Iranian president:Holocaust a myth Europeans used to, blabla

[Sixpack]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel.ap/index.html
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/12/10/iran.israel/story.iran.protest.presiden.jpg

Here we go again. [sigh]

Will the islamo-fascist crap from the dark side of the ME ever stop ? Or rather: How do we make it stop ?

There used to be great spies in the Cold War. What happened to good old-fashioned spies (possibly with a license to kill) ? :P

I think we better use a good volunteer (a suicide bomber preferably) soon b4 satellites reveal the first Iranian long distance nukes :shifty:

[joea]

:nope: They voted an idiot into office. Feels good to talk about the Middle East for once instead of: US, UK, France, Canada...we have voted idiots in but this.

Seriously...humint has seriously been lacking in the "war on terror".

[Type941]

he starts to remind me of an internet troll, this Abbzjzjzmadjad.

[Oberon]

Did him and MSS go to the same school or something? :-?

[Konovalov]

Perhaps Ahmadinejad and other fellow Holocaust deniers such as Mel Gibson's father should all get together at Iran's nuclear reactor site just when Israel launches an airstrike upon it and kill two birds with one stone.

[retired1212]

Can I get some attention in media please? :D

[jumpy]

Will the islamo-fascist crap from the dark side of the ME ever stop ? Or rather: How do we make it stop ?

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/1782/dakota640c106at.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[DAB]

Will the islamo-fascist crap from the dark side of the ME ever stop ? Or rather: How do we make it stop ?


Perhaps not refering to him as an Islamo-Fascist might be a start. Just because someone uses a religion to justify their acts does not mean they conform to that religion.

I recall Adolf Hiter used christrian rhetoric to justify his actions. But to call him a Christian Fascist would be offensive - right?

This guy in question wants the west to condem him as an Islamic fundermentalist because it allows him to turn around and say "Look its true, they are against you the people and what you believe in." Treat him like any other dictator, contain him within his boarders but do not attack his beliefs. If you don't give him an enemy, then he can not frighten the Iranian people into unifying the people of Iran behind him.

Posting a picture of a Nuclear Bomb with the suggestion thats what we should do to Iran on a public forum on the other hand is not the cleaverest way to achieve this aim.

Oh and whilst i'm here, Iran isn't technically in the Middle East.

[Konovalov]

Oh and whilst i'm here, Iran isn't technically in the Middle East.

How true. And hence Iranians aren't Arabs. They are Asians.

[The Avon Lady]

Will the islamo-fascist crap from the dark side of the ME ever stop ? Or rather: How do we make it stop ?

Perhaps not refering to him as an Islamo-Fascist might be a start.
On the contrary. Perhaps it's time everyone called a spade a spade (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20539).

[Oberon]

Or just take the spade and whack him over the head with it :up:

[Hitman]

Well at least you must recognize that he is an idiot truly representative of the idiots that elected him :D The "representative democracy" worked again like a charm :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Well at least you must recognize that he is an idiot truly representative of the idiots that elected him :D The "representative democracy" worked again like a charm :rotfl:
Scroll down here (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA22905) to the subheading "Was There Electoral Fraud?". In fact, read the whole thing.

[DAB]

On the contrary. Perhaps it's time everyone called a spade a spade (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20539).

Why is a partisan article of little rigour or substance which quotes as its only source a President who allegedly claims he goes to war when 'god' tells him to [yes I know its a long sentance]... relevent to this topic.

Infact, wouldn't you be better off not posting an irrelevent article and instead trying to rebutt my last post. What exactly is wrong with what I said? Surely you can answer that?

And thencould you also answer my last question on the Explosions in London thread whilst your at it.

[The Avon Lady]

On the contrary. Perhaps it's time everyone called a spade a spade (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20539).
Why is a partisan article of little rigour or substance which quotes as its only source a President who allegedly claims he goes to war when 'god' tells him to [yes I know its a long sentance]... relevent to this topic.
DAB, speaking of partisanship, Bush never said such nonsense (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4317498.stm). Now why couldn't you tell us that?! :hmm:

And since you accuse the article of partisanship, just how is that so? It must be very easy to reveal the false facts and foundations it is built upon. Go ahead. Tell us.
Infact, wouldn't you be better off not posting an irrelevent article and instead trying to rebutt my last post.
Knowing ones enemy is most relevant.
What exactly is wrong with what I said? Surely you can answer that?
They don't call it the "Islamic" Republic of Iran for nothing. It's run by some highly religious people and authorities. If you don't recognize them as such, please tell us why?
And thencould you also answer my last question on the Explosions in London thread whilst your at it.
I'll have a look.............................................. ......

OK:
Yeah, but all the other news outlets seem to be selective on what they parrot. Most of the news outlets I've seen haven't bothered to say that.
Even the BBC initially mentioned the concern of a terrorist incident - and they are not basing themselves on the AP disptach.

Who else did you see quoting AP that didn't parrot it and are "selective", as you call them?
Question: Why have most news outlets decided not to empahsise the July 7th bombings and Fox have? Just because one other news outlet has followed Fox's lead (or vice versa - it doesn't change my argument), doesn't mean that its legimitmate speculation.
My initial point was don't blame Fox. Blame AP. I find it humorous that so many people have reflexes of shouting "Fox! Fox!" all the time, when they are often nothing more than a carbon copy of the mass media news services that feed them.

Don't misunderstand me. I am no Fox fan nor am I a fan of AP or most any other news agency today. But there seems to be a special Anti-American pastime in thinking that only the US' Fox can spew such low quality sensationalist news. You'll find the same nonsense spewed just as much by Reuters and AFP, to name a few.
2) So we have reports that Islamic Terrorists are going to attack at Christmas. This would be the same warning as last year...the year before that...the year before that...the year before that...the year before that. And the IRA before that.
My text for that link was the word "Boo". Did it make you jump up to the ceiling in panic for your loved ones? Me neither.
Oh and whilst your there. Perhaps you can explain how this is an Al Quiada attack.
First of all, it's turning out to sound like it was a work accident and not an attack.

Second of all, fact is someone using Al Qaeda's name made the announcement they did 4 days before. Anyone who shares Al Qaeda's beliefs could consider performing such a terrorist act. I do not believe you have to be a card-carrying member.
Oh and then explain why this is an Al Quiada attack and not an omen of the comming of the Son of God - or the second coming of the Christian Son of God. Given there is equal evidence for both theories.
You forgot Budhist monks and Mormon choir boys.

Get real.
In the mean time, I am going to cower in terror at the local Taven and have a couple of drinks - secretly being suspicious of the local ethnic minority groups that I am supposed to be socialing with.
Whatever.

[jumpy]

Posting a picture of a Nuclear Bomb with the suggestion thats what we should do to Iran on a public forum on the other hand is not the cleaverest way to achieve this aim.

There's no acheiving anything- this is a discussion fora.

As for the pic.... well, lets have a show of hands, who can spot the irony given Iran and it's recent nuclear posturing?

Whilst I am prepared to admit a certain ambivalence over some middleast issues (I did live in that part of the world for some years), there's no denying that some Arabs are raving heeby geeby nutters, who wouldn't hesitate to slot you or I given half a chance- that goes for the civilians too not just the people in power.

[The Avon Lady]

there's no denying that some Arabs are raving heeby geeby nutters
As has been pointed out, Iranians are not Arabs. :nope:

Rephrase.

[jumpy]

Rephrase.

No. That's just pedantic in this instance.

[Skybird]

This ongoing ranting by Ahmadinejad deserves some closer examination.

Antisemitism has a long history in Islam. In the West there is a widespread misunderstanding concerning the term „dhimma“, which usually, by pro-Islam Westerners, is understood as a status of „Schutzbefohlenheit“, that means a status of protecting a minor protégé that submit to Islam as the superior ruler and in return is allowed to stay in it’s religious difference. This status was allowed for Christian and Jewish minorities in countries that fell under Islamic rulership in the early centuries of the Islamic conquest.

However, this had nothing to do with a mental state of tolerance towards Jews and Christians. Quite the opposite. Islam, having no doubt that it is mentally, religiously, culturally, sociologically, politcally, economically and even biologically superior to everything non-Islamic, accepted this special status only because these two religions, are regarded as earlier steps of religious developement that led to the final shaping of the only true religion there is, Islam. That Christians and Jews were unwilling to submit to that „truth“ made them appear to be mentally inferior to Muslim understanding. Even more, whereas Christians were allowed to take professions of higher skill, art, and status, Jews in most parts of the Islamic world had been regarded as non-humans or sub-humans only, the link between man and animals, and thus in many places they were subject to systematical harassement, arbitrary murder, stoning by Muslim children. They had to wear – like the Christians – yellow dots on their clothes, and they were increasingly ordered to live in concentrated ghettos of cities. They had to walk on bare feet or sandals and where not allowed to wear proper shoes. As believers of the (wrong) scriptures they were to be accepted, but only as lower beeings, that had to behave humble and never shall question or challenge the superiority of Islam, nor had they ever to raise the request of interacting with Muslims on same eye-level and equal terms. The lowest works and jobs only were given to them, butchers, tanners, and so on. With regard to history six decades ago all this somewhat sounds familiar, doesn’T it. Dhimma does not mean a tolerant coexistence and protecting a minority, but was about racism, humiliation and discrimination. The same is true toward’s Islam’s attitude towards the Christians, but in many cases it did not lead to that extreme levels as with regard to the Jews. Christians for example were allowed to take low and medium level jobs in the administration, Jews were not allowed that. To take dhimma as an example for Islam’s tolerance towards non-Islamic factions and minorities, as is the case with some naive and uneducated minds in the West propagating the dialogue with Islam inside the West, is absurd and simply wrong, if you just look close enough at it. And that means not stopping after reading the according passages in the Qu’ran, but studying the history that emerged from it. Although Quran and hadith also leave little doubt about that non-Islamic people are regarded to have an obilgation to behave towards Muslims in a position of humbleness and passive submission. It seems to me they are even expected to show their acceptance for a penalty for believing in the wrong faith. Dhimma is a dictate of discriminative, non-equal living conditions, no protective tolerance and offering of coexistence.

Muhammad’s extreme hostility towards the Jews, resulting from the early offending he received when meeting their superior debating theologists after he went to Medina, displayed the first time when he took first revenge for that insult by ordering a massive mass murdering amongst Jewish tribes that almost anihilated the last remaining Jewish tribe around Medina and led all their females into slavery. Later the antisemitism of Muhammad found it’s expression in increasingly antisemite passage of the quran and the hadith as well, and since these scriptures despite their man-made origin are regarded in Islam as the devine revelation of Allah, they influenced the whole history of Islam and later scriptures as well. The ranting led as far as comparing Jews to mentally retarded results of incest, because Israeli men only marry Israeli women and that way the typical Jewish depravity is given from generation to generation, without any chance for them to ever fresh up their abilities by new bloodlines. Al-Djahiz (9th century), a satirist, led his audience as far as pointing towards the fact that the same can be said „about horses, camels, donkey and doves.“ The early Medina massacre itself got reinterpreted by their murderers as a justified penalty by Allah coming to those who made themselves targets for Allah’s wrath: 3/112 „Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.“ (Slaughter of prophets refer to the Jews having killed Jesus) It is a long-trained reflex of Islam to always refer to itself in a circular argument and present itself as a victim that got offended when Islam was brought to a halt in it’S craving for expansion by someone who was too strong to simply submit. Since Islam think s of itself as the goal of evolution and the only devine truth there is, any rejection to it causes a narcist wounding of it’s selfunderstanding, which became very appearant in it’s confrontation with the overwhelmingly superior European nations after the time of enligthenment. Their superiority could not be explained by Islam, and it struggled severly to find reinterpretations for this historical paradoxon (paradoxon in Islamic understanding only).

The Islamic hostility towards Jews and Christians is somehwat irrational, but not surprising, because it is very clear that Islam heavily owes to both religions and their scriptures. When Muhammad had changed the orientation during prayers from heading towards Jerusalem to Mekka, and declared Abraham to be the builder of the Kaaba, he both displayed some of the origins of the theology he was about to form himself, and his attempt to contrast to the old tradition and make his system different than that he originally was basing upon. To what degree a strong and egocentric character like Muhammad got hurt by the early Jewish arrogance he faced when meeting them in the beginning can only be estimated. As an ex-psychologist I think it somewhat traumatized him, at least it produced a tick of him, to be different and superior to those that declined him, and to be so at all costs. Jerusalem originally was no holy place for Islam at all. Not before the Christian’s defensive counterattack, after the Islamic attack on Europe in the Medieval, led to the European crusades and the recapturing of Jerusalem, Muslim interest for the city raised. Not because it was so special, but because it became evident that the Christians wanted the citiy and that it was of value for them. Islam needed a reason to take it back from them, and so declared the city as a holy good for Islam as well. It’s position generally was: „I want it, because you want it.“

Islamic antisemitism is not based on ideological motives, as antisemitism in Western nations usually is, but is based on an existential basement that got created from the early and unlucky contacts between The medinian Jewish theologists and Muhammad, whose personal and excessive reaction to that „Kränkung“ (offending? Insult?) was very excessive and resulted in a massacre, and that formed a tradition of antisemite sentiments that survived over the centuries, because Islam regards itself as the fulfillment of history and it’s final, most excellent ending point. This is what makes Islam so very resistant towards changes and influences, and helped the orthodoxy of the Sunna to wipe out later attempts of Muslim thinkers to establish traditions of an Islamic philosophy, science or mystic. Orthodxy is the one and only dogma in Islam that has enforced unconditional submission of all and everthing, wether it be sociological, political, economical or religious themes. Even the often quoted tradition of Sufism has completely surrendered to this orthodxy and this has not prioduced anything worth to be regharded as true mystic at all. It’s arts are rich in expression and beauty of form, but for the most poor in content. Muslim antisemitism, for that reason, is rooted deep inside the very heart of it, and is highly unlikely to ever be overcome. For that Islam would have to turn into something that is not Islam anymore. And major changes to it’s dogmatic basis Islam has not seen since more than a millenium now. The Israeli’s position of maximum alertness and caution towards Islam is fully understandable and has a history that leads centuries before the founding of Israel. They are right to be so much cautious.

One have to wonder how Islam’S later shape would be different today with a more friendly and less arrogant welcome for Muhammed when he met the Jewish tribes at Medina. Things would look different today, I’m sure. Nevertheless Muhammad’s character probaly always would have led him to seek dominance of whatever a kind. He simply was like that.

The history of anti-Jewish and anti-christian sentiments led to the severe poisening of the status in Grenada, which even grew in violance and humilation after the Almohads took over the power from their Muslim predecessors and established their influence in Spain and north-Western Africa. An equal developement was to be seen in those Muslim countries that after the murdering of Kalif Ali and the separation of the Shia from the major line of the Sunni were left under shia control, which especially was true for Persia. With the Almohads spreading their influence and soon controlling all of northafrica, the open terror and barbaric treatment of Jews also was practices towards the Christians. I can only wonder how often people in the West praise the era of Grenada – and oversee the ammount of conflict and honstlity that was present there all the time. It was far from beeing an example for peaceful coexistence of two cultures. Such comments illustrate only lacking historical knowledge. There have been culutrual exchange and valubale developements, yes – but they form only one part of the complete picture. The dark parts are often forgotten.

The terror in Persia and Marocco ended not before the Osman empire emerged, and with it came a phase of >relative< peaceful tolerance for Jews who fled Europe in an attempt to escape the reprisals of reformation. This was to the disadvantage of the christian factions of europe, because the Jews brought with them the superior knowledge of new technology and weaponry that before had left the Muslim factions with serious disdvanatges in their armed conflicts with later Europe. Without the Jewish emmigration, Islam‘s new attack into the heart of Europe, after the drive through Spain and into central France in the 11th century, and in the 16th and 17th century Turkish armies trying to capture Vienna, wouldn’T have been possible, and would have been stopped by European armies in the very beginning of such operations. There would have been no Muslim presence on the Balkans as well. Nevertheless the Osman tolerance had limits and nevertheless was tolerance inMuslim understanding: that is a deeply-rooted contempt for the ahl al-dhimma who simply were too stupid by nature to see the superiority of Islam and convert to it’s ony real truth there is. This contempt again raised after the Muslim defeat at Vienna and the driving back of muslim expansion into Europe. Those who first enabled the Osmans to arm their armies, and directly acted to the massive disadvantage of christian countries in europe, so that the Osman armies were competitive to those of the West, now again saw things turning against them, which in this special historical context maybe was not really undeserved, from a Christian perspective. The system of the dhimma lost one of it’s two major pillars, it’s validity for the christians whose countries prooved to be too strong to be overcomed by Islam’S „superiority“. As it is so very typical for Islam, another time this led to no questioning of Islam itself, the dogma of Islam remained unquestioned as always and instead again the opponent that Islam was unable to defeat was given all guilt – once again Islam thought of the final military defeat in Erope as a „Kränkung“ (insult) (for Islam it always is the others, you see). This feeling of insult led to uncontrolled massacres amongst Jews and Christains in Northwest Africa, and Persia, and an again growing hostile sentiment towards Jews and Christians in all Muslim territories in general, who faced progroms all over. The growing European military presence in Muslim countries took over the protection of Jewish minorities, by that the second pillar of the dhimma-system (described to be protective, but beeing racist and humiliating in fact) was no more present – another insult of Islam was born.

When Israel was founded after WW2, another insult was added to the list. As you know I questioned the wisdom to have found the state of Israel the way it was done in a thread some months ago, but I did so not so much because I see a general Muslim right to demand this territory for Islamic factions (the holiness of Jeruslem is real for institutional Jews and Christians only, whereas it was somewhat artificially created by Islam only to have a reason to demand the city for itself and not leaving it to the enemy), but because as the realities on the ground – generations of Arabs who had lived there and now had to flee. For the same reason I do not question Israel’S right to exist where it is NOW: again for the same kind of realities on the ground, two generations of different people who already have lived there now and would have to flee in case the staus changes. But I share the doubt of military-historian van Creveld that Israel is in a winning position. I can see no possebility how it can survive there in the long run. It is suicide over a very long time only, imo. Which is logical when looking at the highly artifical, vulnerable and enforced conditions under which the founding took place in an environemnt that was most hostile and shaken by years of armed conflict between British, Jews, and Arabs. The whole thing was too fragile from the very beginning, or shall one say: it was madness? What worries me is that the fall of Israel very easily could bring doom and final termination for all human civilization. Compared to the middle east, I regard Northkorea as harmless. The whole effort with Israel – was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of mankind, I think.

In the modern time the lost sytem of dhimma found it’s continuation with more and more common Muslim arguments, that the holocaust never took place, and the whole fate of the Jews in Europe during the Nazi era is an attempt only to justify their status by declaring them as victims of crimes that never took place. Of course this is a lie, but Islam accepts everything that supports the cause of Islam, since Islam is the only God-wanted authority there can be on earth. Islam leaves no doubt that it believes it’s vital interests to be threatened by the sheer existence of Israel, and it thinks in timetables that are longer than the fast-living, shortsigthed perspectives that have become common in the West. „Israel exists for only 50 years, but during the crusades we waited 200 years before capturing the city“ (Jerusalem), the Syrian government said in the early 90s. That gives a taste of what is to be expected from changes in Islam. There will be no substantial changes at all. All of Islam’s history speaks against that. Everything that could cause changes – got fought down, got killed, got destroyed, got forced to submit.

In the mid90s I stayed in Iran for a longer while. Watching TV these days I must admit that I do not recognize the country nowadays. When i was there, there was a climate of hope, the young ones hoped for some more liberties (they never wanted democracy in Western understanding, they DID NOT WANT IT!) and a declining of influence of the orthodox mullahs, more freedom for medias, internet, young culture, travelling. During a brake of my boss I exchanged thought with a cleric from southern Teheran myself. He sounded very reasonable and said, that the existence of Israel is a fact that should be accepted for the sake of peace, and that the american agitation is the far bigger problem there, and that mistakes had been made on all sides. I also felt no hostility towards myself when I indicated that I even did not belong to the community of the book, but was more a Buddhist than anything else. He asked questions, and when by my answers he saw no way to convince me of the superiority of Islam, he stopped trying so, showed interest for the Kalamas-Sutra instead, which seem to have fascinated him, and he asked a very lot about it.

And now I see this guy that in a german headline was labelled as „der Irre im Iran“. Sounds funny, but we have to realize that he displays the real face of Islam, not the separated fundamentalist face of Islam – becausee Islam IS fundamentalistic by core and essence. It is the moderate and tolerant „Muslims“ that represent a whatever abberrative aspect of Islam that is often not in congruency with Islam as it has revealed it’s nature during history. I have immense problems to think of these kinds of Muslims as true Muslims (if they mean what they say when talking of tolerance and non-expansion of Islam). The West’s distinction between the fundamentalistic and the „real“ Islam is – misleading, and wishful thinking. It’s a Fata Morgana. Maybe I allowed myself to get deceived when I was in Iran back then. It probably depends on the answer to what degree this „Irre im Iran“ is representative for Iranian society, and especially the young ones. He stands for the orthodoxy, and the secret services and the Revolutionary Guards (met members of them several times during interviews of my boss, they always made my hairs raising and left me on maximum alert – their ammount of most extreme fanatism can be felt around them like a windy air). But to what degree does he represent the intentions of the young men not linked to these two groups? If to a higher degree, than I would admit I need to readjust my attitude towards the Iranians.

Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad’s antisemitic ranting is standing in a long history of Islamic antisemitism. Because of that it is no wonder that he can do that without critizism from muslim factions and governments – his propaganda slips by almost undiscussed, unquestioned, even not worth to disagree about.

[TteFAboB]

We had a visit from a Prince of some Middle-Eastern country a while ago and he was far, far more honest than the local Imman, he openly admited true Muslims are fundamentalists, though he distorted the word a little bit, he actually tried to make it sound like a good thing, but one minute later he was speaking about the necessary destruction of the state of Israel, what a nice guy!

:hulk:

[retired1212]

This ongoing ranting by Ahmadinejad deserves some closer examination.

....

Skybird, did you really write this whole post? :o I am glad that you were not my teacher or I'd be sleeping in your class :D

[TteFAboB]

When Skybird talks about Islam, I actually agree with him (his last paper about it was quite good).

Why, since the Oslo agreements, the number of Christians in the palestinian city of Belen has drastically reduced to one third? Lebanese Professor Habib Malik says "90% of the 10 million Christians who live in Muslim countries never had a free life, with dignity and equality". I wonder why the alleged defenders of Human Rights and injustice hunters never mention any of this, as far as Islam is involved. Indonesia tolerated the murder of ten thousand Christians in their islamification process of the Molucas islands, and how many more perished in Nigeria on the 12 states that adopted the sharia. In Pakistan deaths account only to a dozen, but Christians and any other non-muslim persons are treated as second-hand citizens, they cannot be witness against a Muslim and are considered to be like the old "untouchable" class, worthy only of cleaning latrines. In Saudi Arabia converted Christians can be sentenced to death.

The tolerance is completely asymmetric, Italian EU minister Rocco Buttiglione had to resign after declaring his Christianity in public, something that would be considered discriminatory had he declared himself a Muslim. So, in Rome you can build a Mosque next to the St. Peter Cathedral, but in Riad it is a crime to posses a Christmass card. Our western tolerance is something that must honor us, say whatever you say, enemies from the West, but when a Virgin Mary statue is burned in Muslim lands we do not have multitudinal mutiny and general lynching in our larger Christian cities. We have also mobilized more than once to defend Muslims in their own lands (Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.).

However, the worst of all is when tolerance becomes the fifth column of intolerance, the great global media maximizes (to the point of lie) the suffering of the official victims of today (the palestinians, arabs and Muslims in general), and ignores (to the point of fraud) the barbarity these victims may have commited against their enemies and even between themselves. As Skybird mentioned, the politically correct myth of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerant for 14 centuries, is false. Nobody doubts the vast majority of Muslims are people of peace, just like almost every person from the communist block were people of peace. Islam, like marxism, is a bellicose religion that formally declares war on the rest of mankind. The Muslim peace and tolerance are the equivalent of socialist equality: it's only valid to their faithfull followers and will only take effect after total victory, the difference is that socialism promises a future while Islam calls to the past.

Robert Spencer in "The Myth of Islamic tolerance: How Islamic law treats non-muslims" helps defeat the myth of Islamic tolerance that would justify the introduction of Islamic principles in western societies, it also tears down the myth that Jihad is a kind of internal, spiritual effort to reach virtue, something that Sophists have tried time and again to make us believe in. Historically Islam was pacific for 13 years, from 622 onward it became a religion of war and conquer, the quotes from the Koran about peace and concord are almost all from the initial period, but the contradictions of the Koran are traditionally resolved with the abrogation doctrine, the recent texts revoke the older ones.

The result is that Islam sees the word like Manicheans, like marxists, as a metaphysical cosmic war, between the enlightened good and the perverse who refuse to accept the superior truth. That's why we have suicidal terrorists, and it also explains the enthusiasm that excites the common Muslims on the street. This enthusiasm is shared by the western left-wingers, in Spencer's book he compiled an introduction by "Ibn Warraq" (pseudonym for an Indian Islamic apostate) about the historical origins of this phenomenom. After remembering about the milenary tradition of speaking well of the exotic unknown to satirize or criticize our own society (Tacitus, Montaigne), Warraq documents the genealogy of Islamic praising in detriment of the west. It starts in the 17th century when protestants like Pierre Jurieu and Pierre Bayle iniciate the myth of Islamic tolerance, compared to the European Catholic religious fanatism.

The gender becomes popular with classic figures like Montesquieu (Persian letters, 1721), Voltaire in several of his tales, Oliver Goldsmith (Citizen of the World, 1762), José Cadalso (Cartas Marruecas, 1789), and many others. Of intelectual influence you have Voltaire (Histoire de Moeurs, 1756) and Gibbon (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, 1776), that gave "scientifical" credentials to the myth of Islamic tolerance. The myth continues to our date, from the Republican-Spain historiography (Américo Castro) to the popular Muhammed's biographers of the 20th century. It is with the development of the specialized studies that evidence against the myth arises, always treated with discretion of course, as in the case of Bernard Lewis.

Edward Said mixtured the traditional myth with the venomous imperial-victimization in his fraudulent Orientalism (1978), which is destroyed by Daniel Pipes and his "Jihad and the Professors" article.

The odium theologicum expressed by the Islamic world towards Israel can be explained by Skybirds comments on the concept of "dhimma" developed by historian Bat Ye'or: Israel is the victory, the independence and the prosperity of those that by divine order are destined to become slaves, excluded from politics, religion and civic society.

[Konovalov]

Antisemitism has a long history in Islam.

As does Christianity and Europe. Just to get a little perspective and to borrow the Fox News slogan "Fair and Balanced" here is what I mean.
Firstly are some examples of Canonical Law in Europe thru the ages:
- Prohibition of intermarriage and of sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews. Synod of Elvira. 306
- Jews and Christians not permitted to eat together. Synod of Elvira. 306
- Jews not allowed to hold public Office. Synod of Clermont, 535
- Jews not allowed to employ Christian servants or possess Christian slaves, 3d Synod of Orleans, 538
- Jews not permitted to show themselves in the streets during Passion Week. 3 (1 Synod of OrlEans, 538.
- Burning of the Talmud and other books, 12th Synod of Toledo. 681
- Christians not permitted to patronize Jewish doctors, Trullan Synod. 692
- Christians not permitted to live in Jewish homes, Synod of Narhonne, 050
- Jews obliged to pay taxes for support of the Church to the same extent as Christians. Synod of Gerona, 1078
- Jews not permitted to be plaintiffs, or witnesses against Christians in the Courts, 3d Lateran Council, 1179, Canon 26
- Jews not permitted to withhold inheritance from descendants who had accepted Christianity, 3d Lateran Council, 1179, Canon 26
- The marking of Jewish clothes with a badge, 4th Lateran Council, 1215. Canon 68 (Copied from the legislation by Caliph Omar II [636-644], who had decreed that Christians wear blue belts and Jews, yellow belts)
- Construction of new synagogues prohibited, Council of Oxford, 1222
- Christians not permitted to attend Jewish ceremonies, Synod of Vienna. 1267
- Jews not permitted to dispute with simple Christian people about the tenets of the Catholic religion. Synod of Vienna. 1267
- Compulsory ghettos. Synod of Breslau, 1267
- Christians not permitted to sell or rent real estate to Jews. Synod of Ofen, 1279
- Adoption by a Christian of the Jewish religion or return by a baptized Jew to the Jewish religion defined as a heresy. Synod of Mainz, 1310
- Jews not permitted to act as agents in the conclusion of contracts, especially marriage contracts between Christians. Council of Basel, 1434. Sessio XIX
- Jews not permitted to obtain academic degrees. Council of Basel, 1434, Sessio XIX

And let's not forget the Justinian Code which was an edict from the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-564). Within this code Jews were prohibited from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court.

Then of course there were the Crusades during the period between 1096-1272 where on the way to Jerusalem Crusaders made "little stop-overs" thru Europe and murdered thousands of what they viewed as infidels who were simply Jews and guilty of no crime.

And what events transpired during the Medieval Inquisition period within Europe that targeted Jews simply because of their faith? When Pope Gregory IX sent Dominican Friars to France and Italy the Dominican order had many of it's own goals and objectives one of which was to convert Jews to Christianity. But it was the Spanish Inquisition which took the persecution of the Jews to a new level. In the year 1354 12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo, Spain. For 14 years Jews were tortured and burned to death after which after which they were given the choice (if you could call it that) of either exile or baptism. Most Jews chose exile which was testament to their strength of faith.

And what can be said for the Protestant Reformation and the founder of Protestantism, in the 16th century, Martin Luther. In some of his writings he described Jews amongst other things as the anti-Christ. He labelled Jews as poisoners, parisites, and ritual murders. Jews were worse than devils he said. In his On the Jews and Their Lies, he repeatedly quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called them "a brood of vipers and children of the devil". Martin Luther called for the expulsion of Jews from Europe, the destruction of synagogues, and the seizing of all Jewish books and literature. Sounds very familiar to what transpired a little more than 400 years later in Nazi Germany and across Nazi occupied Europe.

I thought you were't going to post such long threads anymore. Must go as Rome is about to continue on the Beeb this evening. Caesar chases Pompey to Egypt only to find Pompey minus his head. :o

Back later. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

Antisemitism has a long history in Islam.

As does Christianity and Europe. Just to get a little perspective and to borrow the Fox News slogan "Fair and Balanced" here is what I mean.
Firstly are some examples of Canonical Law in Europe thru the ages:
- Prohibition of intermarriage and of sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews. Synod of Elvira. 306
- Jews and Christians not permitted to eat together. Synod of Elvira. 306
- Jews not allowed to hold public Office. Synod of Clermont, 535
- Jews not allowed to employ Christian servants or possess Christian slaves, 3d Synod of Orleans, 538
- Jews not permitted to show themselves in the streets during Passion Week. 3 (1 Synod of OrlEans, 538.
- Burning of the Talmud and other books, 12th Synod of Toledo. 681
- Christians not permitted to patronize Jewish doctors, Trullan Synod. 692
- Christians not permitted to live in Jewish homes, Synod of Narhonne, 050
- Jews obliged to pay taxes for support of the Church to the same extent as Christians. Synod of Gerona, 1078
- Jews not permitted to be plaintiffs, or witnesses against Christians in the Courts, 3d Lateran Council, 1179, Canon 26
- Jews not permitted to withhold inheritance from descendants who had accepted Christianity, 3d Lateran Council, 1179, Canon 26
- The marking of Jewish clothes with a badge, 4th Lateran Council, 1215. Canon 68 (Copied from the legislation by Caliph Omar II [636-644], who had decreed that Christians wear blue belts and Jews, yellow belts)
- Construction of new synagogues prohibited, Council of Oxford, 1222
- Christians not permitted to attend Jewish ceremonies, Synod of Vienna. 1267
- Jews not permitted to dispute with simple Christian people about the tenets of the Catholic religion. Synod of Vienna. 1267
- Compulsory ghettos. Synod of Breslau, 1267
- Christians not permitted to sell or rent real estate to Jews. Synod of Ofen, 1279
- Adoption by a Christian of the Jewish religion or return by a baptized Jew to the Jewish religion defined as a heresy. Synod of Mainz, 1310
- Jews not permitted to act as agents in the conclusion of contracts, especially marriage contracts between Christians. Council of Basel, 1434. Sessio XIX
- Jews not permitted to obtain academic degrees. Council of Basel, 1434, Sessio XIX

And let's not forget the Justinian Code which was an edict from the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-564). Within this code Jews were prohibited from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court.

Then of course there were the Crusades during the period between 1096-1272 where on the way to Jerusalem Crusaders made "little stop-overs" thru Europe and murdered thousands of what they viewed as infidels who were simply Jews and guilty of no crime.

And what events transpired during the Medieval Inquisition period within Europe that targeted Jews simply because of their faith? When Pope Gregory IX sent Dominican Friars to France and Italy the Dominican order had many of it's own goals and objectives one of which was to convert Jews to Christianity. But it was the Spanish Inquisition which took the persecution of the Jews to a new level. In the year 1354 12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo, Spain. For 14 years Jews were tortured and burned to death after which after which they were given the choice (if you could call it that) of either exile or baptism. Most Jews chose exile which was testament to their strength of faith.

And what can be said for the Protestant Reformation and the founder of Protestantism, in the 16th century, Martin Luther. In some of his writings he described Jews amongst other things as the anti-Christ. He labelled Jews as poisoners, parisites, and ritual murders. Jews were worse than devils he said. In his On the Jews and Their Lies, he repeatedly quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called them "a brood of vipers and children of the devil". Martin Luther called for the expulsion of Jews from Europe, the destruction of synagogues, and the seizing of all Jewish books and literature. Sounds very familiar to what transpired a little more than 400 years later in Nazi Germany and across Nazi occupied Europe.
All very nice. Now what are the god given (every single thing you referenced is man-given) texts that dictated this Christian anti-semitism? Yes, they are there.

Perfect timing, BTW. Please read today's relevant DhimmiWatch article:

Dhimmitude at The Guardian: Anti-Semitism transmitted from the West to the Islamic world (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009417.php).

Make sure to read all the comments below the article for no lack of quotes from Islamic scriptures all over the place that show this vile hatred was ingrained in Islam from day 1 - not day 111690.

[TteFAboB]

Hurry! Brothers! Let us slain these anti-semite Christians. (http://www.openheaven.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=7059&PN=1&TPN=1)

They do not deserve to live! (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1364435.html)

[The Avon Lady]

Hurry! Brothers! Let us slain these anti-semite Christians. (http://www.openheaven.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=7059&PN=1&TPN=1)

They do not deserve to live! (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1364435.html)
Also from today's DhimmiWatch:

Remember Biafra (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009413.php).

You'll find lots more there on recent cases of Christian oppression by Muslims.

[Skybird]

Konovalov,

nice and well what you said and referred to. But to what degree do these examples of yours change the appearance of Islam? You try to counter my critizism of Islam by making something else looking as bad as well? I am allowed to ask that with all naivity, since I have no explicit interest to defend Christian churches and their policies, and have no link to them.

As I pointed out in that longer essay of mine some weeks ago, the Vatican secretly counts with and knows of around 150 thousand Christians per year beeing brought to death in progroms by Muslims in Muslim countries in the years before - 2003 it was, I think. And that means ALL Muslim countries affected by that, to varying degrees.

Do you see something similiar taking place in the Western nations in the present? In Germany the number of Muslim community buildings have increased by a factor of fifteen in the last thirty years. In what Muslim country can something comparable be said and found concerning religious minorities in these countries? I give you a clear answer: in none.

In Germany the CIA-abduction of German-Lebanese Al-Masri currently causes high waves. What people do not talk about is that although he may not have been the hardcore Taleban or supporter of extremists he was supposed to be, he is member of a local fundamentalistic Islamic community that is under surveillance by the police and the BKA for longer time now. One should assume that this would be enough to ask questions if he really is only about justice when accusing the United States and the CIA and filed a case at court. If Americans would assume that he is not so much about justice but trying to blame the Us and letting them look bad, this would be one of the opportunities when I agree and line up with American opinions. But examining his links to that fundamentalistic cell - which probably led to him being centred in the BND's and the CIA's crosshairs - in public discussion is considered to be politically uncorrect and somethign that does damage by insulting the Islamic community. The Orient's and Occident's very different levels of tolerance towards their religious minorities I cannot imagine to be more extreme.

You are right, I am not that much active here anymore, only certain themes call me back. And the growing influence of Islam in Western countries where it has nothing to do and shall not be accepted at all for the sake of our own cultural legacy, is one of the things that I rate with top importance amongst all of today's daily political and sociological issues. I have decided not to be neutral on these things anymore and try to fight by reason, history and clear argument, not by violance, against Islam whenever I can. I do not want it here, in my "home sphere", neither in my home nation, nor in the traditionally "Christian europe", for it is in opposition to almost everything that I consider to be of cultural and rational value and cultural gains acchieved by our ancestors in recent centuries. We cannot have the smallest interest to have it here, and we do not have any obligation whatever to want it and support it. In recent debates I never defended Islam's right's in the West, I only defended the right of local populations in foreign countries to live up to Islamic rules, if they want, and part of this acting has founded my alleged Anti-american attitude. They have no right to demand the spreading of Islam - in our places. Because it is not their places and homes, but ours.

Sorry that we necessarily must disagree here, you and me, but your presence will not make me taking a passive and defensive stand on Islam, for some queer reasons of politeness. I do not personally aim at you, but if you happen to step into my "firing line", so be it ;). I act the same way here in my hometown as well. Repeatedly Muslims have tried to engage me in discussions on the streets at "information desks", and I talked without polite restriction then and really went straight for the flaws in their arguments, without restraint. There is nothing wrong in letting them known that Islam by a not always silent majority of Germans is not wanted here and that public opinion is in cointrast to the almost unlimited invitations spoke out by politicians.

[Konovalov]

Konovalov,

nice and well what you said and referred to. But to what degree do these examples of yours change the appearance of Islam?

They don't and that was also not my intent to do so. I have given up here on that task here at Subsim. People are so entrenched on thier views that nobody is going to change their mind. Hence my decision not to post a long thread trying to "change the appearance of Islam" as you put it.


You try to counter my critizism of Islam by making something else looking as bad as well? I am allowed to ask that with all naivity, since I have no explicit interest to defend Christian churches and their policies, and have no link to them.

No, I did not seek to counter your criticism of Islam by making something else look bad. I merely sought to point out that religions of all kinds have used violence or oppressed minorities. The common denominator in all this is man himself.

Sorry that we necessarily must disagree here, you and me, but your presence will not make me taking a passive and defensive stand on Islam, for some queer reasons of politeness.

I have never suggested directly or indirectly you do such a thing. Gee I can't help my "presence" being here on this forum. The way you say that as if somehow I am trying to intimidate you. Come on mate we are all adaults. I haven't asked you to be polite. It's pretty simple really. Agree to dissagree and leave it at that.

I do not personally aim at you, but if you happen to step into my "firing line", so be it ;). I act the same way here in my hometown as well. Repeatedly Muslims have tried to engage me in discussions on the streets at "information desks", and I talked without polite restriction then and really went straight for the flaws in their arguments, without restraint. There is nothing wrong in letting them known that Islam by a not always silent majority of Germans is not wanted here and that public opinion is in cointrast to the almost unlimited invitations spoke out by politicians.

If I happen to stand into your firing line? :o What the heck does this mean? I thought that this was a place to discuss and debate. In an earlier Pearl Harbour thread that was meant to honour and respect those that have died you had an argument with another member in which spilled over into another thread titled "Warmonger" or something along those lines. Anyway you said this:

BTW, noone defated me in that other thread. I sticked to my line and got tired of a situation with others zigzagging around, making asusmption about me that had no justification in what I said. Poor, if you need to draw your proclaimed victories from such scenes and even cannot stick to what someone said.

As I have written back then, I stepped back from such useless debates several weeks ago, so I will not continue any further from here.


I don't think it's about victory over someone else on this forum. No one is in my firing line and I certainly don't want to be in someone elses firing line. I've listened to the same things over and over on this forum about Islam from all the experts. I've seen threads started that somehow inexplicably wind up on Islam. Heck, I expect a Christmas thread next that then turns into a Jihadi Watch style discussion on Islam. But then again we just recently had a thread in respect and honour of the fallen from Pearl Harbour that was hijacked into a verbal of the laws or lack of them in war. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. So in conclusion take a chill pill or sit back and sink a beer or a pepsi or whatever takes your fancy. I'm not the enemy. :)

[Skybird]

Maybe I shounded sharper than I wanted with that "firing line", and the smiley should have red :-j instead. I have no personal impression of you, and maybe that helped to add you to the anonymous group of Muslims all over the world, in some backcorner of my mind. As I told you in that PM back then I even do not consider you to be a Muslim in Islamic history's understanding, for you seem to be too reasonable and too tolerant for that (that was when you said you were "perplexed" by that :) ).
Anyhow, sorry if I made you feelingt misunderstood in your attempt not to convince/attack anyone here. It's just that an expectation always to be passive and defensive and polite when approaching Islam has become the natural rule in all discussion in Germany, both in the medias and my personal surrounding. reasonable discussion always seem to mean beeing positve topwards further promoting of Islam. And at no cost I plan to continue to play ball with that expectation.

Nix für ungut,
Sky

[Sixpack]

Skybird !

Mann, I am so glad you are always posting the most sensible elaborate stuff on this topic from a Euro-perspective that I personally really have no time for. I wish there still was a majority of Germans in 2005-Germany with your mindset.

Real sorry to hear it's become kind of a sad place with very low self-esteem and it doesnt seem to turnaround still ! As a neighbour of Germany this gets to me as well. How have our European people come this low as 'nations' ? A big part of the blame ofcourse has to go to Germany, alas. There is no denial from a historical perspective.

Remarkably, at the same time the people of Islamic faith both in and out of Europe seem to grow prouder and more fundamental despite the crap that has been committed in recent history in name of their Wargod.

But Third Reich Germany to 2005Germany has been a most radical 180 turnaround. 90 would have been enough a.f.a.i.c. ;) :arrgh!:

P.S. Once when I was a young and extremely naive teenager I secretly was filosophical about a world without borders. I held people in high esteem and capable of handling such freedom to spread prosperity (while taking care of environment) all over the globe. I guess I was a tree hugger avant-la-lettre while banging my head off at the same time on Maiden and early Metallica. Now I just want to keep as many assholic culture-foreign parasites out as possible and strict border patrols. Even Schengen isn't okay in my book. We have plenty of assclowns to deal with already, and that includes the natives.

Gruesse aus Holland

[Konovalov]

Now I just want to keep as many assholic culture-foreign parasites out as possible and strict border patrols. Even Schengen isn't okay in my book. We have plenty of assclowns to deal with already, and that includes the natives.

Gruesse aus Holland

This is what you call xenophobia pure and simple.

[The Avon Lady]

Now I just want to keep as many assholic culture-foreign parasites out as possible and strict border patrols. Even Schengen isn't okay in my book. We have plenty of assclowns to deal with already, and that includes the natives.

Gruesse aus Holland
This is what you call xenophobia pure and simple.
There's xenophobia here but it's neither pure nor simple.

Dictionary entry for "xenophobe":

xen·o·phobe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zn-fb, zn-)
n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Dictionary entry for "unduly":

un·du·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dl, -dy-)
adv.
Excessively; immoderately: unduly familiar with strangers.


Is it excessive? Well, yes and no. Words are cheap. It costs nothing for SixPack to post them here. I'm willing to bet he wants the government and authorities to deal with certain real problems involving immigrants in a rational and realistic manner, though this may involve harsh laws and regulations.

Is it pure xenophobia, as you say? Is it baseless? Is the problem miniscule and irrelevant? I think not.

Is it simple xenophobia, as you claim? The whole situation is very complex. What's led many to reach this point of fear and frustration was not necessarily a pre-subscribed negative attitude towards strangers and foreigners. Even some of the most formerly liberal of people have turned around 180 degrees and said enough's enough and drastic measures are called for.

Investigate what's made people xenophobes more now that ever and you'll have found the problem.

It's real and indeed many are to blame.

[Konovalov]

Is it excessive? Well, yes and no. Words are cheap. It costs nothing for SixPack to post them here. I'm willing to bet he wants the government and authorities to deal with certain real problems involving immigrants in a rational and realistic manner, though this may involve harsh laws and regulations.

Rational and realistic. :hmm: Well you could have fooled me when this is said by Sixpack:

I just want to keep as many assholic culture-foreign parasites out as possible

[The Avon Lady]

Rational and realistic. :hmm: Well you could have fooled me when this is said by Sixpack:
I just want to keep as many assholic culture-foreign parasites out as possible
I also said:

Words are cheap. It costs nothing for SixPack to post them here. I'm willing to bet he wants the government and authorities to deal with certain real problems involving immigrants in a rational and realistic manner, though this may involve harsh laws and regulations.

BTW, I also don't like parasites and I'm sure neither do you. What defines one or how wide a brush you paint them with is certainly important.

[tycho102]

Will the islamo-fascist crap from the dark side of the ME ever stop ?

http://img91.echo.cx/img91/5238/hostage8cy.jpg

I'm convinced that's him, and I'm convinced because of all the stuff he's said and done since becoming "president". Not just because he was the right student, at the right university, in the right Islamic club, that just happened to storm the embassy.

So. That's the kind of guy we're dealing with, here.

The only "good" thing is that the mullahs get final say over anything the guy actually does. The position of president, in Iran, is like the position of CEO in a company. The investor's board can chuck him at a whim, although there might be some "political" backlash which is easily solved by cutting the "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" loose on the general public.

There is nothing beyond this guy. There is no level to which he will not stoop. It is highly likely that Libya "opened" the country to inspections, because they got word that the Iranians will take care of their atomic needs. Libya was better off without the embargo, making money, and trusting Iran to dissiminate the research.

[Crash Dive]

I heard he supports X1 software too. :know:
And sells pirate copies of software. :-j