isn't really part of our religion. Honor and Islam are inextricably bound; they are what give our life meaning. A strong religion demands we choose to maintain our honor.”

One may argue that Quran does not say clearly about honor killing! Fact is there are plenty of things Muslims practice that are also not mentioned in the Quran. Stoning death also not available in the Quran. Yet Iranian Islamic government does practice stoning death by the decree of Islamic court. Afghan Taliban government did routinely practice stoning and flogging of adulterers. Most importantly, Quran did not create any scriptural instruction to ban the so called Arab tribal practice of “honor killing” either! Besides, if the honor killing was simply a tribal practice—then it would have been prevailed amongst the Arabs of all religions. There is no evidence to support that a Christian or Jewish family of Jordan or Palestine did practice honor killing.

Muslims who are stunningly devout and laden with Islamic superstitious beliefs do commit crime of Honor killing to fulfill their obligation of preserving Islamic ethics, and women chastity. The more a country gets fanatically religious the more frequent are honor killings (Pakistan is a perfect example). Islam has incorporated many pre-Islamic practices of Arab pagans (stoning deaths, flogging the fornicators, slavery, war booty, beheading the criminals, cutting hands and foots of thieves, many rituals of animal sacrifice, annual pilgrimage to Mecca etc.) and readily called them Islamic or Allah’s laws. Honor killing is one such pre-Islamic practice of Arab pagans which has been practicing by some devout Muslim families of many good Islamic nations of the world.

Because of the fact that the “honor killings” do have silent support from Islam, the killers are given light sentences, sometimes with little or no jail time at all. The killers are primarily influenced by Islamic ethics, and mainly defend their act of murder by referring to the Koran and Islam. They usually justify their evil deeds by the directives set down in the Islamic ethical beliefs and principles. Koran is very strict and belligerent regarding how to control women's sexuality, and Islamic Law; Sharia, rules harsh punishments including lashing and stoning to death for women's voluntary sexual activities. And it is because of these Islamic elements of support, no Islamic government dares to enact any criminal law to ban this barbaric slaughtering of innocent family girls. Even then some Islamists will still say that “honor killing” has nothing to do with Islam; just the way they say “Islamic terrorism” has nothing to do with the so called peaceful Islam. Their hypocritical denial is utter nonsense and stupendously deceptive. I urge those Islamists to tell us why this “honor killing” never happens among the non-Muslim Arab families? They must also tell us—why no Arab and non-Arab Muslim government dare to make any strict law to ban honor killings in their land?

Denying the truth is tantamount to committing this heinous crime to humanity, and denying will never solve this chronic problem of Islamic nations. Only way honor killing can be stopped is to admit the truth (real cause), and stop controlling public lives by the draconian laws (Sharia) of Islam. Let there be a strict separation of ‘Mosque and State’ in every Muslim majority nation of the world. Honor killing will definitely cease to exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1699&theme=Printer

[Biggles]

It was a very interesting read. (Yes, I read it all.)


Unfortunately, it's not neutral, at some points completely wrong, and, quite frankly, racist.

Furthermore, it didn't quite answer my question. There is no mention of "honor killing" in the article that started this thread. It's a common trick from journalists to make the reader assume that it's about something that it might not be.

Read the article again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html

There is NO mention about this being an act to "preserve family honour". OR anything of the kind. It is up to the reader to decide that it might be so in this case. I generally don't make hasty assumptions, thus, for me, his religious beliefs aren't relevant, just yet.

[Happy Times]

It was a very interesting read. (Yes, I read it all.)


Unfortunately, it's not neutral, at some points completely wrong, and, quite frankly, racist.

Could you point the parts that are wrong or racist? You noticed its written by an ex-muslim?

Furthermore, it didn't quite answer my question. There is no mention of "honor killing" in the article that started this thread. It's a common trick from journalists to make the reader assume that it's about something that it might not be.

Read the article again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html

There is NO mention about this being an act to "preserve family honour". OR anything of the kind. It is up to the reader to decide that it might be so in this case. I generally don't make hasty assumptions, thus, for me, his religious beliefs aren't relevant, just yet.

Well there never might be a mention, he might take an insanity defence.
But lets be honest, the guys from Pakistan, his wife wants a divorce, he is a founder of a TV station that wants to fight sterotypes about muslims, he beheads her in the TV station.
He must now what this looks likes, and that is a premeditated "honor killing".

[Aramike]

I generally don't make hasty assumptions, thus, for me, his religious beliefs aren't relevant, just yet.If you have no conclusions than all facts that COULD be related are relevant.

[Biggles]

Islam is dreadfully anti-women.

This is only true, if you follow the Quran blindly, and takes it in word by word. Some muslims do, though most of them don't, so I don't really see how that statement can be regarded as correct.

A woman who is either raped or commits adultery becomes the source of shame to her family.

This would be true in a family that is strictly fundamentalist. The "avarage" muslim family wouldn't kill of their members for being victims of a rape.

The interviews that was used was obviously (if authentic, which I have no reason to doubt) done with extremely conservative muslims.

She is required to cover her entire body in order to maintain the honor of the man.

NOT true. There is even a story from the Quran where the Prophet, Muhammad, tells a woman that she is covering to much of her daughters body. Some parts of the muslim community has assumed that the woman needs to cover her body, but certainly not the majority.

...the “honor killings” do have silent support from Islam...

I'm sorry, what!? Now he's confusing Islam and fundamentalistic muslims/muslim countries.

Koran is very strict and belligerent regarding how to control women's sexuality

Again, only if you take it word by word, which very few does. (Let me rephrase that: Which a small portion of the muslim community does).

[Biggles]

I generally don't make hasty assumptions, thus, for me, his religious beliefs aren't relevant, just yet.If you have no conclusions than all facts that COULD be related are relevant.

Good point.

[em2nought]

The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html)

Man, that's going to hurt his credibility. :shifty: Luckily this guy wasn't announced as a cabinet appointment. ;)

[Platapus]

Another interpretation on whether Honour Killings are a part of Islam. These two sources say no.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392

In response to the question:

Respected scholars, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh. What does Islam say about honor killings? Does Islam really have a concept of honor killings, most of the victims here are females; so does Islam really order to kill females in the name of honor?

Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, we do really appreciate your question, which shows how far you are interested in getting yourself well-acquainted with the sound teachings of Islam. May Allah bless your efforts in pursuit of knowledge and may He keep us all firm in the straight path!

Sister, it’s a well-known fact that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it. In the Glorious Qur’an, Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Focusing more on your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.

First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”

Shedding more light on it, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”

Moreover, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds:

“In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.

Honor killing could be a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment.”

Sister, if you are still in need of more information, don't hesitate to contact us. Do keep in touch. May Allah guide us all to the straight path!

and
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/clpub.asp

The article is too long to quote here but it is written by James Emery who is an anthropologist and journalist. Information for his article was obtained through interviews and research conducted in North America, West Asia, and the Middle East.

In the article he also emphasis that Honour Killings are not "authorized" in the Qura'n nor in Islam

[SandyCaesar]

Looking through all that, I'm even going to take a page out of Frederick Forsyth's book and assert that the ultraconservative Muslims who do things like this aren't "fundamentalists" at all by its strict definition. Fundamentalist implies going back to its roots, and at its roots Islam is fundamentally not that different from the rest of the great religions of the world: thou shalt not sin, thou shalt honor Allah, etc. Put it this way: could the Christian crazies who bomb and kill in the name of Christ really be considered true to the core beliefs of Christianity?

Instead, crazy "Islamics" like that are comparable to the fanatics of any religion who take one point from it out of context, pervert it to their own meaning, and then parade it as the will of their God(s). What happened, I think, was that the religion sprung up in what was (and still is) one of the most conflicted regions in the world, and spread with such rapidity--as did Christianity--so that it wasn't long before it was being perverted left and right to the advantage of the various belligerents. Once that happened, religious fervor and manipulators did the rest. You can't really say that "honor killing"--which I believe was established as a tribal custom long before Islam existed--is really condoned by the same man who preached what is essentially the same set of core values as Moses and Jesus did before him. True, there are many, many differences, but "Thou shalt not murder" is central to all three religions.

[Aramike]

True, there are many, many differences, but "Thou shalt not murder" is central to all three religions....and yet "murder" is defined differently between the religions...

See, this is something that frustrates the daylights out of me ... why do people simply refuse to call a "Duck" a "Duck" when it comes to religion (especially Islam)?

The Koran explicitly allows for Jihad and the killing of so-called unbelievers and yet, whenever that fact is brought to light, Islamic-apologists (more accurately, anti-Christians who look for any reason to disparage Christianity) come out of the wood work. Seriously, it must be okay to encourage suicide bombings because, a few hundred years ago, the Crusades occurred, right?

I am not a member of any religion or religious belief system. However, having studied the tenets of Christianity and Islam, it is quite clear that Islam is the more modernly-violent religion. Unlike Christianity, so-called "extremist" Islamic views are supported by the inferred Islamic "mainstream".

Like it or not, this is the truth,. Just because it doesn't fit in your little box of "all religions are equally horrible", doesn't change the facts.

Maybe, just maybe, when people stop "spinning" reality and simply accept things for what they are we will be able to have an honest and open dialogue about the world's problems...

[Foxtrot]

Just some stats only from USA. These figures are from 2002 - 2003 and I am unable to find the latest stats. If this particular case is honor killing (though it is not mentioned anywhere and her parents are on their way for legal proceedings) then I think these figures are probably some national sport stats.

MURDER. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING. Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT. Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

Source: http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

[Happy Times]

Just some stats only from USA. These figures are from 2002 - 2003 and I am unable to find the latest stats. If this particular case is honor killing (though it is not mentioned anywhere and her parents are on their way for legal proceedings) then I think these figures are probably some national sport stats.

MURDER. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING. Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT. Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

Source: http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html


All are types of crimes that muslims commit even tens of times more often than non-muslim population, atleast in Europe.

[Platapus]

The Koran explicitly allows for Jihad and the killing of so-called unbelievers ...

The Western Bible also has passages calling for believers to kill unbelievers. It was common in many old religious texts.

Spend a little time waltzing through Deuteronomy and you will find similar thoughts.

5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.

This was after a 10 second search, I am sure there is more gore in there. :)

People often forget how violent the bible is. :)

[Skybird]

Islam is both
-influenced by deeply patriarchalic-tyrannic social and especially family structures, and
-mixing with them to feed back on the mentality of people. so in case of Islamic people commiting a crime like described here, you always deal with a motivation that finds its legitimation in an ideology (Islam) that has embraced and was build upon this mentality (of the ancient arab tribal system), and with social habits that already existed before islam, and run parallel to it, but at the same time has become part of it.

The three theistic world religions all have or have had a very disturbed and inhumane relation to sexuality. The major branches of christianity has thankfully moved beyond this, so have most secular Jews, if I may call them that way to separate them from the fundamentalist nutheads that you find in every religion. but the basis of Islamic theology to which Islam refers until today, and threatens disobedience to them with Sharia, still embraces these ancient views in full. women are defined as a lower life form possessed by satan, and it is the man's duty to control the demons in her by a.) keeping them under tight control, and b.) to "ground" their basic demonic energy by controlled sexual intercourse. If you think this sounds hillarious, yes , it is. It is also a wonderful self-justification for man to hold women at his disposal and deal with them as he pleases - sexually, and as a work force at home as well. It is not a human being he is dealing with. It is worth less than a dog, and it is potentially a threat.

islam is obsessed with both sexuality, and a understanding of male pride and honour that has the constant supression of such sexual drives as a basis. It is deeply sexually inhibited in a psychopathologic meaning, and at the same time fixiated on sex. For German readers I can recommend you a whole book on the role of females in Islam and especially the fetishist obsession with the idea of a girl'S virginity, there is much more behind it than just that a bride has to be clean and untouched at marriage. Islam's relation to female sexuality is a deeply pathologic one - women being seen as objects and possessions are just a consequence from this.

And this, Neal, is the reason why I wrote - although you deleted it - that islam holds the Quran in one hand and it's #### in the other, you remember. maybe I shouldn'T have posted it all alone without explanation, and not in a state of angry emotions, that is true. But as a factual statement it is correct what I said.

Combine this with social circumstances that have been male-oriented and patriarchalic long since before islam arrived. In all Islamic countries where i ever have been, so many, many families I witnessed were the more dysfunctional and characterised by the father's tyrannic regiment and the appeareance order and functionality established by complete surrender of the females in the household, the more they tend to uphold their claim to consider themselves as truly islamic by the meaning of islamic teaching, which is expressed in the quran, and to some degree in the hadith. Young men grow up in a climate of sexual self-supression, which of course seeks outlets to the inner pressure, and this forms the motivation that makes many of them so receptive for what Westerners would call extremist views (but in fact are just Islamic views for the most) and a haughty, aggressive attitude towards females as well. Saying this as an ex-psychologist I must say that the social family constructions in Islamic societies are the most pressurised and most unhealthy and pathologic that I have ever seen in huge numbers, anywhere. They create frustrated male energy by routine - and this is what gives these socieites such a conflict-heavy, threatening dynamic.

It has been described in scientific research and literature that there is a link between the average age of a society, the ammount and role of young men in it - and it'S vulknerability to forming aggressive, expansionistic, and in modern context: terrorist tendencies. The more young sexually frustrated men you have - the more potential for violence, extremism and terrorism, conquest and war you have. If you look at the history of wars over the past millenias, this is old news, really, both in a context of the looting and raping at the end of a battle for a city, and the rise and fall of nations and civilisations.

Seen in this context, the assassination by beheading cannot be excluded from a religious context, and a cultural one as well. do not forget that isolam is polititics and relgion, and has long since molten with today's cultures and traditions in various places, like the ancient Greek heritage has molten into the western civilisation that formed our present. Like you cannot calculate the Greeks out of the Western world, you cannot calculate Islam out of such traditions - or such crimes. Mentality or culture, and ideology have been in bed for so many centuries that it is hard to separate them anymore. The pathologic and pathetic concepts of a male's pride and a family's "honour" today must be seen as a result of both. Islam's sick understanding of human relations between man and woman or course does nothing to help to ease the pressure from (unworthy, to say that loud and clear) cultural traditions, thus it puts even more oil into the flames. If such a family would live by concepts owing to a philosophy that bases on kindness and tolerance and self-control (almost unknown to islamic males: sexual self-control in the meaning of own responsibility, thus they try to control their drives by demanding females to stay out of sight), this would help to ease the pathology deriving from an arch-patriarchalic tyranny of the father as ultimate dictator in the family. remember, we talk of a patriarchalism that by far exceeds the sexual role models for mother and father in families living in the past 50 years in the West, and that secures it'S power by much more ruthless force, even violence, if needed.

I'm not shy to declare that the west's view of these "honour killings" is superior to these primitive culture'S claim that they must be respected for the barbarism that they propagate. Honour killings in families have nothing to do with true human honour, they are deeds of malice and of shame. They are acts of social terror, and murder for lower motives, and committed with explicit malice. The fact that such affected families act by the standards of the culture and religion that has formed them, does not change the much more important fact that they nevertheless are object to our western laws as long as they live in our homes and countries. Thus there cannot be a different sentence than the maximum penalty the law reserves for assassination for lower motives and with special malice (Mord aus niederen Beweggründen und erfülltem Tatmerkmal besonderer Heimtücke).

[Tchocky]

All are types of crimes that muslims commit even tens of times more often than non-muslim population, atleast in Europe.
Link?

[Skybird]

There is some truth in it, Tchocky. I have said that before, too. The German police's yearly statistics show that especially in youth crime and crimes done by young adults, Muslim immigrants are massively overrepresented, compared to native german young population or foreigners from non-Muslim countries. we also find in achademical studies time and again that the young, third generation of muslim immigrants are less integrated than expected, in ost cases are less integrated than their already badly integrated first generation parents, and actively resist integration, by decision. We also see that this talkign abiout euro-Islam does not mean anything to them, but that they form an even stronger claim to build an orthodox islamic identity.

In other words: its not becoming better, but it becomes worse.

Also, organised crime is in the hand of foreigners. As one example, while the role of the non-islamic italian mafia and Camorra are underestimated and nice-talked in official Germany (if we don't admit the problem, then it does not exist - sounds familiar, doesn'T it), they and the non-Islamic Russian Mafia as well nevertheless have given ground massively to Islamic Albanian organisations. Organised crime from the ME is on the march as well. Nobody wants to know - and even less want to speak it out.

Ah, this eternally young bird named "political correctness"...chirp-chirp...

[Schroeder]

Ah, this eternally young bird named "political correctness"...chirp-chirp...
That's freaking me out too. No one dares to say what they think anymore.

BTW
I think someone once said:
If I chop off the head of my enemy and make a vase out of it it's culture. IF I go to jail for that it's civilization.

(I don't know anymore who said it and whether I quoted it correctly but I think he has had a point there)

[Happy Times]

There is also singns that these stats are being hidden from the public by media and goverments.


Finnish violent crimes 2007, all different types of homicides, robberies, rapes and assaults by nationality. Finnish statistic center doesnt have these in english.

This doesnt even include those with immigrant backround that are allready Finnish nationals. It also lacks big groups like Moroccans, Albanians etc..
I cant say what ethnicity the Swedes and Germans represent.


http://www.izrailit.net/maahanmuutto_rikostilastot.html


Suspects/per 1000 persons.

Finland 4.44
Russia 9.42
Sweden 14.37
Estonia 12.80
Somalia 55.85
Turkey 29.23
Vietnam 15.92
Iraq 55.01
Germany 1.81


I would be happy if others would post these from individual countries, many people are interested in this information hidden in statistics.

[Tribesman]

Another interpretation on whether Honour Killings are a part of Islam. These two sources say no.

Those sources are wrong , didn't you read HTs article ?:rotfl:
They are only honour Killings if they are by Muslims because its an arab thing , Which means of course when a Maronite kills his daughter for disgracing the family its because he is an arab and really a Muslim not a Christian .
And if someone else does an honour killing because it fits with their backward tribal culture then it isn't an honour killing because only Muslims do those so it doesn't count .
Simple isn't it , only Muslims do it so when other people do it its different .:hmmm:

People often forget how violent the bible is.
It's a good book , I like the part about showing no mercy and smashing babies skulls on the floor in front of their mothers ...but hey who said doing Gods work was all sweetness and light eh ?

[Skybird]

that is not as easy in Germany as it sounds. For political convenience, it is being refused to publish statistics sorted for national and ethnical origin, that is called racism, so if you want that, you need to adress personnel working in the affectedf fields (police, social work, federal offices) and have to combine their statements with the official statistics that only differ between Germans and non-Germans.

The official "Polizeiliche Kriminalitätsstatistik" by the Federal Police for 2007 lists between 20.1 and 30.8 percent of all criminals as "Non-Germans", depending on the crime category, counted over all the nation. But the share of non-Germans living legally in German population is just below 9%. If they would commit not more crimes than the German population, you would assume their crime share to be around 9-10%. The ratio shifts even more against foreigners if you take into account that the statistics does not differ between native germans, and foreigners who got German citizenship - these also contribute to the crime rate of "Germans". Over 20% of families in Germany have a migration background today (and for the sake of completeness: far over 40% of babies born involve a mother or father with migration background, but lets ignore that for this thread/posting). If you count these groups of the population out of the native german group, and add them to the group of people with a migration background (that the statistic call "Non-Germans"), you have an even bigger share of crime by foreigners, and a smaller ammount of crime committed by natives.

From social offices and services who from time to time publish their findings in the media, and in my case: from detectives I know, as well as projections done by these and independant institutions not falling under the official governmental policy, we know that in the categories of foreigner's crimes Albanians, Kurds, and especially Turks are the most prominent gang. On the other hand, Chinese and Japanese are almost non-existent in these categories, and all other groups of foreigners vary around the mean values. In major cities like Frankfurt or Berlin, giant families of several hundred members, coming from Lebanon and Afghanistan have become a very prominent problem, these criminal clans alone increasingly keep the police running.

The detectives that I knew, and who were of ME origin themselves since their agency only employs personnel from that region (on a side note: let'S try to have a German company running a policy of such ethnic selectivity: only native Germans - the uproar by immigrant organsiations and the political left would be deafening to your ears) , admitted freely that most of their "customers" were immigrants from turkey, and the ME. around than 80% of the people they caught, they said. They also said that these are far more violent and aggressive if being caught, than are native Germans. That's why I saw time and again that maybe they approached a suspect all by themselves, but if the suspect was a Turkish or ME-looking juvenile or person, they first took their handies and called their colleagues from neighbouring stores for assistance. Until late early last summer I jobbed parttime in a department store. Practically all incidents of riot and violent resistance I witnessed - were triggered by foreign-looking people. Never Asians, but almost always, if not always, Turks, some north-Africans.

[Happy Times]

Another interpretation on whether Honour Killings are a part of Islam. These two sources say no.

Those sources are wrong , didn't you read HTs article ?:rotfl:
They are only honour Killings if they are by Muslims because its an arab thing , Which means of course when a Maronite kills his daughter for disgracing the family its because he is an arab and really a Muslim not a Christian .
And if someone else does an honour killing because it fits with their backward tribal culture then it isn't an honour killing because only Muslims do those so it doesn't count .
Simple isn't it , only Muslims do it so when other people do it its different .:hmmm:

People often forget how violent the bible is.
It's a good book , I like the part about showing no mercy and smashing babies skulls on the floor in front of their mothers ...but hey who said doing Gods work was all sweetness and light eh ?

Il get back to you on that.
Now i have to prepare for a date with a fitness babe, tomorrow a model,
but you hold the fort here ok..:yeah:

[Aramike]

The Western Bible also has passages calling for believers to kill unbelievers. It was common in many old religious texts.

Spend a little time waltzing through Deuteronomy and you will find similar thoughts.Not to get into a Biblical discussion, but the New Testament has quite a different tone.

That being said, the Koran doesn't get a pass just because other texts contain questionable ideas. Why people seem the think so, I have no idea.

[Digital_Trucker]

Unfortunately, all religious texts have been written and translated by less than perfect beings (that would be us humans). What was originally meant (in word or spirit) has, most likely, been lost in the translation.

[nikimcbee]

???

[Tchocky]

There is some truth in it, Tchocky. I have said that before, too. The German police's yearly statistics show that especially in youth crime and crimes done by young adults, Muslim immigrants are massively overrepresented, compared to native german young population or foreigners from non-Muslim countries.
This is a common trend in quite a few european countries, more crime committed by people without roots in the region. But it's not what HT is saying.

Saying that they are massively over-represented in an age demographic is different than saying muslims are responsible for ten times the level of murder, beatings, and sexual assault than someone from a non-muslim background or religion.

Your own post points to a ratio of general criminality to somewhere between 2 and 3. Happy Times says 10. This may qualify as "some truth".
I want to know if he has anything to back it up with. Or if he picked the number ten out of the air, or parts unknown.

[Skybird]

Your own post points to a ratio of general criminality to somewhere between 2 and 3.
Can't back it up with links out of the blue, but you should double these values for crimes conducted by young men below an age of early 20s and with a migration background from Muslim countries, namely Turkey and Albania , I read last year and the year before that they are customers for law enforcement up to 6 times as often as native german juveniles, if you calculate different group sizes of foreigners and natives out of the equation (you do a standardisation to eliminate that group size effect, that is).

[CaptainHaplo]

Regarding Biblical violence - the Old Testament was when the Jews were under the Law of God - and there were VERY violent passages there. However, when the Jews rejected Jesus, the gift of Salvation ushered in GRACE - which is why the New Testament is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent.

Also - before you make a comparison - kindly take into account that there is not a threat to the security of people and nations due to a bunch of "fundamentalist" Christians who are using the Old Testament to blow up innocent people and create a worldwide empire. Yes - there is the OCCASIONAL wacko - but they are a real rarity - whereas Islam and its "moderate" followers shield and tacitly condone the actions of their own "wackos".

When you see a bunch of "Fundamentalist Christians" toting guns in the streets and killing anyone who disagrees - while hiding behind the shield of innocents and their religion - on the news every day - in 1/10 of the countries in the world - you let me know.

Until then - your attempt to equate the two beliefs shows only a total lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to subvert the truth.

[Skybird]

Do you mean me...?

[CaptainHaplo]

No Skybird - that was in reply to Platapus. He tried to say that Islam is no more violent than modern Chrisitianity.

While you and I disagree on many things - including theology and its place in society - we both agree on the threat that Islam is to modern civilization.

[Platapus]

No Skybird - that was in reply to Platapus. He tried to say that Islam is no more violent than modern Chrisitianity.




Did I say that? I just pointed out that there were verses in the bible that advocate the killing of unbelievers just like you pointed out there were verses in the Qur'an that advocate the killing of unbelievers.

I did not make any statements on the relative violence between Islam and christianity.

[CaptainHaplo]

Platapus - I reread your post and your correct - my mistake and I apologize. However, the inference in there that due to the words of the Bible - Christianity must be as violent as Islam. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way - and if so then I regret taking it that way. I simply have gotten tired of people comparing the two and claiming everything from what the old testament says - to the violence of the crusades - as a way of saying that what modern Islam is doing - both by extremists and the moderates who condone and silently support it - is ok.

[Platapus]

And my apologies if my post was not clear.

This does bring up an interesting question. In Christianity what part does the Old Testament play?

Do Christians just ignore the Old Testament? Is the entire Old Testament "Christianity 1.0" and the New Testament "Christianity 2.0". Does 2.0 replace 1.0? Or only if there is a conflict between 1.0 and 2.0 does 2.0 take precedence (and if so where does the bible state this?)

I know what my upbringing was, but I would be interested on how others deal with this.

If the Old Testament states that it is god's will that Christians kill unbelievers, what do what do they do? Well the vast majority of Christians don't do that. There are Christian nutters who do and at times there have been large numbers of Christian nutters that have killed unbelievers. Fortunately, in our times, the number of Christian nutters are rather small and isolated

I would imagine that the vast number of Muslims (about two billion of them) when reading in the Qur'an that it is god's will that Muslims kill unbelievers also don't do it. There are Muslim nutters who do and at times there are large numbers of Muslim nutters who do kill unbelievers. Unfortunately, in our times the number of Muslim nutters seem rather large and organized.

To be honest none of these nutters can be called Christian or Muslim. Both may CLAIM to be either Christian or Muslim but in actually both are apostates perverting their respective religions.

There is, after all a big difference between saying you are a Christian/Muslim and actually being a Christian/Muslim. :D

[Tribesman]

There is, after all a big difference between saying you are a Christian/Muslim and actually being a Christian/Muslim.
True , you have the recent spate of killing people for witchcraft by people who call themselves christian and you have the rather pleasant Lords Resistance Army who really go for that death to the unbelievers stuff in the name of christianity , but you notice a lack of people focusing on these nutters and saying oooo look at how christianity is evil and violent like they do with Islam .

[August]

In Christianity what part does the Old Testament play?

I think "Christian" is way to broad a term to give a single answer to that question.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I cannot speak to every "branch" of Christianity, but Protestantism - and all its facets and subsets - tend to agree on this theological question.

The OT was written prior to the birth of Jesus. To be saved you had to meet specific requirements - one of which you had to be Jewish. The second requirement was that you have faith in the coming of the Savior as had been prophesied. Third, you had to obey the 10 commandments. Fourth, atone for screwing up #3 via ritual sacrifice. There were some other minor things, but those 4 were key. Doing this kept you in line with God's will. Yes, that meant if you were a Gentile before the birth of Jesus - you were simply $hit out of luck.

Now, when Jesus was born, his gift of salvation was initially meant only for the Jews. However, they rejected him (as was intended) and thus salvation was opened up to both the Jew and the Gentile. At the time that Jesus died, the Law ceased to be the way to God, for as Jesus said, no man cometh to the Father but by me. By Faith and acceptance the way was opened to spiritual salvation. The Law is still a guideline for righteous living, but the need to sacrifice an animal is no longer necessary as the Lamb of God has paid the price already.

The 10 commandments are now simply instructions on how one should live a righteous life, whereas before they were laws that had a price to be paid should you violate one of them.

Today, you can hate your neighbor, and ask forgiveness. Before, you had to go slaughter a lamb or some such. It cost you to "pay for" that sin - now many people just say "oops, sorry" and swipe their Jesus credit card.

Yes - that was sarcasm. Sad fact is - many who CLAIM to be Christian do exactly that.

The OT now for Christians (Protestant types) - is basically a mixture of history, lessons of growth, praise, and guidelines on righteous living.

[Kapt Z]

Regarding Biblical violence - the Old Testament was when the Jews were under the Law of God - and there were VERY violent passages there. However, when the Jews rejected Jesus, the gift of Salvation ushered in GRACE - which is why the New Testament is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent.

Also - before you make a comparison - kindly take into account that there is not a threat to the security of people and nations due to a bunch of "fundamentalist" Christians who are using the Old Testament to blow up innocent people and create a worldwide empire. Yes - there is the OCCASIONAL wacko - but they are a real rarity - whereas Islam and its "moderate" followers shield and tacitly condone the actions of their own "wackos".

When you see a bunch of "Fundamentalist Christians" toting guns in the streets and killing anyone who disagrees - while hiding behind the shield of innocents and their religion - on the news every day - in 1/10 of the countries in the world - you let me know.

Until then - your attempt to equate the two beliefs shows only a total lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to subvert the truth.

We Christians already had our fun with the Crusades.

[Tribesman]

I think "Christian" is way to broad a term to give a single answer to that question.
Good point , because Christians came in many flavours , but as Muslims also come in many flavours isn't all this "its the Muslims" talk way too broad aswell .

[Skybird]

There is, after all a big difference between saying you are a Christian/Muslim and actually being a Christian/Muslim. :D
Strange - when I say that, I immediately come under fire. :DL

Concerning comparing bible and quran, the bible has two parts: first the part on the old revenging desert God who demands totalitarian control over man and man's ultimate submission and obedience. This was the status quo of belief two thousand years ago. Much of Judaism got stuck in that description as well. But with Jesus, a reformist appeared on the scene, and thus a second part to the bible emerged, which replaced the ancient desert god dogma with that what Jesus told and taught, and that is a much more loving and forgiving deity, which additionally was meant as a metaphor I'm sure. This is were you cannot compare Quran and bible anymore, because the Quran in the first three centuries has seen many local versions and manipulated editions that local rulers tailored to their needs to justif by it their means of performing their power and pushing their interests - true, but nevertheless Muhammad described a god of submission and conquest, terror and tyranny incase of disobedience, like the old desert god of the Jews and the old testament. And he did so because he very much copied the dogmas of the Jews about whom he lectured himself and thought one day he knew enough, but then was put down in theological debate with the pharisees who showed him how inferior his insight into Judaism was (this event is where islam's deep disgust and hate for Jews is deriving from, it led Muhammad's narcissistic ego to wage war and to commit genocide as well, to revenge his intellectual inferiority). The old testament with its tyrannic deity was followed by Jesus and the glad tidings of the new testament. But after Muhammad - followed nobody, the quran compoares to the old testament, but there is no new testament in it.

That's why I say that Islam got stuck with its head in the azz of history, 1400 years deep.

[Happy Times]

Another interpretation on whether Honour Killings are a part of Islam. These two sources say no.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392

In response to the question:

Respected scholars, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh. What does Islam say about honor killings? Does Islam really have a concept of honor killings, most of the victims here are females; so does Islam really order to kill females in the name of honor?

Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, we do really appreciate your question, which shows how far you are interested in getting yourself well-acquainted with the sound teachings of Islam. May Allah bless your efforts in pursuit of knowledge and may He keep us all firm in the straight path!

Sister, it’s a well-known fact that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it. In the Glorious Qur’an, Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Focusing more on your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.

First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”

Shedding more light on it, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”

Moreover, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds:

“In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.

Honor killing could be a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment.”

Sister, if you are still in need of more information, don't hesitate to contact us. Do keep in touch. May Allah guide us all to the straight path!

I hope you understand you are quoting a cholar from partly public funded school so he has a motivation to even lie. The Sheikh is a Wahhabist but in Canada he is considered "moderate muslim scholar working against fundamentalism".:har:
He has strong Saudi connections, to me he is a facist.

The same Sheikh Kutty was quoted in the essay i posted.

Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:
“Adultery in Islam is one of the most heinous and deadliest of sins. Its enormity can be gauged from the fact that it has often been conjoined in the Qur’an with the gravest of all sins: shirk or associating partners with Allah.”

As the original post was about a divorce situation that ended in a beheading, lets see what Sheikh Ahmad Kutty has to say about divorce from womens and mens perpective.

Women
Respected Sheikh, As-Salamu `alaykum. Does the woman have the right to ask for the divorce?


Dear sister in Islam, we would like to thank you for your question and the great confidence you place in us. May Allah reward you abundantly for your interest in knowing the teachings of Islam!

Marriage is indeed a sacred bond that brings together a man and a woman by virtue of the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Indeed, Allah Almighty describes this relationship is as though one is a garment to the other; “they are a libas (i.e. body cover) for you and you are the same for them” (Al-Baqarah: 187), thus illustrating the closeness, affection, warmth and love of one for the other.

Thus, each partner in this sacred relationship must treat the other beautifully and properly. A man must not divorce his wife to bring harm upon her, as this constitutes an act that demolishes this noble establishment, breaks the woman’s heart, and possibly separates the woman from her children without any reason. Thus, the separation between a man and his wife [without just reason] was considered one of the major and grave sins, and one of the most beloved actions of Satan, as was narrated in a number of hadiths.

Just as a man must never divorce his wife in order to bring harm upon her without reason, it is also forbidden for a woman to ask for a divorce without a sensible reason. However, she is allowed to ask for a divorce for an acceptable reason.

Elaborating on this issue, we'd like to cite for you the words of Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in his well-known book, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. He writes:

"The woman who cannot bear to live with her husband has the right to free herself from the marriage bond by returning to her husband the mahr (required marriage gift) and gifts he has given her, or more or less than that according to their mutual agreement. It is, however, preferable that he should not ask for more than he has given her. Allah Almighty says: "...And if you (the judges) fear that the two may not be able to keep to the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she redeems herself (from the marriage tie by returning all or part of the mahr)..." (Al-Baqarah: 229)

The wife of Thabit ibn Qays came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said, "O Messenger of Allah, I do not reproach Thabit ibn Qays in respect of character and religion, but I do not want to be guilty of showing anger to him.'' (Her meaning was that although Thabit was a good man, she was unable to get along with him and thus might not be able to show him the respect due to a husband.) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked her about what she had received from him. She replied, "A garden." He asked, "Will you give him back his garden?" "Yes," she said. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then told Thabit, "Accept the garden and make one declaration of divorce." (Reported by al-Bukhari and an-Nasa'i)

It is not permissible for woman to seek divorce from her husband unless she has borne ill-treatment from him or unless she has an acceptable reason which requires their separation. Said the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), "If any woman asks her husband for a divorce without some strong reason, the fragrance of the Garden will be forbidden to her." (Reported by Abu Dawud)"

Men

Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. What does Islam say about divorce? I mean if there are some qualities which the husband does not like in his wife, should he divorce her? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

Marriage is indeed a sacred bond that brings together a man and a woman by virtue of the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Thus, each partner in this sacred relationship must treat the other beautifully and properly.

A man must not divorce his wife to bring harm upon her, as this constitutes an act that demolishes this noble establishment, breaks the woman’s heart, and possibly separates the woman from her children without any reason. Thus, the separation between a man and his wife [without just reason] was considered one of the major and grave sins, and one of the most beloved actions of Satan, as was narrated in a number of hadiths. It is also forbidden for a woman to ask for a divorce without a sensible reason.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Among lawful things, divorce is most hated by Allah." (Reported by Abu Dawud) The spouses should avoid divorce as much as possible. If they have difficulties and problems they should try to work out their differences and seek help from their relatives, friends or professional counselors. However, if the differences are irreconcilable then divorce is permissible, but it should be done in a decent manner.

Elaborating on this issue, we'd like to cite for you the words of Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in his well-known book, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. He writes:

"A husband must be patient with his wife if he sees something in her that he disapproves and dislikes. He should recognize that he is dealing with a human being with natural imperfections, and he should balance her good qualities with her failings. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Let a believing man not dislike a believing woman. If something in her is displeasing to him, another trait may be pleasing.”

And Allah Almighty says, "...And consort with them in kindness, for if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed much good." (An-Nisa': 19)

While on the one hand, Islam requires the husband to be tolerant and patient with what he dislikes in his wife, on the other hand, it commands the wife to try to please her husband as far as her ability and charm allows, and warns her not to let a night pass during which her husband remains angry with her. A hadith states: "There are three (persons) whose prayer does not rise even a single span above their heads: a man leading a congregational prayer while the people hate him, a woman passing the night while her husband is angry with her, and two quarreling brothers." (Reported by Ibn Majah and by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih)

Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink. If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to admonish her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury. Rather this should be of the kind which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) once when angry with his servant, said to him: “If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have hit you with this miswak (tooth-cleaning stick).” (Reported by Ibn Sa`d in his Tabaqat)

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) admonished men concerning beating their wives, saying, "None of you must beat his wife as a slave is beaten, and then have intercourse with her at the end of the day." (Reported by Ahmad; al-Bukhari has something similar to it)

It was reported to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that some of his Companions beat their wives, whereupon he said, "Certainly those are not the best among you." (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud and an-Nasa'i and classified by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim as authentic)

If all of these approaches fail, and the rift between the husband and wife deepens, the matter then devolves on the Islamic society for solution. Two individuals of good will and sound judgment, one from the wife's and one from the husband's side, should meet with the couple in order to try to resolve their differences. Perhaps the sincerity of their efforts may bear fruit and Allah may bring about reconciliation between the spouses.

These various approaches are stated by Allah in the following verses: "...And as for those women on whose part you fear stubbornness, (first) admonish them; then refuse to share their beds; and (finally) beat them (lightly). Then if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance); indeed, Allah is Most High, Great. And if you fear breach between the two of them, appoint an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family. If they desire to set things aright, Allah will bring about reconciliation between them; indeed, Allah is Knowing, Aware." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

If all these efforts fail and every course tried proves to be of no avail, the husband may resort to the final solution permitted by the Shari`ah of Islam. In response to the bitter realities of life, when difficulties cannot be resolved except through the separation of the two parties in an honorable fashion, Islam has made the provision of divorce. Islam has permitted divorce reluctantly, neither liking nor commending it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Among lawful things, divorce is most hated by Allah." (Reported by Abu Dawud)

That a thing is lawful yet detested by Allah means that it is permissible under unavoidable circumstances, when living together becomes torture, mutual hatred is deep-seated, and it becomes difficult for the two parties to observe the limits of Allah and to fulfill their marital responsibilities. In such a situation separation is better, and Allah Almighty says, “But if they separate, Allah will provide for each of them out of His abundance...” (An-Nisa': 130)"


So we can see that Islam doesnt de facto offer possibility of divorce to women without the husbands consent. Beating a wife for exsample, like our beheaded victim was, isnt a basis for divorce. Its just one method of controlling a woman sanctioned by Islam. These answers reveal the misogynistic attitude that Syed Kamran Mirza wrote in the essay i posted. The apologists at Subsim dont want to see or admit this for some reason or the other.



and
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/clpub.asp

The article is too long to quote here but it is written by James Emery who is an anthropologist and journalist. Information for his article was obtained through interviews and research conducted in North America, West Asia, and the Middle East.

In the article he also emphasis that Honour Killings are not "authorized" in the Qura'n nor in Islam

I will quote it.

From the tribal standpoint, the only way a family can regain its honor is to eliminate the women in question. "The law of the clan is sacred," notes Jibril, a Palestinian merchant. "A man is entitled to kill for his honor." Several Palestinians justified honor killings by equating a woman's reputation to glass, porcelain, or other fragile objects, stating, "Once broken, it is ruined. It cannot be fixed or repaired."

In some areas, a Palestinian woman is required to have a male relative accompany her whenever she leaves the home. Unfortunately, her male "guardian"--father, brother, uncle, or cousin--may be a sexual predator who rapes her. Should she become pregnant, he will publicly condemn her for dishonoring the family after killing both her and their unborn child. Last year, seventeen-year-old Afaf Younes was killed by her father, who had allegedly been sexually molesting her. Afaf had tried to escape his sexual abuse by running away, but she was caught and returned to her father. He then shot her in the name of honor.
A sixteen-year-old Palestinian girl became pregnant after being raped by her younger brother. Once her condition became known, her family encouraged her older brother to kill her to remove the blemish from their honor. Her brothers, the rapist and the murderer, were exonerated. The girl was blamed. "She made a mistake," said one of her male cousins. "She had to pay for it."

Even more horrifically, a four-year-old Palestinian girl, raped by a man in his mid-twenties, was left by her family to bleed to death. They did this because they felt her misfortune would sully their honor.
Women often accept their fate and expect to be executed, even in the case of incest and rape. "They have to kill us," exclaims Ritza, a middle-aged Palestinian woman, "to keep others from doing wrong. It is the law of our society." It is hard to grasp the logic.
Girls, feeling they are ruined by scandal, go submissively to the slaughter. Such is the power of culture that has conditioned both victim and killer to accept their roles. "He had no choice but to kill her," says Rateb, whose son killed his sixteen-year-old sister after she was raped. "He was tormented. The community was persecuting him because of what his sister did. Her death has helped to wash away his shame."

and quote again Syed Kamran Mirzas essay.

Most Muslim apologists and also some gullible westerners want to argue that the ‘so called “honor killing” is not Islamic and it’s a tribal/cultural vice.’ This statement is utterly untrue and only a wish full covers up. It’s true that in pre-Islamic Arab culture this heinous honor killing of women did exist; likewise, many other uncivilized practices like stoning, flogging, beheading, slavery etc also existed in the pre-Islamic Arab society. But Islam did incorporate entirely most of these inhumane/uncivilized practices of pagan society, which they now call them Allah’s laws.

Had it been the tribal/cultural practice, ‘honor killing’ would exist amongst the Arabs only. But honor killing does happen amongst the non-Arab Muslims also. Also Arabs belonged to all religions (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhai etc.) would practice honor killing with equal prevalence. Fact of the matter is—no Arab Christians, Jews or Bahai etc do practice this uncivilized act at all. Only Arab Muslims do practice this heinous act with a regular pattern.

Honor killing does happen only amongst the Muslims and these honor killings get support and encouragement from the ethical teachings of religion Islam. In 1986 this kind of honor killing did happen in the United States of America in an Arab Muslim family. In 2003 honor killing happened in Sweden again in a Muslim family. However, some very rare, sporadic case of such killing might have happened in other society or people of other religion. But they are no where near to compare with the regular pattern, or routine feature of honor killings which do happen in the Muslim nations that I have mentioned. It has been reported that in Pakistan and in Jordan several hundreds of “honor killings” do happen every year. Perhaps, it will be more plausible to name this so called ‘honor’ as the “Islamic honor”, which Muslims stupendously try to save by killing their love one!

[Tribesman]

This is were you cannot compare Quran and bible anymore, because the Quran in the first three centuries has seen many local versions and manipulated editions that local rulers tailored to their needs to justif by it their means of performing their power and pushing their interests - true,
Bloody hell ???? how many versions of the bible have there been where local powers have manipulated their editions to suit their needs and push their interests .
Whole books were removed , rewritten or just written and added .

But after Muhammad - followed nobody:rotfl:
You really don't know much about Islamic scripture do you , in fact you don't know much about Christian scripture either .
In one breath you are saying Christian scripture was changed but didn't change and in the next saying Muslim scripture didn't change but was changed .

[Happy Times]

There is some truth in it, Tchocky. I have said that before, too. The German police's yearly statistics show that especially in youth crime and crimes done by young adults, Muslim immigrants are massively overrepresented, compared to native german young population or foreigners from non-Muslim countries.
This is a common trend in quite a few european countries, more crime committed by people without roots in the region. But it's not what HT is saying.

Saying that they are massively over-represented in an age demographic is different than saying muslims are responsible for ten times the level of murder, beatings, and sexual assault than someone from a non-muslim background or religion.

Your own post points to a ratio of general criminality to somewhere between 2 and 3. Happy Times says 10. This may qualify as "some truth".
I want to know if he has anything to back it up with. Or if he picked the number ten out of the air, or parts unknown.

You did see the Finnish figures i posted?
I did look at some British statistics about different counties crime by ethnic brakeup versus population. They clearly point to a 6-13% range but as the religion or accurate ethnicity isnt stated i wont guess. The Blacks seem to have same sized crime rate in Britain and most of them arent Muslims to my knowledge.
Noticiable and most worrying about muslim crime in Europe is that its commited by gangs. They are often not under influence of any substance when they commit violence, robberies, riots or their specialty, violent gang rapes.

Here is an article that goes behind the reasons of these high rates of crime.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938


Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War


Last year I wrote an article about how Swedish society is disintegrating and is in danger of collapsing, at least in certain areas and regions. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration. Some thought I was exaggerating, and that talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden was pure paranoia. Was it?

In a new sociological survey (pdf in Swedish, with brief English introduction) entitled “Vi krigar mot svenskarna” (“We’re waging a war against the Swedes”), young immigrants in the troubled city of Malmö have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper Aftonbladet reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries. This must be borne in mind whilst reading the following newspaper article:

Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes through robbery

The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. “I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they rob other youths. It usually does not involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.

Almost 90% of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers do not plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”

Why do they hate the Swedes so much? “Well, they hate us,” Petra Åkesson reports them as answering. “When a Swede goes shopping, the lady behind the counter gives him the money back into his hand, looks into his eyes and laughs. When we go shopping, she puts the money on the counter and looks the other way.” Åkesson, who is adopted from Sri Lanka and hence does not look like a native Swede, says it was not difficult to get the boys to talk about their crimes. Rather they were bragging about who had committed the most robberies. Malin Åkerström,a professor in sociology, sees only one solution to the problem: “Jobs for everybody. If this entails a deregulation of the labor market to create more jobs, then we should do so.”

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such. This is completely in line with what I have posited before. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents. The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non muslim countries such as India. European jails are filling up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That is because they cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious: this is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bombing. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense.

Malmö in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the number one priority for the political class in Sweden during this year’s national election campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for “xenophobia” and a “brutal” debate about Muslim immigration. During last years Jihad riots in France, Sweden’s Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticised the way the French government handled the unrest in the country. “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” Persson also rejected the idea of more local police as a “first step” in Sweden. “I don’t believe that’s the way we would choose in Sweden. To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said. Meanwhile, as their authorities have largely abandoned their third largest city to creeping anarchy, there is open talk among the native Swedes still remaining in Malmö of forming vigilante groups armed with baseball bats out of concern for their children’s safety. As I argued in another essay: If Arnold Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to “Conan the Barbarian.” He could shoot it in Malmö. He will get the extras for free.

What happened to the famous Swedish nanny state, you say? Don’t Swedes pay the highest tax rates in the world? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner, some say several hundred billions, are being spent every year on propping up rapidly growing communities of Muslim immigrants. Sweden has become the entire world’s welfare office, because the political elites have decided that massive Muslim immigration is “good for the economy.” Soon Sweden’s “army” may comprise no more than 5,000 men, five thousand troops to defend a nation more than three times the area of England. Moreover, it may take up to a year to assemble all of them, provided they are not on peacekeeping missions abroad. That Sweden might soon need a little peacekeeping at home seems to escape the establishment. In 2006 the celebrated Swedish welfare state has become the world’s largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag.

Although Sweden is an extreme example, similar stories could be told about much of Western Europe. As Mark Steyn points out, the Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters. At the same time, Europeans are paying some of the highest taxes in the world. We should remind our authorities that the most important task of the state – some would even claim it should be the only task of the state – is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. Since it is becoming pretty obvious that this is no longer the case in Eurabia, we should question whether these taxes are still legitimate, or whether they are simply disguised Jizya paid in the form of welfare to Muslims and our new Eurocrat aristocracy. Although not exactly the Boston Tea Party, perhaps the time has now come for a pan-European tax rebellion: We will no longer pay taxes until our authorities restore law and order and close the borders to Muslim immigration.

This is urgent. When enough people feel that the system is no longer working and that the social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of democratic society could unravel. What happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to “grease” the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? And what happens when people discover that their own leaders, through the EU networks and the Euro-Arab Dialogue described by Bat Ye’or in her book “Eurabia,” have been encouraging all these Muslims to settle here in the first place? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic leaders. This is a situation in some ways similar to the Great Depression that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. Is this where we are heading once again, with fear, rising Fascism and political assassinations? The difference is that the “Jewish threat” in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the “Islamic threat” now is very real. However, it is precisely the trauma caused by the events of 70 years ago that is clouding our judgement this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as “the same rhetoric as the Nazis used against the Jews.” Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own shadows that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz.

[Skybird]

Read again. You did not understand what I said, and you say I said things that I did not say the way you name them.

About my knowledge on Islamic history and the many situations when orthodoxy successfully (and far more successful than the Catholic church was) strangled attempts to question this orthodoxy so that these attempted reforms all in all produced no influence on reforming the Quran, I must not be in doubt after having studied it for years.

Just in case this becomes just another opportunity to try engaging me in a distracting debate about my person so that the issue itself gets forgotten, I already say good-bye in advance.


As far as the content and verbal style is concerned, generally a split is perceived in the Quran, separating the scriptures of Muhammad’s time in Mekka (beeing more metaphysical in content and style, focussing on ethical and spiritual questions) from those scriptures that are basing on his preachings in Medina, that shows more pragmatical relation to situations and problems of practical life, and are said to be of less prosaic language. (...) It is undisputed amongst Quran-researchers, that the better part of the book without doubt is basing on Muhammad at least actively helping to shape it’s content. The academical voices that defended an opinion that without doubt ALL it’s content is „Muhammad pure“ nevertheless are said to have become rare since a longer while now.

The Quran is regarded as Allah’s revelation to mankind and thus is the basis of Muslim belief. It’s creation must not be explained, because Allah always have been existent and so the Quaran as his word and will cannot have been created by man – as an idea it has always been there. The many doubts that are existent about the tradition that influenced and conserved it’s form and made it to what it is today, are therefor ignored and considered to be irrelevant. Pragmatical from a Muslim point of view, but hardly acceptable for a less metaphysical mindset.

During Muhammad’S lifetime his prophecies had been conserved by verbal delivery and fixing in writing, using palm-leafs, leather, and whatever material was used for that purpose. The effort to do so was unsystematical and unorganized, so that the tradition was scattered around somewhat. Parts of these preachings additionally got lost, when close followers of Muhammad, who had learned to memorize „their“ part of the always increasing collection of preachings, had been killed in one of the many battles they went through. The first Kalif after Muhammad’s death, Abu Bakr (who also was Muhammad’s father-in-law), therefor ordered Muhammad‘s last secretary to collect all written and verbal material that was circulating, to bring it into an order and to fix it in a final writing. The result was a first version of the Quaran about which we know almost nothing today. After Abu Bakr’s death two years after that of Muhammad, his successor, the second Kalif, Umar, is said to have given this version to his daugther Hafsa, Muhammad’s fourth wife, because she should have had such a splendid memory that she seemed to be ideally fitted to become the guardian of a Quaran that now was hoped to see no more changes added to it by circulating different fragments and contents, whose originality was uncertain. However, orientalists raise serious doubts that it could have been like this. It seems to be untrustworthy that the most important document of Islam‘s faith should have been given into the hands of a woman, that – although beeing Muhammad’s wife - was of relatively minor importance in history.

Not that this question is of much importance, because this version of the Quran found no general acceptance, and few years later again complaints were raised, that in the provinces still a growing diversity of different versions of the Quaran were circulating, most or all of them adding new things or reinterpreting it towards a higher level of political relevance, or reinterpreting it in other ways that did not seem to be acceptable, or did not have any authenticity. So the new, third Kalif, Uthman, again ordered Muhammad’s old secretary to collect and form a new version of the Quaran, which he did and compared it with the first version that still was in possession of Hafsa. He also reworked and translated all material into the dominat Arab dialect, that of Mekka, because the fragments that had been scattered around were written or memorized in various different languages. Of this new version he created, only five numbers were written down and were given to the five centers of Islamic knowledge in Mekka, Medina, Damascus, Basra and Kufa.

Scientific research asks some very serious questions about this course of the whole story. It is assumed that there was no single authority, no agreed institution of competence for the Quran existent. That there were two main versions created may have been a sign that there may have been at least two rivalling traditions of interpretation. Criterias for what was accepted for both of these main versions, and what not, are unknown, also who rasied these criterias, if this should mean there were no central figure of evaluationg it all, then this may be interpreted as arbitrariness deciding the second form of the Quran, or choices made that were born out of political opportunism. And why was the first version without influence, why was the number of different versions beside that first collection of writings constantly increasing? All this is in contradiction to Islam’s understanding, that the Quaran was from the very beginning of Islam’s history what it always had been in later times. It cannot have been like that. Islam ignores these questions, and says that all this is unimportant. Despite all the obvious changes it must have gone thorugh, it should have remained unchanged since the beginning. A miracle? But, as P. Raddatz points towards an important question that kept Quran reseach before second world war very busy, how was it possible that during 25 years an ever increasing number of many followers memorized all verbal inspirations and preachings of Muhammad (and that was quite an impressive lot of material!!) , spreading them around all over their living places, giving them to others, so that thousands of passages went through thousands of ears and mouths – and nevertheless all of it shouldn’t have changed the smallest bit, and should have seen no faults and no adulterations (Verfälschungen) of even a minor kind? It is difficult enough to learn the whole Quran from fixed writing only, to learn it without faults by hear-say only seems to be beyond ability of man.

As if this not already raised doubts in the complete originality of today’s Quaran, an even greater problem existed – the changes in written language during the two- or threehundred years after Muhammad’s death. Not before the 10th century the introduction of diacritic punctuation („diakritische Punktierung“) to Arab writing was completed, which changed vocalisation and meaning of words of Arab dialects significantly. I must blindly follow the linguists here, since I do not have any knowledge of that on my own, but they say that the translation of the second Quran version into the new version of Arabic writing necessarily must have increased the level of misinterpretations or changes of understandings of given words, and very drastically so. The new punctuation caused the changes of letters into different ones, and due to the inner nature of Arab language this meant, that words and complete sentences could transform into complete new meanings and understandings. This is the main reason, probably, why the number of different versions of the Quaran, with sometimes very dramatic changes in meaning and content of complete passages, grew constantly in the two hundred years after Muhammad’s death. A caste of professional Quran-readers had been formed by this, and they had high political influence, since due to the unity of religion and politics in Islam their individual interpretations of the Quran really made a difference in local policies. - Even today preachers at the traditional Friday prayers are having high political influence and a significant power to mobilize their community. - They also implemented up to seven differing major traditions of interpretation, that took quite some time to get reduced to a smaller number of traditions again. Like especially radical preachers today, they also may have had personal ambitions, coming from the power that they had to influence the crowds. The impression Islam is giving, that it only were different styles of verbal recitation, has been proven wrong by science, it has not been that simple and harmless and this claim holds no ground. It was not only different styles in presentation, but different conclusions by different styles of interpretation of the Quran, and different versions of Quaran itself. Today’s diversity in possible Quran interpretation, that allows both fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists to justify their deeds by the Quran and find coverage from it, may have found it’s reason in this chapter of history.

Kalif Uthman obviously made a wise decision to concentrate the interpretation of Quaran on the five centers of knowledge that were delivered the only five existing issues of the second official collection of the Quaran scriptures. He made a cut and accepted that an uncertain ammount of falsified, wrong material, that was lacking any authenticity, found entrance into the official Quaran. Anything was better than to allow a further spreading of different traditions to interpret the Quaran that only could have led to an increasing diversity in faith – exactly what Islam ideology does NOT want. The Quran-readers that made their living by interpreting the Quaran, and twisted it to the liking of the political needs of those who ordered and payed for their services, or to their own ambitions, lost their jobs and political influence. The centralization of interpreting the Quaran ended the regional political agitation and strengthened centralized, superregional powerstructures.

Due to lacking knowledge of myself I must blindly point out that linguists are able to illustrate how the origin of the word qur’an links parts of the Mekkanesian (?) scriptures of the Quran to the traditon of Christian liturgy, and Christian tradition and languages. This is critical, because Muslims think of the Quran to have been send down to man in Arab language – the Arab language that is known today. But that form of language did not exist before twohundred years after Muhammad’s death. So how could his preachings have been conserved and delivered, if not by accepting that the first and original version of the Quran had not been send down to man and fixed in punctuated Arabic, but more likely in a mixture of the dialect of the Quraysh and Arameic language, or Syrian dialects? Some commentators say that the Quran originally may have been a liturgic reading for Christian services, and that up to one quarter of the Quran’s content until today raises verbal problems with Islamic interpretations of passages that seem to point more towards Christian tradition and the Old and New Testament than towards the usual Muslim interpretation of this stuff. They also argue that the Quran may not have been a document of it’s own value and religious right, but may have been something like a comment to the writings of the Christians, focussing on them as the main word. These authors argue that the Quran probably has no original identity of it’s own, but was more an added comment on the basis of a foreign religious scripture, which most probably may have been the Bible.

Islam’s claim that the original language of the Quaran has been Arabic is highly questionable from an academical point of view, and it’s belief of the Quran’s delivery in that language (despite the well-documented changes the Arab language went through between the 7th and 10th century) as a miracle does not add anything valuable to discussion. The Quaran’s claimed originality is highly speculative, seen that way.
(...)
Although Uthman had made sure that the Quran was no longer to be mixed and watered by contacts with foreign teachings, there was still the chance that it would be „misinterpreted“ by the simple fact, that the Arab conquerers, when they started to leave the Arab peninsula and spread Allahs word outside, would somewhat mix and water it when coming in contact with the traditions in Egypt and Syria, here factions were living that were hostile to Byzanz and for that reason tend to sympathise with the Arabs - who could not avoid to be influenced by these foreign religions in return, because their leaders even demanded them to treat friendly those that were hostile towards Byzanz – which now was the Muslim Arabs’ enemy. Although it took until late into the 8th century until the Quaran as we know it today had strengthend in structure and content, one thing was undisputed and beyond doubt for every Muslim from the beginning: that it was the word of Allah, without fault, without doubt, without wrong, without any reason to ask, examine or critisize it, always existent, never changing. This „hard belief“, immune to changes, even more consolidating itself in the more than 1300 years to come, made it impossible for Muslim religion to establish a tradition of self-critical examination of it’s own basis of beliefs, as we have seen it in the developement of Christian tradition, that led to the splitting into different Christians churches and sects, eventually, but nevertheless helped to gain a more modern understanding of Christianity‘s own faith, that considered the many changes the mental evolution of western man during the diffrent phases of Western cultural history went through. The raised levels of knowledge and insight changed Christian religion, growing education lowered the need for religously motivated regulation, the implementation of legal laws replaced the enforcment of religious commandments. But Muslim theology did stop to develope very early in Islam’s history in an understanding of critically examining itself (if the heretic’s writings are not counted as part of the official theology), and seen that way one could even say that it does not exist in a western understanding. There also is only a very limited, often non-existent interest in interreligious and intercultural exchange, whereas the West’s Christianity has developed a theological and academical highly differentiated science of comparing cultures and religions, as well as analysing it’S own history of developement, and origins of scriptures. Paradoxically this lacking ability to adopt to changes, that makes it so tough for Islamic communities in Arab countries to arrive in the modern era, is the basis for Muslim argumentation that Islam, unchanged since long, is superior to any other idea: it did not change because it did not need to do so: as the word of Allah, the basis of it’s faith – the Quran - was perfect from the beginning and thus any correctional change could only have meant: weakness, and falsification of the truth. One needs to reflect this if one wants to understand why the simple export of Western ideas to Islamic countries usually do not trigger the effects one expected (social and powerpolitical structures being also a factor, but not the deciding one). It’s the religiously founded mentality and it’s influence on cultural climate.

Quran is understood by Islam as beeing the renewal of the faith (a faith that needed to be restored time and again by a long chain of prophets (Noah, Moses and Jesus beeing just three of them), which in form of Islam itself had found it’s final and unquestionable and most superb expression to which the scriptures of Christians and Jews are inferior, and sinful aberration only of the only true book there is - Quran. Followers of these false doctrine could only win God’s goodwill by giving up their false beliefs and surrender to the superiority of the Quran. Quarn as an Arab word means „recitation“, a repeating and endless recitation of the word of Allah so that it is not to be forgotten ever again, neither by individuals, nor by mankind. It is structured into 114 Sures, in a sequences of presenting the longest in the first, and the shortest at the end (with the only exception of the opening Sure). The single verses (aya=signs of wonder) change by lingual style and prose, depending on wether a given Sure had it’s origin in Muhammad‘s time in Mekka, or Medina. After the second main version of the Quran had been fixed in writing by order of Calif Uthman, seven or eight traditions of conformal recitation builded up, from which – in combination with the increasing introduction of punctuation to Arab language - finally the version of the Quaran emerged that is known today. While the different recitation styles already were collected by Ibn Mudjahid until the first half of the 8th century, the process of verbally transforming the Quran into it’s present form hardly could have been finished until the late 9th or maybe even 10th century.
(...)
One of the most basic differences between Christians and Muslims is that in Muslim understanding man is not subject to original sin, but to flawed ways of believing. Consequently it concentrates on lecturing what the right way of believing really is. Since the Quran is seen as the infallible revelation of Allah, it represents Allah’s ultimate will. This excuses the using of every means necessary to enforce the faith in Allah at all costs and by all means necessary. If today’S western Muslims claim Islam to be tolerant towards other religions, than this is a watering of one of the most basic elements of Islam’s self-perception, seeing the revelation of Allah as obilgation to enforce it’s existence everywhere amongst mankind – at all costs. Where in later historical events Islamic rulers showed such tolerance, it more was an issue of pragmatical calculation of efforts needed and expected benefits, than an acceptance of the foreigners false beliefs (that’s how I see it with regard to the Ottomans on the Balkans and in Hungary who concentrated on economically and financially exploiting the country; and the Ummayade’s Califat in Grenada, both beeing the most often quoted examples in defense of Islam‘s tolerance).
(...)
Allah embedds man in a two-level-developement: the constant recreation of life, and by that the constant sharpening and developement of an attitude that is oriented more and more towards the presence of Allah. In Islamic understanding, evolution is not about diversity, survival of the fittest, or growing systemic complexity, but an ever-growing of Muslim faith and awareness for the omnipresence of Allah. Evolution necessarily creates the Muslim man of the future, this as a natural law of evolution excuses any attempts to help in that, by peace or by force: because man’s turning towards a more Muslim state of mind is considered to be always a natural case, the attractor of evolution: one only helps in what without doubt would take place anyway. Islam’s certainity that the future will be his cannot be brought into doubt, for that reason, and this is one of the explanations for it’svery great patience: it is founded on absolute confidence. This can be strength and weakness at different times. It can make Muslim people act very energetic , or it can make the fall victim to passivity that reaches the level of fatalism. The confidence that all evolution necessarily leads towards an Islam future feeds back on the missionary spirit of Islam and it’s expansive identity.

The cult of the Kaaba, the monotheistic reorientation focussing on the founding figure of Abraaham, helped to enforce Islam’s demand to be the absolute, ultimate truth beside which there is no other. Christians and Jews may be „people of the book“, but this term has two meanings, something that most Westerners do not know. Because it also is linked to the term „script-holder“ („Schriftbesitzer“) Not only does „people of the book“ point towards an assumed nearness between all three religions, because all three people are three tribes beeing mentioned in the „book“ (the West beeing very eager to point this out in an attempt to let the differences appear more harmless and raising acceptance for what it calls it’s dialogue with Islam), it also means this: „people of the book“ are also „owners of scriptures“ and script-holders, people that „possess“ their religion as a material good, a script, only, and thus fall victim to their craving for material possession of things: they do not focus on the content of their religious message, but on the material scripture itself, the rites and dogmas raised from that by the caste of priests and pharisees, they get distracted from the essence (in principle the critizism that later was raised again by various Christian mystics). In the language of Zen: they did not look at the moon, but concentrated on the finger pointing at it, and wanted to own it. The sin of these wrong-believers is that they concentrate on a religion of priests, not on the essence of the religion itself – of which Islam thinks itself is the purest form there ever has been. Muhammad himself was unable to read or write. By this new ideology that made a difference between script-owner and those whose religion did not have a written script (Islam so far) he nevertheless was able to overcome theological resistance coming from the script-owners more easily (people that had a holy book already, and had learned to read). The encounters with the Jewish theologists showed that Muhammad had not the knowledge to dispute with Jewish and Christian theologists on equal terms, and his bloody revenge shows how much he felt annoyed („gekränkt“) by that. Later Muhammad attacked the script-owning people also for that these scriptures were the reason why their faith was splitting up in more and more subbeliefs and sects (of which there were plenty), a process that was born by self-reflecting analysis and examination. Thus Islam’s immunity to self-reflection and self-analysis. In it’s understanding this can only lead to weakening the unity of the Ummah. Strength comes from ignorance, insight means: having no doubts, so to say.

[August]

Quoting ones own writing like it was some kind of authoritative text is the height of arrogance. :roll:

[Tribesman]

Here is an article that goes behind
An article from the journal , a neo-con publication that contains pretty much nothing but rants against Muslims , immigrants and so called political correctness .
Still I suppose it is a small step up from Jihadwatch , well done for making progress .

The Sheikh is a Wahhabist but in Canada he is considered "moderate muslim scholar working against fundamentalism".
Damn thats confusing . Don't you mean that he is a Wahhibist which is a fundamentalist but is considered a moderate fundamentlist because he speaks out against the extremist version of wahhibi fundamentaslism .

[Onkel Neal]

Quoting ones own writing like it was some kind of authoritative text is the height of arrogance. :roll:

But it saves a lot of typing time :)

I think he just wanted to refer back to some of his earlier statements.

[Aramike]

Quoting ones own writing like it was some kind of authoritative text is the height of arrogance. :roll::haha:

So true...

[Skybird]

But it saves a lot of typing time :)

:up: :rock:

I think he just wanted to refer back to some of his earlier statements.

:up: :yep:

[Zayphod]

Ok, I think I have a solution to all of this.

Everyone in the world should convert to Buddhism. Not a lot of wars fought over it, no beheading in their name.

I believe it involves a lot of sticking one's head into a ton of books and hours of chanting OM, as well as contemplating your navel a lot, which will keep lots of people too busy to shoot or kill anyone.

Involves lots of incest and...... , uh, what?.... oh, sorry, that's INCENSE, not incest, sorry about that. :rotfl:

Well, you all get the idea.

[nikimcbee]

There it is again in the ads!

http://www.muslima.com/?ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=English+USA+Content+Flash+Ads+Muslim+Groups&ovcrn=flash+ad&ovtac=PPC&gclid=CKG0_J2h6ZgCFQwxawodpycUzw

I think Neak is a subversive.:haha: (no pun intended)

[Happy Times]

There it is again in the ads!

http://www.muslima.com/?ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=English+USA+Content+Flash+Ads+Muslim+Groups&ovcrn=flash+ad&ovtac=PPC&gclid=CKG0_J2h6ZgCFQwxawodpycUzw

I think Neak is a subversive.:haha: (no pun intended)

http://www.wikidoido.com/images/9/9b/Muslima.jpg

[Zayphod]

There it is again in the ads!

http://www.muslima.com/?ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=English+USA+Content+Flash+Ads+Muslim+Groups&ovcrn=flash+ad&ovtac=PPC&gclid=CKG0_J2h6ZgCFQwxawodpycUzw

I think Neak is a subversive.:haha: (no pun intended)

http://www.wikidoido.com/images/9/9b/Muslima.jpg

That one in the upper right hand corner has those "come hither" eyes. :D
Same for the one in the lower right hand corner.

Middle left, don't know, could be hot, could be Batman.
How do you tell???? :o

[Tribesman]

Nice link

Damn , so much uncovered flesh . OMG they don't even have their hair covered .

Do you think that Happy Times entered an eye fetish request to get those results from the website ? because some of dem wimmin is hot amd wanting it without a dowry?
Oh dem damn sinners :yeah:
,,,,Oh sorry they is muslims and muslims must fit the stereotype that is spread by small minded people ......
Then again , sorry to ctross reference to another "Happy Times has a mental sickness called phobia" topic .
But seriously I was at this wedding of an old friend , the ceromony went on .
The "christian" preacher said as part of the contractual arrangement that is marriage"the man shall not beat the woman without good reason" !!!!!!!!


..needless to say at that point , friendship or not I walked out of the ceremony .....though not laughing quite as loud as some of the other lads who had made the journey .
So would that be a stereotypical "christian" that I could focus a narrow minded bigotry on and hold up an example of what christians realy are like ?

BTW Happy Times I just noticed "Gates of Vienna ":haha:
Whatever next ? are you going to post some piece critical of Obama from the Church of Jesus Christ(christian)......(sorry about the brackets but they have to add them in case you thought it was a different Jesus from the racist Jesus they follow and got confused about Christianity).

[August]

The "christian" preacher said as part of the contractual arrangement that is marriage"the man shall not beat the woman without good reason" !!!!!!!!

Hey guys better put on your bullsh*t boots. It's getting deep in here! :shucks:

[Frame57]

I like the one with "Betty Davis eyes"......NOT! :woot:

[Platapus]

I guess that dating site image was photoshopped or something for if you actually visit the site the pictures are not veiled.

[Happy Times]

I guess that dating site image was photoshopped or something for if you actually visit the site the pictures are not veiled.

:yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is it 1994 or did I just read a "not" joke?:DL

[Happy Times]

The "christian" preacher said as part of the contractual arrangement that is marriage"the man shall not beat the woman without good reason" !!!!!!!!

Hey guys better put on your bullsh*t boots. It's getting deep in here! :shucks:

I bet Tribesman will educate us in our lack of comprehension.

[Aramike]

The "christian" preacher said as part of the contractual arrangement that is marriage"the man shall not beat the woman without good reason" !!!!!!!!

Hey guys better put on your bullsh*t boots. It's getting deep in here! :shucks:

I bet Tribesman will educate us in our lack of comprehension.Seems like a typical apologist lefty who attempts to justify his hatred of the so-called mainstream by making it parallel to extremism.

[Tribesman]

Hey guys better put on your bullsh*t boots. It's getting deep in here!
Thats a silly thing to say , ever been to a JW wedding ?
They really pile on the misogynist crap .

I bet Tribesman will educate us in our lack of comprehension.
I am afraid that in your case your phobia blocks comprehension .

Seems like a typical apologist lefty who attempts to justify his hatred of the so-called mainstream by making it parallel to extremism.
You have got that arseways Aramike , it is Happy Times whose hatred makes a parallel between the extremists and the mainstream , even saying that the extremists are the mainstream . Whereas I give examples of the extreme and say they shouldn't be used as a parallel for the mainstream .

[Skybird]

Islam is a conquering, totalitarian, fundamentalist ideology by theology and content. In that way, the theological mainstream is totalitarian and fundamentalist by content. Whether or not all people calling themselves "Muslim" follow that from A to Z, is something different. BUT: the overwhelming majority of them does not actively try and engage in giving the public another impression than that they silently do tolerate that. The very prominent majority actively hinders cooperation with officials to identify radical elements hiding in their middle. Practically all Muslim associations and organization I know of in Germany in Britain do like that by their policy. They do nothing and not enough to hinder "extremists" from speaking in their names. They actively reject integration on a large scale. The younger the generation, the stronger the tendency for Islamic orthodoxy, and demanding Sharia ruling over western constitutions - this is a simple fact from several sociological surveys of recent years now.

Over 90% of Islamic immigrants traditionally vote left, that is the simple reason why especially the left is so Islam-friendly, and tries to establish policies bringing more of these left voters to Europe. and that is the reason why these people vote left: they serve the goal of Islam to spread and to take over. Once Islam does not need the support of these left politicians anymore, they metaphorically will end like the left and communist allies of the revolution ended en masse in Iran after Khomeini was safe in power: hanging from telephone poles.

Integration and adaptation is against Islamic law, as is apostasy. It only recommends to live by the formal rules of foreign places as long as Islam is not strong enough to take them over. It even allows to lie and cheat to hide the Islamic nature, if Islam can only survive by that. But the Islamic cause and identity never is to be given up. Because Islam does not want to live in coexistence, and so it does not allow anything that could question or watering down its identity. It wants to take over and claims that to be the goal of evolution. It also claims that it is unavoidable. In all western nations - in ALL! - Islam claims special rights and a special status for itself that is not being called for by any other religion, and not by Judaism, even not by our most native religious heritage: the Christian churches anymore. But Islam thanks it is a special case, and has a right to claim more. I tell you: once it got that, it will not be satisfied, but will claim more. and more. and more. It is a religious demand that it cannot escape. Islamising all world is the most primary duty of Islam, and every male Muslim. Read that again: it is a duty, an obligation. A Muslim not helping in that, is violating some of the most basic demands of his faith. that demand is so nonnegotiable that even Muslims having adapted to western standards usually are not in full awareness of it. That everything must become Islamic - is non-negotiable.

Muhammad ordered and waged over 70 wars during the few years between his move to Medina, and his death. He wanted to form an empire, basing on an army and a community that was strong by not being in doubt, not criticizing, and having no remorse whatever. POWER BY UNCOMPROMISED, ADAMANT UNITY; BEING ENFORCED BY EVERY MEANS NECESSARY TO REACH IT. Thus the formulation of religious claims, silencing critics by threatening them with death for heresy. Thus the totalitarian unforgivingness against apostates, and doubt. Thus the claim that there cannot be peace before the last enemy has been wiped off the earth, or has been turned into a Muslim. enemy means: not being Muslim. We have seen the same pattern under so many other tyrants and dictators, in so many other evil regimes and wars. While the Curran says to save the innocents from killing, it also says that by the mere fact that they are not Muslim, infidels must not be seen as innocents (=it is a sin to resist Islam, and wanting to resist Islam is almost unimaginable anyway, since it is Allah's will, the goal of evolution, and unavoidable anyway). There are so many "buts" in the Quran that so often get overseen. Tolerance for infidels of the book - but only when they accept to live in shame and systematic, obligatory discrimination by Muslim population, giving up basic rights that Muslims enjoy. Suicide is forbidden for Muslims in Islam - but if an attack on infidels is demanding the self-killing of the attacking person, it is okay. Always be aware of the "buts".

Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows. Some things do not go well together. There is nothing like a liberal Stalinist. Or a democratic Nazi. these would be terms that mean nothing, are illusory, are meaningless, are nuts, hollow and crazy. Thinking to bring the thinking taught in Quran and Sharia (and that is the only basis worth to be called the basis of Islam, whether you like and understand that, or not) into a form that it can be brought into congruence with Western constitutions and Western values, also is such a folly.

For Islam the motto of the most famous German sea-pirate there ever was, Klaus störtebeker (haunting the Baltic sea during the time of the Hanse), is matching perfectly: "Niemandes Freund, aller Welt's Feind" (Nobody's friend, all world's enemy).

Tribesman, with every paragraph you type you only reveal how little you know about the inner nature and the origin of Islam, it's thinking, the way it develops it's self-justification, and it's history as well. You only base on what you wish it to be. And that is something that - although not existing in that form - would be something that the rest of the world could handle and live with, if it WOULD exist. But it doesn't. Maybe in some individual's mind, but not i the mind of the wide masses. And the exceptions from the rule - must accept the critical question why, if they really have seen through the malice of Islamic message, nevertheless care for being seen as Islamic and want to be called that. If I would claim that Nazism is bad, and that I want to live by democratic rules, nevertheless insist on being called "Herr Obergauleiter", and would greet you with a straight right arm, and would not fight, maybe even actively support against Nazi ideas - what would you think? That I am a liberal democrat as I claim? Hardly. There are apostates from Islam indeed, often they live in fear, and under threats to their health and life. Islam demands the killing of apostates, as a disciplinary measure to keep the masses in line and to not allow doubts raising their heads that could weakening the Ummah or start asking critical questions about Islam. However, there are also those people who indeed leave Islam, and turn their backs on it, and who challenge it, try to make the public aware of the threat. There are the women standing up against their families and giving everything up. These are courageous people, people who needed to flee, and hoping for something better when coming to us and living with us. And then they meet people like you and see with frustration that people like you try to invite into our society and establish in our countries what they have fled from and tried to escape. they must feel - and do feel - left alone, betrayed. They believed the promises of our constitutions - and then must experience this ultimate treachery.

Stop debating, stop fighting - before you do not understand what it is you are fighting for, or against. So far you give the impression to just follow populist catch-slogans you snapped up. As long as you do not understand that Islam is truly extreme and unforgiving in it's mainstream theology - that I have seen in several Muslim countries to be the ruling dogma of the ordinary man indeed - you have not understand anything important about Islam indeed. You just postulate in explicit denial of Islam what you think, in your imagination, it should be so that everything could become good.

But it isn't that. You need to understand the Islamic understanding of peace. It often is said that Islam means peace, but Islam has a different understanding of that term. Peace is when the house of war (the infidels) do not exist anymore, and has been brought down, so that it can no more bring war to the house of Islam: which means as long as there is something that is not Islamic, by it's existence alone it already puts into question Islam's claim to be all and everything, and thus there is a conflict between what Islam wants to be, and the reality. Result: conflict, and the bringing down of the questioning item. When everything is Islamic: THEN you have peace in Islamic understanding. Not before. Please compare this to what I said on the evolution of man in Islamic understanding in the long quote I have posted above. If you hear a distant bell ringing a melody about Nazi supremacism and the inevitability Herrenrasse, then you hear right. Mind you that Hitler admired Islam and wished that Nationalsocialism would only be as strong and ruthless as Muhammad has ordered his followers to be.

[Happy Times]

What do we know, but listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam; Part 1
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e62_1217908716

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam; Part 2
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00b_1217913305


I am friends with a Kurdish guy that owns my favourite restaurant.
He is an apostate but still fears to say it out loud, he doesnt want his countrymen to know. He said that its easier to live among just Finns, he said massive immigration brings the group pressures to live by the tribal and Islamic teachings. He also said its crazy to bring people with low education to Europe in mass, most arent real refugees and wont integrate. Himself he met a Finnish woman in Turkey and now owns two restaurants with her. This is normal immigration in my mind.

[Skybird]

, he said massive immigration brings the group pressures to live by the tribal and Islamic teachings. He also said its crazy to bring people with low education to Europe in mass, most arent real refugees and wont integrate.

Oh yes...

Yes to both statements.

[Frame57]

Is it 1994 or did I just read a "not" joke?:DL"Not....." Sorry I still have that Borat movie in my head:damn:

[Tribesman]

What do we know, but listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Isn't that the woman who had to lie about how terrible her life was to be let to stay in Holland ?
most arent real refugees
You mean like Hirsi Ali ?

Islam claims special rights and a special status for itself that is not being called for by any other religion, and not by Judaism
Just one piece of bollox from a long post of Skybirds bollox .

[Skybird]

Another chatter showing Tribesman's insightful competence on the matter he dares to "discuss". However, using breath to make some unfounded noise does not necessarily qualify for for an opinion worth to be taken into account or to be dealt with any longer.

So be it. I am on leave.

[Happy Times]

What do we know, but listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Isn't that the woman who had to lie about how terrible her life was to be let to stay in Holland ?
most arent real refugees
You mean like Hirsi Ali ?

Islam claims special rights and a special status for itself that is not being called for by any other religion, and not by Judaism
Just one piece of bollox from a long post of Skybirds bollox .

Her early life and immigration was a very typical story, the way she processed the new ideas and realities she came in contact with is not at all typical.
At this time she is living in hiding and her life is in constant danger.
It tells a lot about your moral fiber, that you now go after this brave and intelligent woman.
You really have reduced yourself in my eyes as very small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

[Tchocky]

He's not going after her. He's bringing up an interesting point, which I for one wasn't previously aware of.

I mean, is he wrong in his question?

[Happy Times]

He's not going after her. He's bringing up an interesting point, which I for one wasn't previously aware of.

I mean, is he wrong in his question?

I dont know what took place, neither does Tribesman.
I think he is going after her credibility and you seem to support him.

[Tribesman]

I dont know what took place, neither does Tribesman.

don't you recall what took place ? it was a pretty big news story , it ended up with her having to lose her job .
A simle bit of advice for ya HT , don't sing the praises of a dodgy refugee in the same post that you complain about dodgy refugees .

Another chatter showing Tribesman's insightful competence on the matter he dares to "discuss".
Hey its not my fault if you write a lengthy piece that is best described as bollox .
Take for example the snippet I quoted , can you see why it is absolute bollox ?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is it 1994 or did I just read a "not" joke?:DL"Not....." Sorry I still have that Borat movie in my head:damn:

That's ok, it is make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan.:DL

[Skybird]

Take for example the snippet I quoted , can you see why it is absolute bollox ?

Little crash-course for the tired ones and the slow-minded: a quote needs to be given in context, else it's getting distorted in content and thus is not a quote, but a new statement by the one quoting it.


In all western nations - in ALL! - Islam claims special rights and a special status for itself that is not being called for by any other religion, and not by Judaism, even not by our most native religious heritage: the Christian churches anymore

And before you present more examples of your snippetological approach on things, better sit down and get some academic literature on Islam's theology and history and form a minimum of solid and thourough understanding of it - before carrying on here by the means of playing thimblerics and blowing up misleading misquotes. ;)

[Tribesman]

Little crash-course for the tired ones and the slow-minded:
Have you considered that course yourself ?

So expand the context of the little quote Skybird , its still bollox because it isn't true . Unless of course you can achieve the impossible and show how this special status isn't claimed or given to anyone apart from Muslims .

And before you present more examples of your snippetological approach on things, better sit down and get some academic literature on Islam's theology and history and form a minimum of solid and thourough understanding of it - before carrying on here by the means of playing thimblerics and blowing up misleading misquotes.
:rotfl:
I find that a good academic source is a certain world renowned Jewish scholar as that does tend to negate any implication of Pro-islamic bias when countering your obvious bias .
Your arrogance leads you to make far too many assumptions doesn't it :yeah:

[Aramike]

You have got that arseways Aramike , it is Happy Times whose hatred makes a parallel between the extremists and the mainstream , even saying that the extremists are the mainstream . Whereas I give examples of the extreme and say they shouldn't be used as a parallel for the mainstream .I should have been more specific when I said mainstream and pointed out explicitly that I meant the mainstream of non-Muslim religions, western mainstream.

I think what you're failing to grasp is the fact that Muslim-extremism IS their mainstream. This is one of the very few things I agree with Skybird on.

[Skybird]

HT, how is your German? You would love this guy.

I just stumbled over this interview with Hans-Peter Raddatz, a German scholar of Islamic studies, expert for oriental studies and former student of Annemarie Schimmel, her being considered as a major authority of Islamic studies in German tradition of oriental studies. In my understanding he has surpassed her academic credibility, and her too tame criticism of Islam as well. I know most of Raddatz' books inside out, and I full-heartly recommend them, they are a treasure chest of academic background information and well-researched links to sources in islamic scripture and academic literature. More important, his books fulfill criterions for academic information and are not just opinions voiced by any given publicist.

I know (and started to forget :) ) around 3 dozen books, maybe more, on islam, and several academic standard works amongst them, but for German readers, his often so-called trilogy "Von Gott zu Allah?", Von Allah zum Terror. Der Djihad und die Deformierung des Westens" and "Allahs Schleier. Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen" is the best beginning to get an oversight and a critical hinting towards the threats and complications of the West's liason with Islam, although neither a short nor an easy reading, since he is very comprehensive, and combines descriptions of the present with a tour de force through all Islamic, Christian and Judaic history.

Raddatz had to leave Germany when German police told him they cannot or want not protect him from Islamic threats to assassinate him. He lives and works in hiding in the US. At least that is the last thing I heared about it two years ago. Needless to mention that Raddatz is not only hated by muslims, but by Westerners trying to feel cosy for Islam as well. The left almost applauded when he had to flee for his life. Tells you something about these guys, doesn't it.

But no matter that, try to challenge his academic competence - if you can.

Raddatz and my positions on Islam are almost identical, i realised when discovering him years ago. This is to say that I have the same critical views of Islam like Raddatz has, but I do not wish to say by this that I am of the same academic competence and have the same encyclopedic knowledge on sources dealing with Islam, like Raddatz has - in no way I can compete with him in these regards. If he is a bright light in a lighthouse tower, I am little more than a small night-light candle to keep warm your teapot.

English:
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C771BCF9-0F51-4E77-87BE-DFAE5024D554

[Tribesman]

But no matter that, try to challenge his academic competence - if you can.

:rotfl:
Hasn't he been challenged on the academic front quite widely , everything from misquoting , taking out of context , oversimplification , lack of objectivity ,ignoring facts that don't agree with his preconceptions , rewriting history , all the way down to peddling a conspiracy theory .
I can see why you like him and why FrontPage is a source you read , really is there any fruitbat publication that you and Happy Times don't consider a reliable source to link to ?

[Skybird]

The only question that remains is with regard to your person, what YOUR superior credibility and competence is? So far you have spend 10 or 11 postings just to show everybody that you have to say nothing more than that you are right and the others are wrong.

That is not much argument, or knowledge.

[Tribesman]

The only question that remains is with regard to your person, what YOUR superior credibility and competence is? So far you have spend 10 or 11 postings just to show everybody that you have to say nothing more than that you are right and the others are wrong.

Hey you asked a question , don't you like the answer ?:rotfl:
Or are you going to try and say that Raddatz has not had all those criticsms of his works produced in the last decade levelled at him ?

You screwed up again didn't you , you named someone you agree with and who you say expresses your view better than you do , then challenged people to question what he says if they can ...since his work gets quite a bit of criticism that was rather silly wasn't it .
Perhaps you need wider perspective rather than the fanboy approach of singing the praises of views you like .

[Skybird]

Stop hopping back and forth like a panicking kangaroo, and come to the nitty-gritty.

I still wait for your credentials and what makes you such an insightful expert on Islam and Oriental studies that you dare to label other people's argumentation "wrong" all topic up and topic down - while not needing to present anything worth to be called an argument based on knowledge and academic consens yourself. So far you only fight rethoric fights, without any content.

Stop evading and dropping noise-makers, but give some facts on what makes you such a knowing expert on matters - or stop wasting our time with headless babble and just creating hot air.

[Tribesman]

Whassamatter Skybird , don't you like the fact that Raddatz' recent work has gotten so much criticism ? And lets facee it the criticism goes quite deep , even saying his entire recent academic methodology is very questonable .
Or perhaps its just that because you liked what he said so much you didn't check how it had been recieved outside of the phobia fanboy network .:rotfl:

[Skybird]

I'm still waiting for your revealing of your competence regarding Oriental and Islam studies, and I won't wait any longer. Stop trying to distract with pointing at Raddatz' critics. It seems I know his work better than you do, so you must not paste and copy criticism that you have snapped up somewhere, but cannot evaluate yourself. More than a dozen postings by you, just claiming others are wrong and you are right - but so far you have been completely unable to found that claim by you with argument, or evidence, academic research, historic knowledge. All you do is conducting evasive maneuvers, zig-zagging around, hiding behind rehtoric noise-makers.

Now, your credentials please, your experiences, your lectures, your whatever. You claim you know it so very much better than others, here is your x-th chance to show why this is so, so far you have completely failed in doing so. If you do not finally come up with something solid, I must necessarily conclude that you just open a huge mouth full of empty air, trying to be like those parrots: noisy, but not knowing what it is that they are "saying".

[Happy Times]

I have linked publications that offer a rational wiew in a time of PC Media and Cultural Marxcism. Jihad Watch, FaithFreedom, Brussels Journal and FrontPage Magazine have rebuted criticism more substancial than Tribesmans non founded scribblings.
From Raddatz i have previously read short quotes translated to Finnish, but if the man had to fled Germany and Tribesman hates him he must be on to something important.:salute:

[Happy Times]

My question to Tribesman is that if he thinks it is acceptable that Raddatz and Hirsi Ali have to hide themself because of threats to their lifes?

[Tribesman]

Stop trying to distract with pointing at Raddatz' critics
Then don't ask silly questions about criticism of his work if you don't like the answer you will get .
It really does you no credit to hold up someones views , invite criticism of them and then complain that his work is criticised .
In fact it shows a serious flaw in your whole approach .



I have linked publications that offer a rational wiew
That says it all , when you can describe some fruitcake publications as rational , BTW you left Gates of Vienna off your list , that a really doozy of a "rational" publication

Tribesman hates him he must be on to something important.
Who said I hate him ?
I said his recent work appears flawed and gets lots of criticism .

[August]

Now, your credentials please, your experiences, your lectures, your whatever. You claim you know it so very much better than others, here is your x-th chance to show why this is so, so far you have completely failed in doing so. If you do not finally come up with something solid, I must necessarily conclude that you just open a huge mouth full of empty air, trying to be like those parrots: noisy, but not knowing what it is that they are "saying".

Is it just me or is the wind telling the breeze that it blows? :haha:

[Thomen]

Now, your credentials please, your experiences, your lectures, your whatever. You claim you know it so very much better than others, here is your x-th chance to show why this is so, so far you have completely failed in doing so. If you do not finally come up with something solid, I must necessarily conclude that you just open a huge mouth full of empty air, trying to be like those parrots: noisy, but not knowing what it is that they are "saying".

Since nobody else is asking:
What are YOUR credentials that would make your opinions or views more worth then everybody else's?
Did you get a degree in the appropriate fields, which I think would be: Middle Eastern Studies and History, plus a big chunk of Middle Eastern Philosophy and religious studies.

Knowing some people and reading a book or two do not make anyone a real specialist in any given field. :03:

[Platapus]

Opinions on an internet forum are like farts

1. Every a$$hole has em
2. They all stink
3. In polite society they are better kept to your self.

big salute to my dad for teachin me that. :salute:

[Thomen]

Opinions on an internet forum are like farts

1. Every a$$hole has em
2. They all stink
3. In polite society they are better kept to your self.

big salute to my dad for teachin me that. :salute:

Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one. :D

[Skybird]

Tribesman, again you do not give a single thought, argument, reference, experience, anything that would give you some credit with what you say - if only you would say something. All you do is claiming that others are wrong, and to that you leave it, zig-zagging around like a crazy rabbit in an attempt to distract others from your obvious deficits.

It is not important that you accuse me to be wrong, many people here do that, and if I would not have build a thick skin after staying here for 9 years, I would not be here anymore. But that you accuse known experts - in a field you know nothing about - of not knowing what they talk about, and who in case of Raddatz are contributors to writings that in parts are academic standard works (ever had some reading with the international Encyclopedia of Islam he was writing for...? Well, I had, amongst many others) - that simply is hilarious, and arrogant. You do not get invivted to contributed to such works if the project mamnagers are not sure about your competence. I think you do not have the smallest competence yourself to form a more or less competent opinion on what you talk about in this thread, you just paste and copy what you pick up on some websites, and from some dubious populistic hear-say that you never checked for it's content yourself - but that does not hinder your to form an "opinion", and for that you think you already deserve respect. But nobody deserves respect for an opinion alone if he cannot justify it, just having a random chosen opinion is no merit in itself. Somebody writes Raddatz raises criticism, and you paste and copy right that, unreflected, uncritically. But can you tell me the structure and content of his first book in the trilogy mentioned before? You better can if you want to criticie him, he knows apparently infinitely more about the matter than you do. If you want to talk about Raddatz, you need to know his basic works. But you don't, right? In other words: your precious opinion and your claims how wrong all the others are - is worth nothing. It's just paste-and-copy jobs, never tested, never reflected, never truly understood.

And so I will stop wasting time with your expertise. you see, I never claimed -and said that in this thread again - that I am the great masterexpert in islam. But the simpe fact is that I have spend more time with learnign and reading about it, than most other people here, and that includes you. that means you are not in a position to point fingers at me, as long as you have not come up to at least a comparable level like me, no matter how high or low that level of mine may be.

You must not like to leave it to that poor status of yours, reagdring the issue here. If you want to start educating yourself on Islam, I can provide you with a list of some substantial literature. Until you do not start to learn about it, save your breath to voice your precious opinion. You cannot even justify why you are of that opinion. you can't justify it by the most elemental facts about Islam, that is. And that is not the adequate position to accuse others that they are wrong and do not know. Taste thy own medicine first.

------

Too many people today think they are so important that even on things they know nothing about they not only must be allowed to have an opinion on, but this precious opinion is demanded to rank as equal in content and value to that of experts in any given field, because that is called "freedom of speech" and "democracy". Every Peter and every Paul demands to be considered as being as competent as any other, just because he has an "opinion", and every Pimpf and every Kunz from Hintertupfingen-an-der-Knatter thinks he is so very important with his opinion even if he is completely unable to explain why he is of that opinion, and why he thinks it is such an important opinion, and knows nothing about the thing he allows himself to have an opinion about. In my book, demanding to be taken as equal to some expert although not knowing anything about this expert's field, is pure 100% arrogance and craving for admiration. and first and befor anything else: it is stupid.

It is as reasonable as if I would start a fight with Bill Nichols about some questions of submarine engineering and sonar technology, two things he is expert for, while I know nothing about them that goes beyond simulation games, one populistic book by Thomas Clancy, and a handful of newspaper articles, and which i never have done any study on. And then I want to tell him that he is wrong, but cannot justify why he is wrong, and I expect to be taken as an equal in my oh so precious "opinion"? It would be no opinion I would voice - it wouldn't be anything more than just babbling.

Your opinion on a given issue, is worth nothing as long as you cannot reasonably link it to reality, and bolster it with at least a minimum of established and available research and kowledge. If you need rethoric tricks amnd verbal cheat-games to compensate for the lack of this competence, then you have not understood the thing yourself. Just to say "That is all nice and well what you explain, but I simply believe different", is not good enough. Your claim to have an opinion but that cannot hold it'S ground, is not good enough. to have an opinion on something you never have studied, read about, learned, gathered experience with - is not good enough. To be precise: it is just imagination, never having been made object to the test by reality. Nobody cares if you are of that kind of "opinion", as long as you only make hot wind, and noisy sounds, but are unable to defend it by arguments whose construction you can explain in a reasonable way, linking to reality and established knowledge/experience. an opinion basing on just believing something different and not more - is better placed in the church.

That's why I do not allow myself an opinion on how to invent better engineering technology for better submarines. And that's why I think Tribesman's opinion on oriental studies is worth nothing. Assuming he is no professional cook with an appropriate license, he may as well be of the opinion that he can adequately prepare Japanese globefish although never have been trained in it and never had a first try with it before - but no matter his opinion, the attempt would kill him: Meinung hin oder her.

You must be able to justify your opinion by reason and logic, knowledge and/or experience - else they are better kept for yourself, since they are nothing more than a mixture of lotto and fantasy tales.

The omnipresence of internet multimedia gives everybody a platform to produce himself and to show his talents - or the lack of these. everybody thinks he must be everyhwere, must make himseolf known to all the world, and he is important and precious and the show can'T run without him. It's a sunset of qualities like modesty, and clear thought and precise argument. As a consequence of that low sun, every dwarf's giant ego casts a surprisingly long shadow these days.

[Tribesman]

But that you accuse known experts - in a field you know nothing about - of not knowing what they talk about
Hilarious , yet again you jump off on an assumption .
Whats even funnier is that you think that it is I that accuse "known experts" .
So tell me Skybird since you are so learned , in the case of academic criticism of Raddatz recent works what is the source of those I mentioned ? Is it something I made up or is it experts in Oriental , Islamic and theological studies that have levelled those criticisms ?
And lets face it they are pretty damning criticisms , lets just look at them again .....
everything from misquoting , taking out of context , oversimplification , lack of objectivity ,ignoring facts that don't agree with his preconceptions , rewriting history , all the way down to peddling a conspiracy theory .

oh and of course to finish......

even saying his entire recent academic methodology is very questonable .

Now of course if you was as widely read as you seem to think you are on the subject you would be perfectly aware of all those criticisms and their sources wouldn't you , but as you seem completely clueless it does seem the extent of your reading on the subject is not quite what you claim it to be .

[Happy Times]

But that you accuse known experts - in a field you know nothing about - of not knowing what they talk about
Hilarious , yet again you jump off on an assumption .
Whats even funnier is that you think that it is I that accuse "known experts" .
So tell me Skybird since you are so learned , in the case of academic criticism of Raddatz recent works what is the source of those I mentioned ? Is it something I made up or is it experts in Oriental , Islamic and theological studies that have levelled those criticisms ?
And lets face it they are pretty damning criticisms , lets just look at them again .....
everything from misquoting , taking out of context , oversimplification , lack of objectivity ,ignoring facts that don't agree with his preconceptions , rewriting history , all the way down to peddling a conspiracy theory .
oh and of course to finish......

even saying his entire recent academic methodology is very questonable .

Could you give links?

[CaptainHaplo]

Tell ya what - I'll give you my credentials on theology....

I have had 14 years of training in Protestant Theology and history - learning most of the subgroups rather in depth. After finding it flawed in my own personal view (and this is not to say anyone else needs to agree - it was a PERSONAL view) - I changed my focus and studied what are classified as Pagan religions. From there, I have delved deeply into Eastern and other religions.

Want to go toe to toe comparing religions? Lets go. The whole fact you - Tribesman - are trying to pick a fight with a member who many here have significant differences with - is nothing more than an attempt to steer the discourse off the subject. Nice try - but it won't work. I may not agree with Skybird alot, but I won't see him used as a way to make people forget so you can escape the facts. So....

Here are the facts.

Muslim man was married to a woman.
Muslim man was also the starter of a "moderate" islamic tv station.
Muslim man's wife filed for divorce.
Muslim man's wife subsequently found in HIS office - at HIS tv station - with her head no longer attached to her body - ie. beheaded...

Any person with a brain - and a knowledge of the BARBARITY of Islam, is going to figure this was a POSSIBLE "honor killing". Make all the apologetics you want, doesn't matter. The facts are the facts. Just as it is a FACT that murderers who commit honor killings INVOKE their islamic theology as why such an act was ok. Thats right - they JUSTIFY their actions through religion - just as the terrorists do. But I guess the terrorists are not really doing it because of Islam either - its just cultural for them too right?

That was a rhetorical question........

I guess the honor killings and terrorism is just all cultural - which is why it has spread to areas outside the middle east - into Europe and Central/South Africa, even South America. Another rhetorical question - I guess its mere coincidence that the spreading "cultural" actions of honor killings and perhaps terrorism just happen to coincide perfectly with the areas where Islam is also spreading at the exact same time?

Just like trying to divert the subject - all I can say is Nice Try - but some people just are not that blind.

There is a great American saying - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... its probably a duck.

[Happy Times]

In Europe you have to ask what the duck wants to be called, you Americans are so uncivilized.:shucks:

[Tribesman]

Thats right - they JUSTIFY their actions through religion - just as the terrorists do.
Just because some freak "justifies" his barbarity with religion it doesn't mean that the religion justifies his actions .
And as for terrorism , who was that world renowned Jewish scholar of middle eastern religions who wrote that they only way terrorism can justified by the koran is by manipulation of its teachings and skewing its passages out of all context ?
Oh and as a clue for the last bit he had a little problem with some of those "rational" publications Happy Times likes to link to , apparently they liked his work so much they used it as a cler example of what an expert thought , but he got angry that they had selectively edited what he wrote and completely changed the findings of his studies to fit their agenda

[UnderseaLcpl]

There is a great American saying - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... its probably a duck.

Oh, I think you're behind on the times CH. The current version of that saying is more akin to; "Even if it resembles some varieties of waterfowl, and ambulates in a manner common to certain varieties of waterfowl, indeed, even if it may from time to time produce vocalizations in a fashion similar to said waterfowl, that is no clear indication that it is or is not a member of these species, or even any particular phylum or genus.":D

Politics is all about talking the talk:03:

[Skybird]

But that you accuse known experts - in a field you know nothing about - of not knowing what they talk about
Hilarious , yet again you jump off on an assumption .
Whats even funnier is that you think that it is I that accuse "known experts" .
So tell me Skybird since you are so learned , in the case of academic criticism of Raddatz recent works what is the source of those I mentioned ? Is it something I made up or is it experts in Oriental , Islamic and theological studies that have levelled those criticisms ?
And lets face it they are pretty damning criticisms , lets just look at them again .....
everything from misquoting , taking out of context , oversimplification , lack of objectivity ,ignoring facts that don't agree with his preconceptions , rewriting history , all the way down to peddling a conspiracy theory .

oh and of course to finish......

even saying his entire recent academic methodology is very questonable .

Now of course if you was as widely read as you seem to think you are on the subject you would be perfectly aware of all those criticisms and their sources wouldn't you , but as you seem completely clueless it does seem the extent of your reading on the subject is not quite what you claim it to be .
Yaddayaddayadda. Raising mysterious implications about yourself may impress girls with a weak spot for pirate stories, and romance novels with Arab princes on white horses appearing from the secret desert, but it leads you nowhere with me. Again you make words, and say nothing, and try to evade being held repsonsible for your statements lacking substance - by pointing fingers at others.

I'm to bed now. Since I already formed my impression of you by what you said in content - and not by the impression you try to raise -, I will not come back to this useless thread tomorrow.



Haplo,

nice saying about that duck! ;)

[UnderseaLcpl]

I will not come back to this useless thread tomorrow.


Why not? Some of us were enjoying the discussion.

[Skybird]

I will not come back to this useless thread tomorrow.


Why not? Some of us were enjoying the discussion.
Hard to believe!

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman - see your doing it again - trying to steer the direction of the discussion onto people - vs the FACT that Islam advocates violent death for many reasons.

I know you would rather we divert into other things. But the fact is Islam IS a barbaric religion. And the fact is you now have a "moderate" muslim who is now a perfect example of why MODERATE and ISLAM do not belong in the same sentence. Unless you would like to claim that he only butchered his estranged wife with a MODERATE amount of BARBARITY.

[Tribesman]

Yaddayaddayadda
Poor Skybird isn't able to identify scholarly critics of Raddatz :rotfl:
Hey I thought it would be easy for him by mainly focusing on the criticisms levelled by German proffesors of Oriental studies , so self assured is poor skybird that he cannot even see that far .
I will not come back to this useless thread tomorrow.

Wow , I really never considered that using a selection of criticisms that the academic world has levelled at radditz recent work in response to a question inviting any criticisms of his work would put you into such a hissy fit .




And the fact is you now have a "moderate" muslim who is now a perfect example of why MODERATE and ISLAM do not belong in the same sentence.
Just because someone describes themselves as a "moderate" does not mean they are .
I suppose in a way that means that if you go to the Imperial Klans membership page and fill out the needed form that declares that you are a Christian and not a racist then you really are a christian non bigotted KKK member , because hey if they say they are christian and not racist its gotta be true eh .

[Happy Times]

Yaddayaddayadda
Poor Skybird isn't able to identify scholarly critics of Raddatz :rotfl:
Hey I thought it would be easy for him by mainly focusing on the criticisms levelled by German proffesors of Oriental studies , so self assured is poor skybird that he cannot even see that far .
I will not come back to this useless thread tomorrow.

Wow , I really never considered that using a selection of criticisms that the academic world has levelled at radditz recent work in response to a question inviting any criticisms of his work would put you into such a hissy fit .


I asked you before and ask again, can you please identify them and their criticism?





And the fact is you now have a "moderate" muslim who is now a perfect example of why MODERATE and ISLAM do not belong in the same sentence.
Just because someone describes themselves as a "moderate" does not mean they are .
I suppose in a way that means that if you go to the Imperial Klans membership page and fill out the needed form that declares that you are a Christian and not a racist then you really are a christian non bigotted KKK member , because hey if they say they are christian and not racist its gotta be true eh .


THANK YOU! Finally we agree.:yeah:

[Tribesman]

Finally we agree.
Not in the slightest .
Ok I realised you had a problem with your phobia , but I didn't realise you had a problem with reading too .

I asked you before and ask again, can you please identify them and their criticism?

OK reading problems again , for their criticisms I suggest you look at the post where I mention criticisms levelled at Raddatz works .
As for identifying them , where would be the fun in that ? I want to see how deep Skybird will dig himself a into hole first .

[Happy Times]

Finally we agree.
Not in the slightest .
Ok I realised you had a problem with your phobia , but I didn't realise you had a problem with reading too .

You stumbled and fell, its part of growing up.:yep:

Could you indentify the critics of Raddatz and their arguments?

EDIT. Skybird is not coming back to this thread so you can start telling.

[Aramike]

As for identifying them , where would be the fun in that ? I want to see how deep Skybird will dig himself a into hole first .Sounds like a load to me... :ping:

[Happy Times]

As for identifying them , where would be the fun in that ? I want to see how deep Skybird will dig himself a into hole first .Sounds like a load to me... :ping:

I bet this is his source.:yeah:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Peter_Raddatz

http://translate.google.com/

[Tribesman]

I bet this is his source.
Now that is curious , it isn't on the English version .
So then HT are those criticisms similar to those I posted or are there some new ones ?

[Happy Times]

I bet this is his source.
Now that is curious , it isn't on the English version .
So then HT are those criticisms similar to those I posted or are there some new ones ?

No use trying to squirm out, you havent posted anything.

Every academic will get critics if he ever produces anything, thats kind of the point.
Could you be more specific about those damning critics you have spoken about?
The people that have presented them and their arguments?

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman - you stated that "just because someone claims to be XXXXX - doesn't mean they are". Good Point. And in many cases your correct.

However - we are not talking about many cases - we are talking about ISLAM. The facts are there is no such thing as moderate islam - because islam as a theology has never progressed beyond barbarity.

Comparing Xtianity and Islam is like comparing apples are oranges. Islam says kill the unbeliever. Xtianity says show the unbeliever the way - and allow God to convict their soul and heart according to His Will. If your wronged as a Christian - your to turn the other cheek and let God take vengeance as he sees fit - if your wronged as a muslim - your allowed to "smite the neck" of your foe.

The key here is there is no love and compassion and forgiveness in the islamic faith. Instead - its barbarity disguised as theology, with absolutely no redeeming qualities about it. Even its "moral code" is highly contradictory - since as person your encouraged to remain celibate if possible - and if not to only have sex with your spouse - but yet if you die a martyr for Allah your going to go to paradise where you get what - 72 virgins? Well if your not allowed to do anything with them due to Allah's moral code - what the devil is the point. Its simply a flawed theology that was created to rationalize the barbarity of a man who tried to be a warlord, and has been latched onto by many power hungry people since.

Show me something MODERATE about the Quran - and then we will discuss it. But the fact is - you cant. Instead you have to try to discredit the detractors and divert attention away from the real discussion.

[Frame57]

We have seen the murder of muslim women in the soccer stadium. They use them for suicide bombers. They chop off their heads when their "honor" is tainted. They do not not seem to like women very much which makes me wonder if there is some latent homosexual hatred for women in their culture. And what? They want 72 virgins when they die? So they can chop their heads off too? Now, let me see here. If I had to choose either becoming a muslim or joining Anton Lavey's church, I guess I would have to join up with Anton's group because at least they are not murdering people on a regular basis. The religion needs a major reformation or I for one will never ever trust a muslim in my neck of the woods.

[Platapus]

... I for one will never ever trust a muslim in my neck of the woods.

You might owe an apology to the almost 4,000 US military personnel who are Muslim.

In the U.S. military, about 3,400 of the 1.4 million active-duty troops identify themselves as Muslim, according to Pentagon figures. The Army claims the most Muslims, with about 1,500.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=48781

I am sure that Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan's family would be interested in hearing your opinions on how untrustworthy Muslims are. You can't ask Kareem himself as he was killed in Iraq 6 Aug 07. This Bronze Star and Purple Heart awardee was 14 years old when 911 happened. He waited until the first opportunity to join the US Army... To fight for, and ultimately die for, his country (which happens to be your country also).

I happen to know some very fine Muslims who I would have no problem entrusting my life to.

Please don't brand all Muslims on the actions of a relative few. Almost 20% of the world's population is Muslim (1.2 billion).

It is true that there are bad people who happen to call themselves Muslims. But there are many many more good people who ARE Muslims.

Sorry for the soapbox, but statements like yours sometimes get to me.

[Happy Times]

I wonder how how they are perceived by most Islamic scholars.
My concern with muslims in the military has to do with these types of things.


As a Muslim, Camp can’t wear shorts that fall above the knee. He asked to wear the PT sweat pants. A squad leader allowed it. The next day, the program’s deputy director, a master gunnery sergeant, singled him out for wearing the sweat pants. “What’s wrong with your uniform there?” he barked. Camp said he explained that as a Muslim, he couldn’t wear the shorts.

“He told me, ‘Why don’t you go inside and change into the green shorts and come back out here?’ He also said, ‘The next issue I hear about your religion, I’m going to drop you from the course.’ I ran in, changed and ran back out,” Camp recounted.

Fearing reprisal, Camp said he didn’t mention the issue until two days prior to graduation. The program’s director, a sergeant major, told Camp the master gunnery sergeant was out of line and that he would speak to him, but he also asked Camp to talk to him. “I went and talked with him. He gave me a little bit of his religious background (Christian) and said he didn’t think he did anything wrong,” Camp said.

At the time, Camp said, he thought about filing an official complaint, but “I just left it alone. I still think I should have.”

The green shorts are still part of the Corps’ official PT uniform, but Camp, to this day, wears the sweat pants. He hasn’t had a problem since.



Little things for someone that hasnt been to military but "special accommodations" really dont belong there IMHO.

[Tribesman]

The key here is there is no love and compassion and forgiveness in the islamic faith.
Bollox .
Although the just requital of an injustice is an equivalent retribution those that pardon shall be rewarded by God ....
thats forgiveness isn't it , pardoning an injustice :yep:
Patience and forgiveness reflect a true strength of character...
Wow that forgiveness stuff must mean you are a real bad Muslim eh .

Jesus Haplo you just make this too easy:rotfl:
Its funny you make critcism of the koran and claim to have studied the bible extensively , yet give the distinct impression that you have read neither of them .

My concern with muslims in the military has to do with these types of things.

Wow bare legs thats bad, do you also have concerns with religions that have a thing about bare legs , arms or heads ?
I bet those Sikhs really get on your tits when it comes to helmets:rotfl:

[baggygreen]

The key here is there is no love and compassion and forgiveness in the islamic faith. On this note I gotta make a little interjection Cap, because it is according to the teachings of Mohammed compulsory to offer your home, your best food, and clothing to a traveller who comes to your door looking for shelter.

Now I'm not saying that its a very commonplace event nowadays, but its a misconception about Islam that it is all based on hate. Just as the misconception stands with Christianity being all based on forgiveness - Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's flood...

At the end of the day, if there hypothetically was a god, I've got no doubt he'd be cringing daily from our actions in 'his/hers/its' name.

The crazy thing about the 3 main religions is this - they all worship the same bloke! all 3 share common traits, all 3 share common prophets - the differences are, theologically, quite small. The big differences arise from a few power-hungry individuals who decided to take these ideas and turn them into something for their own purpose. As is the case with anything new, if it is enforced for long enough it becomes the standard accepted practise.

its a real shame if you ask me, that these religions were hijacked, because if people opened their eyes, they'd realise that despite seperate methods of worship, they're all believing in the one bloke - about half the world's population...

[CaptainHaplo]

Although the just requital of an injustice is an equivalent retribution those that pardon shall be rewarded by God ....
thats forgiveness isn't it , pardoning an injustice :yep:
Patience and forgiveness reflect a true strength of character...
Wow that forgiveness stuff must mean you are a real bad Muslim eh .

Ok first off - If your going to quote something - quote it correctly.

"Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD"

The key words you left out being "and maintain righteousness" - which given their place is a directive to forgive a wrongdoing whenever doing so does not decrease your own righteous standing before your god. Thats not moderate considering your neighbor can cast of the tyrannical yoke of Islam and its your DUTY to go kill him according to the Quran. If Islam didn't try and define everything outside of its own determined path as a theological sin, then that would be one thing. Unfortunately - its beholdeness to violence when its theology is questioned, demonstrates my point. The fact that it has no ability to respect any other view than its own is why it cannot be considered moderate in any way.

Next time - try to argue without telling half-truths - you might get a bit farther. After all - a half truth - is a whole lie.

[CaptainHaplo]

Baggy - I am not saying that Islam has no redeeming parts - but please note that what your referring to also is only to occur if the traveller or whatnot is also MUSLIM. Any person of another religion is persecuted - not respected. That is one major difference between Islam and the other major world religions in their forms today.

[Happy Times]

My concern with muslims in the military has to do with these types of things.

Wow bare legs thats bad, do you also have concerns with religions that have a thing about bare legs , arms or heads ?
I bet those Sikhs really get on your tits when it comes to helmets:rotfl:

Look pussy, i dont think military is the place for things that separate, the idea is to bond together. That goes even for shorts and especially helmets that are part of personal protective equipment. It just isnt your choice to make, be it a religious or some weird fashion satement, it could danger other people also. I dont think anyone cares what people believe in their own time. But when the prayers or turbans start to affect the service it becomes a problem and i think such religions are simply stupid.

[Happy Times]

I bet this is his source.
Now that is curious , it isn't on the English version .
So then HT are those criticisms similar to those I posted or are there some new ones ?

No use trying to squirm out, you havent posted anything.

Every academic will get critics if he ever produces anything, thats kind of the point.
Could you be more specific about those damning critics you have spoken about?
The people that have presented them and their arguments?

Still waiting.

[Platapus]

The US military makes reasonable accommodation for other religions. If a Muslim wants to wear sweats instead of shorts, I don't think that will cause the downfall of American society.

[Tribesman]

Look pussy, i dont think military is the place for things that separate
So everyone must not only be of the same faith they must also be of the same denomination .:rotfl:
Hey you better tell them Ghurkas too , its about time they spoke english like the rest of the British army and its time to get rid of their silly knives because the rest of the army don't have them .And as for those Scots with their skirts , how dare they not fit in with troosers like the rest of the army ,damn all those cultural differences eh .


The key words you left out being "and maintain righteousness"
The key words ? doesn't that link to the hypocrit passage about Jews and Christians who do not follow their own righteous teachings ?
Come to think of it with all the talk of the other righteous followers of the books doesn't that undermine your whole ....The fact that it has no ability to respect any other view than its own is why it cannot be considered moderate in any way.

[baggygreen]

Baggy - I am not saying that Islam has no redeeming parts - but please note that what your referring to also is only to occur if the traveller or whatnot is also MUSLIM. Any person of another religion is persecuted - not respected. That is one major difference between Islam and the other major world religions in their forms today.Interesting...

Obviously we (or our sources) have different interpretations. I was under the impression that it was for any traveller regardless of their religion.

Anyone else see the problem here? 1 rule, 2 vastly different interpretations. This is why we'll keep doing this :damn: and not this :woot:

[Happy Times]

Look pussy, i dont think military is the place for things that separate
So everyone must not only be of the same faith they must also be of the same denomination .:rotfl:
Hey you better tell them Ghurkas too , its about time they spoke english like the rest of the British army and its time to get rid of their silly knives because the rest of the army don't have them .And as for those Scots with their skirts , how dare they not fit in with troosers like the rest of the army ,damn all those cultural differences eh

You really are thick.
The Gurkhas have all the same knives and the Scots have the same skirts, they are separate units. Like i said before, personal beliefs are personal matter. Only when your religion demands special treatment during service it comes a problem. Praying five times during the day or wearing a turban would be difficult to cater for in every situation.

[Happy Times]

I bet this is his source.
Now that is curious , it isn't on the English version .
So then HT are those criticisms similar to those I posted or are there some new ones ?

No use trying to squirm out, you havent posted anything.

Every academic will get critics if he ever produces anything, thats kind of the point.
Could you be more specific about those damning critics you have spoken about?
The people that have presented them and their arguments?

Still waiting.

Waiting.

[Tribesman]

You really are thick
:rotfl:
Do you even realise what you have written ?
You cannot have jews , christian , muslims , hindus ,sihks or bhuddists in the same unit , neither can you have 7th day baptists with other baptists or adventists with catholics , and lets not even get onto orthodox and reformist .
You really are a classic.

[Gaijin]

Still waiting.
Waiting.

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1109/i.html

http://www.erudit.org/revue/ps/2002/v21/n2/000477ar.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jXR5GzqvmyYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=%22Hans-Peter+Raddatz%22&ots=kl3unoAki1&sig=BEwYbQsF9uRLOLLKK5jOM0hpSac

http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/muslims/Karakasoglu.pdf


(About 40 seconds on google scholar...you should try it sometime)

[Schroeder]

And as for those Scots with their skirts Actually they are called Kilts....

[baggygreen]

And as for those Scots with their skirts Actually they are called Kilts....yes, but note Tribesman's location - Eire, Ireland, traditional enemy of the Scots. That's not a demeaning, generalised, racist comment in calling them skirts, is it?

As for the little sidetrack about military service and religion, well hell, I'm sure that anyone who joins the military recognises that they will have to make allowances - just as the military will make some allowances for them! We had a muslim in my training platoon during basic - he too wore pants not shorts, but he didnt pray 5 times a day as was his custom. Our platoon commander asked him about that, and his response was "well in a shooting war the enemy is hardly going to wait for you while you get on your knees and pray for half an hour".

He got by. A little bit of give and take, and then voila, you got your balance right there.

[Tribesman]

yes, but note Tribesman's location - Eire, Ireland, traditional enemy of the Scots.
Better tell the Scots, a lot of them think England is their traditional enemy .

That's not a demeaning, generalised, racist comment in calling them skirts, is it?

demeaning ? yes , unless you are one of those scottish soldiers who likes the "devils in skirts" tag
racist ? :rotfl:
http://www.military.ie/army/specialists/music/pipes.htm
Perhaps you didn't realise that elements of the IDF also wear them as do elements of Irish regiments in the British army .
And hey why don't these aussie soldiers wear trousers too ?
http://www.army.gov.au/ASOD/index.htm
Them skirts get all over the world don't they:yeah:

[Schroeder]

And as for those Scots with their skirts Actually they are called Kilts....yes, but note Tribesman's location - Eire, Ireland, traditional enemy of the Scots. That's not a demeaning, generalised, racist comment in calling them skirts, is it?

I didn't refer to Triebesman alone. HT used the term skirts too, that' why there is no name tag in my quote. ;)

I just had to prove my signature right again.:salute:

[Skybird]

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1109/i.html


On Betz I cant comment, I do not know him.

But Quantara I do know.

The site can only be assessed in all perspectives, when knowing what it is. It was a project initiated by the German interior ministry some years ago, during the founding stage of what over here is called "Islamkonferenz", a regular meeting between state representatives and representatives from various Muhammeddan organizations. The intention was to boost integration by giving Muslims a platform to voice their plans, demands and intentions, because as it is widely known over here by now that integration of Muslim immigrants has failed miserably in the past 30 years.

The competence of the german officials usually displayed when meeting Islam is such that they accept organizations that are close to the arch-orthodox Muslim-brotherhood and even Turkish nationalists to be counted as "moderates".

The interior ministre just weeks ago voiced his deep frustration, like several colleagues on federal country-level as well, that Muslims actively resist integration and actively reject to cooperate with the law enforcmeent authorities.

Several huge and highly influential orthodox organisations are boycotting the conference, seing it as unimportant anyway. After several years, the conference so far has acchieved nothing. That demands had been raised that the constitution shall be bend in favour of Islamic rules, get leaked from behind the statge curtain time and again. for many organisations it is no platform to help Muslims integrating into wetsern society and culture, but to demand that these societies and cultures have to change according to Islam. This is the usual understanding of the term "dialogue with Islam".

The perception of Islam as being a tame and peaceful, tolerant and wanting-to-coexist culture, systematically denies the many inner contradictions, the explicit statements and sources in scripture, namely Quran and Hadith and Sharia, and examples from history that prove that Islam is by far not that peaceful and tolerant.

This is the criticism Raddatz comes under attack by: that he dares to call these facts back to memory and insists on them being seen as part of Islam that they always have been, and are still today. By that he interrupts the naive and unknowing people's choires singing the song of mutual understanding and how equal Islam is to Christianity etc.

He also has explained en detail what values of the Quran collide head on with what stated values in the constitution, and is as adamant as I am to point out that Islam and Western constitutions are totally incompatible in many very substantial and basic key items - and that integration of Islam for that reason alone already must fail, always. The facts formed by the past 40 years, give such criticism undeniable legitimation, if not closing both eyes in a determined and chosen effort to deny reality.

Consequently, his pointing at references to these unpleasant integral components of Islam is used to attack Raddatz and accusing him of telling unpleasant, "islamophobic" things about Islam. By that the attacking against Raddatz fulfills right that argument of the criticism made by Raddatz himself: that contemporary perception of Islam in the West conveniently ignores everything that does not match the wanted and naive perception of islam as being just an oriental version of the message of Jesus, and that it is tolerant and peaceful and bla and bla and bla.

The criticism against Raddatz therefore gives justification for his own attack against the current mainstream of Islam studies done in the West. The way the West perceives Islam is as substantial and complete as if one would describe the Christian faith while ignoring key items like the teaching of Jesus and the sermon on the mountain. In Germany, practically all key offices of institutions dealing with Oriental studies and islam currently are held by persons known for having a very uncritical, personally close tie to Islam and Arab interest groups. Protestant priest are not too stupid to demand in church sevics that Muhammad's birthday should be celebrated by Christians in church together with the birthday of Jesus. As if both men had anything in common! the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" brings it right down to the point in one wonderful, short line of words: "Jesus said: decide. Muhammad said: submit".

This infantility and self-mutiliation of intellectual analysis forms hardly the climate where a reminder of unwelcomed truths is being welcomed by anybody. so far I have not seen much substantial, justified criticism of Raddatz, and where it was given, often the cirtic is one of those Raddatz is aiming at, because the critic's selective amnesia regarding unwanted facts about Islam makes him legitimate target for Raddatz to accuse him of right that: sleective amnesia. Raddatz methods are attacked, because they give a wider, more complete picture of the truth. He denies to obey to self-censorship and obedience-in-advance so that good ol' Ilsam just will not feel offended, where the implication of islam'S selfperpcetion is that it will always be offended anyway as long as there is something that is not itself. This makes Raddatz guilty of "selectively picking his information" - where in fact his information is much more complete and more far-reaching and includes more of Islam'S whole completeness than that of the current politically most correct debators who just remain silent about evertyhing that could disturb the public peace-tolerance-multiculturalism-chanting - and by that reveal an almost passionate pro-Islam-bias.

If then you have intellectuals supporting this climate, and Muslims wanting to give a good impression of their ideology, posting "complete" information on a site like Quantara - initiated by an incompetent government wanting to sell Muslim immigration as a success story, then it is no surprise if that site posts criticism against "Islamophobes" who want to paint Islam bad - while in fact all they do is painting it in all it's completeness, not leaving out the many dark spots people become so angry over when getting reminded of their reality. Such attitude takes it with anger that the criticising person, in this case Raddatz, does not limit himself to only point at pleasant things, but also at the many "but'S" there are as well, and by that gives a far more complete picture of Islam than most of his critics.

By agenda, that site does not want an objective and neutral assessement of Islam, but it wants to influence the public climate to make westerners even more uncritical of islam as they already are, and openly supports the anchoring of even more Islam in the West. Such a position hardly can be seen as "objective", and neutral. the audience posting there must be seen in this light.

I knew quantara before, not just since you linked to it. But I always was unimpressed by it. It is as if I want objective, neutral and where needed: self-critical information about the history of the Catholic church - and ask the Vatikan for that. That really would be the last adress I would check for that!

[Tribesman]

examples from history that prove that Islam is by far not that peaceful and tolerant.

You know I could have sworn that when the tolerant Christians from history had their little inquisative thing with people of the wrong faith it was the Muslim Maghreb and Ottoman Empire that offered sanctuary to the Jews .
But hey maybe Skybird is like Raddatz in that he likes to rewrite history to fit his agenda .

[August]

yes, but note Tribesman's location - Eire, Ireland, traditional enemy of the Scots. Better tell the Scots, a lot of them think England is their traditional enemy .

That's not a demeaning, generalised, racist comment in calling them skirts, is it?
demeaning ? yes , unless you are one of those scottish soldiers who likes the "devils in skirts" tag
racist ? :rotfl:
http://www.military.ie/army/specialists/music/pipes.htm
Perhaps you didn't realise that elements of the IDF also wear them as do elements of Irish regiments in the British army .
And hey why don't these aussie soldiers wear trousers too ?
http://www.army.gov.au/ASOD/index.htm
Them skirts get all over the world don't they:yeah:

The point is they don't wear kilts on duty unless they are ordered and authorized to wear them as part of the uniform of the day. You won't see them wearing kilts during combat, training or during morning PT.

[Skybird]

The Jews were accepted by the Ottomans for one reason only: while superior in motivation, the Ottoman empire's soldiers at that time lacked the firepower and technology known to the West. The Jews payed their place in the Ottoman empire by bringing superior western military technology with them. As a result the military firepower of the Ottomans grew tremedously, and the Jews say themselves well-revenged indeed for having been made object of prosecution and progroms in their former European homes. It was comparable with Jews and Christians in Grenada, where Muslim rulers opportunistically also made use of their diverse cultural work, and adapted parts of it for their own well-being and to the benefit of Islamic society. That does not chnage the fact that Jews and Christians were forced to live in disgrace and submission, stripped of laws that were normal for muslims, and having to accept to fill only lower social classes and jobs with poor reputation, since the Quran obligatorily demands the humilation and degrading treatement of infidels so that they shall not forget that they suffer rightfully from their inferiority to Islam and their fate being the penalty for not being Islamic. It's a system of obligatory, systematic discrimination, it is called "coexistence with Islam". The only exeption were some Jewish doctors whom at that time already were superior in knowledge to the medicine known in the muslim world at that time. Strange - before Muhammad appeared, Arabia was superior in medical and scientific and mathematical knowledge. After muhammad's impact, it all started to stagnate until the former inferior Christian Europe - had become superior in skills and knowledge just 3-5 centuries later. In the modern, Muhammad'S countries still live in a self-inflicted stoneage and can only grow and develope where they copy and buy methods and skills developed in the infidel West.

[Frame57]

examples from history that prove that Islam is by far not that peaceful and tolerant.

You know I could have sworn that when the tolerant Christians from history had their little inquisative thing with people of the wrong faith it was the Muslim Maghreb and Ottoman Empire that offered sanctuary to the Jews .
But hey maybe Skybird is like Raddatz in that he likes to rewrite history to fit his agenda .First of all those were not "tolerant" christians but were the Roman Catholics that had a spree of inquistions which also included spain. Spain wanted to bring the inquistion to Rome itself which seems like an oxymoron to me. This had nothing to do with the protestant side of christendom which had its own reformation. I would think it is a fair eatimate that 99% of christians today see the inquistions and the Mather witch trials as being a very dark spot on their history. One that is regrettable and behavior that would not be tolerated as opposed to the actions of murder of the Muslim religion seems to embrace in our day and time.

[Tribesman]

The point is they don't wear kilts on duty unless they are ordered and authorized to wear them as part of the uniform of the day.
And the point is he was authorised to wear the sweat pants , but then a superior said he wasn't until another more senior said he was .
Would you object if a Jewish recruit asked to be authorised to wear a Yarmulke ?

First of all those were not "tolerant" christians but were the Roman Catholics
Ah I see , it wasn't Christians it was Catholics ,silly me for a moment there I was confused and thought Catholics were Christian .So you mean tolerant Christians of the Protestant flavours :hmmm:
Protestant ? that came around with that Luther fella didn't it , not that black fella that wanted civil rights and got shot but the earlier fella that had a thing about Jews , what was the title of one of his books ? the Jews and their lies wasn't it ? Isn't he the man that said there would be no fault in slaying Jews? But hey at least he was balanced , he thought peasants that had abandoned rightousness should be slaughtered too .
So you are right , history shows the tolerance, but you have a very funny definition of tolerant don't you :yeah:

[Schroeder]

O.K. you have a point there, but this is 500 years ago. How about now? I don't see any inquisation in Europe anymore, I don't see christians burning books (I think the Nazis were the last ones to do that) or destroying property of other religions and killing people because they are not christians or because they painted a picture of Jesus in a mockering way.
In the western world such deeds are nowadays considered as crimes!
But I do see Islamists doing this pretty much every day in the name of Allah.

[August]

And the point is he was authorised to wear the sweat pants , but then a superior said he wasn't until another more senior said he was .

The uniform of the day is just that. There should be no deviations without prior authorization. The Master Gunnys mistake was not backing up his squad leader not demanding that the recruit change into proper uniform.

Would you object if a Jewish recruit asked to be authorised to wear a Yarmulke ?

If you have ever been in the military then you would know that (unless it is an unlawful order) the correct response is always to obey the order then object to it after the fact. I'm not sure what Yarmulkes and sweat pants have to do with wearing kilts as a personal fashion choice though.

[Tribesman]

I don't see christians burning books (I think the Nazis were the last ones to do that)

So you missed the burning of Harry Potter books then ?
What about the burning of the Book of Mormon ?
Did you miss them ? They were all in the news .
How about this ...
http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2520&param=IDTA

[Schroeder]

I realy missed that. Sounds like nut jobs to me.

[Aramike]

I don't see christians burning books (I think the Nazis were the last ones to do that)

So you missed the burning of Harry Potter books then ?
What about the burning of the Book of Mormon ?
Did you miss them ? They were all in the news .
How about this ...
http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2520&param=IDTAYet again, you justify mainstream Islamic indiscretions by citing fringe Christian indiscretions...

...your arguments are wafer-thin at best.

[Tribesman]

Yet again, you justify mainstream Islamic indiscretions by citing fringe Christian indiscretions...

No they are fringe and fringe , I cite the fringe because again people have been denying that Christians do such things , as in ........I don't see christians burning books
Though of course historicly the Catholic and Protestant church cannot really be described as fringe can they ,and lets face it neither the church of Peter or the fathers of protestantism can be described as very tolerant in their past interpretations and applications of scripture can they .

Did you notice the Memri description of typical Islamophobia which fits some of what has been presented in this topic ? hate filled and stereotypical .
Now I know some people accuse Memri of being very bias and nothing more than a propoganda outfit , but they don't accuse it of being that in a pro-Islamic way do they .
The problem here Aramike is that some are taking extremist interpretations and applying them collectively to the mainstream yet when faced with other extreme interpretations just call them loonies . Which does suggest a complete lack of objectivity and balance .

[Aramike]

No they are fringe and fringe , I cite the fringe because again people have been denying that Christians do such things , as in ........*SIGH*

I know where you're coming from, but my point stands.

People deny Christians are doing such things because they are unaware of those things. Like we both agree ... fringe.

The Islamic fundamentalism which many of us see as a problem is, however, quite a bit more known and visible, due to a higher perpetuation of incidences ... mainstream.

[Tribesman]

Having a bigger fringe doesn't make it mainstream Aramike .

[Aramike]

Having a bigger fringe doesn't make it mainstream Aramike .I never said that Islam has a larger fringe.

However, there's a point when the fringe gets so large that it's commonplace, or mainstream.

I believe that is the case with Islam.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mainstream

[Platapus]

However, there's a point when the fringe gets so large that it's commonplace, or mainstream.

I believe that is the case with Islam.

With an estimated Muslim population of over 1,200,000,000 even if, somehow, you "knew" that 12,000,000 Muslims were on the "fringe" that still represents only 0.01 of the population.

Let's go crazy and double that number to 24,000,000 that still only represents 0.02 of the population

Not buying that comes close to mainstream, unless you are referring to mainstream bigotry. :nope:

[Aramike]

However, there's a point when the fringe gets so large that it's commonplace, or mainstream.

I believe that is the case with Islam.

With an estimated Muslim population of over 1,200,000,000 even if, somehow, you "knew" that 12,000,000 Muslims were on the "fringe" that still represents only 0.01 of the population.

Let's go crazy and double that number to 24,000,000 that still only represents 0.02 of the population

Not buying that comes close to mainstream, unless you are referring to mainstream bigotry. :nope:So, out of the 1.2 billion Muslims, you're saying that somehow you KNOW that only maybe at most 24,000,000 have what we'd consider extreme views?

[Platapus]

So, out of the 1.2 billion Muslims, you're saying that somehow you KNOW that only maybe at most 24,000,000 have what we'd consider extreme views?

Did I post that?

The numbers I choose only represent the mathematical value of 0.01 and 0.02 of the population.

[Aramike]

So, out of the 1.2 billion Muslims, you're saying that somehow you KNOW that only maybe at most 24,000,000 have what we'd consider extreme views?

Did I post that?

The numbers I choose only represent the mathematical value of 0.01 and 0.02 of the population.Maybe I misread your point, then. Care to elaborate?

[Skybird]

Does this nonsense never end.

Fundamentalism is the mainstream teaching in Islam, and always has been - if it is worth to be called to be Islam depending on Quran and Sharia. And there is no other idea of Islam than this, there is no Islam justified to be called Islam that is not depending on Quran and Sharia. There is no "moderate" branch in Muhammad's teaching. There never has been that, and since the guy is dead, there never will be that. I think some of you have not just closed your eyes to inconvenient truths - you have poked pencils in your eyes.

A Muslim following Western rules and values, violates the rules of islam and it's values, necessarily so. That makes him a better person for sure, since the Quran wants him to be blind, hatefilled, intolerant, stupid, uncritical to Muhammad's selfjustification - violating all this necessarily makes him somebody we can deal much more pleasantly with - but he is not Muslim in Muhammeddan understanding anymore. Therefore he is a legitimate target for real Muslims to kill, according to the Quran that demands there killing. And although he violates islam, and by that is an apostate in principle - he nevertheless often insists on being identified and called as a Muslim. Which is not only absurd - it is plain and simple: stupid.

Islam is no moderate idelogy. Forget this bullsh!t. It is fundamentalism, totalitarianism, supremacism, and racism. It means no peace, as it clams. It means intolerance, violence, aggression, conquest, submission. That is the goal of Islam. True Islam - not some perverse minority branch of it, but Muhammad's demands to his followers. you want to argue with me that Muhammad's speeches are not the basis of the Quran's intention - not what Islam is basing on?

This on and on and on and on mistaking of "fundamentalism=non islam" with "moderation=Islam" is so breathtakingly stupid as well, and even more: so very, very nerve-killing. It is doing so very major damage also. It's like thinking of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - and thinking it is a democratic program or a liberal pamphlet - because one cannot believe that he meant what he wrote and thus he must have meant something different. and if one then concludes he meant what oneself is thinking, this is most comfortable: it relieves oneself of the nead to react, one must not accept a challenge and thus does not need to fight a conflict against it.

The only problem is that one is not adressing reality, but a fantasy universe inside one's own imagination.

You take this word "Islam" in your mouths, guys - but you mean something totally different than what Islam is. Whatever you talk about and may mean by your words - it is not real Islam you talk about. Islam has nothing in common with your misled descriptions - no matter how often you repeat them, they will not stop to be wrong by the facts.

If terms and labels do not mean their meaning anymore, then people obviously do not say what they mean. And if they do not know these mistaken labels and terms indeed, they even cannot realise that then they necessarily cannot mean what they say. Thus the confusion is perfect, and never-ending. and for Islam, this exact kind of confusion about itself is the most powerful weapon it has. It compares to the Trojan Horse.

Edit: And just for the record: terrorism is not what concerns me most. Even if we had a 9/11 every six months, we would not fall, and would adapt to it. Israel is living with terror since decades. germany and Italy have had decades of terror as well. The threat I am concerned over is that Islamic ideology is aggressively infiltrating our legal system. Our education. Our policy-making. Our courts, our law-making. Our cultural self-defining. And all these processes - are already unleashed and in full charge. Thanks, but no thanks for this social and cultural catastrophe.

[Platapus]

Well you guys have fun.

[baggygreen]

I think his point is that sure, there is maybe 25 million extremists in islam. Thats a lot. but to put it in perspective, 25m is only .02% of the population, which isn't what one could deem mainstream. Thats my interpretation anyways :know:

Personally, I think there are a lot more than the 25 million, im of the opinion that there are roughly 100m. Personal thoughts only, no realy basis. I do however feel there are hundreds of millions more who are 'silent supporters'. They don't speak out against atrocities, but will begin to stir when their muslim brothers and sisters are 'slaughtered' by the infidels.

Note that I'm not saying there is no condemnation by muslims of terror attacks, but it is very very few people who speak against it.

If I'm right, which is a big if, I still don't feel personally that 100m out of 1.2 billion is mainstream. it is less than 10%. What is mainstream in my opinion is acceptance of the extremists' actions. Which leads me to wonder, is it apathy towards it, is it fear that they'd be targetted for speaking out, or is it silent support?

[Aramike]

Oddly enough, I think the bird is correct here.

[August]

Which leads me to wonder, is it apathy towards it, is it fear that they'd be targetted for speaking out, or is it silent support?

I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of it is folks like Skybird doing their level best to drive moderates into the extremist camp.

If you're gonna be shot it might as well be as a lion than a lamb.

[Skybird]

Which leads me to wonder, is it apathy towards it, is it fear that they'd be targetted for speaking out, or is it silent support?

It is: having been educated to behave like they actually do. By that it has become second nature.

It is the fruit of a cultural climate that does not depend on national borders and countries and ethnic groups, but comes in form of a feeling of a transcending identity. The Ummah is all. The individual is nothing. Islam is the inevitable goal of evolution. Welcome in the hive.

[surf_ten]

We need Richard Dawkins and his group of militant atheists to combat fundmentalist Islam. He and his followers are doing a great job of dismantling Christianity.

[Onkel Neal]

Personally, I think there are a lot more than the 25 million, im of the opinion that there are roughly 100m. Personal thoughts only, no realy basis. I do however feel there are hundreds of millions more who are 'silent supporters'. They don't speak out against atrocities, but will begin to stir when their muslim brothers and sisters are 'slaughtered' by the infidels.

Actually, on NPR today they reported a lot of US Muslim clerics have spoken against honor killings and this crime in particular. That's a good sign.




Fundamentalism is the mainstream teaching in Islam, and always has been - if it is worth to be called to be Islam depending on Quran and Sharia. And there is no other idea of Islam than this, there is no Islam justified to be called Islam that is not depending on Quran and Sharia. There is no "moderate" branch in Muhammad's teaching. There never has been that, and since the guy is dead, there never will be that.

The same could be said for Judaism and Christianity. There is a lot of room for zealots if those followers wanted to obey every part of the Old and New Testaments, Torah, etc. But most Jews and Christians just nod at the rules and injunctions (thank God!) and live the same lives as non-believers, and therefore are pretty mainstream, or as the pastor would say, secular. Thumbs up to all secular Christians and Jews, and Muslims too. I think over time and with better standards of living and education, Muslims will follow the same trend.

Have faith in McDonalds, U2, and JC Penney :D

[Skybird]

The same could be said for Judaism and Christianity. There is a lot of room for zealots if those followers wanted to obey every part of the Old and New Testaments, Torah, etc. But most Jews and Christians just nod at the rules and injunctions (thank God!) and live the same lives as non-believers, and therefore are pretty mainstream, or as the pastor would say, secular. Thumbs up to all secular Christians and Jews, and Muslims too. I think over time and with better standards of living and education, Muslims will follow the same trend.

Have faith in McDonalds, U2, and JC Penney :D

But that is the point, neal - for me the old and new testament are not a unity, but a contradiction. The old testament and the Tora compare to the Quran, yes, but there is no parallel to the reformation of their construction of a revenging, tyrannic, inhumane deity - a reform that the message of Jesus/the new testament is. Jesus reformed the understanding of "God", and replaced the external entity of God that wanted to rule, with the internal quality man had to see in himself, making it as human or inhumane as the person in question was acting and thinking. The Bible holds two completely different understandings of God, do not get misled by that Jesus used the old language of the old testament to communcate - he had to use some verbal symbols to communciate himself, didn't he. If people would live by the preaching of Jesus, with reason and modesty, in the understanding of the semron on the mountain, I would not complain. to behave like a stupoid fanatic, or in a sect - needs you to violate these teachings of Jesus as I see them, and I see immense parallels between Jesus and the teachings of gautama buddha. Interestingly, when I said Jesus reformed the old relgion of the god of the Jews, comparable is said about Buddha, who sometimes also is descrobed as somebody who reformed the old faith of his world, hinduism. reformed Judaism/old testament is true Christian religion, reformed Hinduism is Buddhism, so to speak. I am convinced that in principle both men were no supernatural creatures, but just this: reasonable and wise men, and that both pointed with their fingers at one and the same moon, although both fingers had different skin colours and both men spoke different languages and used different cultural-dependant symbols to express what they meant.

( Interestingly it is said time and again by some historians that Jesus in the years before the time the gospels speak of, he may have travelled to India and probabaly met Buddha, becoming his student for a while. It's just a theory so far, but one with quite some flesh on its bones. If it would be true, I would not be surprised in any way. )

On the other hand, to live by the rules of the old testament and the Quran makes you a bloodthirsty inhumane barbarian, living by principles like "an eye for an eye", supremacist conquest, and inhumane intolerance for "heretics" and infidels.

In simplified words, to keep it short:

If you want to be a prototypic "good and peaceful man", you may follow the teachings of buddha and Jesus the Christ - which makes you a Christian in the real meaning of the word. Not all Christians do that - and thus are not really christians. Violating their teachings turns you into an intolerant nuthead, a barbaric fanatic, a misled person living his life in blindness.

Compare to this:

A fundamental nuthead, an intolerant barbar, a missionising fanatic you become by following the old testament, or the Quran - and violating the principles outlined by Buddha and/or Jesus. In order to follow these two men, you must violate obedience to the god of the old testament, or the Quran.

Therefore:

Not all Christians are truly christians in this meaning, which is at their loss . Most are not. "Most" means: 9 out of 10, if not more. a true Christian bases on jesus, not in a superstitious, infantile way, but by understanbding the reasonability in taking responsibility for your own fate, making choices and accept that by that you create consequences - so chose xour deeds wisely. That in principle is the old Hinduistic and buddhistic conception of - karma. And the early church until the 5th century, I believe, held up a belief in reincarnation, before the preists decided that this would undermine the power and controol they claimed of the the people, and thus deleted it from the official church-christian canon. The church until today, int he tradition of Paul, - claims jesus for itself, but does not follow him, but founds on all the bible and the old testament as well. That'S why I make a difference between church and Christianity. The church imo is not Christian. You can't be both: "churchian" AND christian. you can only be one of it. Both are mutually exclusive.

And not all Muslims may be true Muslim in the meaning of real Islam, which may be for their better. A true Muslim bases on the teaching given by muhammad, and muhammad was a gangster and godfather, a conqueror and megalomaniac tyrant. That's why i mean it as a compliment when telling a "muslim" I do not see him as a muslim. but I would ask him nevertheless to get clear about his loyalty to better values and principles and thus leave muhammad's tyranny behind. I have high respect for apostates of islam, since they must be very courageous people for the most, who had willed to give up a lot, friends, and family. In principle, by rules of true Islam, they are risking their lives - every real muslim meeting them has the obligation to kill them. Not the choice - but the obligation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neal,

I have to disagree with you regarding Christian teachings. To say there is no "moderate" version or form is just not so. If one were truly "fundamentalist" in a strict sense, you would not see the various denominations having discussions regarding things such as homosexual clergy and elders for example.

Allow me to use homosexuality as an example. Islam fundamentally teaches that a gay person should be killed. There is no moderate, forgiving attitude, no ability to reconcile the person. In Christianity (and again I am speaking protestant) - a person who chooses homosexuality can still be accepted, counselled, even embraced - while a pastor, church or mentor works with him to help him be convicted by the Spirit and turn away from his sin. If that person chooses not to turn from sin, that is their choice, but a Christian is taught to love the sinner - and hate the sin. Everything from living a Christian life as a light for the sinner to see, to working with the person should they choose it, we are called to remember that it is our role to embrace our brother while we seek to help him follow the path God has ordained.

I count among those I call friend a couple of people who are homosexual. Do I condone it? No - but I also do not pretend to know the struggles that God has ordained for them, and so I trust my Savior to guide them as He will, and make my life, my love of them without a love of their actions - a light He may choose to use.
I did the same for an old friend here - many of you remember LeoV (God rest his soul) - and I was glad to call him friend.

That's moderate, because Jesus paid the price for ALL sin for those that accept the gift. He is big enough to overcome that if they accept His help. Allah on the other hand - seems to have a real issue with homosexuals - to the point he has to kill them. I wonder if ole mohammed had a secret crush on men or something and wanted em all killed so he wouldnt be tempted and found out. After all - that wasn't very becoming behavior for a fearsome warlord of the time....

Ultimately - modern Xtianity in almost all its forms speaks first of forgiveness for the asking. Any sin (barring one) can be forgiven. *That one sin cannot be committed today.* While it does speak of punishment, that punishment is either spiritual - or a natural physical effect of bad choices. Islam speaks of strict, externally applied punishment that MUST be applied - there is no forgiveness, there is no mercy, no compassion from Allah (who amazingly enough is often called the "most merciful" - yet in the Quran that title is never demonstrated). If you commit a sin before Yahweh, you may ask forgiveness and it be granted. If you commit a sin before allah, why ask forgiveness? Punishment is due - regardless.

Ultimately - fundamental means one thing - more strict. Moderate means less strict. While there are various interpretations of each religion - no one can reasonably claim that Christianity is not more "moderate" - ie forgiving - than Islam. Islam is a fundamentalist religion - there is very little disagreement on the major theological tenants themselves by its own modern scholars (other than the whole do you have to be a blood descendant of mohammed to be in charge). For them, its very clear cut, it says what it says and it means what it says. Period. No wiggle room.

The same cannot be said for modern Xtianity.

[Onkel Neal]

I have to disagree with you regarding Christian teachings. To say there is no "moderate" version or form is just not so. If one were truly "fundamentalist" in a strict sense, you would not see the various denominations having discussions regarding things such as homosexual clergy and elders for example.

Allow me to use homosexuality as an example. Islam fundamentally teaches that a gay person should be killed. There is no moderate, forgiving attitude, no ability to reconcile the person. In Christianity (and again I am speaking protestant) - a person who chooses homosexuality can still be accepted, counselled, even embraced - while a pastor, church or mentor works with him to help him be convicted by the Spirit and turn away from his sin. If that person chooses not to turn from sin, that is their choice, but a Christian is taught to love the sinner - and hate the sin. Everything from living a Christian life as a light for the sinner to see, to working with the person should they choose it, we are called to remember that it is our role to embrace our brother while we seek to help him follow the path God has ordained.

I don't think I said there were no moderate Christians, I was saying that most Christians are moderate, they don't follow the word of God to the letter. If they did, they would not be moderate. If they followed Jesus to the letter, they would not have regular jobs, would not be futzing around on the computer, going to the movies, etc. They would turn their life completely over to Christ. Not many do that, therefore as I said, most Christians love their savior and their Dallas Cowboy season tickets in equal amounts (which is ok by me).

But it wasn't always that way, as you know. 200 years ago Christians took their religon as seriously as Muslims do today. There were no women bishops or pastors in the past, no gay leaders in the church. Unwed mothers were a big deal, as was drunkeness and other vices. Today, 95% of Christians don't even blink at these things.

I'm saying over time, people don't adhere to religon as strongly, and I think eventually it will be the same for Muslims. It already is for a lot of Muslims, they have their faith, the prophet's teachings, but they don't follow it as rigidly as the fundamentalist Muslim, the one we see in the ME on the news.

[baggygreen]

I'm saying over time, people don't adhere to religon as strongly, and I think eventually it will be the same for Muslims. It already is for a lot of Muslims, they have their faith, the prophet's teachings, but they don't follow it as rigidly as the fundamentalist Muslim, the one we see in the ME on the news.When considering this, it is worth remembering that in terms of age, Islam is almost 700 years behind christianity, and thousands of years behind judaism. Now, roughly 700 years ago, christianity was very fundamental and very opposed to anything that didn't toe the party line, so to speak. Whilst you could argue that with the benefit of the modern world, a religion could develop faster, but on strictly age terms it would still be several hundred years behind.

Always remember where you've come from. And even as recent as 300 years ago there were witch hunts, just after the Inquisition, at the same time as people like Copernicus were locked up for daring to differ from the teachings.

[Tribesman]

But that is the point, neal - for me the old and new testament are not a unity, but a contradiction.
So the testaments are contradictory , now I could have sworn someone who calls themselves Skybird said the koran was contradictory .
But no matter , if we take the new testament as gospel what does that carpenter bloke say about the old laws ?:yeah:

Allow me to use homosexuality as an example. Islam fundamentally teaches that a gay person should be killed.
Does it ?
Well I would have thought them mullahs in Iran were pretty fundamental , yet they offer sex change operations at tax payers expense for what they see as the "illness" of being gay don't they , is that a fudamentlist teaching ?

[Skybird]

I'm saying over time, people don't adhere to religon as strongly, and I think eventually it will be the same for Muslims. It already is for a lot of Muslims, they have their faith, the prophet's teachings, but they don't follow it as rigidly as the fundamentalist Muslim, the one we see in the ME on the news.When considering this, it is worth remembering that in terms of age, Islam is almost 700 years behind christianity, and thousands of years behind judaism. Now, roughly 700 years ago, christianity was very fundamental and very opposed to anything that didn't toe the party line, so to speak. Whilst you could argue that with the benefit of the modern world, a religion could develop faster, but on strictly age terms it would still be several hundred years behind.

Always remember where you've come from. And even as recent as 300 years ago there were witch hunts, just after the Inquisition, at the same time as people like Copernicus were locked up for daring to differ from the teachings.
The church did not lose power just by becoming old, it lost power because of the "progressive" trend in European history forming up, as well as a certain man called Luther, and because the christian scripture also included the basis for thinking about alternatives (in the form of the glad tidings) to the churche'S dogmatic view and powerpolitics basing on fear of hell-fire. But in Islam, Neal, you do not have a parallel to a.) european multiculturalism and the resulting climate of national/economic competition that fostered these progressive trends in best capitalistic understanding (instead you have a dogma of monoculturalism), b.) Luther, and c.) an alternative canon in the scripture of Quran and the traditon of Hadith and Sharia that would compare to the glad tidings.

The starting conditions therefore do not compare. Nor do christian religion and islam compare by content. Why this determination to see phantoms that are not real? Just to be considered as "polite" when falling in line with populistic fairy-tales? Islam is not the Christian religion just dressed in other clothes. That would be like saying the Herrenrasse is just another word for legal citizenship. the one teaching sbrings you self-responsibility, tolerance, freedom. The other demands you to submit, to obey and brings you intolerance and attack. Muhammad did not copy parts of the Jewish-Crhistian tradition to become part of it - he took them and then CHANGED them to make his own baby being different to them, and then declare it superior to them.

[Aramike]

I'm saying over time, people don't adhere to religon as strongly, and I think eventually it will be the same for Muslims. It already is for a lot of Muslims, they have their faith, the prophet's teachings, but they don't follow it as rigidly as the fundamentalist Muslim, the one we see in the ME on the news.I have to disagree with you here, Neal. I don't believe that time really matters all that much. Ultimately, I believe the fundamental basis of the religion is more the question.

The Koran is not a book about "turning the other cheek", as it were. In a sense, Christianity has evolved to be more representative of the moderate, Biblical aspects of the New Testament. You're not going to see a similar evolution of Islam because the very basics of the religion doesn't support that.

Compared to the New Testament of the Bible, the Koran is simply a far more extreme religious text.

But really, when it comes to the extremism that evolves into terrorism, I believe that the vast majority of Muslims "silently consent" to these behaviors, if not completely prescribe to them. Rarely does any Muslim publically speak out against such ideologies, while you see an overwhelming effort to deflect the blame upon the victims. Muslim anti-extremism organizations such as the Free Muslims Coalition struggle to get any real traction in the mainstream Islamic community. While they are certainly growing, they no doubt find themselves in the vast minority.

More importantly, however, is the fact that it is not incumbent upon the free world to wait for Islam to evolve into a more moderate form. Now, I must point out that, while I believe Islam is an extreme religion, I don't in any way advocate its outright destruction or perversion. What I believe should be done is the free world should stop trying to make perceptions of Islam into something its not - namely, an evolved, peaceful religion. It is a religion that, in and of itself, purports being a political body to its own ends. Christianity evolved FROM this type of ideology because the texts its based upon does not seek that type of power. Rather, it was the church that had asserted its control outside of its own teachings - a moved ultimately doomed to failure due to its blatant hypocrisy.

Simply put, if we want to confront the problem of extremism we need to stop being afraid of simply identifying it. The world should no longer be tolerant of Islam's inherent intolerance.

Why must we ignore the FACT that the Koran states: "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."? That's an extreme position, don't you think? Taken literally, it's quite clear what the passage's meaning is.

Other passages: 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

9:29: "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

8:39: "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

8:65: "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

I know of nothing comparable in Christian texts.

Fundamentally speaking, Islam is an extremist religion. Islam fundamentalism is quite mainstream within the culture. Once we acknowledge this rather than simply hoping it not to be the case, we may be able to effectively lower the overwhelming Islamic tolerance for intolerance.

[Skybird]

More "islamophobia": even when considering "moderate Muslims", Europe nevertheless is under siege by imported true Islam.

Radical Muslim imams and nationalist politicians from all camps are threatening Sarajevo's multicultural legacy. With the help of Arab benefactors, the deeply devout are acquiring new recruits. In the "Jerusalem of the Balkans," Islamists are on the rise.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-609660,00.html

[Tribesman]

Rarely does any Muslim publically speak out against such ideologies
actually they do speak out very often , but it doesn't get much coverage .

What a strange article that spiegel one is , Sarajevo is at the crossroads between east and west yet is at the heart of the continent too ...must be a very big place to cover so much territory .
Now I would have thought that the Balkan peninsula would be described as the fringes of europe not the heart .
Europe nevertheless is under siege by imported true Islam.

True Islam ? Thats a wierd thing to call a sect that didn't exist until modern times .

[Aramike]

actually they do speak out very often , but it doesn't get much coverage .How do you know if there isn't coverage?

I acknowledge that there are indeed groups who I find to be moderate (I cited one such group in my previous post). I contend that they represent the minority.

Also, what do you have to say about the passages from the Koran I quoted?

[Tribesman]

How do you know if there isn't coverage?

Did you miss the key word ?
"much" .

Also, what do you have to say about the passages from the Koran I quoted?
Thats handy , a nice simple one word answer ....
Context .

[Onkel Neal]

actually they do speak out very often , but it doesn't get much coverage .How do you know if there isn't coverage?

I acknowledge that there are indeed groups who I find to be moderate (I cited one such group in my previous post). I contend that they represent the minority.

Also, what do you have to say about the passages from the Koran I quoted?

Not much coverage. That's different from no coverage. There is a little coverage, as I pointed out with NPR as an example. But not much coverage, as in NPR, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, Reuters, etc. Hearing a story from only one or two news sources would be considered "not much" coverage. I understand what Tribesman meant.



Aramike, you're probably right, the New Testament has a lot of interesting stuff in it, such as Mathew 10:21, Acts 2:4 and Mark 16:15-18 (have you tried these yet? :)), Romans 1:27-32 (death to the gays!) and there are plenty of orders directly from Jesus, such as Matthew 5:29-30, to perform acts of violence on one's self (not many Christians are following these dictates), but yeah, it is pretty much devoid of violence and aggression. However, last time I checked, every Christian bible I've seen has the Old Testament and New, bound together, and every preacher I have ever heard pulls material from the Old with equal legitimacy as the New, and as you know, the Old Testament can match the Koran, violent exhortation for exhortation. You need me to find a few dozen examples real quick? :O:

I'm not criticizing the Bible, but I find it interesting that so many people don't know what's in it. I've read it from front to back three times, and took extensive notes. It's a fascinating read.

[Aramike]

Thats handy , a nice simple one word answer ....
Context .That's such a common answer given when Islamic-apologists are confronted with these passages, that I've learned to reject it out of hand unless one actually offers the "context" which they are referring to.Not much coverage. That's different from no coverage. There is a little coverage, as I pointed out with NPR as an example. But not much coverage, as in NPR, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, Reuters, etc. Hearing a story from only one or two news sources would be considered "not much" coverage. I understand what Tribesman meant. That's true, he did say "not much". What I'm saying is that it seems to be due to there not being much to cover.Aramike, you're probably right, the New Testament has a lot of interesting stuff in it, such as Mathew 10:21, Acts 2:4 and Mark 16:15-18 (have you tried these yet? :)), Romans 1:27-32 (death to the gays!) and there are plenty of orders directly from Jesus, such as Matthew 5:29-30, to perform acts of violence on one's self (not many Christians are following these dictates), but yeah, it is pretty much devoid of violence and aggression. However, last time I checked, every Christian bible I've seen has the Old Testament and New, bound together, and every preacher I have ever heard pulls material from the Old with equal legitimacy as the New, and as you know, the Old Testament can match the Koran, violent exhortation for exhortation. You need me to find a few dozen examples real quick? :O:

I'm not criticizing the Bible, but I find it interesting that so many people don't know what's in it. I've read it from front to back three times, and took extensive notes. It's a fascinating read.I am fairly familiar with the Bible as a whole, and while Christians do typically accept both the Old Testament and the New, they tend to use the Old as more of a historical reference. I also believe that even Christ said to essentially discount the dicates of the Old Testament (I'll research which passage that is later).

The difference is that the Bible actually HAS a New Testament whereas the Koran does not have a more moderate text.

[Skybird]

I'm not criticizing the Bible
Why not, if you found it filled with so much violence and inhumane barbarism (I do not reject that finding!).

It's a fascinating read.
Is it?

[Tribesman]

That's such a common answer
Thats because it is the only answer , no passage out of any scripture has any meaning unless it is placed in context .
So if you want to do a comparison of those pasages in context with the Christian passages covering the same issues fine , because don't forget the carpenter said the old rules stand and will stand till the end of time .
I also believe that even Christ said to essentially discount the dicates of the Old Testament
No he said to discount the people who were being hypocrits about the dictates , he was quite vehement about it too , as apparently their punishment will be all the worse .
Now of course the teachers didn't like being criticised like that did they , so they started plotting to have him killed , but he had the last laugh on them by coming back from the dead .

[CaptainHaplo]

OK - I said it once and I will say it again - you cannot compare the old and new testaments the same way. Old testament was the LAW - written as "These are all the things you must do to be saved - if you fail, here is the price that must be paid to keep you in good graces with God."

The New Testament is entirely different. The death of Jesus on the cross ushered in the reign of Grace. The price has been paid - you need but admit your error and ask forgiveness.

Now yes, pastors pull from both with equal fervor. However, you have to remember that now the Old Testament is now not LAW any longer. Instead it is history, a useful reference to help us understand the gift we are given, and what behaviors to avoid. No longer is it necessary to offer a burnt sacrifice.

Neal, the passages you refer to are allegorical in nature. For example, in Matthew Jesus is telling you - dont sin. If you can't avoid the sin of stealing - it would be better to only have one hand. Look at todays career criminals - deprived of their freedom for their crimes. Would not a thief be better off living free as a wholesome and honest person who simply had one hand? He would be better for society - and be able to enjoy a good life, though slightly limited. Whereas the punishment for stealing - often negatively colors a persons life to the point where they are trapped in a cycle of crime and punishment, instead of adapting and overcoming.

I suspect you knew this, but threw it out there anyway.

Regarding Romans 1:27-32 - note that in that there is no call to action, there is no exhortation for Christians to rise up and kill homosexuals. I do appreciate you did not take it out of context. It says clearly in verse 32 that "....that they which commit such things are worthy of death,..." - but this is not any type of condoning to kill them. In fact - if one were to use that reasoning - then the old verse of "For the wages of sin are death" - meaning any who person who sins deserves death - could be used as justification to kill every person on earth - "For all have sinned.".

What is important to remember is that the age of Grace did not remove the Law - it simply PAID the PRICE already. For those given to a reprobate mind (as this passage talks clearly about) - God will judge them and the price - death - in this case spiritual (as in the ultimate death) - will be paid if they have not accepted Jesus. The LAW of God is not removed - it still has the price to be paid - its just a matter of who pays it. In this case - those who refuse the gift of salvation - will pay it by God. It doesn't matter if they are gay, murderers, thieves, liars or anything else. Sin = death. Those who accept - have it paid for them through our Savior.

[CaptainHaplo]

I can answer - and my above post did - the question of how the new and old fit together.

The old testament - the LAW - still exists. After all - God cannot abide sin. It has a price to be paid.

What changed was HOW that payment was made - and that changed with the New Testament death of Jesus.

Jesus never said "The LAW is null and void now.", he never said "ok I am here, sin doesnt mean death anymore" - He didn't change the law - he changed how the payment for breaking it was made.

Tribesman - what Aramike was saying was provide context for the verses given - explain WHY they do or do not apply as they seem to. To just scream "context" without providing what that context was - is tatamount to putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet while yelling "NANANANANANAANNAANAN! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!". If you want to correct an erroneous viewpoint - you have to discuss it. Either that - or you cant because it means what it means and you can't get around it. Your choice.

[Onkel Neal]

OK - I said it once and I will say it again - you cannot compare the old and new testaments the same way. Old testament was the LAW - written as "These are all the things you must do to be saved - if you fail, here is the price that must be paid to keep you in good graces with God."

The New Testament is entirely different. The death of Jesus on the cross ushered in the reign of Grace. The price has been paid - you need but admit your error and ask forgiveness.

Now yes, pastors pull from both with equal fervor. However, you have to remember that now the Old Testament is now not LAW any longer. Instead it is history, a useful reference to help us understand the gift we are given, and what behaviors to avoid. No longer is it necessary to offer a burnt sacrifice.

Neal, the passages you refer to are allegorical in nature. For example, in Matthew Jesus is telling you - dont sin. If you can't avoid the sin of stealing - it would be better to only have one hand. Look at todays career criminals - deprived of their freedom for their crimes. Would not a thief be better off living free as a wholesome and honest person who simply had one hand? He would be better for society - and be able to enjoy a good life, though slightly limited. Whereas the punishment for stealing - often negatively colors a persons life to the point where they are trapped in a cycle of crime and punishment, instead of adapting and overcoming.

I suspect you knew this, but threw it out there anyway.

.

Re: allegorical in nature. I've always been intrigued by that. I guess it depends on who one listens to, but many Christians swear that creation, the Flood, Samson catching 300 foxes and lighting their tails on fire are fact, where others refer to them as allegories. See what I'm getting at? You assure me that Jesus' command/advice to gouge out an eye is allegorical in nature... Yeah, I can accept that, but my point is, why cannot parts of the Koran can be accepted as allegorical?

Thanks, I am familiar with the new covenant of Christ's sacrifice and not being saved by law but by grace. Hmm. Still, too many preachers using the Old Testament as gospel for me to take it lightly, mate. :)



Regarding Romans 1:27-32 - note that in that there is no call to action, there is no exhortation for Christians to rise up and kill homosexuals. I do appreciate you did not take it out of context. It says clearly in verse 32 that "....that they which commit such things are worthy of death,..." - but this is not any type of condoning to kill them.

True, very true. So why is it becoming acceptable for mainstream Christian religons to accept homosexuality, even to ordain them as ministers? That's still a mystery to me.

PS: I say these things with no animosity whatsoever, just interested in discussion. :salute:

[Aramike]

Thats because it is the only answer , no passage out of any scripture has any meaning unless it is placed in context .This is dodging the issue completely. These passages ARE the context.

One could take LITERALLY ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN and say that the natural meaning of those words are in a different context. That argument is, quite frankly, weak and indefensible.

If you have a context which contradicts the context in which the words themselves say (the context which I'm using), then be my guest and point it out. Otherwise, step away from the debate because ultimately you're asking us to accept the "because I said so" argument.

I understand that things are taken out of context. But, if you're going to make the claim, SHOW HOW.

I very specifically gave the context of those passages. Show me how I'm wrong - don't just say, "your context is wrong" and expect your argument to mean, well, anything.So if you want to do a comparison of those pasages in context with the Christian passages covering the same issues fine , because don't forget the carpenter said the old rules stand and will stand till the end of time .Again, this is a weak argument. We're discussing Islam. Needing to compare it to something else in order to give it ... erm, context, is inherently flawed. I am neither a member of Islam nor Christianity. Therefore, any argument you make that one would justify the other I would find intellectually wrong.

It's best to stick to the facts individually than to try to say, "well, Christians ascribed to religious war at one point so how can you blame Muslims?".

[Aramike]

Tribesman - what Aramike was saying was provide context for the verses given - explain WHY they do or do not apply as they seem to. To just scream "context" without providing what that context was - is tatamount to putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet while yelling "NANANANANANAANNAANAN! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!". If you want to correct an erroneous viewpoint - you have to discuss it. Either that - or you cant because it means what it means and you can't get around it. Your choice.Thanks, Haplo. I didn't read this until I had responded and you beat me to the point. :yep:

Your point on the meaning of the Old and New Testament and law was spot on, btw. Perhaps its not the law that has changed, but the enforcement of the law.

[Aramike]

Neal, just one item:True, very true. So why is it becoming acceptable for mainstream Christian religons to accept homosexuality, even to ordain them as ministers? That's still a mystery to me. I agree, this is a contradiction. However, I do not believe that this acceptance is quite mainstream ... yet.

Ultimately, though, I believe this phenomenom that displays the overall willingness of mainstream Christianity to accept external political movements in general. There is no Islamic parallel.

One of the key doctrinal differences between the religions is the fact that, while both are essentially intolerant of disbelief, Christianity leaves the punishment for such up to God.

In Islam, that power is generally bestowed upon the practicioners of the faith. I believe this distinction to be key.

[Tribesman]

Again, this is a weak argument.
Actually its a strong arguement , if the carpenter says he hasn't come to change the laws and the laws stand till the end of time they they were not changed and still stand . So you will have to compare the laws of wars treaties unbelievers and unrightous from the bible and koran and face the fact that they are very similar in tone .

One could take LITERALLY ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN and say that the natural meaning of those words are in a different context. That argument is, quite frankly, weak and indefensible.

Really the problem is people taking things that are written and taking them literally , like the cretinists do .

But anyway look at this context thing . One familiar rant you hear is that mohamed was a pedo because he took a child bride .
Is there anything in the koran that says how old she was when the marriage was consumated ? At that time and still much later were powerful christians with the blessing of the church taking child brides as young as 2 years old ? if you look at some christian countries nowadays is the age of adulthood for females measured by the onset of puberty .

Perhaps its not the law that has changed, but the enforcement of the law.
So would that be like the Iranians offering gays sex change operations instead of just killing them ?

Just to add in regards to the pay now or pay later arguement that a couple of people have put forward , doesn't 8&9 have lots of bits about god making people pay later too .

[Aramike]

Again, this is a weak argument.
Actually its a strong arguement , if the carpenter says he hasn't come to change the laws and the laws stand till the end of time they they were not changed and still stand . So you will have to compare the laws of wars treaties unbelievers and unrightous from the bible and koran and face the fact that they are very similar in tone .

One could take LITERALLY ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN and say that the natural meaning of those words are in a different context. That argument is, quite frankly, weak and indefensible.

Really the problem is people taking things that are written and taking them literally , like the cretinists do .

But anyway look at this context thing . One familiar rant you hear is that mohamed was a pedo because he took a child bride .
Is there anything in the koran that says how old she was when the marriage was consumated ? At that time and still much later were powerful christians with the blessing of the church taking child brides as young as 2 years old ? if you look at some christian countries nowadays is the age of adulthood for females measured by the onset of puberty .

Perhaps its not the law that has changed, but the enforcement of the law.
So would that be like the Iranians offering gays sex change operations instead of just killing them ?

Just to add in regards to the pay now or pay later arguement that a couple of people have put forward , doesn't 8&9 have lots of bits about god making people pay later too .You're dancing around the question and probably intentionally attempting to muddy the issue. You stated that I took certain quotes from the Koran out of context.

Do you intend upon demonstrating how that is or are you conceding that point?

[Tribesman]

Aramike, its not so much that you took them out of context its that you didn't place them in context .
So if you want to use them as examples of how bad certain laws on certain subjects are then to be fair you have to use the passages from the bible that deal with the same laws and show how the one set of gods laws is so different from the other set .
And that is where you come unstuck because for each passage you quote from one source there is an equally nasty passage to match it in the other .

[Aramike]

Aramike, its not so much that you took them out of context its that you didn't place them in context .
So if you want to use them as examples of how bad certain laws on certain subjects are then to be fair you have to use the passages from the bible that deal with the same laws and show how the one set of gods laws is so different from the other set .
And that is where you come unstuck because for each passage you quote from one source there is an equally nasty passage to match it in the other .Now you're just playing on words.

But, just for kicks, show me, tit-for-tat, equally "nasty" passages in the Bible. Make sure they are of the same context (as in having believers slaughter non-believers, and the execution of holy wars). Furthermore, show me how Christianity, which ascribes to the New Testament interpretations of the laws, is parallel with Islam.

[Enigma]

Anyone know of any examples of Christian Muslims committing so called honor killings?

[Aramike]

Anyone know of any examples of Christian Muslims committing so called honor killings?Huh? :doh:

What's a "Christian Muslim"?

[Enigma]

:har: Holy crap I need to go to bed....

I meant Arab Christians. And really, I was just curious, so don't let me derail the discussion....

[Skybird]

Re: allegorical in nature. I've always been intrigued by that. I guess it depends on who one listens to, but many Christians swear that creation, the Flood, Samson catching 300 foxes and lighting their tails on fire are fact, where others refer to them as allegories. See what I'm getting at? You assure me that Jesus' command/advice to gouge out an eye is allegorical in nature... Yeah, I can accept that, but my point is, why cannot parts of the Koran can be accepted as allegorical?

Show me wehere Jesus did somewhere like ripping out an eye for an eye. Show me where he called for wars, and did like that. Instead, he stayed with the weak and ill, the social outcasts. And his sermons often were allergories indeed: to make people understand that if they want peace of mind and entrance into "heaven", they have to take responsibility for themselves and live their live accepting the consequences their way of living would cause. He did not die on the cross to forgive us our sins. He died to show us the way each one of us has to go hiomself. there is so much almost comical confusion abiut this small but most important difference. the church may say Jesus died for our sins and that way we are already saved. Well, what miserable betraying playactor is the chruch? The church certainly is not Jesus.

On the other hand, Muhammad did like he preached as well, and he was in no way allergorcal. The violance and intolerance he demanded - has been called for and ordered by him. He practiced the drive for power and killing of infidels himself. He made mockery of his fellowers when they showed shyness in the face of the propsect of killing or getting killed in the fight against infidels. He even called his fellowers to assassinate those he felt annoyed by over the day, and to murder this critic or that disobedient woman he got tired of. That are historic facts. Why do you think has Ataturk, the founder of the now failed laicist experiment in turkey, found so tough words to desribe this miserable criminal as a "lieing desert bandit" and called Islam the "absurd theology of an immoral beduine"?

Wanna compare Jesus and muhammad? Wanna give the impression both said the same, Muhammad is as harmless as Jesus? Get back to your senses. Muhammad ordered around 70+ predatory raids and wars after he had moved to Medina. That roughly makes 7 per year for the rest of his life. He already had assaulted caravans and slaughtered men with his own hands while he still was working for his uncle and being a caravan leader himself, long before he became a kahin .

Show me where Jesus even considered for a moment to carry out such acts himself for a moment.

The church may have cooperated with powerpolitics and wars of earthly factions. Paul and others may have perverted Jesus' message in an abuse for the sake of their own egoist interest, to shine themselves by the deeds of him, and presenting themselves as important mediatosr, and by that: as ursupators. If all that was really in the spirit of what Jesus wanted to teach, must be doubted. Islam's ongoing conquest against mankind - fully corresponds with Muhammad'S teaching. muhammad did like that himself.

In these regards there is no way that the Quran is allegorical. That is just wishful thinking.

Neal, guys, will you please stop to asusme you could draw parallels between the four gospels, and the quran. That is simply nuts. totally nuts. muhammad assassinated and "genocided" people. Jesus refused to raise his hand againstt hose who wished him bad, and even accepted to get murdered - without resisting. Go on, compare the two.

[Tribesman]

I meant Arab Christians.
Well you won't find "honour" killings there as you must realise that Skybird said they don't happen .:rotfl:
Unless of course you actually look in which case the Maronite example I mentioned earlier might come up or maybe you will find some easy examples from the Coptic church .
What does come as interesting though is the druze , now are they Muslims or something else ?
But no matter , their elders say their version of "sharia" has no justification for honour killings yet in Israel and the occupied territories they appear by far to have the greatest number of these murders , apparently its a tribal/clan thing rather than a religious thing .

You still don't get it Aramike , if you want a new testament interpretation of the laws then you have to go no further tha the main character saying all the old laws still apply . Unless of course you consider that doing so would just be an example of the contradictory nature of the scripture that Skybird says exists in the Koran .
Its kinda funny how things are working out , earlier Skybird was berating people who had changed the Koran in the years after the trader died and now he is doing the same with the fellows who did it after the carpenters death , yet still saying the message even if changed was the original message in one case and saying the opposite in the other .

[Aramike]

You still don't get it Aramike , if you want a new testament interpretation of the laws then you have to go no further tha the main character saying all the old laws still apply .That's a pretty gross over-simplification, and you're still dodging the point.

Two words can answer that, however - New Covenent.

Oh, and those violent passages that parallel Islam that you have yet to produce ... aren't necessarily considered "the old law".

[Aramike]

:har: Holy crap I need to go to bed....

I meant Arab Christians. And really, I was just curious, so don't let me derail the discussion....:haha:

Time to put the beer down, bro.

And the answer is, no ... I don't think there's ever been a recorded incident of an Arab-Chrisitian "Honor Killing".

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman - I posted at length about Jesus saying the law was not in abeyance. Your refusal to contemplate that answer - and instead try to push forward with a point of "reason" that has been shown to be fundamentally flawed, is simply further proof you don't want to discuss - you simply want to disagree.

So far:

#1 You have been challenged to produce sources - you refused.

#2 Presented with quotes from the Quran that demonstrated a point, you claimed they were "not in context", yet when invited to put them into context and defend them, you again were mysteriously silent.

#3 You now continue to try and push a point that had been dealt with - ignoring the discussion and rebuttals made.

A discussion is people looking at the facts presented and basing their arguments off of those after consideration. So far you have chosen to neither consider points made, nor demonstrate any of your own. Instead you make claims that "this happens among non-muslims", but give us no links to verify. You claim something is out of context, but provide none to back up that statement.

Ultimately - you choose not to discuss. As for Mullahs in Iran offering sex change operations - I would ask for a link showing that (as I can give one showing where Iran hung a couple of gays - which kind of ruins your statement..) - but you have already demonstrated that requesting sources from you is a waste of time.

[Tribesman]

And the answer is, no ... I don't think there's ever been a recorded incident of an Arab-Chrisitian "Honor Killing".
Obviously you havn't looked then .

you have already demonstrated that requesting sources from you is a waste of time.
Thats because I generally don't post links until the point has gone way down the line , the way I see it is you have an internet connection use it yourself if you want to learn more .
As for Mullahs in Iran offering sex change operations - I would ask for a link showing that
Oh come on that is just so easy to find , just like the "honour" killings are .

[CaptainHaplo]

yep - thats the point - cant actually provide any sources yourself can you.

Ya know - if you say something happened - and can't back it up - its simply opinion. And your entitled to your opinion - even when its wrong.

If your serious about a discussion - document your points. Otherwise - your simply typing out your own hot air.

As for expecting others to do your work for you - not happening. You want me to consider something - show it to me. Its your point - not my job to prove it - thats yours.

[Tribesman]

yep - thats the point - cant actually provide any sources yourself can you.

So you would like a link to a news article or several about a Coptic Christian killing his sister for dishonouring the family ?
Damn thats hard to find , not as hard as the sister was to find though as it took two years for them to find and kill her .
Now of course it would be juicier if the brother killed his sisters bloke too and perhaps their infant child but really that would be too much to expect wouldn't it.
But of course someone mentioned earlier that an honour kiling has to involve the family so I suppose the story would have to be more than just the brother so should include the fathers role in the murder of his daughter to be really called as a classic example , with perhaps the uncle driving them to and from the murder just to put the icing on the cake .
Oh its so hard to find an example to fit that scenario isn't it :rotfl:
(though I did think the Maronite example would come out higher on the search)

[Skybird]

Haplo, why are you still wasting your time with this troll? ;) His intention is clear, and his means are clear, too. And each time you react to him, he is giggling.

[Onkel Neal]

Neal, just one item:True, very true. So why is it becoming acceptable for mainstream Christian religons to accept homosexuality, even to ordain them as ministers? That's still a mystery to me. I agree, this is a contradiction. However, I do not believe that this acceptance is quite mainstream ... yet.

Ultimately, though, I believe this phenomenom that displays the overall willingness of mainstream Christianity to accept external political movements in general. There is no Islamic parallel.

One of the key doctrinal differences between the religions is the fact that, while both are essentially intolerant of disbelief, Christianity leaves the punishment for such up to God.

In Islam, that power is generally bestowed upon the practicioners of the faith. I believe this distinction to be key.


Even though there fewer inducements in the New testament to slaughter people... (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:27&version=9;)the the folks who were brought us the Inquisition, witch burnings, forced conversions, Charlemagne's massacres of Saxons, and many more crimes, these people were Christians. I guess we're fortunate that the New Testament is not layered with incitements to persecute non-Christians...for most of the last 2000 years, Christians sure held up their own without those orders.

From Copernicus to gay bishops... it appears to be trending to mainstream to me. My point is, although currently there is no Islamic parallel to " accept external political movements in general" (well described, btw). But there may be someday, who knows? Christians eventually calmed down and became sane, who's to say Muslims won't with enough education and Big Macs? I guess we have to disagree, but neither of us can say it will or will not happen, only time will tell.

[CaptainHaplo]

Damn thats hard to find

Apparently so - since you cant post it:rotfl:

Skybird - I am just giving him every opportunity to show how foolish he is - because I am laughing at him as well.

BTW - interesting take on Jesus and the church - in some ways I agree with you - the "church" has grossly perverted the true teachings of Christ in so many ways.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=28206 (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=28206)

Although I don't see how that proves or dispoves anything. Religous people of all stripes have committed these type of crimes. I don't see any point in denying that Muslims appear to have the lead in this area.

[Platapus]

Neal,

Let's make a deal. If you lock this thread, I will make another donation to Subsim.com

[CaptainHaplo]

Neal,

You said one very important thing there - "only time will tell.". The key here is that yes, Xtianity has its history of violence, one that it is correctly saddened by. But we are not living in history - we are living in the here and now - and are currently the TARGETS of a religion that preaches hatred and violence.

Neither you or I can change history with all it holds. What we must deal with is the here and now. The here and now means we face a threat to our way of life from Islam - purely because it has not "moderated" or "matured" or whatever you want to call it. 200 or 2000 years from now - who knows what any religion will look like if humanity is still here - but if we do not stand firm against the threat that is here - in our time - at our doorstep - that is out to destroy us - it won't matter much will it?

It has been posted before in this thread - and its so correct. Islam is not about the hereafter as much as it is about the physical realm. Its as much a POLITICAL path to power thru force as it is "religious theology", if not more so. This is why it has not moderated - because the easiest way to power has always remained force. Brainwash the weak to be your violent cronies - and go take over. Structure the system so that there can be no questioning or dissent (leave and you get killed), and poof, your on your way. Look at the various militias throughout the troubled areas in the ME. Each has their own agenda - and each is often more POLITICAL than it is religious. If they were all in it just to follow the Will of Allah - they wouldnt be killing innocents and their political opponents in the streets.

This is why Islam is a threat - it purports to be a religion - and perhaps at its base it is, After all - most wars in this world have been religious in nature, or used that as a cover, historically. Yet ultimately it is simply a VERY machivellian political path to power, used for centuries, and even today, by those who would dictate to everyone they can how they can live. This is why our way of life is anathema to the LEADERSHIP of "true" Islam - because our way of life is everyone has basic rights, and a voice in their own lives. That didn't sit well with the warlord mohammed, and it doesn't sit well with the warlords today who follow the islamic path.

[Onkel Neal]

Neal,

Let's make a deal. If you lock this thread, I will make another donation to Subsim.com
Whaa? If I offended you, I apologize. I thought the discussion was going ok :(

[Platapus]

It was meant rather tongue-in-cheek :D

no your posts were not offensive, it just seems like the same things being posted again and again and the argument does not seem to have anything to do with the original topic and is starting to just focus on ad hominem attacks.

[Onkel Neal]

Neal,

You said one very important thing there - "only time will tell.". The key here is that yes, Xtianity has its history of violence, one that it is correctly saddened by. But we are not living in history - we are living in the here and now - and are currently the TARGETS of a religion that preaches hatred and violence.



I'm right beside you on resisting extreme Islamic movements. I just don't think all Muslims are extreme. If fact, I know they are not. I know Muslims who ignore the violent passages in the Koran, just like Jews who are not Orthodox, and Christians who are not handling snakes or speaking in tongues.

[Onkel Neal]

It was meant rather tongue-in-cheek :D

no your posts were not offensive, it just seems like the same things being posted again and again and the argument does not seem to have anything to do with the original topic and is starting to just focus on ad hominem attacks.

Oh, ok. Whew!

You're right, forum debates usually take on this pattern. :salute:

[Aramike]

Neal, just one item:True, very true. So why is it becoming acceptable for mainstream Christian religons to accept homosexuality, even to ordain them as ministers? That's still a mystery to me. I agree, this is a contradiction. However, I do not believe that this acceptance is quite mainstream ... yet.

Ultimately, though, I believe this phenomenom that displays the overall willingness of mainstream Christianity to accept external political movements in general. There is no Islamic parallel.

One of the key doctrinal differences between the religions is the fact that, while both are essentially intolerant of disbelief, Christianity leaves the punishment for such up to God.

In Islam, that power is generally bestowed upon the practicioners of the faith. I believe this distinction to be key.


Even though there fewer inducements in the New testament to slaughter people... (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:27&version=9;)the the folks who were brought us the Inquisition, witch burnings, forced conversions, Charlemagne's massacres of Saxons, and many more crimes, these people were Christians. I guess we're fortunate that the New Testament is not layered with incitements to persecute non-Christians...for most of the last 2000 years, Christians sure held up their own without those orders.

From Copernicus to gay bishops... it appears to be trending to mainstream to me. My point is, although currently there is no Islamic parallel to " accept external political movements in general" (well described, btw). But there may be someday, who knows? Christians eventually calmed down and became sane, who's to say Muslims won't with enough education and Big Macs? I guess we have to disagree, but neither of us can say it will or will not happen, only time will tell.Yeah, you're right - we don't know. We clearly disagree on our predictions, but really ... neither of us have a crystal ball and I think we both are able to substantiate and support our arguments.

I like debates when, in the end, there's no way to clearly identify who is right and wrong. Makes for a good flexing of our abstract-thinking muscles.

[Aramike]

Neal,

You said one very important thing there - "only time will tell.". The key here is that yes, Xtianity has its history of violence, one that it is correctly saddened by. But we are not living in history - we are living in the here and now - and are currently the TARGETS of a religion that preaches hatred and violence.

Neither you or I can change history with all it holds. What we must deal with is the here and now. The here and now means we face a threat to our way of life from Islam - purely because it has not "moderated" or "matured" or whatever you want to call it. 200 or 2000 years from now - who knows what any religion will look like if humanity is still here - but if we do not stand firm against the threat that is here - in our time - at our doorstep - that is out to destroy us - it won't matter much will it?

It has been posted before in this thread - and its so correct. Islam is not about the hereafter as much as it is about the physical realm. Its as much a POLITICAL path to power thru force as it is "religious theology", if not more so. This is why it has not moderated - because the easiest way to power has always remained force. Brainwash the weak to be your violent cronies - and go take over. Structure the system so that there can be no questioning or dissent (leave and you get killed), and poof, your on your way. Look at the various militias throughout the troubled areas in the ME. Each has their own agenda - and each is often more POLITICAL than it is religious. If they were all in it just to follow the Will of Allah - they wouldnt be killing innocents and their political opponents in the streets.

This is why Islam is a threat - it purports to be a religion - and perhaps at its base it is, After all - most wars in this world have been religious in nature, or used that as a cover, historically. Yet ultimately it is simply a VERY machivellian political path to power, used for centuries, and even today, by those who would dictate to everyone they can how they can live. This is why our way of life is anathema to the LEADERSHIP of "true" Islam - because our way of life is everyone has basic rights, and a voice in their own lives. That didn't sit well with the warlord mohammed, and it doesn't sit well with the warlords today who follow the islamic path.I tend to agree.

[CaptainHaplo]

Watch out Aramike - I might get you voting for me after all! :up: :har:

Neal, your rignt - not all Muslims are extreme. However, the key here is that those that are - are not being stopped by the ones that are not. So either the ones that are not truly extreme are in a very substantial and silent minority - or they are actually giving tacit approval to such extremism.

When "moderate" muslims call out the Imams who preach hate, when they stand up and put a stop to the EXTREMIST teachings that are put forth in MOST of the islamic schools throughout the world, basically when they start policing their own to stop "extremism" that hurts the world view of their theology, then I will form a different opinion. Right now, all you ever see is the moderates "condemn" something AFTER THE FACT, instead of saying "this is wrong - lets put a stop to it". The "moderate" Muslims give great lip service to moderation - but do they actually do anything to put a stop to the extremists? It sure doesn't look like it, does it?

I know someone will throw up the VERY rare wacko that gets on the news for blowing up an abortion clinic or some such - but compare the frequency of those acts to the acts of terror that are almost innumerable and occur throughout the world every day in the name of "allah". There is a vast and distinct difference.

[Tribesman]

Although I don't see how that proves or dispoves anything. Religous people of all stripes have committed these type of crimes. I don't see any point in denying that Muslims appear to have the lead in this area.
The point was that some people have claimed that its a Muslim thing and Christians don't do it and other have said they were unaware of such events . Another point was that such information is very easy to find if you bother to look .
Also as I mentioned earlier , the Druze , in their areas they seem to lead the field in "honour" killings even though their religious elders say their religious laws don't allow such things , so are these murders for family honour more of a tribal/clan thing or a religious one ?

[Aramike]

Watch out Aramike - I might get you voting for me after all! :up: :har: Heh, like I said before, I don't disagree with you on most things - just that one teeny, weeny issue... :cool:

[asanovic7]

Just saw this thread..

I am no muslim.. But I agree with the fellow..

Behead the b..h! She talks and talks.. nEVER STOPS.. Well now, she can't :rotfl: :rotfl:
Man, she p..d him off too much, since he did it even without thinking about that tv..

Funny stuff beside..

What do you think, which "civilisation" honours women more? Eastern, far eastern, middle eastern, african, western??

When you watch a tv and see bare naked stupid girl embarassing herself in front of a million crowd for few bucks, or when you decapitate the b..h?

Honestly, I feel everything is more or less alike..

And who can say a christian wouldn't do it!? Let's take a look at what christians do? "Stabbed his mother 56 times, then killed his father with an axe"
"In a killing spree, killed 6, wounder 20, then taken his own life"
"When robbing the store, shot pregnant woman in the belly, she bled to death"
"Killed his daughter, then packed his cloth and called the police"

ETC ETC..

[Schroeder]

The big difference is that those murders were not supported by the christian religion while plenty of muslims claim to have acted in the name of Allah when they killed someone.

Besides I really don't get the comparision of a girl who decides her self to strip naked for some money and a women who get behaeded. I think the latter did not chose so herself.:nope:

[asanovic7]

That, my friend could be, because, christians suffer of a strong lack of fate these days.. So they don't say "we killed those savages in the name of God!".. :rotfl:

When you have maniacs killing around, do you really think there is a difference if "they kill because of Allah or because the b..h talks too much"?
But I agree, modern muslims are a disaster, but maybe it is that the traditional world is hampered with modern Coca Cola civilisation measures, so modern muslims who are raised in a traditional way cannot cope with that?
It is easy for us, who are raised in an "open state of mind" where we hate the world, hate our neighbour and tolerate everything.. But it is hard to them.. Should we hate them for that? Should they be allowed to act like they are in their own country, to live by their own laws?
Close the borders.. Let every country deal with herself without interferring.. Much better..

Why is it, whenever we speak of muslims, there are no muslims around, is there any muslim registered on subsim?? ANY?? :rotfl:

Second part..
No comparison value there.. I was kidding about decapitation... But let me think.. You have a muslim woman, raised in a certain way, obeying and praying.. But.. She wants more, she wants a vibrator? Who can say she doesn't have it allready? :rotfl: Because of some crazy muslims? Because you think all muslims are "brain dead"? :rotfl:
And if you like, jews are much the same like muslims in some matter, yet muslims are target..

Then you have that poor girl.. Decapitated for life in that show, without confidence, depressed and f..d by every idiot that tells her hello or buys a drink.

There are many things we christians could learn from the muslims, as well as some they could from us(for instance how to smoke 2 box of cigarrettes, drink 10 beers and still see the match on tv, although I think many of them know that allready, hehehe), and I think it is prejudice to judge on some maniacs about the whole pack..

What about those things I mentioned? Are all christians "preggo killers"?

nothing is black or white..

Cheers!!

I have to go buy myself a beer..

[Skybird]

Even though there fewer inducements in the New testament to slaughter people...the the folks who were brought us the Inquisition, witch burnings, forced conversions, Charlemagne's massacres of Saxons, and many more crimes, these people were Christians. I guess we're fortunate that the New Testament is not layered with incitements to persecute non-Christians...for most of the last 2000 years, Christians sure held up their own without those orders.

From Copernicus to gay bishops... it appears to be trending to mainstream to me. My point is, although currently there is no Islamic parallel to " accept external political movements in general" (well described, btw). But there may be someday, who knows? Christians eventually calmed down and became sane, who's to say Muslims won't with enough education and Big Macs? I guess we have to disagree, but neither of us can say it will or will not happen, only time will tell.


Strange, Neal. In a pm you asked me to show more respect of other people's faith, but then you list plenty of reasons why this faith is not respectable.But this just on a side-note.

The real important thing is that you subscribe to the same mistake so many people did and do for so long time. Jesus, whom they enobled in reputation by giving him an honour title of "Christ", lived his life in a way and preached a teaching that does not justify excesses like the inquisition, "just wars", and others forms of collective hysterical violance. Nor did he live his life in a way that would serve as a precedent for these things to happen. So, what some narcissistic idiot named Paul has written in his letters, is not really important. Jesus' teachings did not and do not depend on Paul, nor is Paul equal to Jesus. the church calls itself to represent christianity, and bases on all the bible, that is true. But it'S claim to represent christianity in the meaning of jesus teachings and Jesus life - is a lie. A 2000 years old lie, but that doesn't make it any less a lie. And you - are still buying it.

Isn't that absurd? To commit all the crimes you have listed, the church had to abandon the examples set by Jesus. If you think that is wrong, show me where Jesus called for the torture of witches, or where he raised his hand against his next. In fact, he offended the relgious institutions of his time, the pharisees, by not following their example, but stay with the weak, the outcast, the ill, and rejected to live a life in golden wards and diamonds hanging around his neck. Why do you think they worked for getting rid of him?

Of course, the opposite also can happen: people become intolerant and fanatic in their claim to follow not the church, but the teaching of Jesus - but then, the do take him literally and by that miss the content of what he tried to say - and that then mades them the fanatic nutheads that they have become.

If you want to behave like a hate-driven, intolerant, violant powermonger on the basis of Christianity understood as the example set by Jesus, you have to abandon Jesus and have to violate his teachings. Like the church did, and still does.

If you want to behave like a hate-driven, intolerant, violant powermonger on the basis of Islam, you do not violate the Quran, but you explicitly follow it and the example set by Muhammad and the demands he raised.

I can'T understand what is wrong with so many people that they do not see this most dominant difference - it springs into the eye all by itself. Of course not every person is what he claims. Not every muslim is a muslim, and not every chrostian is a christian. However, on these two cases this statement has two very different consequences in quality. For the christian, it works to his loss and that of the people around him. For the Muslim it gains him a win, and a win for the others around him.

I realise that you are a peaceloving, polite man. It takes quite an effort to get a fight with you. However, I think you exaggerate it with that politeness and patience, because you are willing to bend some very substantial basic facts and distort a reality just to maintain a situation that allows you to claim that politeness (respect for other people'S faith) is the top priority. But it is not - not when it does damage. and religions have enjoyed this kind of forgiveness and undeserved respect already for far too long, creating a whole bloody mess by accepting it the opportunity to commence it in the name of "faith" - and needing the polite respect of undecided hesitant people like you. Without that attitude - religion would be powerless.

Compare this


Buddha once was asked how many people live a precious and valuable life, in his opinion. He answered by showing some small particles of dirt under one fingernail and saying: “Compared to the weight of all sand and dirt of the world – only that many.”

with this:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:12-14)

Both men obviously were not too optimistic about the ammount of people understanding correctly.

[asanovic7]

This skybird msg popped right out of the blue..

I have to answer..


What do you people suggest?

To kill muslims?

"F..g a.. Let's convert those bloody bastards.. They are filthy anyway!"
:rotfl:

I think talking how Islam is a threat, how there is a difference between Islam and Christianity, how they should be "sane"(!?!?!?) is rather ignorant and sad.

And it is not Islam that drives people into talks like that here, it is our fair
christians.. Jesus would be proud with you people..
IT IS not politeness(I don't know about others not I care!) that drives me to tell this, it is boredom and my sanity.. You cannot judge people because they behave differently from you.. Because they have different point of view.. That is not "polite", it is sane..

:up:

When reading s..t like this, I want to be a muslim, hate you all woodnecks, at least I would be shure I will not be on some aa meeting..

Cheers!

[Skybird]

Sure, Asanovich, Islam's content has nothing to do with it, it never has these days, and Skybird is a christian believer... Suuuuuure... The sky is green and the grass is blue.

With some people it takes a long time before their penny is dropping, but once it does it makes a nice and long echoing sound inside their heads.

[Tribesman]

So, what some narcissistic idiot named Paul has written in his letters, is not really important.
Thats funny since Paul allegedly wrote about Jesus superceding the torah in certain ways .
But OK if you think the letters are unimportant what is the provenance of the Gospels as the life words of Jesus and who were they written by and when ?
You keep on rejecting bits of scripture as unimportant because you don't like them and say the were written and influenced with different intents by the authors/authorities , yet you don't apply the same to the Gospels even though the same is true .
But what is even funnier is that when it comes to Islamic scripture you say that what was written was manipulated by the authors/authorities ovr a period of a couple of hundred years but that it is all true what was written especially the bits you don't like.
So in the one case you accept as truth the bits you like but reject the bits you don't like while in the other you accept the bits you don't like as true .
Not very consistant is it ?

[Skybird]

The gospels have been put down several deacdes after Jesus' presumed death. whether or not Jesus ever was a historic figure, still cannot be argued beyond any doubt. And it is not important one bit.

Important is the content of that scripture that the term "Christianity" is directly, beyond doubt, basing upon: the description of the Christ, and his life, whether it be fictional story-telling, or true historic report - it does not matter. the content of the gospels focussing on Jesus's life and practicing and teaching, is what it is. You could as well call them a fictional or non fictional) biography. They display the life of a historic or fictional man who lived like he was preaching. His teachings are such an such, and if you want a challenge, try to justify war, progroms and religious powerpolitics with the sermon on the mountain. (Or has obama said it in his famous religious speech before the elections: if america would follow the sermon on the mountain and by that: a teaching that is at the very heart of true Christianity, the Pentagon probably would not survive that). The fictional or non-fictional man's life is consistent with his teaching. He preached and acted peacefully, he taught self-responsibility and acted with full responsibility and in knowledge for the consequences of his way of living. He helped the ill, defended the weak, acted peacefully towards even his enemies whoim he refused to flee from or to raise his hand against, and by his consistent example set a precedent as an illustration how to acchieve inner freedom by your own deeds. It could not be any more different to the demands raised by the psychopathic deities of the old Testament, the quran, or the torah, which all base on one and the same ancient paradigm that has nothing to do with what Jesus was about: "Obey our God who demands your obedience, and if you don't he will slaughter you through our hands".

Paul - just added another, completely new layer of his own interpretation to this biography of Jesus. It does not matter that we cannot say for sure whether or not the gosepls already are interpretation, or not, the important thing is that Paul added a completely new layer of such subjective interpretation - his own, and he put it ion top of the formner layer, no matter whether the gosples are prioginal, or subjetive interpretation by somebody else. And he did so to tailor the man's meaning in a way so that he, Paul, could play an important, powerful role by referring to it and taking benefit of deeds he did not do himself, but Jesus. Paul was the first of the christian church-priests - whom are nothing else than ursupators and pompous self-declared VIPs. Or in plain English: parasites. As Nietzsche so very aggressively and so very very correctly identified Paul like this, and I agree wholeheartly with him:

Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth! … Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history - he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and invented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now appeared, had referred to his "Saviour."… Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity... The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his death - nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence - in the lie of the "risen" Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour - what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself - this would be a genuine niaiserie in a psychologist. Paul willed the end; therefore he also willed the means. - What he himself didn't believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he spread his teaching. - What he wanted was power; in Paul the priest once more reached out for power - he had use only for such concepts, teachings and sym-bols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the masses and organizing mobs. What was the only part of Christianity that Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul's invention, his device for establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the immortality of the soul - that is to say, the doctrine of "judgment".

That is a dart hitting the bull's eye three times in a row.

we also do not know for sure whether or not Muhammad has been a real historic figure, or not, there remains some doubt. And like with Jesus, it does not really matter. What matters is that, fictional or real, his tale of a biography

- shows his warlord'S life and desert bandit'S behavior to be totally consistent with what he has preached,

- what has been laid down by his secretaries in writing and what has come to appearance in the later emerging one form of the Quran during the work of the first three caliphs, after severeral versions of the Quran existed that were tailored for local powerpolitic'S interest.

Muhammad even sometimes copied suggestions by his secretary in his next preaching, which brought that one secretary into danger of getting killed, for he knew that Muhammad's Allah-sent words were not that much coming from Allah at all - the man had to flee for his life as a result.

The important thing here is that the Quaran's unpleasant features, and muhammad'S violant life, are in consistency, that muhammad and Jesus lived two forms of life that could not be any more different in orientation, and that since both men'S lives were in consistency with their preachings, the recordings of their preachings, the gospels and the quran, could not be any more different as well.

Always be aware of the "but" in Quran's writings. So many things that at first listening sound nice and well, get put into relation just short time later. And only when considering the complete contexts of the Quran, you understand it in full, and correctly. and then it is no nice message you hear, but a message of intolerance, aggression, discrimination, humiliation, subjugation. and muhammad behaved in an intolerant, aggressive, discriminating, humiliating, subjugating way as well. If that is not consistent.

I have gotten a mail while writing this, asking why I say the same things time and again. the answer is somple, dude: it may have somethign to do with the fact that it is time and again the same questions and misled misconceptions being raised in a topic like this. When the questions do not change - why should the answers?

[Onkel Neal]

Strange, Neal. In a pm you asked me to show more respect of other people's faith, but then you list plenty of reasons why this faith is not respectable.But this just on a side-note.

What I said to you in a private message is between you and me. I think that's why they call them "private" messages.

[Dowly]

Privacy is overrated (xxx is overrated is registered trademark on SubSim of Raptor1).

[Fincuan]

xxx is overrated

Now that is something I thought we'd never hear from you! What next, you start feeling sick while just thinking of JD? :haha:

[Skybird]

Strange, Neal. In a pm you asked me to show more respect of other people's faith, but then you list plenty of reasons why this faith is not respectable.But this just on a side-note.

What I said to you in a private message is between you and me. I think that's why they call them "private" messages.

True, and I therefore gave no further details on it. I just wanted you to remember that you said it, and when and in what context. It has been some time.

[Dowly]

xxx is overrated
Now that is something I thought we'd never hear from you! What next, you start feeling sick while just thinking of JD? :haha:

Actually, I feel sick thinking of JD after the last weekend.

a) It's expensive
b) I have to drink more of that than almost 3xtimes cheaper vodka
c) Last weekend didnt go that well

And xxx is overrated today. I like porn I give you that, but what happened to the good old xxx movies? You know, with storylines and big budgets. The last good one I've seen was Pirates 2, which I think came last year. Pretty darn good movie, not just for the xxx scenes but it had some pretty good humour in it too.

I give it two thumbs and a boner! :yeah:

[Fincuan]

a) It's expensive
b) I have to drink more of that than almost 3xtimes cheaper vodka


Indeed, JD isn't even on the list: http://www.isokaato.com/top2.php

Too bad all the cheap ones taste like gasoline, and we all know how well that goes down without any help... Gotta look up that Pirates btw, never even heard of it before.

[Dowly]

a) It's expensive
b) I have to drink more of that than almost 3xtimes cheaper vodka

Indeed, JD isn't even on the list: http://www.isokaato.com/top2.php

Too bad all the cheap ones taste like gasoline, and we all know how well that goes down without any help... Gotta look up that Pirates btw, never even heard of it before.

There's one I tasted week or so back called Grant's Whiskey or something like that. Not as strong as JD and almost 10€ cheaper 0,7l bottle. Too bad our Alko didnt have it last Friday on 0,7 bottles. :shifty:

As for Pirates 2, here's a trailer (Relax Nealster, it's youtube, no nudity :O: ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6iZBi3Qneg

[HunterICX]

xxx is overrated
Now that is something I thought we'd never hear from you! What next, you start feeling sick while just thinking of JD? :haha:
Actually, I feel sick thinking of JD after the last weekend.

a) It's expensive
b) I have to drink more of that than almost 3xtimes cheaper vodka
c) Last weekend didnt go that well

And xxx is overrated today. I like porn I give you that, but what happened to the good old xxx movies? You know, with storylines and big budgets. The last good one I've seen was Pirates 2, which I think came last year. Pretty darn good movie, not just for the xxx scenes but it had some pretty good humour in it too.

I give it two thumbs and a boner! :yeah:

ooook....I've seen pretty much weird turns in threads.....but it seems I havent seen it all yet :88)

HunterICX

[Jimbuna]

ooook....I've seen pretty much weird turns in threads.....but it seems I havent seen it all yet :88)

HunterICX

Well...from a different perspective....

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4610/62566857.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sometimes you can reach too far!
And when you find yourself over-extended and you're stuck in a situation that you can't get out of,
there is one thing you should always remember.......






Not everyone who shows up......

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1070/23650594.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Is there to help you!!!!

[Dowly]

That's hawt. :woot:

[Frame57]

:har: Buna! that was funny! Reminds me of the time my goat got its head stuck through a fence. Stupid goat had all the grass you could want, but Nooo, the dumb bastard had to poke his head through the fence and my neighbors dog decided to chew it off for him...:salute:

[Enigma]

the dumb bastard had to poke his head through the fence and my neighbors dog decided to chew it off for him.. ..
:o

[Jimbuna]

:har: Buna! that was funny! Reminds me of the time my goat got its head stuck through a fence. Stupid goat had all the grass you could want, but Nooo, the dumb bastard had to poke his head through the fence and my neighbors dog decided to chew it off for him...:salute:

What precisely did the dog chew :hmmm:

:DL