Caveman makes the world moving backwards in time again

[Skybird]

Head in the sand again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10418643.stm

Hopeless, these people.

Or as an author put it in a German blog yesterday: thinking of a chance for moderate or modern Islam is like thinking of chances for dry water.

[Betonov]

my bosnian co-workers are moderate muslim.
they drink beer, eat pork and respond to a anti-islam joke with another joke or an anekdote
we should send bosnians to tour the middle east, the entire region would become moderate and they would start to serve excellent grilled meat

[Safe-Keeper]

Or as an author put it in a German blog yesterday: thinking of a chance for moderate or modern Islam is like thinking of chances for dry water. Why does this bother you when you yourself condemn moderate Islam to the degree you do? Remember the thread where you went haywire because Muslims were building a community centre in NYC with the intent to (in addition to providing local residents with a swimming pool and other facilities) express and promote a moderate, peaceful, tolerant version of Islam?

my bosnian co-workers are moderate muslim.
they drink beer, eat pork and respond to a anti-islam joke with another joke or an anekdote Oh, but they're not True Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman) and should be killed according to the Qur'an, so they don't count.

[krashkart]

Awww, those poor things. Are they trying to hide in the Dark Ages again? :har:

[GoldenRivet]

Fact is that Islam is a religion - more so an ideology - of control and intolerance.

As a whole - muslim men must have the smallest genitalia of any bipedal organism on the face of the earth... they dont let their women drive, or learn etc because they are afraid of losing control.

much like some men cant stand for their women to have "girls night out" or wish they wouldnt talk to guys.

its pathetic.:nope:

[Tribesman]

Why does this bother you when you yourself condemn moderate Islam to the degree you do?
Exactly, to Skybird anything other than the modern fundamentalist version is not a muslim, so the new version is an unchanging dark ages ideology and all the other flavours new and old are ....well they don't count because the new crazy ones are the true ones and always have been since before they were invented

[krashkart]

Any way you slice it there isn't a whole lot of 'acceptance of reality' going on over there. Today's technology has opened the door to the widest distribution of information and opinion ever seen in human history. I suspect that the government of Pakistan is doing what is necessary to keep order. The people won't protect themselves from their own emotions, so it's the leadership that must do it for them. I write this despite the article pointing out that Musharraf at one time filtered content that he thought was inappropriate. But perhaps he also had the foresight and did that to keep his people sedate.

*sigh* I hope that there will come a day when they learn that they cannot run from reality, because the truth is that there will always be some smartass out there who wants to draw a funny picture of Muhammad. Laughter is a healthy thing. It's just so very unfortunate that it sometimes leads to mass riots and truck bombings. :-?

[Betonov]

Oh, but they're not True Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman) and should be killed according to the Qur'an, so they don't count.
NOOOOOOOOO, who will build slovenias highways and make kebabs if they die

[Skybird]

Why does this bother you when you yourself condemn moderate Islam to the degree you do? Remember the thread where you went haywire because Muslims were building a community centre in NYC with the intent to (in addition to providing local residents with a swimming pool and other facilities) express and promote a moderate, peaceful, tolerant version of Islam?

I just had a vision of a Nazi information bureau near the camp of Auschwitz, to promote a liberal, democratic version of Nazism and promote "Mein Kampf" as an essay on multicultural tolerance.

Oh, but they're not True Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman) and should be killed according to the Qur'an, so they don't count.

Subjugating or killing of non-Muslims is mandatory according to ol brother Muhammad himself. And since all teaching of islam and the Quran itself goes back to Muhammad's sermons... well...there you are.
Show me any other imaginable form of Islam (academically more precisely called Muhammedanism, and that is not for no reason) that does not base on Muhammad or the Quran! Of course you can form many other ideologies and systems of thought or belief, excluding both Quran or muhammad. But that then is XYZism - not Islam. Islam is what bases on the Quran and Muhammad. Any debate trying to reject this basis is completely pointless in that it only leads to the use of labels and terms that have zero meaning anymore and thus are demanded to mean EVERYthing. Like "moderate Islam" for example. Liberal Nationalsocialism. Humanistic Stalinism. Christian inquisition. A free prisoner. A right wrong-doer. A woman-loving rapist. An upoper down. A left on the right. A blueish red. A silent noise. Calling peaceful an ideology that calls for terror against tolerant people or multiculturalists.

No power to the stupid! No tolerance for the intolerant! No respect for what dispises everything but itself! No freedom for what destroys freedom! Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. (Thomas Mann)

[Tribesman]

Show me any other imaginable form of Islam (academically more precisely called Muhammedanism, and that is not for no reason) that does not base on Muhammad or the Quran!
The fault there as usual is that Sky only calls a literalist interpretation of certain verses true islam which ignores that literalism is the crazy fundy way with scripture and that the koran itself is contradictory in those verses the nuts like to focus on.

I just had a vision of a Nazi information bureau near the camp of Auschwitz,
But surely Sky is in favour of the holocaust, after all he says in time of war there can be no morals and no law as those are just illusionary fig leafs that the weak willed try to sanitise life with, so there just must just be slaughter until the job is done.
Which also means he supports the terrorism he says he condemns and supports the fundamentalist nuts he clearly thinks are great scholars.

[Respenus]

Tribesman, the fact of the matter is, that Muslim scholars in the West, no less, still regard Islam as Islam. There shall be NO (re)interpretation of Islamic dogma, there shall be no abrogation. There is Islam and while they admit that it has come under the influence of "Westernization" and globalization, meaning the the social structures in which Muslims live have changed, the norms and values in their private lives remain the same. The best they can do, is that dogma must be "reshaped" in new fatwas (religious legal ruling) which would better serve Muslims living in the West. Again, just changing what you say, not the content itself. Imagine what those still in the Middle East or other religiously fanatical countries might say to that, yet alone living a secular existence. One more thing, if we remain in Europe. Muslims do not have any legal precedence for being a minority. Guess where that leads. While I'm not saying every Muslim is willing to blow himself up, there are those groups which support the teaching of Mohammed quietly and those who use words and even violence to try and enforce it in the West.

If you are willing to read up, here are two books which I would recommend and which I used in my latest essay on Islam in the West. The first one is by Roy Olivier, called Globalized Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Globalized-Islam-Comparative-Politics-International/dp/0231134983); the other is a collection of texts, edited by Esposito and Burgat, named Modernizing Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Modernizing-Islam-Religion-Public-Sphere/dp/0813531977): Religion in the Public Sphere in the Middle East and Europe.

As far as Bosnians go, well as one of my professors would say (a cultorologist (the study of cultures, sp?) no less): While they do deserve to practice their religion and as such should be given a mosque, they should also adapt to the modern world and accept our values. He is as troubled, for a lack of a better word, by sharia law, honour killings and special privileges given to Muslims and Muslims only as I am, or as Skybird is.

[Tribesman]

There shall be NO (re)interpretation of Islamic dogma
Yet there always is and there always has been. Every split has been because of different interpretations, the fundamentalism which sky thinks is the only form is a fairly modern split off of two schools who reinterpreted dogma from an absolute literalist perspective with a heavy bias towards some passages while ignoring others.


The best they can do, is that dogma must be "reshaped" in new fatwas
How many new fatwas are issued every year?
How many scholars does it take to issue a fatwa?
Isn't each fatwa and each scholar doing one a reinterpretation?

He is as troubled, for a lack of a better word, by sharia law, honour killings and special privileges given to Muslims and Muslims only as I am, or as Skybird is.

What is sharia law? Again its a matter of interpretastion isn't it as there are many hundreds of versions which is a bit strange since you say there can be only one interpretation.
There was that big daily mail tripe about Britain introducing sharia law and pandering to the muslims, it was a complete pile of rubbish, same with the dozens of daily articles across the media and spouted by politicians which invariably Sky will post as his little fetishism.
BTW what does "honour" murders have to do with Islam? Its a very nasty thing but it comes from many places (including the "civilised" west) and habits so to associate it with one religion is rather disingenuous don't ya think.
Also where the hell do you get this "muslims only" rubbish from?
Can you run through some special privileges given to.... say Jehovas for a start, christians of different flavours, society of friends, sikh, hindus, gypsies.....

Don't you find it funny that you mention Bosnian Muslims yet when you lot had your nice set of civil wars the pile of jihadis that came in from other places to "help" their poor muslim brethren they found that the jihadis thought the locals were not muslim and the locals thought the jihadis were just crazy

[Respenus]

Yet there always is and there always has been. Every split has been because of different interpretations, the fundamentalism which sky thinks is the only form is a fairly modern split off of two schools who reinterpreted dogma from an absolute literalist perspective with a heavy bias towards some passages while ignoring others.

I am sorry if I haven't been clear enough. The dogma mentioned by the author was not explained, probably one of the gravest mistakes in both books, as they speak of Islam without explaining what they are thinking about. You are right in saying that there are different interpretations, yet the dogma remains and the corpus of the texts remain the same. As such, dogma doesn't change and religious rules, as per by the aforementioned authors, must stay put and guide the Muslim community in Europe. As far as Skybird's look is concerned, is he right. There shall be no abrogation from the writing in the Quaran, expect those given by Allah. And since the Quaran must be read in a chronological order and not according to the length, the last order of Allah to his "prophet" is quite, quite bloody. So there is not reinterpretation per say, some just turn a blind eye to the chronologically later texts, which, in regard t everything else written in the Quaran, makes them apostates. Once again, it's the human element which must be looked at, yet the dogma, again, remains the same.



How many new fatwas are issued every year?
How many scholars does it take to issue a fatwa?
Isn't each fatwa and each scholar doing one a reinterpretation?

Since I am not a Muslim scholar and the literature I have read makes no mention of this, I must apologise and leave the answer to your question to someone else.


What is sharia law? Again its a matter of interpretastion isn't it as there are many hundreds of versions which is a bit strange since you say there can be only one interpretation.
There was that big daily mail tripe about Britain introducing sharia law and pandering to the muslims, it was a complete pile of rubbish, same with the dozens of daily articles across the media and spouted by politicians which invariably Sky will post as his little fetishism.
BTW what does "honour" murders have to do with Islam? Its a very nasty thing but it comes from many places (including the "civilised" west) and habits so to associate it with one religion is rather disingenuous don't ya think.
Also where the hell do you get this "muslims only" rubbish from?
Can you run through some special privileges given to.... say Jehovas for a start, christians of different flavours, society of friends, sikh, hindus, gypsies.....

You cannot deny the fact the Sharia courts exist in the UK and they there are not ruling in favour the of women, yet according to Sharia law, in favour in the men, in cases of spousal abuse. Now, if you think that it's the women abusing the men in a Muslim family, then you must have access to information from another world, since that would be quite a paradox, would it not? What have honour murders to do with Islam? Well, it is true that they are perpetrated in other religions as well, yet in the West, it is only the Muslims who do it. And please, don't start with the Islam is not a culture thing. While there is certainly not a 100% correlation as it is evident from the diverse areas that Muslims in Europe come from (from the Magreb to Pakistan), the Arab culture is an integral part of the teaching of Mohammed. Concerning other groups, I agree, they shouldn't have privileges based on religion or culture, as is evident in Slovenia with Gypsies, who cannot do wrong, as they are not as "integrated" was others. The fact of the matter is, you have those who have decided to become a part of the society proper and others who decide to use the "culture card" to abuse the law, torture and steal as much as they like and get away with it.

Don't you find it funny that you mention Bosnian Muslims yet when you lot had your nice set of civil wars the pile of jihadis that came in from other places to "help" their poor muslim brethren they found that the jihadis thought the locals were not muslim and the locals thought the jihadis were just crazy

What is funny is that you have proven you have zero knowledge whatsoever about the Balkans with that statement. I'm a Slovenian, so is Betonov. While I cannot claim to know what his ethnicity is, I myself am a ethnic Slovenian, although considering that family tree, that could be disputed. Our war didn't include Muslims, as it ended in 10 days and didn't last for several years, during which war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide took place. So, no civil war where I come from and Slovenia was newer truly a part of the Balkans, yet the last outpost of the West in this part of Europe.

[Skybird]

Save your breath, Respenus, you are waisting it. His claims mostly are wrong, why they are wrong has been explained several times (on Sharia, for example), and he is not here to consider opposing arguments anyway, but to silence them by ridiculing them or distorting them, or linking them to racism. This he often does even in intended ignorration of academic consent regarding a given issue, and a re-definition of the menaing of terms. That on islam he has shown a tremendous lack of simple knowledge of even it's basic elements, does not help it any further.

All that are reasons why so many people have him on "ignore". ;) I could imagine that only OTH has triggered more ignore's. :) Or me. :D

[Tribesman]

His claims mostly are wrong, why they are wrong has been explained several times (on Sharia, for example),
Says the man who claimed there is only one sharia:har::har::har::har:
Funny really he claims there is only one muslim too, the nutcase kind.
but to silence them by ridiculing them or distorting them, or linking them to racism.
Hey its Sky who says he can't join protests without involved neo-nazis and cannot make his own protests without the Neio-Nazis coming along with a big "me too".
If by your own admission you walk with racist scum and have the same message as racist scum then it does say something about linking to racism.


I am sorry if I haven't been clear enough. The dogma mentioned by the author was not explained, probably one of the gravest mistakes in both books, as they speak of Islam without explaining what they are thinking about. You are right in saying that there are different interpretations, yet the dogma remains and the corpus of the texts remain the same.
I understand what you are saying, yet there are many ways to read and interpret the same texts.
So the dogma are the principles ain't they, based on the text...well apart from the last one as that came about due to the first major split was over the principles and it is still split on what the sixth principle meant.
So since the even dogma which is the core are a matter of disputed interpretations where does that leave the arguement that the dogma remains the same?


Since I am not a Muslim scholar and the literature I have read makes no mention of this, I must apologise and leave the answer to your question to someone else.

OK a simpler question. What is a fatwa?

You cannot deny the fact the Sharia courts exist in the UK and they there are not ruling in favour the of women
I certainly can, as that would be discriminatory and against the law. sharia in Britain is set up exactly as it has been set up for well over 100 years.

Concerning other groups, I agree, they shouldn't have privileges based on religion or culture,
So now you agree that it isn't "only muslims" that get it.
But why shouldn't they?


What is funny is that you have proven you have zero knowledge whatsoever about the Balkans with that statement.
Really?
I'm a Slovenian
Wow.

Our war didn't include Muslims, as it ended in 10 days
Your war??????
So, no civil war where I come from
Hold on you just said you had your war???????
Slovenia was newer truly a part of the Balkans
Who mentioned the Balkans???????

Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia yes?:hmmm:
Yusoslavia was a pile of states that seperated in a set of civil wars yes?:hmmm:
Sooooooo........when you lot had your nice set of civil wars
Your little cvil war that you didn't have even though it happened was one of a set of civil wars that split apart the constituent parts of Yugoslavia......Yes:up:

[Betonov]

Slovenia was newer truly a part of the Balkans
Not if you live near Jesenice

jokes aside, politically and mentally Slovenia was more a part of central Europe than the balkans. We were a part of Yugoslavia because the slovenian nation was under the italians and austrians and we were always pretty much the undedog for them, peons if I may say so. But the world was still ruled then by imperialist nations and complete independence was imposible. The country of SHS, predecesor of Yugoslavia was a joint venture with the croats and serbians. But culturaly there were great differences, and still are.

And yes, our war was NOT a civil war. It was an independence war. One faction fought the rulling faction for independence. The bosnian war was a civil war, two factions were fighting eachother in one country for control, influenced by outside powers.

I'm a Slovenian, so is Betonov. While I cannot claim to know what his ethnicity is....
Slovenian for 4 generations back, don't know about the older ones

[OneToughHerring]

So, another anti-muslim thread by Skybird. I wonder what he has paid Neal to let him make GT his own personal racist channel.

[Jimbuna]

So, another anti-muslim thread by Skybird. I wonder what he has paid Neal to let him make GT his own personal racist channel.

You want to be very careful bringing Neals morals into question....you have been cut a considerable amount of slack in recent times. :nope:

This is the second time that I am aware of in which you have accused members of this community of being racist.

[Tribesman]

And yes, our war was NOT a civil war. It was an independence war.
So the American civil war was not a civil war either as it was states that declared they were leaving the federal state.

[Betonov]

So the American civil war was not a civil war either as it was states that declared they were leaving the federal state.

If the confederates won it would have been know as the war of independence.
It's a point of view, if Yugoslavia managed to supress Slovenia then it would have been known as a civil war