Could this be counter productive??? [Archive]

goldorak

04-02-10, 03:24 AM

Beside any moral assessement, Putin won some years of relative "peace" by letting the army off the chain and pound Chechnya from here to hell, and back. After they stopped doing so, the djihadists regrouped, reorganised, the violence caused by them became even more religiously motivated (if that still was possible), and under new management and with restrengthened financial funding from Saudi Terror Arabia have promised to bring terror back to Russian streets, their leaders said.

If you accuse Russia to strike them hard, you also have to accuse Saudi Terror Arabia for encoiuraging them and fianncing them to revive the djihad. Note, this is not an independence war only, nor are these people freedom fighters. They fight for establishing a Caliphate in the southern provinces of former USSR. They always did since the 80s, but the focus in he past years has shifted massively from "independence" towards "djihad".

The western world has been chasing ghosts this last decade. Its like the war on drugs, or on the mafia. Putting a streat dealer in cell might be a good public relation stunt, and in the short term is something good. But if you want to resolve the heart of the problem you go for the head. And in the case of islamic terrorism, the funding mostly comes from Saudi Arabia. Cut the head, you cripple beyond recognition these extremists groups.

Safe-Keeper

04-02-10, 04:37 AM

Bad guys fighting bad guys, in my eyes.

Tribesman

04-02-10, 04:43 AM

Beside any moral assessement, Putin won some years of relative "peace" by letting the army off the chain and pound Chechnya from here to hell, and back. After they stopped doing so, the djihadists regrouped, reorganised, the violence caused by them became even more religiously motivated (if that still was possible), and under new management and with restrengthened financial funding from Saudi Terror Arabia have promised to bring terror back to Russian streets, their leaders said.

If you accuse Russia to strike them hard, you also have to accuse Saudi Terror Arabia for encoiuraging them and fianncing them to revive the djihad. Note, this is not an independence war only, nor are these people freedom fighters. They fight for establishing a Caliphate in the southern provinces of former USSR. They always did since the 80s, but the focus in he past years has shifted massively from "independence" towards "djihad".

So after a very brutal campaign the survivors got some more foreign backing and are back now, but instead of calls of independance(and the flat out and out criminality that was prevailant there before) are playing the tune of the financiers from the crazy wahhibi version of islam(which of course Sky insists is the only true version).

Jimbuna

04-02-10, 08:40 AM

All this talk about suicide bombers is getting blown up out of proportion!

:dead:

Q3ark

04-02-10, 08:47 AM

All this talk about suicide bombers is getting blown up out of proportion!

:dead:

ha ha :rotfl2:

Skybird

04-02-10, 08:50 AM

All this talk about suicide bombers is getting blown up out of proportion!

:dead: :haha:

They blow up much younger these days, agreed. :D

P.S. Let's have a daily dose of black humour. I say Yes! to black humour. The more PC nutjobs feel offended, the better!

OneToughHerring

04-02-10, 09:07 AM

Bad guys fighting bad guys, in my eyes.

Who may I ask are the good guys then? The Americans? They've been fighting for the last decade, more or less, in Afghanistan and Iraq and that hasn't exactly been a particularly nice war either. In terms of casualties Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf the Chechen conflict. And it's not like Iraq and Afghanistan are at US's doorstep like Chechnya is to Russia.

CaptainHaplo

04-02-10, 05:23 PM

Skybird - amen brother.

The younger these idiots are when they blow themselves to tiny bits, the fewer people they have time to convert to their insanity. Of course - they totally fail to notice those exhorting them to turn themselves into smithereens never are the ones who actually do it themselves....

tater

04-02-10, 05:35 PM

I think the worse the Soviets, erm, Russians, want to notch it up the better.

It's all win. In the West, we simply cannot accept doing what was SOP during WW2, total war. We did it to the Japanese, we (the US) did it slightly less so to the Germans (cause the UK had that bit well-covered already). You know what, it worked.

Fanatical enemies need to be COWED. It's not enough to win, they need to be driven to unconditional capitulation, whatever it takes. We were absolutely, in every possible way, worse to the Japanese, both in war, and domestically than we have been to Muslims. The analogs between the war in the PTO and islam are actually pretty stunning in terms of suicidal attacks, and the great difficulty in dealing with them.

Pragmatically, the Russians kill off more loons, possible loons, and proto-loons, and become the primary focus for them perhaps instead of the US being the "great satan." Diverting them from us is a good thing, and makes our far more benign style look even more appealing.

I certainly don't cry of dead chechens. Read up on the Beslan massacre, if that happened here in the US I'd be fine with glassing the entire Muslim world over, frankly.

Note that this was not a problem before the Saudis started pushing Wahabism into an area where the Muslims used to be Sufis.

<EDIT> my comment regarding nuking them was a little over the top, I'll admit. It was in the context of a response to a hypothetical Beslan-like attack on children by Islamists—who routinely, intentionally target children. Intent matters. Holding a whole religion responsible? Religion is a choice of ideas to hold. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about her feelings post 9-11. She immediately went and looked up the quotes OBL made afterwards in claiming the attacks, assuming they would be wrong, misquoted, or sneaky interpretations. She wanted this to be true, because she was a devout Muslim woman. She found them, and read them (in Arabic, since she speaks it, and partially grew up in Saudi Arabia). They were not "hijacked" but flatly true if you believe that set of ideas (Islam). She abandoned her religion rather than accepting membership in a group that held those beliefs. Are there true moderates in Islam? Sure. Just as there are people that claim to hold any group membership, but don't ACTUALLY believe all of it. That's hypocritical, IMO. I'm not religious because I can't believe their creation stories. Nothing more. I can't pick and chose only some bits, so I'm an "unbeliever." Regardless, glassing over a billion people won't happen, and could not happen. I might wish all KKK or neo-Nazi members to spontaneously combust, and that won't happen, either (and I'd similarly not be bothered by the loss of KKK or Nazis, either, every last one of them, even credulous goons who don't really know better).

Skybird

04-02-10, 05:53 PM

Part of what the Russians do is in our national and civilisational interest, yes. Also, some of what is being done by them, is an fight of need, a battle of need.

However, many people get effected, suffer and die who have no cause they share with the thugs it is about. It must not be wished to intentionally target them, although sometimes it may be impossible to avoid accepting them being harmed, for they stand in the way of the fire reaching out at the thugs walking near them, amongst them, hiding behind them. War is not just. It only is either needed, or not.

Please keep that in mind. Being enthusiastic about a war going on, is not needed. There are human fates effected by it, and some deserve what war brings them, and others not, so - while intended killing may be needed to be done, and unintended deaths may be needed to be accepted in the cause of the first, both never must be loved.

Determination is enough.

OneToughHerring

04-02-10, 05:53 PM

Schmoochy buddies. :)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/01/0115_george_bush_getty.jpg

tater

04-02-10, 06:01 PM

Everyone buying oil is smoochy buddies with the Saudis.

We should flatten that place, frankly. Islam was less radical when fewer Muslims could actually read Arabic. The Saudis have exported teaching arabic, so Muslims are now actually reading their holy book—and since the teachings within are radical THEY are becoming more radical. Same is true of what the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing in Africa.

But by all means, blame Bush. :roll:

OneToughHerring

04-02-10, 06:23 PM

Well to a large extent I do blame Bush, or more precisely the US for creating a lot of the mess that now is the Middle-East. European colonial powers have their stake in there as well.

I don't think religion is doing for example the Palestinians any good. If they gave up their irrational religion they would be able to fight much more effectively for an independent Palestine.

Snestorm

04-02-10, 06:48 PM

Well to a large extent I do blame Bush, or more precisely the US for creating a lot of the mess that now is the Middle-East. European colonial powers have their stake in there as well.

THIS, makes sense.

Torvald Von Mansee

04-02-10, 07:11 PM

Schmoochy buddies. :)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/01/0115_george_bush_getty.jpg

I'm reminded of this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVESzTCqc50

CaptainHaplo

04-02-10, 07:44 PM

Lets examine this whole "counterproductive" idea for just a second...

Fact: Some Muslim "radicals" from Chechnya decided that, at the behest of their religion, they would plan and execute attacks against innocent Russian civilians.

Fact: These same Muslim "radicals" choose to corrupt women as well as men to carry out these attacks.

Fact: The supposedly non-radcal muslim population of Chechnya has done nothing to prevent these abhorent actions (though the claim is they do not support such acts - since "moderate" muslims never do).

Fact: If Russia does nothing, these attacks will continue unabated, and worsen in both frequency and likely in destruction

Fact: By offensive action against the areas where these plots are planned, logisticaly supported and staged from, the ability of the "radical" muslims to effectively stage such operations is diminished, thus saving the lives of russian citizens (which the government has the duty to protect).

So we end up with a binary choice ....

A) Do nothing as more of your own people are killed, eventually leading to a reduction of political power due to ruling government's inability to protect its citizenry.... OR

B) Go kill the morons killing your people, as well as those who, being guilty by LACK of action to stop said morons, which improves your standing with your own people since you are protecting them.

Gee - which choice would be "counterproductive" to the interest of the Russian government?

What has to be realized - and its demonstrated every day in the tribal areas of the middle east, is that to the muslim "extremist" - you are either FOR them, or AGAINST them - there is no middle ground. Thus, Russian leaders choose to deal with the Chechen's using the same viewpoint - you were either for them - or you would have worked to stop them.

Tribesman

04-02-10, 10:40 PM

Lets examine this whole "counterproductive" idea for just a second...
Yes lets.
Does it work?
No.
Do they know it doesn't work?
Yes.
If it doesn't work is it counterproductive?
Yes.

Thus, Russian leaders choose to deal with the Chechen's using the same viewpoint - you were either for them - or you would have worked to stop them.
So the Chechens use the same approach and either russians are fighting against their government or they are legitimate targets to be blown up.
Its a wonderful endless cycle isn't it.

Fact: If Russia does nothing, these attacks will continue unabated, and worsen in both frequency and likely in destruction

Thats a fact??????
Its a guess isn't it.

The main problem with Haplos post is he is too narrow minded, it isn't a binary choice as there are more than two choices.
Unless of course you believe that the choice is a simple one of genocide or doing nothing.

tater

04-03-10, 08:59 AM

The problems with Islam in the MIddle East have nothing to do with US politics. Real some of OBL's rhetoric. He has mentioned events that took place hundreds of years ago (by Europeans) as if they were yesterday, and goes right into beating on the US as if it was us.

The problem is with Islam itself. As an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but guess what, Islam is worst by far. The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

Skybird

04-03-10, 10:08 AM

The claim that you can only correctly understand the Quran if you read it in Arabic, is nonsense. The texts and scriptures of all cultures have been translated into world'S languages, and where the linear translation was difficult, the diversity of differing translations compensate for the loss in the single one. I have done a version of the Tao Te King myself, working with six German and three English translation and with assistance by a buddy who is Sineologist, so nobody tell me nonsens here.

When Islam claims the Quran must be red in Arabic, then this is for only just one single reason:

CONTROL.

Skybird

04-03-10, 10:22 AM

What has to be realized - and its demonstrated every day in the tribal areas of the middle east, is that to the muslim "extremist" - you are either FOR them, or AGAINST them - there is no middle ground.

To be more precise, you are either Muslim, or you are not - and this not only from"extremist's" perspective, but from a principle perspective of Islamic teaching itself. If you are not Muslim, but christian or Jew, you must be submitted and eventually are allowed to live only in an inferior, legally never equal social condition in which your discrimination by Muslims is not voluntary, but every Muslims'S obligation (to make you aware of your inferiority and the big mistake you made when not converting to Islam), and this also only if you agree to regularly pay the demanded protection money. If you are anything different, or even an atheist, you must be killed.

In this context I remind of that the western world learned a lot about slave holding - from islamo-arabic slave traders who already were there with their businss long before the first black slaves where shipped to Europe and later Northern America. the monumental genocide committed by Islam for raising its slave trade, is being ignored for the most, although it has destroyed many local tribal cultures and in form of the genocide in Darfhur and Sudan and the Christian-hunting in Nigeria is continued until today, not to mention the systematic discrimination and supression of Jews and Christians in almost every muslim country there is - while Muslims in the West enjoy far more tolerance and legal protection in Western countries than in any Muslim countries. If that is not queer! It'S jus that for Islam that is not enough. "Tolerance" in Islam's understanding means: submitting to Islam'S values in totality. Not doing so, is "intolerance".

So much for this precious dialogue with Islam that sensible Westerners hold up so high. What was it that Lenin had to say about useful idiots...

OneToughHerring

04-03-10, 10:28 AM

The problem is with Islam itself. As an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but guess what, Islam is worst by far.

Tell me exactly how Islam in the developing world is and has been worse then say Christianity?

The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

So your main problem is not so much with Islam but with the Arabic language? This is getting complicated.

tater

04-03-10, 12:08 PM

Tell me exactly how Islam in the developing world is and has been worse then say Christianity?

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

So your main problem is not so much with Islam but with the Arabic language? This is getting complicated.

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

Safe-Keeper

04-03-10, 12:23 PM

The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W. The only problem with that hypothesis is firstly that the Qur'an isn't more violent and unjust than the horrific stuff found throughout the Old and New Testament, and secondly, that I can imagine very few people reading it cover to cover if it is half as hard and dull to read (not to mention offensive) as the Bible.

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Not saying there isn't lots of scary stuff in Islam, but saying they're violent because they read the Qur'an is like saying that any German who picks up and reads a copy of Mein Kampf will inevitably turn into a Nazi. It just doesn't work that way.

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."This is the kind of hyperbole that makes people shrug and turn away whenever Islam is criticized. You're saying that 50% of Muslims, or 100% of their women, are slaves -- one hundred percent -- and you expect us to take you seriously.

Tribesman

04-03-10, 12:54 PM

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Muslims are different because accoeding to some its only the fundamentalist fruitcakes whoi are really muslims.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an
So if you take the tribal belt in Pakistan where most people are illiterate in their own language let a lone a foriegn one how are there so many fundamentalist nuts?
Ah that would be because they are being told what the book says and what it means by the fruitcakes from Saudi:up:
In the same vein other mid-east and N.african countries with high levels of literacy will be as fundamentalist as saudi if your "theory" were true. But they are not so it isn't.

and this also only if you agree to regularly pay the demanded protection money
Errrrrr....protection money? Isn't that the tax system where the people who go to a church pay church taxes and if you don't pay the church tax as you don't go to the church you pay the other tax.:har:

CaptainHaplo

04-03-10, 12:56 PM

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament - as well as trying to exclude the reality of the specific teachings of islam.

First of all, there is a reason there are two distinct "sections" of the bible - the Old being the "LAW" - which one was to obey - and did in fact have nearly countless images of violence, whereas the New transitioned from Law - to "Grace" - where violation of law could be forgiven. I challenge you to show me one single instance in violence against innocence being advocated as proper action by xtians in the new testament. They were there in the old testament - but not the new. As for the "well so in so was talking to a pharisee" - I can only assume your referencing specific letters (primarily by Paul) to various churches. While these letters were doctrinal advisements to those churches - they are currently still applicably in that they show how a person or group can wander from the proper path.

I fully recognize that there are some moral and ethical issues in the new testament (specifically on the issues of the rights of women and the lack of condemnation of slavery), yet modern doctrine has in fact adapted to this using Grace as the lever to do so.

However - therin you have the largest difference between the two religions - where Xtianity "matured" via the change from law to grace - to forgiveness rather than physical punishment for transgression - Islam never has - and never will. The Old testament held the promise of such a change in prophesy - the quran and associated works does not ever foretell of such a change in the theology. In fact, it makes it clear that such a change will not come about.

As for the "old testament" not counting - theologically - it doesnt - it has been superceded. It is a history - and a guide to the expectations of the actions a righteous man would portray - but the COMMANDMENTS are not longer commands - because violation of them no longer demands sacrifice, only repentance - for the sacrifice has already been paid. The old testament becomes thus a guardrail - with the new testament grace being the tow truck that can pull your soul out of the ditch should you drive off the road.

Regarding women and islam - when the holy texts make it clear that the woman has no rights over and above what her husband or father grant unto her, what exactly would you call her? After all - the honor of the male outweighs the life of the female in islam - which is why "honor" killings are justified in islam. So if a female life is less than some nebulous mental abstract in your head, if a female has no control over her own life - but is at the direction of a Patriarch at all times - even to the point where he can kill her if he feels like it - what exactly would you classify a woman as? If you take the texts literally - which you want to do so badly with xtian texts - then a woman is property under islam. Yet again - xtianity has moderated - islam has not. In fact - only where the literacy of the commoner is such that they cannot read what they believe is there any "moderation" - not in the religion - but in how it is carried out.

It is not hyperbole that you choose to ignore - but reality. In doing so, you choose to wear blinders - so don't be suprised if your blindsided.

Tribesman

04-03-10, 01:03 PM

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament
Don't listen Safe Keeper, the preacher man can't even get his claims right about the new testament which he claims to follow.:har::har::har::har:

OneToughHerring

04-03-10, 01:25 PM

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

Just like women are treated badly in markedly christian communities.

And BTW, what has enabled the wealth of the various mostly christian western nations? War and subjugation of the rest of the world. So if the muslims were to follow the west's lead they would most certainly try to take over the world through war. Are you saying they shouldn't be as power hungry as the christians?

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

So you'd rather keep the people in the developing nations illiterate? The Quran has been translated to English too you know so even if they learned to speak bad English as the Americans they would still have access to it.

Maybe literacy levels aren't the problem here either.

Skybird

04-03-10, 03:50 PM

Oh Mann, Islamophilia has struck again.

http://www.amazon.de/Allahs-Schleier-Frau-Kampf-Kulturen/dp/3776623667/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270325661&sr=1-25

A woman is possession of her man.

She is life stock that is breeding Muslims for the islamic missionising effort of the future, and djihad. Compares to the role of fertile healthy women in Nazi Germany's vision of family planning: "soldiers for the Führer". That way, women also are the major weapon for demographic warfare. Algeria's dictator Boumedienne told the UN: "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." The palestinians are breeding as if it were the last year on earth, palestinian birth rates create an imemnse pressure in the palestinian territories, and inside israel - a threatening developement of Israel that in europe nobody want to hear of. In Europe, Muslim birth rates are such that Muslim social low classe shift the social and demographic balances of the infested nations towards growing influence on education, politics, legislation and law enforcement.

Women are driven by satanic energy, their desires must be controlled by their husband by "discharging" them in the act of sexual intercourse that is strictly controlled by religious dogma and magic beliefs to keep the process under control so that Satan cannot be set free, only weakened when discharging his energy. For the same reason, cintrolling satan, women must be whipped and must be kept in an obeident, passive, weak state. they are dangerous. Sexual intercourse is like opening a security valve before the pot explodes and all the demonic energy is set free. Call the ghost busters, so to speak.

By nature, women are dirty, and demonic. In many places their lifes is worth less than the life of a village dog.

Beating women is recommended, for the above reasons, if they are disobedient - or if not.

A man can have up to four wifes. but no wife can have four men.

A legal statement by a women is not even half the worth like a legal cofnession of a man. Reports by male witnesses weigh heavier. A female's testimony is inferior to that of male witnesses.

Women's right to claim a hertitage is only for half of the heritage that a man deserves.

So much for the dogma's ruling. Additionally the reality in islamic societies and Western colonies:

Hundreds of women get stoned to death every year.

Millions of women live in life-long captivity, never leaving the house.

Their life expectancy suffers substantially because of their lack of movement outside the household. Female muslim examiners and apostates report of high numbers od depressions and other related psychological syndrtome that do not get treated, but maybe even win sthem additonal abuse and penalty by their husbands.

Millions of girls get traded as brides without ever being asked.

Millions of women get beaten, whipped, and abused.

Thousands of girls and women get murdered by their family after gotten raped. Becasue they are guilty of having gotten raped.

Now find comapring ratios for legalsied crimes against women in the Wetsern socieites, Safe Keeper.

Western law protects women'S rights. Quranic law dstroys women's rights. the difference is developement here, aphatic stagnation there. The difference is that in the Islamic world the time stands still since almolst one and a half century. The claims made by some ancient bandit for self-justification during the medieval are still valid, and taken literally.

there is no point in nicetalking women'S miserable role in islam. It mocks the fight for equality and liberty of Muslim women rights activists, and renders their personal sacrifices and risks as useless. It prevents islam from ever needing to consider asking critical questions about itself. It prevents right that reformation of islam that Western useful idiots so hopefully wait for. As long as useful idiots refuse to confront Islam with critical questions aboiut it'S self-understanding, and allow it to just ,ove on unchnaged and all others are adapting to it, islam will not stop.

Because then it has no reason to stop.

Before anything else, Islam needs a sexual revolution, and a breakthrough in women's rights and equality and freedoms.

And for a final shot, I read Churchill being quoted from his writing in "The River War", 1899:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Islam is the greatest of all slave holders there ever have been.

OneToughHerring

04-03-10, 04:09 PM

Skybird,

I think you're just projecting your own hatred of women.

Oberon

04-03-10, 04:32 PM

This thread =

http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/is_my_dog_normal_slideshow/corbis_rf_photo_of_dog_chasing_tail.jpg

End.

tater

04-03-10, 05:47 PM

The "West" is effectively Christian. You can make make a false argument based on tiny subclasses of "fundamentalist" Christians living in compounds someplace, but in actual practice, the West that we know is Christian taken as a whole. Women are free, and equal.

Islam, on the other hand, is absolutely, without question misogynistic, and backwards. Women are not full people. Look at the way they treat homosexuals as well. Islamic society has nothing to recommend it.

Regarding war and subjugation to get the West where it is now, who cares? They are welcome to try, IMHO, and we should fight them the way we fight for real. Again, think WW2. They can attack, that's their prerogative, we should fight back in the style of Curtis LeMay.

I hold them to no special standard.

Keeping them illiterate? I said only that in terms of keeping Muslims less radical, illiteracy is desirable. That is because Islam itself is dangerous. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a debate I saw, as long as the Koran exists, anyone who can read it can resurrect "islamism" by doing no more than reading the qur'an and haddith. It's all there in black and white. Since this will not in fact happen, we can expect a larger and larger % of Muslims to hold what we would call "fundamentalist" beliefs. Note that Judaism and Christianity have large numbers of non-fundamentalist adherents. ALL sects of Islam are fundamentalist by the same standards (literalism).

Christians have certainly been violent, but unlike Islam, violence is actually a perversion of their faith (I'm an atheist, remember, don't think I have a dog in this fight). If Christians acted like their savior, they'd be pacifists. Is Muslims act like their prophet, they are violent, generals, spreading their faith at sword point.

Al Qaida is NOT a perversion of Islam, it is simply Islam.

Islam needs a reformation of some sort, but again, it will only be distanced from its inherit violence and misogyny by choosing not to read it.

You always find that there are no shortages of people willing to attack Christianity, yet defend Islam. Attacking BOTH is just fine, but I always see people giving Islam a pass. Christianity is better than Islam---I say this as an atheist---because in spite of Christianity, Christendom created secular, pluralistic, liberal societies. This is a fact---we are communicating as a direct result of this fact. Islam is regressive.

Skybird makes an excellent post, BTW.

IMHO, the "solution" to Islam is only to debauch them with our culture, and NEVER let them win the fight of "multiculturalism" or political correctness. When they come to the West, they need to assimilate, period. That means that they wear bathing suits to the beach or pool---men and women together--and they get no special mediation of marriages, etc (no sharia, thank you). We cannot stop them being backwards scumbags at home, but we can respond not with proportionate, but disproportionate force to attacks.

OneToughHerring

04-03-10, 05:55 PM

Ok let's get rid of multiculturalism. Let's start with razing the US to the ground.

Skybird

04-03-10, 06:03 PM

Some nice summary being done here:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch9.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/index.html

Yeah yeah, I know it is a Christian website posting these texts. But what I have read over there about Islam, matches what I know about it, so i would be stupid to skip it just becasue I do not like the messenger eventually (I haven't checked the latter - callme a pragmatic atheist then :) )

The book "Allahs Schleier" that I linked above probably is the best on the role of women and their meanign for the culture clash that I have ever read about women&Islam.

In the end, it all comes down to Muhammad's assessment of women:

"The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that for a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' "

OneToughHerring

04-03-10, 06:09 PM

The problems with Islam in the MIddle East have nothing to do with US politics. ...

Oh yea that's a lie too.

tater

04-03-10, 07:20 PM

Ok let's get rid of multiculturalism. Let's start with razing the US to the ground.

Ah, intelligent commentary.

Multiculturalism is the celebration and enablement of "differences" between peoples. The true, American version---which is sadly in decline in favor of European "multiculturalism"---has traditionally been called "the melting pot."

In that system, new peoples come to the US, and the US absorbs some of what they have to offer and in return they integrate and become less liketheir starting culture, and more like the melted "mess" of the rest of us. Their children are "American" and not some XXXXX-american label.

My grandmother was born in Sweden, for example, my father and uncles are "American" and not "Swedish-American."

Oh yea that's a lie too.
No, it's simple fact. Islam is a problem regardless of the presence of the US or not. Islam attacks the kafir where they find them. The problem is not the US, it's not colonialism, it's Islam. Does that mean there has never been part of the problem related to colonialism (almost entirely non-American, BTW)? No, without Islam we'd also have seen some turmoil regarding the end of the colonial period as we've seen in sub-saharan Africa, and Asia. None the less, the specific flavor of the problem would be entirely different. Again, look to non-muslim Africa and Asia for what to expect.

The US has had troubles since the Washington Administration. We did nothing to them AT ALL, but they felt it was their right under the Qur'an to attack and take us as slaves since we were in the dar al harb (house of war). The US response vs the Barbary "pirates" (really jihadists sanctioned by the Ottoman Empire) was just that, a response to attacks on peaceful merchant shipping in the med.

Skybird

04-04-10, 02:54 AM

Islam claims supreme reign and knows no multiculturalism, only monoculturalism.

Terms like peace, tolerance, coexistence, equality, freedom, multiculturalism all must accept castration by Islam supremacism. It defines the meaning and the limits of these terms, and ensures dominant ruling by Sharia and Quran. Western understanding of these terms has nothing to do with it.

Islamophile useful idiots strongly refuse to recognise that, for it would render their hopes meaningless and ultimately end their quarrel with resistance to Islam (at least as long as they do not have a crush for totalitarianism itself).

Tribesman

04-05-10, 02:44 AM

Muslim birth rates are such that Muslim social low classe shift the social and demographic balances of the infested nations towards growing influence on education, politics, legislation and law enforcement.

Another demonstration that skybirds hatred really is akin to that from 1930s germany.
Replace the word Muslim with Jew and you have a nice film by Eberhard Taubert.

In this context I remind of that the western world learned a lot about slave holding - from islamo-arabic slave traders who already were there with their businss long before the first black slaves where shipped to Europe and later Northern America.
I could have sworn the first big shipments of black slaves to Europe would have been many many centuries before there was such a thing as Islam.
Come to think of it the two cultures that are described as the cradle of western civilisation shipped slaves from all over the place.
Maybe it was time travelling muslims that taught them, you know how sneaky those infectious parasites are, the Eternal Muslim swarming like rats through time and space breeding good germans out of existance and getting their evil claws into education politics legislation and law enforcement as part of their global conspiracy....hey skybird missed out the media...the global media is run by the muslim horde.

My grandmother was born in Sweden, for example, my father and uncles are "American" and not "Swedish-American."

Really?
Yet in Boston on paddys day how many narrowbacks could you find claiming to be Irish-American because of some great great great grandmother they think came from County Dingle.

tater

04-05-10, 02:47 PM

Really?
Yet in Boston on paddys day how many narrowbacks could you find claiming to be Irish-American because of some great great great grandmother they think came from County Dingle.

This very post proves it true. Some people who have zero cultural affinity with Irish culture (ie: actual culture practiced in Ireland) claim to be more closely related because of some nonsensical drop of blood someplace. My grandmother had a very irish maiden name, and her mother was in fact born there. That said, I'd never suggest that I'd have more in common with someone because of a surname someplace in the family history, that's absurd.

I have more in common culturally with virtually any 3d generation+ american selected at random than I do with someone picked at random from a country represented by some surname in my family heritage. Obviously if you are naturalized, or your parents were, you might have more customs still from wherever "the old country" might have been.

It's funny that sometimes nationality gets taken as "race." Even more silly when one considers that "race" is pretty much meaningless anyway.

Tribesman

04-05-10, 03:47 PM

This very post proves it true.
Actually it proves your point false.
The "true american" version you claim is sadly in decline never really existed.

BTW you keep saying about equality and the wonderful freedom for women. My memory is a bit fuzzy about primogeny could you remind me again when exactly all this womens equality came about? maybe for example use a bastion against the islamic horde like switzerland, when did they get dragged kicking and screaming to actually dilute some of their institutionalised misogeny?

tater

04-05-10, 05:09 PM

Actually it proves your point false.
The "true american" version you claim is sadly in decline never really existed.

BTW you keep saying about equality and the wonderful freedom for women. My memory is a bit fuzzy about primogeny could you remind me again when exactly all this womens equality came about? maybe for example use a bastion against the islamic horde like switzerland, when did they get dragged kicking and screaming to actually dilute some of their institutionalised misogeny?

The melting pot certainly existed, and frankly mostly exists. So-called multiculturalism has also existed with immigrant groups forming enclaves of "sameness," as well. None the less, for the most part, immigrants in this country do assimilate. Even Muslims, actually, which is why US Muslims are less extremist than European Muslims (at least according to polls conducted by outfits like PEW). None the less, they still hold views well outside norms for Americans at large (60% disapproval with al qaida is is 40% pro, or lukewarm towards AQ (having no opinion on such a poll is tantamount to support, IMO)).

That said, much of pluralistic, liberal western civilization is at odds with basic Muslim beliefs. Note that I'm just as vigorous in arguing against prayer in school, ID, or any other attempt by religion to invade public policy. Frequently those who would join such a fight in the US if the antagonist was a Baptist give a pass if he's a Muslim, however.

What do you mean by "primogeny?" I'm unfamiliar with the term (as is google).

Primatology?

Equality is something defined by law, except perhaps where those in the West might use the concept of "Natural Rights" as the US Founding Fathers did. In the West, women have no really had equality for very long.

Skybird

04-05-10, 05:27 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,686906,00.html

The interesting thing about Kelek is that she defends all of the terms that form the basis of German society: freedom, democracy, enlightenment, secular order, civil society. Yet in doing so, she draws harsh criticism from Germans. She's a woman who makes people uneasy. But why?
(...)
Oddly enough one of the things that can make a conversation with Kelek somewhat disconcerting is the enthusiasm with which she praises freedom. It's unfamiliar because Germans don't talk this way anymore.
(...)
It pains Kelek that she rarely meets Germans capable of mentioning the word "freedom" without immediately alluding to the downsides, whether it be obsessive consumption or pornography. Perhaps it's necessary to have experienced a lack of freedom in order to have such enthusiasm for it. And once the unease subsides, it's actually gratifying to experience Kelek's enthusiasm for the foundations of Western society.
(...)
There are two reasons, it seems, why Germans often make lousy defenders of their own values -- their detachment and their fear of being accused of intolerance. But a free society needs enthusiasts like Kelek. Otherwise, it risks becoming cynical.
Kelek finds herself in a dilemma familiar to all those who defend freedom and tolerance -- namely, that freedom can never be complete freedom, and tolerance never complete tolerance. This means that a rational person who fights for freedom and tolerance is necessarily also always fighting for intolerance and a lack of freedom. In other words, those who fight for tolerance must also be intolerant of those who are intolerant.
(...)
What happens in mosques and Koran schools, she adds, should be transparent and founded on Germany's democratic constitutional order. "Religion," she declares, "is part of freedom. It does not stand above it."

Tribesman

04-05-10, 06:36 PM

What do you mean by "primogeny?"
Sorry its primogeniture, specificly the western tradition enshrined in "christian" law where people are not equal, especially not women.

The melting pot certainly existed, and frankly mostly exists.
Did it really? So what does it say back in the beginning are the requirements for an immigrant to join the "melting pot"? Is it a case of hey America is founded on the basis that all men are created equal and anyone can come and be a naturalised american?

Equality is something defined by law
It is, and much of it is very recent from a historical perspective and really took a lot of fighting to achieve.
Which kinda puts a damper on your bit about western values and equality doesn't it as they really had to struggle to get them introduced.

tater

04-05-10, 08:19 PM

Learn something new every day (primogeniture—I knew the concept, not the word).

As for equality, that's sort of my point WRT Christianity. Equality might well have come about IN SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it did come about—as did all the other things we happily live under in the Western world.

I don;t see that happening under Islam.

CaptainHaplo

04-05-10, 11:10 PM

Tribesman

04-06-10, 02:20 AM

I don;t see that happening under Islam.
Have you looked, daffy might be as nutty as a sack of almonds but what can you tel me about womens rights ion Libya,? after all he does say tha nations laws are based on Sharia so what does it do for things like inheritance, property rights, custody, divorce ....just some of the thing women in the west fought to achieve.

As for equality, that's sort of my point WRT Christianity. Equality might well have come about IN SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it did come about—as did all the other things we happily live under in the Western world.

Thats interesting though isn't it, "in spite of". Someone put a quote earlier about the balance of science and knowledge in the west working against the fruitier claims of the religions. We see that balance being eroded now by the fundamentalists who reject science.
Which is another interesting thing, you made a slightly off claim earlier about literacy. Whereas the reality is that the fundamentalists take their oil dollars and set up "schools" to teach their own version of religion and education. We are getting a lot of fundies in the west teaching their own versions now ain't we, either from removing people from the education system or making the education sysyem adopt their fundamentalist dogma.
One more question for ya though tater, there are many many versions and derivatives of islam, several people have said the only real version is the nutty fruitcake fundamentalist version. If you take the two worst fundy versions around how old are they? After all if they are the truest versions they must be amongst the oldest(think about the link with science and knowledgeand its bgalancfe effect against narrow dogma).

Ya know - had someone said "raghead" for an Arab, or "spic" for a Hispanic, or the "N" word for a black person it would be an "offense" - but because its an insult to a race that consists of "whites", it apparently gets a pass.

Too funny.
You really should remain in ignorance, though it would be good if you would actually address the gaping holes in your knowledge of scripture you regularly display.
But its OK your little rant there displays more of your ignorance.
So despite getting the definition wrong can you explain how a "white irishman" using the disparaging term(under your definition or another) can be construed as racist?

Skybird

04-06-10, 03:39 AM

I had to actually unignore Tribesman for a few minutes to read his post - and sure enough he did what state what was quoted...

"Narrowbacks" - a lazy, no good irish person...

I could have sworn that racism (Irish is a race of people after all) - was against the rules around here. Course, at least I can say I am not suprised by the source, though normally its another poster in the same vein ranting about nationalities.

Ya know - had someone said "raghead" for an Arab, or "spic" for a Hispanic, or the "N" word for a black person it would be an "offense" - but because its an insult to a race that consists of "whites", it apparently gets a pass.

Pathetic :down:

I would not talk of "race", but "people" and/or "cultures/societies" (=Volk, Völker).

Biologically, within a claimed racial group there are as many genetic variations as there are between races. The quality of these differences is different, but numerically there seem to be even more variations withoin a race group than between them.

The term "race" explicitly leaves out factors that are even more decisive to form the trenches, walls and differences between people: "race" does neither include politic ideologies, nor national sentiments, it leaves out cultural context of social envrionments and religious concepts. Arguing with "race" pays too much attention to physical differences, and ignores too many mental, abstract, artificial, envrionmental differences.

Seen that way I would enver think of the Irish as a "race". Nor is Islam a race, or Chriostian fundamentalists, or the Republicans, or the players in my old chessclub back in Berlin.

The EU's PC brigade, the poltiical left and especially our islamophile Gutmenschen have linked the term "race" to "religion" nevertheless, so that it can brandmark any opposition to its big sociological experiment in Europe to turn it over, and any criticism of relgion in general and Islam in special, as "racism". Tribesman also loves to do right that. But such claims have no basis, obviously, they are anti-intellectual, and propaganda strategies to silence opponents in opinion by accusing them of the worst crime there is in the PC world: "hate crimes". In other words - yelling loud so that the other cannot be heared.

Nation - is not a race. Religion - is not a race. Culture - is not a race. Politic ideology - is not a race. Criticising nations, religions, cultures, politcal ideologies therefore cannot be racism: discriminating judgements of memebers of other races whose differences are taken as evidence for their inferiority based on genetic characteristics. Any political ambition to link critical arguments against religion, politiics and culture with "racism", can be written down in papers, and can be turned into treaties, official declarations and even laws - but it remains to be a contradiction in itself, an obvious propaganda stunt, a declaration of intellectual bancruptcy. This remains so even if people are too loose to use the term racism, and in politics it is en vogue to swing th term like a waraxe. For example turkey's Erdoghan has been accused of racism when he declared recently that eventually Turkey will deport all Armenians living in turkey if they do not submit to the supremacist claim for dominance by Turkey and fully submit to Turkish statehood. Eventually I accused him of racism myself, in a moment of verbal comfortability and to make the arugment flowing easy. But more precisely, it is Turkish ultranationalism, and supremacism. As far as I know he has not accused the Armenians to be inferior because they are just that: an ethnic group called Armenians. On the othe rhand, racism it was what tzhe Nazis did: claiming the wickedness and inferiority of Jews on the basis of a questionable race theory that thoight of Judaism as a biologically frounded category, it seems. That racism went so far that here a group of humans was degraded so much that it even fell mout of the race theory, and declared as another "species" in general, "animals", leaving them no human attribute anymore that would identitfy them as "man". Only this dehumanisation explains why it is possible in big genocides or the holocaust that humans treat other humans in the way it happens duirng such horrific events. The nazis finally treated the Jews and "processed" them like any industrial other resource, may it be cattle or mineral ore.

Tribesman

04-06-10, 04:30 AM

The EU's PC brigade, the poltiical left and especially our islamophile Gutmenschen have linked the term "race" to "religion" nevertheless, so that it can brandmark any opposition to its big sociological experiment in Europe to turn it over, and any criticism of relgion in general and Islam in special, as "racism". Tribesman also loves to do right that.
Don't talk bollox.
That is to do with illegal discrimination, so just as you can't refuse service or employment to someone because they are Polish you cannot refuse them because they are hindu.
The expansion of the legislation to include culture(which includes religion) is because narrow minded bigots discriminate on many grounds including nationality and religion.
It funny really, if those hate filled bigots from back in the '30s whose words sound very much like yours didn't make institutionalised discrimination based on religion such a major issue then bodies formed after that conflict might not feel the need to be taking such a strong view on the bigotry.

tater

04-06-10, 04:18 PM

Religion is not an "indelible" trait. It is a CHOICE to believe (without proof, into the bargain) a set of ideas. It only becomes a racist thing when it is dealt with as race, and not voluntarily held ideas. Violence is not acceptable vs ideas. Rhetoric, OTOH, is perfectly acceptable vs ideas.

It is wrong-headed to consider it protected from public commentary. Since it is nothing more than a set of ideas, discussing—even arguing— the ideas IS THE POINT.

Wicked ideas are wicked, and calling them wicked is not a bad thing.

Anyone who thinks that women are lesser beings in terms of their place in society and law—for whatever reason—is an idiot. Period. If a set of people chose to believe that without proof, they are still idiots.

Libya?

Having some rights, or better rights than medieval dirt farmers in europe is faint praise. They have rights, but they are not equal rights. They inherit less, they have different rules for divorce than men. How do they count in court again? They are not allowed to take multiple husbands, but their husbands may take multiple wives, no? Divorce? It is my understanding that while women can initiate it, the man must consent in most countries, whereas the man can divorce literally at will just by declaring it a few times.

Regarding other fundamentalists—guess what, they are scumbags, too, if their beliefs leave their own brains and affect anyone else through their actions. Anyone who believes any arbitrary text to be the unerring, literal truth is... I don't even know where to begin. None the less, I live in a culture that is basically very tolerant, pluralistic, and enlightened, and it came out of a largely Christian culture. That doesn't make me religious—I'm not—but it does make me at least recognize what would not be possible if I lived under the thumb of a different set of literalists (note that unlike Islam, there are significant, non-literalist Christian sects).

What is the penalty in law in the West—even in countries with an official, Christian church—for apostasy?

Right, there is none.

What is the societal penalty in the same countries?

Right, none to speak of.

If I had been born in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, what would happen if I admitted that I left the faith to become an atheist, agnostic, or even some other religion?

Nothing?

What's the official punishment in the Bible for apostasy? (I really have no idea)

What's the official punishment in the Koran/Hadith for apostasy?

Death, right? That one is not even controversial as I recall.

Sorry, but anyone that claims that the freedom to change your mind about a personal matter of faith should be punished at all, much less death is evil. As is anyone who believes it.

To tribesman's credit, he's at least arguing. We have others on this earth who murder people over movies and cartoons.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 04:59 PM

Tater - to answer your question regarding Biblical teachings on apostasy - there are many differing thoughts - however they center on whether an apostate (a true believer who choses to forsake the faith) loses their salvation or not. There is no New Testament "rule" regarding punishment of apostasy, since punishment in our terms denotes a sense of physical damage. While there is an advisement for those of the Faith to both pity and render spiritual aid (as in trying to reconvert them) - they are also advised to "forsake" that person if such attempts fail. This means simply to no longer associate with that person. This does not mean you couldn't say hello to them at the grocery store, or offer them help should they need it - but it does mean you are advised not to go play golf with them (modern day examples).

The whole idea of the Xtian faith is such that their apostasy is not a matter for another person to judge or punish - because the sin of denial is not against the believer, but against God, and as such God will punish it as is appropriate in His will. Thus, the punishment is spiritual in nature, and beyond the realm of humanity. This is why the question of whether an apostate loses their salvation is so debated.

The Old Testament does not deal directly with apostasy either, though there it is often claimed that because the worship of false gods demanded death, apostasy had to as well. There is no biblical statement to that effect, unless one makes the arguement that "the wages of sin is death" and apostasy is a sin. Even so - theologically in this case death is still a spiritual matter - not a physical one.

Even if modern theology is in error on the issue of apostasy in the Old Testament, its a moot point since the NT changes the rules - from "Law" to guide. Its also worth noting that if one were to be "fundamentalist" on the guide - you would still have to reconcile the "law" of execution regarding worship of false gods with the commandment of "Thou shall not kill." Obviously, there isn't a big call for Xtians to go out and execute tree hugging dirt worshippers - nor should there be.

On the issue of the status of women, the "liberalization" of the bible started during OT times - and has continued to today. Its worth noting that even in the time of Jesus - and if one takes scripture literally, Jesus condoned - the lesser status of women, as well as the institution of slavery, among other things seen as "evil" by modern society.

Anyone seen any of that in Islam? Guess not..... LOL

Tribesman

04-06-10, 07:23 PM

It is wrong-headed to consider it protected from public commentary.
There is nothing wrong with public commentary, its when that commentry crosses the bounds it becomes a problem.
For example Wilders can say what he likes about the religion , it can be debated wether he mainly tells the truth or largely talks absolute sensationalist bollox. However when he wants people to have restricted rights or be stripped of their citizenship because of their religion he moves into a different league.
Likewise with Skybird , he puts together some very good arguements and can develop them to a good depth, but then goes off on his little conspiracy nonsense where we must force a confrontation because everyone is a fundamentalist out to conquer the world by having babies and killing unbelievers while being in cahoots with a secret clique of western politicians working under the infamous imaginary treaties.

Libya?

Yes Libya, after all the claim was that all the countries treat their women as complete ****.
So when it comes to the application of family law and the women has more rights than the man it does shoot that arguement down doesn't it.

BTW any thoughts on that question I asked you about the versions and derivatives?
After all several people keep saying Islam needs a reformation, since the reformation is only one of the many schisms christianity has been through how many has Islam been through and how many differnt flavours are there apart from the fundy nutty flavours?
Take for example that big mosque in Switzerland, one of the two that have towers already so are not afected by the ban on new minaret. Thats an "apostate" groups mosque isn't it, how are there so many of them in the world, surely as apostasy means death they should have been wiped out years ago.
Its worth noting that even in the time of Jesus - and if one takes scripture literally, Jesus condoned - the lesser status of women, as well as the institution of slavery, among other things seen as "evil" by modern society.

It is worth noting that people who take scripture literally are the fundamentalists, which is true in all the big three.
In all three it is also true that the fundamentalist fruitcakes we hear about so often now are a fairly modern development.

tater

04-06-10, 07:31 PM

What major sects of Islam are not fundamentalist (using the same "literalist" definition used for Christians)?

One more question for ya though tater, there are many many versions and derivatives of islam, several people have said the only real version is the nutty fruitcake fundamentalist version. If you take the two worst fundy versions around how old are they? After all if they are the truest versions they must be amongst the oldest(think about the link with science and knowledgeand its bgalancfe effect against narrow dogma).

I know of no major sects that do not believe in the inerrant Koran, or what I'd call "biblical literalism" if it were Baptists.

I saw a video of a debate where Hitchens (again, lol) quoted a moderate European Imam (swiss?) who was questioned about apostasy, and the Islamic penalty. He tried to deflect saying that it was not pragmatically possible to murder all apostates, but he couldn't say that death was not the ideal, koranic penalty (because it IS). And he was supposed to be hyper moderate.

What major Islamic sects accept evolution? Which say that murdering apostates is wrong?

I'm genuinely curious. I don't doubt there might be some, but what is their total membership compared to the Sunni, Shia, etc?