Mass stabbing in central London leaves woman dead and six injured

[Gerald]

Police explore possibility of ‘terrorism’ after man arrested following the incident in Russell Square in the centre of the city

A woman has been killed and up to six people have been injured in a mass stabbing in the centre of London.

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that at least six people were injured in the incident at Russell Square.

A statement said a woman was treated at the scene but was pronounced dead a short time later.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/04/mass-stabbing-central-london-woman-dead-and-injured

What to say? :nope:

Note: Thursday 4 August 2016 01.56 BST

[Oberon]

Six minutes.

Six minutes from call to suspect tasered.

Bloody good work Met police, as far as containing and controlling the situation goes I don't think they could have done much better. Goes to show all the preparing that has been done after the recent attacks in Europe has paid off.

[eddie]

Glad they caught him! Feel sorry for the victims and their families.

[Feuer Frei!]

Goes to show all the preparing that has been done after the recent attacks in Europe has paid off.

Yea, just a shame that something serious has to happen for Governments to act, ie improve security of its citizens.

Kneejerk reaction.

Humanity and more to the point, governments are notorious for it.

[Oberon]

To be fair we have had a bit of an advantage over, say French or German security services, because of The Troubles, so a lot of the infrastructure and security network has been in place for a while and the general public, for the most part, are more accustomed to it.

[Betonov]

I'm worried how our force would respond since we never had a terror attack :hmmm:

[Fubar2Niner]

Six minutes.

Six minutes from call to suspect tasered.

Bloody good work Met police, as far as containing and controlling the situation goes I don't think they could have done much better. Goes to show all the preparing that has been done after the recent attacks in Europe has paid off.

Just seen this. Hear hear Oberon.

[Catfish]

I'm worried how our force would respond since we never had a terror attack :hmmm:

Unconcealed carry of chili pods will prevent terror attacks, otherwise use a kukri. And i always thought the latter was a nepalese thing :hmmm:

Seriously, condolences to the victims' relatives and friends. And a good fast reaction, but to counter isolated lunatics in time, before such things happen will always be impossible.

[Jimbuna]

Seriously, condolences to the victims' relatives and friends. And a good fast reaction, but to counter isolated lunatics in time, before such things happen will always be impossible.

Rgr that :yep:

[Oberon]

Russell Square may have got all the headlines last night but it wasn't the only stabbing in London, a 30 year old man was stabbed to death in Battersea, and two others injured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36972788

And a moped gang attempt to smash and grab was foiled by Flying Squad officers, sadly four officers were injured during the arrests though, one seriously:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36963851

Summer in the city, as they say. :nope:

[Commander Wallace]

Seriously, condolences to the victims' relatives and friends. And a good fast reaction, but to counter isolated lunatics in time, before such things happen will always be impossible.

Events over the last few month only serve to remind everyone how true that statement really is.

Condolences to the victims and their friends and family.

[Jimbuna]

Russell Square may have got all the headlines last night but it wasn't the only stabbing in London, a 30 year old man was stabbed to death in Battersea, and two others injured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36972788

And a moped gang attempt to smash and grab was foiled by Flying Squad officers, sadly four officers were injured during the arrests though, one seriously:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36963851

Summer in the city, as they say. :nope:

Yep, been a long time since the streets of London were paved with gold.

[Betonov]

Unconcealed carry of chili pods will prevent terror attacks, otherwise use a kukri. And i always thought the latter was a nepalese thing :hmmm:



A nice juicy chilli would be a perfect close quarters weapon. Jam one of those things into someones eye and they'll wish they'd been pepper sprayed.
And it's completely legal, you can wear it around your neck or wrist.

[Feuer Frei!]

Close quarter fighting with a terrorist?

Lol i'm sure you guys are joking.

Surely...

[Betonov]

Close quarter fighting with a terrorist?



A knife attack is close quarters.

And I meant any attack, terror, elections or mugging.

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm fully aware of what close-quarter fighting involves.

First, you have to identify the target.

Then get close enough.


Good luck on both of those, before the bomb is detonated with you being turned into pink mist.

Unless of course the terrorist is a child, with explosives strapped to their body for easy identification.

But then there still remains the getting in close issue.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oC8TwXe4PF0/STFd6ZsLQzI/AAAAAAAAAL4/6xyW4p7qYRs/s400/Mortal6.jpg


http://maniacmuslim.com/wp-content/uploads/islam-terrorist.jpg


http://www.kevinohagan.com/Images/About/Combat.jpg


https://talknigerian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Female-Suicide-Bomber-in-Nigeria.jpg

[Betonov]

Is this a stabbing thread or a bombing thread ???

[AVGWarhawk]

Is this a stabbing thread or a bombing thread ???

Yes.

I think we need knife and bomb control. Guns are so yesterday.

[Betonov]

Yes.

I think we need knife and bomb control. Guns are so yesterday.

Actually we need a chilli pepper control, that's what I started with

[AVGWarhawk]

Popcorn control.

https://media.giphy.com/media/RHiD0K65NxxLO/giphy.gif]

[Oberon]

We need to set controls on controlling. :hmmm:

[Betonov]

We need to set controls on controlling. :hmmm:

Even if it was a joke, it's true

[Oberon]

Even if it was a joke, it's true

Aye, though I do get where FF is coming from, basically if we were in a situation where a guy was running amok with a knife, the best and most likely solution that the average person would take would be to run and let the people who are trained to deal with that situation take control of it and deal with it.

[Gerald]

Note: Update.Thu Aug 4, 2016 7:27am EDT

Norway police said on Thursday they have been told a 19-year old Norwegian national is suspected of homicide following a knife attack in central London.

A woman from the United States was killed by a man with suspected mental health issues who went on the rampage with a knife in London, police said on Thursday, adding there was no evidence to suggest the attack was terrorism-related.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-london-norway-idUSKCN10F18P?mod=related&channelName=worldNews#

[Wolferz]

Sooo,
Who's the wise guy that cloned Jack the Ripper? :-? :down:

[Feuer Frei!]

Is this a stabbing thread or a bombing thread ???

You are talking about close-quarter combat with terrorists, no?

If you have already forgotten that you 'advised' me earlier in this thread what close quarter combat involves, mentioning "a knife attack is close quarter", then why are you asking if this is a stabbing thread when i asked how you would engage a terrorist in close quarter combat?

I use the word terrorist as you mentioned a terrorist (terrorist attack) as one of your examples earlier, along with muggers.

So, the onus is on you to inform me how you would 'engage' a terrorist, not a mugger, in close-quarter combat.

The pictures i posted serve a purpose.

And just to get the ball rolling for you, let's just assume that terrorists are not just armed with a knife.

Firstly, that would be too easy and secondly, incredibly unrealistic and lacking in any credibility.

[em2nought]

So I was slicing a habanero the other day and had to pee. BIG MISTAKE!

I think Britain should either bring back the longbow or the SMLE now that you're not ruled by the EU. :yeah:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/04/mass-stabbing-central-london-woman-dead-and-injured

Good work by the police, condolences for the victims, but...

Again we have this overuse of the word "terrorism". Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve a political end, and there seems no reason to even suspect him of that.

What this guy did (in addition to murder and injury, of course) is what the Russians would have called "hooliganism" (gross disrespect for public order) rather than "terrorism".

[Gerald]

Good work by the police, condolences for the victims, but...

Again we have this overuse of the word "terrorism". Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve a political end, and there seems no reason to even suspect him of that.

What this guy did (in addition to murder and injury, of course) is what the Russians would have called "hooliganism" (gross disrespect for public order) rather than "terrorism".Again we have this overuse of the word "terrorism".Quite right terrorism in principle in many contexts has become a word used very often, and in some cases completely wrong.

[Betonov]

You are talking about close-quarter combat with terrorists, no?
.

I was talking about an attacker, which can mean a terrorist but also a mental case, drunken hooligan or a very angry spouse.
Who can wield a knife, fist or a frying pan.

I never said that chilli peppers would be a good terror deterent or defence against an AK or bomb vest.

I was also half joking since chilli peppers have a tendency to go bad after a few warm days and you're defenceles outside harvesting season.
But I know how it feels just to scratch yourself on the face after cutting some macedonian fringe peppers and showing one into someones face would completel blind him for an hour.

So now tell me, are you going to understand that I meant any attacker including drunks in a bar and not just terrorists or not, because I will not explain myself again for the third time.

[Betonov]

So, the onus is on you to inform me how you would 'engage' a terrorist, not a mugger, in close-quarter combat..

Close quarters you mean I can't run anymore. He's already on top of me.

I dont know. If I took some good self defence classes I'd know. Provided the terrorist decided to go close quarters with me without a firearm or bomb, in which case my answer would be to die.
In case I was attacked by knife I'd punch and kick and if I had my compulsure I'd maybe grab something to smah into his face, draw my picket knife and cut back, do anything but stand there and die.

But the thread and my chilli coment wasnt about bomb wielding terrorists, but a knife wielding nutcase, so why am I even writting how I would handle a terrorist.

[Feuer Frei!]

I was talking about an attacker, which can mean a terrorist but also a mental case, drunken hooligan or a very angry spouse.
Who can wield a knife, fist or a frying pan.

I used the terrorist example and expanded on that because you mentioned that type of attacker as one of your examples earlier.
The reason i did that was because engaging a mugger, drunken hooligan or angry spouse in close quarter combat is much more, let's say trivial than our other example.
The terrorist.
Who unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on which side you stand on, is not armed with frying pans or knife only.
That would be far too easy.

I never said that chilli peppers would be a good terror deterent or defence against an AK or bomb vest.
Not outright, no, however the example of terrorist was mentioned by you.
I also see that you and Catfish were engaging in banter about that, as in jesting.
I didn't pick up on that, hence my pressing you for a explanation on the art of close quarter combat with a terrorist.
Nonetheless i think it still stands as a interesting discussion.
In general.
How to firstly identify the target, analyze the target, risk assess, if 'safe' to do so, which is where the conundrum is with this, and then engage target in close quarter combat.

I was also half joking since chilli peppers
See above

So now tell me, are you going to understand that I meant any attacker including drunks in a bar and not just terrorists or not, because I will not explain myself again for the third time.
Any attacker, which included the word terrorist. By you.
It was and still is pointless to discuss engaging a target to the likes of an angry spuse or a drunken hooligan or a man in a wheelchair who didn't get his pension paid on time and the 3 afore-mentioned 'targets' are armed with frying pans or an old shoe because, well that would be a quick and rather uninteresting debate.

So no, you don't have to explain yourself a third time.


Close quarters you mean I can't run anymore. He's already on top of me.
Or you on top of him?
A better scenario, no?
If you (in general) are skilled enough to engage and carry out this fighting style.


I dont know. If I took some good self defence classes I'd know. Provided the terrorist decided to go close quarters with me without a firearm or bomb, in which case my answer would be to die.
In case I was attacked by knife I'd punch and kick and if I had my compulsure I'd maybe grab something to smah into his face, draw my picket knife and cut back, do anything but stand there and die.

Now we are starting to discuss the what-ifs of engaging a terrorist in close quarter combat :D
And preferably one who isn't armed with a frying pan or an old shoe sole.

But the thread and my chilli coment wasnt about bomb wielding terrorists, but a knife wielding nutcase, so why am I even writting how I would handle a terrorist.

Well, a terrorist who is only armed with a knife is a good scenario to have when engaging them in close quarter fighting.
A preferred scenario, no less.

However, as my 2 of my photos showed, and seems to be the case proven countless times, terrorists are armed with more than just frying pans.
Or knives for that matter.
Or bombs and detonator strapped to themselves.

The latter is much more difficult to engage.
The prior, much easier.
Easier in the sense that a knife-wielding terrorist will pose a much higher success rate in overcoming the target and disarming that a bomb-wielding and AK-47 and Glock-wielding Terrorist who may or may not be identified (civilian clothing, ambush scenario, a woman, a child, camaflouaged etc).

A knife-wielding nut case and a Gun and/or bomb-wielding nutcase can be certainly given the term Terrorist since in many cases around the world, terrorists have chosen to arm themselves, amongst other weaponry, with these instruments.

That is why i am discussing the terrorist and identifying, assessing, and the possible ways of engaging a terrorist.

But not a frying-pan or knife-wielding terrorist.

It's an open discussion of course.

The difficulties in engaging a 'armed' terrorist, fully armed, not some hoodlum who isn't fighting for Allah or IS, is, very very difficult.

[Nippelspanner]

I think Britain should either bring back the longbow or the SMLE now that you're not ruled by the EU. :yeah:
Yes, because it was Brussels that told the UK to have strict gun laws... :roll:

[Jimbuna]

I feel far safer living on the UK mainland than I would on mainland Europe.

[Gerald]

Aye.

[Betonov]

I certainly feel safer in Slovenia than I did when I was in London. But felt the same in York.

Regarding Feuer Frei:
terrorists, coup, war, mafia... chilli pepper not effective
spouse, drunk, mugger... chilli pepper effective

And yes, terrorist attacks have the element of surprise working against you. It's plausable to grab a pepper from pocket and shove it in Ahmeds face when he runs towards you like a maniac, giving you time to prepare a stance and use one hand to shield yourself and/or hold his knife hand at bay. Completely different when Ahmed silently walks behind you and slashes your throat when your browsing the newspapers.

[Oberon]

14 year old stabbed to death up the road from a friend of mine who lives in London a couple of hours ago. They join a man in his 20s who got stabbed in Westfield White City shopping center, although he has survived, but a 31 year old near Bethnal Green tube station was not so lucky.

[Skybird]

I just read a clearificaiton in the news that I had almost expected to read sooner or later, on the central London stabbing. While the media first spoke of a person, and then of a young man, and then a probably mentally deranged ors somebody whith psychic problems, an isolated single attacker, it then was said the Norwegian authorities identified him as a "Norwegian national".

And now we have the full truth, its a Somali with Norwegian papers. Almost 100% of Somali people are Sunni Muslim.

Difficult birth that was.

[Gerald]

Sky! Are you surprised that he's Somalis, and muslim in Norway?

[Skybird]

Nothing surprises me anymore.

[em2nought]

I just read a clearificaiton in the news that I had almost expected to read sooner or later, on the central London stabbing. While the media first spoke of a person, and then of a young man, and then a probably mentally deranged ors somebody whith psychic problems, an isolated single attacker, it then was said the Norwegian authorities identified him as a "Norwegian national".

And now we have the full truth, its a Somali with Norwegian papers. Almost 100% of Somali people are Sunni Muslim.

Difficult birth that was.

The media surely does hate when the truth goes against the false narrative they keep trying to spin for us. :know:

[Nippelspanner]

And now we have the full truth, its a Somali with Norwegian papers. Almost 100% of Somali people are Sunni Muslim.
I'm browsing my local police reports more and more.
I did so before to keep up to date but nothing ever really happened here, small and quiet city.
However, that changed.
Reports about theft, sexual harassment, rape or intended rape are, compared to 5 years ago, going through the roof.
The police tries their utmost to stay PC and 'neutral', aka to hide the heritage end ethnicity of the perpetrators as good as possible, but sooner or later they gotta mention it and well... I don't read an awful lot about German middle class criminals, you know.

Just last night, I stumbled over a new sexual harassment case while being in team speak with a friend. It has become a mini-game where we make bets as to where the perp is from. We don't even bet anymore if it is a muslim, btw, that's become a given.
I said Somali, buddy said Moroccan.
I won.

Distasteful?
Maybe, I don't give a damn anymore. The people did all they could to make all this happen and now that it is happening, they won't do anything to stop it. So why not have a little fun and play the violin before the ship slips under? :rock:

But I'm probably just a bigoted-nazi-islamophobe...

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm probably just a bigoted-nazi-islamophobe...

Makes 2 of us :haha:

[Jimbuna]

I certainly feel safer in Slovenia than I did when I was in London. But felt the same in York.



You were well protected whilst in York mate :smug:

Not so much your right knee though :D

[Betonov]

You were well protected whilst in York mate :smug:

Not so much your right knee though :D

I take it back, I feel safer in Slovenia in any way :O:

[Jimbuna]

I take it back, I feel safer in Slovenia in any way :O:

LOL :)

[Rockstar]

... The people did all they could to make all this happen and now that it is happening, they won't do anything to stop it. So why not have a little fun and play the violin before the ship slips under? :rock:

As their attempts of forced integration/assimilation fail miserably. They'll blame you because you werent tolerant enough.

[em2nought]

Makes 2 of us :haha:

All for one, and one for all! :salute:

[Feuer Frei!]

forced integration/assimilation fail miserably. They'll blame you because you werent tolerant enough.

They will always fail.
History shows us this.

The 'mixing' of cultures will never work.
Forced or not.

Tolerance, or lack thereof is just one reason.

[Oberon]

They will always fail.
History shows us this.

The 'mixing' of cultures will never work.
Forced or not.

Explain Britain then.

I mean, the words you're using to type this post come from about three different cultures to begin with.

Let's see, in history we've had, Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Angle, Saxon, Brythonic, Norman, Norse, Dutch, and some Spanish culture...and then when we started going abroad we got some Hindu culture, some Arabic culture, and Caribbean culture.
Sure, it's caused problems from time to time, but we're still here. :hmmm: Heck, the favourite dish of the UK, above even the stereotypical 'Fish and Chips' is Chicken Tikka Masala, which is a dish based on Indian styling but invented in the UK. Notting Hill Carnival, one of the most famous carnivals in the UK is West Indian in origin, heck, our flag the red cross of St George, is named after a Syrian immigrant. :haha:

That has been one of this countries greatest strengths...until recently...the ability to take in people of a culture, assimilate them, adapt elements of their culture to work alongside what is already present and continue. Sure, there might be a couple of riots on the way, but the world didn't end.
Still, I guess the internet has changed all that now anyway, perhaps now in this age of modern rapid communication that brings us all closer together we are moving rapidly to make sure that we build barriers to keep people out.
It'll all end in tears, and lots of dead people, but I guess that's how it goes. Humanity will probably endure, and if it doesn't, well better luck whatever evolves next. :yeah:

[Feuer Frei!]

snip

People share and learn things over time.
Over Generations.
We can, after such developments, call this cultures.

Let's take for example traditional and modern cultures.

They may be similar in some ways but in other ways they are very different.
Traditional culture - relationships, immediate and extended family as a few examples.
Modern Culture - 1 example is business life is seperate from personal life.

In traditional culture, business and personal life are often the same.
Ie business partners often family members etc.

Another difference between the 2 is traditional culture usually stays the same for long periods of time.
Modern culture, feeds off change.

Now, my point in mentioning the above is that these differences can have various 'consequences' for the people in those aforementioned 'cultures'.

Sustainability is one.
Or the ability to sustain oneself.

Also for consideration as to why/how different cultures mixing, poses 'consequences' is in the ways of thinking.

Cultural differences in marriages.

Crossing cultures where everyone is NOT equal.

Sure in one culture, without mixing, you have inequality.
But we are talking about mixing 2 different cultures together.

Now modern and traditional cultures are certainly different examples than lets say 2 cultures based purely on ethnic backgrounds/origins.

And when we talk about ethnic mixing then some of the examples above certainly are more than acceptable to use as examples.

I mentioned history has shown us that the mixing of cultures purely based on a ethnic or racial background does not work.

Australia is one such example.

To this day, the racial divide widens ever further.

(And for someone to say that Australia is not a racist country is laughable)
I use the word racism here because it's a consequence of mixing.

Britain has also 'suffered' from the influx of migrants, asylum-seekers, illegal and legal just as Germany, Italy, Greece and a host of others have.

If you were to mention that in the media in particular, the mixing of 2 (or more in some countries) cultures, is portrayed as mainly a success.

The mixing of cultures and its consequences is far more deep-rooted than sharing and learning from each other, which goes to a point of difference i made earlier.

Something else to ponder:

family values
religious beliefs
work ethic
family structure
forming and reforming family, amongst others
intermarriage
sex roles
child birth and rearing
language maintenance
cultural identity

[Nippelspanner]

I mean, the words you're using to type this post come from about three different cultures to begin with.
Cultures that came from the same historical background that also weren't that different.

Let's see, in history we've had, Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Angle, Saxon, Brythonic, Norman, Norse, Dutch, and some Spanish culture...and then when we started going abroad we got some Hindu culture, some Arabic culture, and Caribbean culture.
See above.
Regarding the Arabian and Hindi culture, these were influences, that is very different from forcing two or more cultures to combine on crowded space, especially if one of the cultures involved seeks for domination.

Sure, it's caused problems from time to time, but we're still here. :hmmm:
Just because demons from Hell didn't devour us yet, it doesn't mean multi-culturalism 'works'.
If countries that get invaded get more and more trouble in a rather short time span, I'd dare to say it doesn't work.

- Increasing poverty
- Forming of ghettos
- Losing cultural identity and tradition
- Social-political conflicts in general

Just some of the problems it causes. On top, the quantity makes the poison.
Every country can survive influences - but not cultural invasions that enforce their ways one way or another.
Personally, I can very well WITNESS my country changing, losing more and more of its roots and traditions due to the deadly cocktail of mass-migration and political correctness and the incredibly shameless behavior of Muslims in my country.

Out of my memory:
- Trying to ban Pork from schools and canteens because they don't like it.
- Trying to get their daughters out of sports-classes in school "becuz muh Islam!"
- Trying to ban toys because they resemble something Islamic (google Lego's Jabba's Palace)
- Demanding Islam-classes in school, more and more Mosques, Muezzins etc. etc.
- Traditional slaughtering (abusing!) of animals "becuz muh Islam!"
- Islamic holidays

And this list could go on for a while.
They invade us and try to change our country.
They don't even waste a thought about adapting to the country they go to - but we can't blame them,
it's all in the Quran btw, the book most here talk about but never read. :03:

By the way, other cultures who influenced Germany cause next to no problems. Russians for example, in most cases, work hard, party hard, build a house and that's it. They don't try to change the country they're migrating to. Same goes for all other cultures... except, of course, the most peaceful of them all...


It'll all end in tears, and lots of dead people, but I guess that's how it goes. Humanity will probably endure, and if it doesn't, well better luck whatever evolves next. :yeah:
Not sure if we can connect a world sooner or later dominated by Islam with the term humanity. :hmmm:

[AndyJWest]

Nippelspanner, nothing you have written above hasn't already been said. About Jews. Including assertions that they weren't a part of humanity.

[Nippelspanner]

Nippelspanner, nothing you have written above hasn't already been said. About Jews. Including assertions that they weren't a part of humanity.
*sigh*
Yes, I'm such a Nazi, Sieg Heil bla bla.
Get real!

Unlike Jews, Muslims indeed try to seize whatever piece of soil and culture they can. If you don't know this yet, not my problem.
Save yourself these kind of accusations though, at least as long as they are unfounded. I don't think this is going well with the rules here...

[AndyJWest]

That's funny. Because of the many Muslims I've interacted with (got outrageously drunk in the student union bar with, shared a Christmas dinner with, etc, etc...) none have shown the slightest sign of trying to seize soil or culture. To busy living their lives.

Just how many Muslims do you know, anyway?

[Nippelspanner]

That's funny. Because of the many Muslims I've interacted with (got outrageously drunk in the student union bar with, shared a Christmas dinner with, etc, etc...) none have shown the slightest sign of trying to seize soil or culture. To busy living their lives.

Just how many Muslims do you know, anyway?
I'm handing that question right back at you, because how much of a Muslim are your associates when they consume alcohol?

Read the Quran, then ask yourself how many Muslims you really know.
Also, go and talk to 10 Muslims, alone.
Criticize Islam or remind them that their Prophet was a pedophile.
I'll guarantee you that 9/10 of them will lose their temper - this have been my experiences and I am living in a country with a lot of Muslims, where cities even have whole districts that could very well be called "little Turkey".
But what do I know...

[AndyJWest]

I'm handing that question right back at you, because how much of a Muslim are your associates when they consume alcohol?

Read the Quran, then ask yourself how many Muslims you really know.
Also, go and talk to 10 Muslims, alone.
Criticize Islam or remind them that their Prophet was a pedophile.
I'll guarantee you that 9/10 of them will lose their temper - this have been my experiences and I am living in a country with a lot of Muslims, where cities even have whole districts that could very well be called "little Turkey".
But what do I know...

How much of a Muslim? Not for me to say. For the same reason that it isn't for me to say how much of a Christian is a man who covets his neighbours house. Or wife. Or BMW. I don't subscribe to the view (much put about by both Islamic fundamentalists and those who consider themselves their most staunch opponents) that there is one form of 'authentic' Islam, and that anyone not adhering rigorously to a single interpretation of a complex and fragmented faith isn't a 'proper' Muslim.

And no, I am not going to 'remind' anyone that people living in different times have had different standards regarding appropriate ages for sexual conduct. I think most educated people are well aware of the fact. Though if you are interested, you might care to take a look at this list: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24 The entry for Delaware in particular is most illuminating.

[Feuer Frei!]

Nippelspanner, nothing you have written above hasn't already been said. About Jews. Including assertions that they weren't a part of humanity.

Ahhh the Jew card has been pulled hahah

Obviously this tired, worn, dog-eared, inferior, ignorant and stained card gets pulled when there are debates about race and culture, involving someone or several persons from Deutschland.

Just had to jump in there.

Where were the assertions that they weren't part of humanity?
In this thread?
I don't see any mention of the word Jew.

So you have interacted with many Muslims.
Well, that surely would indicate that racial equality exists amongst 2 cultures who are mixing.
Surely.......
it has to.
No? It doesn't?
Hmm i wonder why.

Seriously if you think that "interacting', (what a loose and utterly vague term to use, because let's face it, interacting can mean you being a post man and delivering a letter to a muslim's mailbox without ever seeing that muslim, or paying a muslim for a lousy coffee or....).

Interacting doesn't prove one iota that mixing cultures works, just because you say it does.

Nor does it mean that Muslims are content to adopt the laws of the country they are settling in.
Nor does it mean that Muslims abide by Christianity in a Christian majority country by faith.

Hell, i've intercated with Muslims, in fact having shared a house with 3 Muslims not too long ago.
Do i think that means that my religious beliefs, work ethic, family structure, forming and reforming family,
intermarriage, sex roles, child birth and rearing, language maintenance, cultural identity matched up with each other?

Well i think i don't need to answer that do i?

Next time you pull a dirty old Jew card out of the box, i suggest you reconsider, because it does nothing to add weight to anything you post along with it.

Unless of course you are debating with NAZIS, who knows.

[Nippelspanner]

Unless of course you are debating with NAZIS, who knows.
Hey I criticized Islam - of course I'm a Nazi you dummy! :88)

[Feuer Frei!]

Unlike Jews, Muslims indeed try to seize whatever piece of soil and culture they can.

It's not soil they are after :haha:
As has been shown countless times by the prior

[Feuer Frei!]

Hey I criticized Islam - of course I'm a Nazi you dummy! :88)

It's a hell of a membership let me tell you

http://freedompost.org/media/Muslim-race-card.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

Oh, juicy. I just saved that into my dedicated 'Religion of Peace™' folder! :up:

[Feuer Frei!]

Oh, juicy. I just saved that into my dedicated 'Religion of Peace™' folder! :up:

And to sweeten the membership deal you will receive a subscription service to NewsWeek, with many fascinating stories each week, like this one for example

happy reading

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Newsweek_Racist_Baby_Original.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

Is...is that something like the onion?
It's just satire, isn't it?

[Feuer Frei!]

Current affairs, opinions, abroad and domestic

http://www.newsweek.com/


On topic

there are consequences in culture-mixing. Racial mixing.

The majority negative.

It will not work.


If you think having coffee with Ahmed or having a hot dog with an Aboriginal counts then i have news for you.

Ask the Aboriginals, ask the American Indians, ask the Christians, ask the Muslims, ask the Jews, ask the Germans, ask the British, ask the South Afrikans, the list goes on and on.

[AndyJWest]

Feuer Frei!, you have my sincere thanks for illustrating my point so well. Nothing that has been said about Muslims hasn't been said before about others.

[Feuer Frei!]

AndyJWest, i really don't believe i helped your cause, not even the Jews' for that matter, although i'm sure they would be happy for the free advertisement.

As for the Muslim matter, well, indeed, no words that anyone hasn't already said before will dispel the true faith of the Muslim and its objectives.

[Betonov]

Is...is that something like the onion?
It's just satire, isn't it?

There was a legitimate study done on children to see if there's some inherited discriminstion or is it all learned from the environment.
I'll try and find it when I'm off the mobile.
They used dolls of different rase and gave children of different rases the choice in dolls and they always preffered the one that is the same as them.

Which is not racism, but you know, media.

[Feuer Frei!]

thsi Betanov?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm-IRBcN_fI&list=PLC8B80733590C3485&index=23

[AndyJWest]

AndyJWest, i really don't believe i helped your cause, not even the Jews' for that matter, although i'm sure they would be happy for the free advertisement.

As for the Muslim matter, well, indeed, no words that anyone hasn't already said before will dispel the true faith of the Muslim and its objectives.

Personally, I'd not give much credence to assertions about the true faith of Muslims coming from someone who thinks that they have been engaged in a holy war against Christians for 2000 years: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2424149#post2424149

I'd recommend reading a little elementary history before commenting any further - or even just looking up a date or two.

[Nippelspanner]

I'd recommend reading a little elementary history before commenting any further - or even just looking up a date or two.
I'd recommend reading the book you defend so fiercely before you blindly defend what you don't understand.

It is more than obvious that you haven't read a single page of this crappy book, yet you claim whatever someone on "that side of the fence" says is simply not true.
What I'm missing in your case is an actual argument between all the personal attacks.
Something based on facts, on actual events, not your irrelevant "opinion".

In two days, you called me an idiot and a Nazi - through the flower of course - yet you failed to write a single sentence that had something like a fact behind it. On top, you didn't understand the simplest things I said and turned my words around (like claiming I said 'everyone who disagrees with me is a toddler'. Never said that, not even remotely, but well.)

"Shut up, Islam is cool cause I know a nice Mulsim!" is no argument at all.
However, dead bodies all over the world, murdered in the name of this ideology, is.

[Feuer Frei!]

Personally, I'd not give much credence to assertions about the true faith of Muslims from someone who thinks that they have been engaged in a holy war against Christians for 2000 years: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2424149#post2424149

I'd recommend reading a little elementary history before commenting any further - or even just looking up a date or two.


firstly you ignore the process of proper debate by addressing and if even possible, rebutting any posts directly and concisely by direct quoting for example the opposing side and by drawing the Jew card (which just goes to show your ignorant and racist leanings) and by informing the members of Subsim that by "interacting with many Muslims" that you are well and truly in the belief, wrongly might i add, and terribly at that, that the Muslim and Christian can stand side by side indefinately for all eternity because you said so, which might i also add seems to infer that you are indeed correct and that history, and what it actually shows us all about the Muslim faith and its objective is wrong.

Or so it seems.

You can deny the holy war all you want, if that is indeed what you are infering.

Your acknowledgement of the holy war would of course do you well.
It seems you need some educating but i fear your interactions with the many Muslims will not aid you in that.


Good luck in interacting with Muslims.
Not sure they'd take you, who knows, maybe you are better off with them.

It seems we have a jew and muslim simpathizer amongst us.

No wonder you pulled the jew card.
No wonder you are happy to rebut the holy war and the true objective of the Muslim faith.
No wonder you are eager to link subsim threads and attempt to draw the spotlight away from your inadequate previous posts by infering a few hundred years of error made by me possibly. Trivial at best wouldnt you agree?



Muslims emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War, was only a means of defence and was never used as an offensive act. This is underlined in the explanatory notes of the Sahih Muslim.

"The sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity"

Of course they do.

It's time to educate yourself on the muslim faith and its repercussions of......inhumanity.

[Betonov]

thsi Betanov?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm-IRBcN_fI&list=PLC8B80733590C3485&index=23

I'll watch it when I get back home, but I managed to find that the test was called Clarks dolls and that I was a bit wrong. Every child no matter the rase preffered the white doll.

[Nippelspanner]

I'll watch it when I get back home, but I managed to find that the test was called Clarks dolls and that I was a bit wrong. Every child no matter the rase preffered the white doll.
#masterrace confirmed? :har:

That's interesting though. :hmmm:

[AndyJWest]

It is a simple, undeniable fact that Muslims cannot have been engaged in a holy war against Christians for 2000 years. Muhammad, the founder of the faith, was born circa 570 AD. That neither of the posts above (by Nippelspanner and Feuer Frei!) address this blindingly-obvious anachronism, while making further claims to knowledge regarding the Islamic faith is of course no surprise to me at all.

[Feuer Frei!]

East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade,
the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

[AndyJWest]

East and West what? Where? Between who?

[Nippelspanner]

East and West what? Where? Between who?
Seriously, what is your point?
2000 years, 1000 years.... would it make any difference to the current situation, to the facts about this ideology?
Again: What is your point? Wait... do you have one? :hmmm:

[AndyJWest]

Seriously, what is your point?
2000 years, 1000 years.... would it make any difference to the current situation, to the facts about this ideology?
Again: What is your point? Wait... do you have one? :hmmm:

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[Feuer Frei!]

The 'war' has been waging since before the crusades.

Examples:

the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, atempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

The Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia.

You see, it has waged since bfore mohammed.

[Feuer Frei!]

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

No clue?
It seems you don't have a clue, read my latest eductional post number 80 and bask in it so that you may inform your muslim friends of their war that has been waged since before muhammed.

[Nippelspanner]

My point is that there is little to be gained through debating with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
You said that the other day already when you were asked for actual arguments instead of just personal attacks and "no it's not true!" kind of nonsense.

Are we seeing a pattern here? :hmm2:

[AndyJWest]

The 'war' has been waging since before the crusades.

Examples:

the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, atempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

The Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia.

You see, it has waged since bfore mohammed.

Yup. Wars have been going on for a long time. To present this as some sort of epic battle between 'East' and 'West' is however nonsensical. The Alexandrian Greeks weren't conquering the world for 'the West', they were doing it for themselves. Likewise the Persians, and Mongolians. 'East' and 'West' are recent ideological constructs having no bearing on what was happening 2000 years ago.

[AndyJWest]

You said that the other day already when you were asked for actual arguments instead of just personal attacks and "no it's not true!" kind of nonsense.

Are we seeing a pattern here? :hmm2:

As opposed to your 'yes it is true!' arguments? And your fabrications regarding what I am supposed to have said about a book ("the book you defend so fiercely") I hadn't even discussed? If you are actually interested in debate, rather than using this forum as a soapbox, I suggest you put a little more effort into collating a little evidence, and then presenting a coherent argument worthy of response.

[Feuer Frei!]

In 624, mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims, on at least one occasion led by mohammed, had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were considered holy wars.

The Christians didn't invent the concept holy wars.

The new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, after muhammeds death launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, against hundreds of nations.

From southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

Simply put, the conquering of christian and jewish people.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa.

The conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters in the middle of France.

Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war.

repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches, sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s, building small mosques on the top of Christian churches, enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches, attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem, etc.

This before the crusades even began.
Six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation.


And today?

Much much worse.


"Our flowers are the sword and the dagger:
Narcissus and myrtle are nought.
Our drink is the blood of our foeman;
Our goblet his skull, when we've fought."

[Nippelspanner]

As opposed to your 'yes it is true!' arguments? And your fabrications regarding what I am supposed to have said about a book ("the book you defend so fiercely") I hadn't even discussed? If you are actually interested in debate, rather than using this forum as a soapbox, I suggest you put a little more effort into collating a little evidence, and then presenting a coherent argument worthy of response.
Nice try. But you may go easier on the reflecting, it's kinda obvious.
Anyways, as to proof... the Quran isn't proof enough on the topic of Islam!?
You start to confuse me, because that is highly nonsensical.

And if you debate Islam, which you do, you automatically debate the Quran.
Just...stop, please. :shifty:

[AndyJWest]

Nice try. But you may go easier on the reflecting, it's kinda obvious.
Anyways, as to proof... the Quran isn't proof enough on the topic of Islam!?
You start to confuse me, because that is highly nonsensical.

And if you debate Islam, which you do, you automatically debate the Quran.
Just...stop, please. :shifty:

Where was I 'debating Islam'? I was certainly debating your claims to be an authority on the subject - and nothing you have presented so far suggests to me that you have the slightest qualification in that regard. And no, what is written in a holy book is not in of itself sufficient to discuss a faith. Would you think it reasonable for me to expound at depth on the French Wars of Religion or the Taiping Rebellion based solely on what I'd read in the Bible?

[Nippelspanner]

Where was I 'debating Islam'?
Alright, that's enough internet for today. :roll:

[Feuer Frei!]

And no, what is written in a holy book is not in of itself sufficient to discuss a faith.

I must interject and just say this:
The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam.

So for it not to be considered sufficient, is.......wrong.

[Nippelspanner]

I must interject and just say this:
The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam.

So for it not to be considered sufficient, is.......wrong.
That's an understatement.
And also very pointless.
Because he knows better.
Although he doesn't know the ideology.
Logic 101.

[AndyJWest]

I know that there is no such thing as a single Islamic 'ideology'. Something which is readily apparent to anyone who can read a newspaper, never mind a history book.

[Feuer Frei!]

Ideology - a set of beliefs
Authority - the right to give orders etc

I don't understand what that has to do with the rebuttal of your opinion that the Qu'ran isn't suffient in itself to discuss the islamic faith.

Considering it is the ONLY thing in the islamic faith.

[Nippelspanner]

I know that there is no such thing as a single Islamic 'ideology'. Something which is readily apparent to anyone who can read a newspaper, never mind a history book.
Which doesn't change the fact that Islam is whatever the Quran says it is.
And you, again, call others stupid, which I slowly but surely really start to dislike.

[AndyJWest]

Ideology - a set of beliefs
Authority - the right to give orders etc

I don't understand what that has to do with the rebuttal of your opinion that the Qu'ran isn't suffient in itself to discuss the islamic faith.

I know what an ideology is thank you - I have a degree in anthropology. I also know that saying that something exists isn't proof that it does - something readily apparent to anyone with even a basic level of education.

And you haven't answered my question: do you think that reading the Bible would be sufficient to understand the Taiping Rebellion?

[Feuer Frei!]

I know what an ideology is thank you - I have a degree in anthropology

You may well do sir, however your use of the word in your last post seems to have been misplaced, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Qu'ran being the absolute authority in islam and you offered your opinion which declared that the Qu'ran wasn't sufficient in debating a faith, islamic in this case, to which i pointed out you were wrong.
If you still disageree with my assessment of your opinion being wrong then i suggest you study the definition of authority, the Qu'ran and perhaps the purpose and contents of the Qu'ran and its hold in the islamic world.

I also know that saying that something exists isn't proof that it does - something readily apparent to anyone with even a basic level of educationWhere did this come from?

Unless now you are questioning the islamic faith in the Qu'ran?
We are discussing now the sufficiency or as you seem to opine, the insufficency of the Qu'ran, no?

If you want to discuss the contents of the Qu'ran and wether the Islamists believe what is written in the Qu'ran, then you should have said this and we can debate that, although that would bear little fruit, since the Qu'ran is the Authority in the islamic world.



And you haven't answered my question: do you think that reading the Bible would be sufficient to understand the Taiping Rebellion?I haven't answered it because this is the first time you have asked me this question.

Do you remember what you even post sometimes?

[AndyJWest]

Which doesn't change the fact that Islam is whatever the Quran says it is.
And you, again, call others stupid, which I slowly but surely really start to dislike.

And Christianity is whatever the Bible says it is? Or is there something magical about the Quran which makes its words transparent, unambiguous and devoid of alternative interpretations? If a Muslim told me that, I could understand it as an assertion of faith (without accepting it of course), but it seems an odd claim for an infidel to be making. The simple fact is that from the day the words were first written down, Islamic scholars have been debating what exactly it means.

Incidentally, only a small minority of Muslims consider the Quran to be the sole authority on Islam - most also include the sunnah, which is likewise the subject of much debate (not least because Sunni and Shia Muslims disagree over what texts are included).

[Feuer Frei!]

And Christianity is whatever the Bible says it is? Or is there something magical about the Quran which makes its words transparent, unambiguous and devoid of alternative interpretations? If a Muslim told me that, I could understand it as an assertion of faith (without accepting it of course), but it seems an odd claim for an infidel to be making. The simple fact is that from the day the words were first written down, Islamic scholars have been debating what exactly it means.

Incidentally, only a small minority of Muslims consider the Quran to be the sole authority on Islam - most also include the sunnah, which is likewise the subject of much debate (not least because Sunni and Shia Muslims disagree over what texts are included).

in several places the Qu'ran challenges the unbelievers:

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it (min mithlihi) and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers. S. 2:23-24

Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this (mithlihi) and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 10:38


Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it (mithlihi) and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 11:13


Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran (bimithlihi hatha al-Qurani), they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others. S. 17:88


Or do they say: He has forged it. Nay! they do not believe. Then let them bring an announcement like it (mithlihi) if they are truthful. S. 52:33-34




Based on these verses, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled


Happy reading AndyJWest,



Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

[Nippelspanner]

And Christianity is whatever the Bible says it is?I was wondering how long it might take you to bring up apples when we talk oranges...


Or is there something magical about the Quran which makes its words transparent, unambiguous and devoid of alternative interpretations? If a Muslim told me that, I could understand it as an assertion of faith (without accepting it of course), but it seems an odd claim for an infidel to be making. The simple fact is that from the day the words were first written down, Islamic scholars have been debating what exactly it means.
You're generalizing this issue for the whole Quran, which is wrong.
The Quran surely has passages that are open for interpretation, of course.
However, when an ideology follows a book blindly that clearly calls out for its minions to conquer and murder, the case is pretty much closed for me and no further "debates" between whomever are needed.

Our civilization, the most advanced on the planet, has to start to protect itself from religious zealots who live their lives after a ridiculous belief system, invented for the purpose of suppression and exploitation.

Incidentally, only a small minority of Muslims consider the Quran to be the sole authority on Islam...
Bingo! :har:
This is getting better and better.
You know, unfortunately, western intelligence agencies and many studies conducted over the past years disagree heavily with you.
This was mentioned in the all purpose terrorism thread ages ago, multiple times, with proof, sources, etc.
Would you consider changing your opinion on the "small minority" if sources would be provided? I'm asking in advance so I won't waste my time... again.
Also: Where are your numbers regarding the "small minority"?

Boy, did you just poke the bear...

[AndyJWest]

Yes and in several places the Qu'ran challenges the unbelievers:

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it (min mithlihi) and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers. S. 2:23-24

Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this (mithlihi) and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 10:38


Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it (mithlihi) and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 11:13


Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran (bimithlihi hatha al-Qurani), they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others. S. 17:88


Or do they say: He has forged it. Nay! they do not believe. Then let them bring an announcement like it (mithlihi) if they are truthful. S. 52:33-34




Based on these verses, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled


Happy reading AndyJWest,



Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

None of which is in any way evidence that Muslims actually share a common ideology beyond believing in the abstract that the Quran contains Truth. Like any other text, it is open to multiple interpretations. Interpretations that have divided Islam more than they have unified it. Holy books tend to do that.

[AndyJWest]

I was wondering how long it might take you to bring up apples when we talk oranges...


You're generalizing this issue for the whole Quran, which is wrong.
The Quran surely has passages that are open for interpretation, of course.
However, when an ideology follows a book blindly that clearly calls out for its minions to conquer and murder, the case is pretty much closed for me and no further "debates" between whomever are needed.

Our civilization, the most advanced on the planet, has to start to protect itself from religious zealots who live their lives after a ridiculous belief system, invented for the purpose of suppression and exploitation.


Bingo! :har:
This is getting better and better.
You know, unfortunately, western intelligence agencies and many studies conducted over the past years disagree heavily with you.
This was mentioned in the all purpose terrorism thread ages ago, multiple times, with proof, sources, etc.
Would you consider changing your opinion on the "small minority" if sources would be provided? I'm asking in advance so I won't waste my time... again.
Also: Where are your numbers regarding the "small minority"?

Boy, did you just poke the bear...

Please cite sources which state that 'western intelligence agencies' don't consider sunnah "the verbally transmitted record of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah as significant source texts for majority Islam. Good luck with that...

[Feuer Frei!]

None of which is in any way evidence that Muslims actually share a common ideology beyond believing in the abstract that the Quran contains Truth. Like any other text, it is open to multiple interpretations. Interpretations that have divided Islam more than they have unified it. Holy books tend to do that.

The Qu'ran teaches that these scriptures are genuinely the Word of God and upholds their integrity and authority.

It still does not change the fact that it is the only authority.

[Feuer Frei!]

What are you saying?

The Hadith is the second authority to islam, the first being Qu'ran.

This is widely known

[AndyJWest]

The Qu'ran teaches that these scriptures are genuinely the Word of God and upholds their integrity and authority.

It still does not change the fact that it is the only authority.

It does not change the fact that it is open to interpretation. Multiple interpretations, which have divided Islam. If there was only one possible interpretation, there would be no Sunni-Shia split, and none of the further fragmentations. No book is incapable of being read more than one way. That's the way with books.

And again, it isn't the only authority for the majority of Muslims. Do a little research on sunnah - even Wikipedia explains the basics.

[Feuer Frei!]

Sunnah is the second islamic source after the Qu'ran.

But still not the second authority!

Hadith is.

The Qu'ran is divine, 'uncorruptable'

Quran gives the commands/laws (authority) sunnah executes/practices the commands/laws.

You tell me which one is the authority.

Pretty clear, as it has always been.

No wiki leak or further education required.

You base your whole debate on the sunnah being the most widely-followed.

It leads to disaster for you.

[AndyJWest]

Sunnah is the second islamic source after the Qu'ran.

The Qu'ran is divine, 'uncorruptable'

Quran gives the commands/laws (authority) sunnah executes/practices the commands/laws.

You tell me which one is the authority.

Pretty clear, as it has always been.

No wiki leak or further education required.

You base your whole debate on the sunnah being the most widely-followed.

It leads to disaster for you.

No. The Quran is considered divine and incorruptible by Muslims. Who then go on to disagree over its meaning. It doesn't contain magic words that make everyone who reads it think exactly the same thing, any more that the Bible does. Or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban does for that matter. Books are written by people, read by people and interpreted by people. And different people read them different ways. This is true regardless of whether the person reading it thinks it is written by Allah or by J. K. Rowling. There is nothing magical about the book that makes it different from any other. It contains no single 'ideology' because the people who read it interpret it according to their own prior ideas and experience. Though why I should have to point out this self-evident fact to anyone claiming to be even remotely familiar with the history of Islam is almost beyond understanding.

[Feuer Frei!]

you do realise the bible is also the single authority in a faith don't you.

It also is misunderstood and re-written and misinterpreted, just like the Qu'ran, apart from the re-writing

Hence where denominations come from.

Still it does not change the fact that both these books are the single most authority for both of these religions.

You still argue or rather labour the point that books can be misunderstood or misinterpreted and that people disagree with their writings.

Once again, it still doesn't change the fact that both these books for their relative religions, are the single authority.

No amount of "pointing anything out" will change this.
I know it disturbs you to have to admit that.

You provided a wiki link which in the end did nothing to improve your situation.

Here for further educational purposes, although at this point in our debate, it is highly unlikely that what i write will be absorbed by you:


The primary source of Islam is the Qu'ran.

The concept of the Qu'ran is not rejected.

The Qu'ran is infallible.

The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God.

“Or do they say he forged it? Say: Bring then a chapter like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, beside God, if it be you speak the truth.” (Quran 10:38)


One of the most important characteristics of the Quran is that it remains today, the only holy book which has never changed; it has remained free from any and all adulterations.

The Quran and sunnah are not equal sources of guidance

[Oberon]

Might as well roll this into the terrorism thread then. :yep:

[AndyJWest]

you do realise the bible is also the single authority in a faith don't you.

It also is misunderstood and re-written and misinterpreted, just like the Qu'ran, apart from the re-writing

Hence where denominations come from.

Still it does not change the fact that both these books are the single most authority for both of these religions.

You still argue or rather labour the point that books can be misunderstood or misinterpreted and that people disagree with their writings.

Once again, it still doesn't change the fact that both these books for their relative religions, are the single authority.

No amount of "pointing anything out" will change this.
I know it disturbs you to have to admit that.

You provided a wiki link which in the end did nothing to improve your situation.

Here for further educational purposes, although at this point in our debate, it is highly unlikely that what i write will be absorbed by you:


The primary source of Islam is the Qu'ran.

The concept of the Qu'ran is not rejected.

The Qu'ran is infallible.

The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God.

“Or do they say he forged it? Say: Bring then a chapter like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, beside God, if it be you speak the truth.” (Quran 10:38)


One of the most important characteristics of the Quran is that it remains today, the only holy book which has never changed; it has remained free from any and all adulterations.

The Quran and sunnah are not equal sources of guidance

Since you are merely repeating yourself, there is nothing further I can say. It is a simple fact that Islam has no single overarching ideology, regardless of whether its followers consider the Quran infallible. Sunni and Shia disagree. Within Sunni Islam there are deep disagreements. Within Shia Islam there are deep disagreements. Disagreements which help fuel the recurrent violence in the middle east (though it should not need stating that outside interference also bears much responsibility). Presenting Islam as some sort of monolithic doctrine intent on waging holy war with the 'West' is simply nonsensical. That is the line that ISIS or Al-Qaeda put out, certainly, but it has no basis in objective fact. It is a dystopian fantasy pushed by xenophobes, latching on to the latest figures of hate - as has been done many times before. Yes, there are Islamic extremists out there, and yes, we need to take appropriate measures against them. But presenting this minority as 'true Islam' does nothing but add credence to their toxic claims. They are at war with Islam themselves - with the Islamic majority that recognises their hate-filled creed for what it is. And defeating the fundamentalists requires a deeper understanding of what the war is about than one that puts it all down to words written many years ago in the Quran. Simplistic, and utterly counterproductive.

[Oberon]

IIRC though wasn't the Sunni/Shia split more political than theological? Wasn't it over who was to succeed Muhammed as Caliph of the Islamic community, whether it was to be via nomination through a council of twelve Imams (Shia) or direct nomination by the predecessor (Sunni). At its very basic level that was around where the split began, and that was also around when the very rarely heard Khawarij Islam appeared too, who are more like the Muslims that NS and FF describe, since they believe that self-described Muslims are not true Muslims, and indeed Daesh and other radical groups have been described as Khawarij Muslims because of their willingness to commit takfir and kill those who they deem to be insufficiently Muslim. I suppose they would be the Muslim Puritans. :haha:

[AndyJWest]

IIRC though wasn't the Sunni/Shia split more political than theological? Wasn't it over who was to succeed Muhammed as Caliph of the Islamic community, whether it was to be via nomination through a council of twelve Imams (Shia) or direct nomination by the predecessor (Sunni). At its very basic level that was around where the split began, and that was also around when the very rarely heard Khawarij Islam appeared too, who are more like the Muslims that NS and FF describe, since they believe that self-described Muslims are not true Muslims, and indeed Daesh and other radical groups have been described as Khawarij Muslims because of their willingness to commit takfir and kill those who they deem to be insufficiently Muslim. I suppose they would be the Muslim Puritans. :haha:

The roots of the split were certainly political, as you say - though formally at least sometimes presented as a theological disagreement as I understand it. The point is however that there are now deep theological divisions between the two factions within Islam that can't be explained by any analysis that discounts differences of opinion over holy texts, and presents such texts instead as immutable doctrine. Instead, you need to know the history, and acknowledge that the texts were a locus of disagreement even as they were presented as a shared 'truth'.

[Oberon]

The roots of the split were certainly political, as you say - though formally at least sometimes presented as a theological disagreement as I understand it. The point is however that there are now deep theological divisions between the two factions within Islam that can't be explained by any analysis that discounts differences of opinion over holy texts, and presents such texts instead as immutable doctrine. Instead, you need to know the history, and acknowledge that the texts were a locus of disagreement even as they were presented as a shared 'truth'.

Absolutely, several prominant Shia clerics have even questioned the authenticity of the Qu'ran, claiming that it was altered after Muhammads death by his companions and so certain parts of it deserve greater emphasis than others. The text of the Qu'ran in both views remain identical but the interpretation differs, and that's the key factor in so, so many situations in religion, how each person interprets their religious book or writings.

[Jimbuna]

Might as well roll this into the terrorism thread then. :yep:

No, not atm but I have received a request to lock it.

Thread is being monitored.

[Oberon]

No, not atm but I have received a request to lock it.

Thread is being monitored.

Lot of that happening lately, kind of stymies discussion a bit when two people can shut down an entire thread. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Lot of that happening lately, kind of stymies discussion a bit when two people can shut down an entire thread. :hmmm:

That is partly why the thread remains open but I can do nothing when I'm offline or at work.

[Oberon]

That is partly why the thread remains open but I can do nothing when I'm offline or at work.

Fair point, rather than locking a thread though, wouldn't it be better to issue an initial directed warning ie: "Alright Oberon, that's enough personal attacks, dial it back or I'll be forced to issue an infraction." Perhaps with some kind of eye catching colour to make sure the person sees it (yellow or red? :hmmm:) and if that doesn't work then issue infractions, and then brig if that doesn't work, a sort of verbal, written, dismissal type thing.
Not trying to backseat mod, ultimately it's up to you, Steve and Neal how you go about keeping things from burning down GT, it just seems a bit unfair to anyone else in the thread who is perhaps having a civil discussion but then is unable to because other people cannot. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Fair point, rather than locking a thread though, wouldn't it be better to issue an initial directed warning ie: "Alright Oberon, that's enough personal attacks, dial it back or I'll be forced to issue an infraction." Perhaps with some kind of eye catching colour to make sure the person sees it (yellow or red? :hmmm:) and if that doesn't work then issue infractions, and then brig if that doesn't work, a sort of verbal, written, dismissal type thing.
Not trying to backseat mod, ultimately it's up to you, Steve and Neal how you go about keeping things from burning down GT, it just seems a bit unfair to anyone else in the thread who is perhaps having a civil discussion but then is unable to because other people cannot. :hmmm:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. We do our best Jamie.

The joys of moderation :)

[Dowly]

Fair point, rather than locking a thread though, wouldn't it be better to issue an initial directed warning ie: "Alright Oberon, that's enough personal attacks, dial it back or I'll be forced to issue an infraction." Perhaps with some kind of eye catching colour to make sure the person sees it (yellow or red? :hmmm:) and if that doesn't work then issue infractions, and then brig if that doesn't work, a sort of verbal, written, dismissal type thing.
Not trying to backseat mod, ultimately it's up to you, Steve and Neal how you go about keeping things from burning down GT, it just seems a bit unfair to anyone else in the thread who is perhaps having a civil discussion but then is unable to because other people cannot. :hmmm:

I agree 100%

[Nippelspanner]

My 2 cents...
Moderation could be stricter. Quicker warning, followed by immediate action.
Infractions don't kill, neither does the brig, temporarily.

If there's a poster who basically insults others as stupid in every second post without adding much else to whatever topic, I don't think there has to be warning shots at all, otherwise people like that just know they can push it until Jim posts and from there it's silence, yet the 'damage' done.

[Sailor Steve]

Fair point, rather than locking a thread though, wouldn't it be better to issue an initial directed warning ie: "Alright Oberon, that's enough personal attacks, dial it back or I'll be forced to issue an infraction." Perhaps with some kind of eye catching colour to make sure the person sees it (yellow or red? :hmmm:) and if that doesn't work then issue infractions, and then brig if that doesn't work, a sort of verbal, written, dismissal type thing.
Been there, done that, been criticized for it.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
:yep:

[Jimbuna]

My 2 cents...
Moderation could be stricter. Quicker warning, followed by immediate action.
Infractions don't kill, neither does the brig, temporarily.

If there's a poster who basically insults others as stupid in every second post without adding much else to whatever topic, I don't think there has to be warning shots at all, otherwise people like that just know they can push it until Jim posts and from there it's silence, yet the 'damage' done.

Fair points, which I'll reply to....

Stricter moderation: Probably lead to accusations of zero tolerance.

Quicker warning: Not always possible because of real life events but Steve does his best to be around when I'm unable.

Name calling and insults usually bring the most rapid response but usually a warning suffices. If a post content warrants it, text and or thread can be deleted but that needs to be balanced against accusations regarding censorship.

Take the above and add to it Neals wishes that moderators act with as 'light' a touch as possible and I trust you'll get a feel for what can soon become a veritable minefield.

The above is not a definitive explanation because Neal, Steve and I (but mainly Steve and I) speak almost daily on Skype and agree individual strategies about anything we feel is starting to look contentious.

Neal is happy with the above and tries not to get involved unless 'the roof comes off' on occasion.

As I explained to Jamie a short while ago, we do our best but moderation is not an exact science and strategies and tactics can change to address any number of different circumstances as they occur.

SubSim and GT in particular are actually quite timid when I compare to some other forums I frequent IMHO.

We, the community at SubSim should expect and accept nothing less than that.

[Nippelspanner]

Well I agree.
Subsim is probably the most peaceful/harmless/stable board I know.
Heated debates are another thing, these are normal, important even - in my opinion.
Nothing is worse than blind and boring harmony, amiright? :D

I didn't mean to imply something here is wrong, it isn't.
However, in recent times, postings with 'hidden insults' kinda happened more often and these could be handled a little stricter, I think.
Not as in response-time, but as in trying to de-escalate conflicts, if possible, before they escalate - if a mod is present, obviously.

Regarding "zero tolerance" or censorship, it sure is a thin line, the zero tolerance at least, since vague written insults can be hard to 'proof'.
Personally, I don't start to cry my heart out when someone says something mean, I don't really care, why should I - it's just a little frustrating if nothing gets done to stop it, or if simply too late to the party: Nothing done afterwards.

However, censorship?
No matter the topic here, and we had our fair share of border-line topics (Holocaust...), everyone can say anything he wants when sticking to the simple rules - without getting personal.
That has nothing at all to do with censorship and if someone would dare to pull this lame card, I'm sure a lot of people here would show him the door, virtually.
I'm a direct guy who crosses lines every now and then and sure can have a temper, I'm aware of that, yet speaking for myself, I wouldn't die from an infraction, a direct warning, or a holiday in the birg - if I was unable to stay behind said line.

Long story short: Don't worry about "censorship" accusations in this rather mature board, really.
I think we all can expect a certain level of self-control and responsibility.

[Feuer Frei!]

snip

Your debating skills are severly lacking.

I suggest before offering wiki links, pulling race cards, not addressing each and every post from the other party and addressing each point each and every time, expecting the other party to answer a question which was never asked in the first place, frequently changing the subject matter, having a somewhat lacklustre grasp of the english language which was proven by you inserting the word ideology into a post of yours and other moments of rather strange behaviour, i suggest you look at your debating skills closely and perhaps we can discuss or debate.

So in short, keep throwing links around, change the subject to suit your own agenda and prove that you cannot debate one topic at a time (Bible, Chinese Rebellion are 2 examples when the subject at hand was in fact something completely different) and i guarantee you you will run out of debaters.

I'm just reading post number 108 by you, and it's clear you are more interested in attempting to educate me on the sunni and shia and their interpretations and quiete frankly anything but the fact that, and let me again point it out to you that the topic was wether or not the Qu'ran is the authority in the Islam world.

You frankly haven't provided one bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.

If you think that it is sufficient to say that the Qu'ran is misinterpreted like any other book by elements of the islamic world and posting that the Qu'ran is not sufficient when discussing what is the absolute authority in the islamic world and continuosly change the topic to ideology and its ties with the Qu'ran then i have no more need to aid you in your continued downfall in this debate.

Keep it up, avoiding the topic at hand.

I'm done, cba to continue to debate with you.

Nothing personal of course, you have your views on it, i have mine.

[Jimbuna]

And so we come to an end/conclusion.