What do you say about this?

[mapuc]

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

[scandium]

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus
I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread. :roll:

[TteFAboB]

If you burn the holy Quran in Dernmark, the holy Quran will burn Denmark.

Well, not really, if the Danish Mohammed cartoons are any hint, things will burn, but not in Denmark.

[Iceman]

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus
Are they out of firewood? JK.

[STEED]

I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread. :roll:

I am bored with all this Islam stuff, there is more to life than this boring stuff. :p

[Skybird]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/012029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

[scandium]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/012029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=68ff3318-fc18-4a20-8eed-6e8089ef3ebd&k=70588

"CALGARY - A 12-year-old girl accused of murdering three members of a Medicine Hat, Alta., family will not have to undergo a psychiatric assessment at the present time, a provincial court judge ruled Wednesday."

But as we all know only Muslim youths commit acts of violence (except for this Calgary youth who is not Muslim and who is accused of 3 murders), and violence only occurs in places like Niger (and Canada).

Not to say Niger doesn't have plenty of problems (obviously it does), or to suggest that Muslims don't commit violence (obviously some do), only to point out how worthless random Jihadwatch articles are.

[The Avon Lady]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/012029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.
Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria.
No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012031.php).

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:
Why Dhimmi Watch?

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.

But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.

More... (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/#)

[TteFAboB]

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know, but to each his own.

If we followed scandium, we wouldn't study nor Islam nor violence nor Niger nor Canada, we wouldn't know anything and wouldn't be able to do anything nor in Niger nor in Canada. Is the real worthless thing really random Jihadwatch "articles"?

I will remove the relativism:

The news in Niger has a victim being stoned to death by a mob for distributing leaflets. She was arrested for her letter because in Niger there is no freedom of expression or religion, and the angry mob invaded the police station where she was taken to and killed her inside it, meaning the state of Niger can't protect its own citizens. Nobody will be punished for this crime, while it is a crime in Niger's law, it is not in Sharia, and while the letter was not a crime in Niger's law, it was in Sharia.

The Calgary news has two Female murderers, one 23 years old and the other 12, they are accused of murdering 3, not with stones or sharp pieces of iron, they did not invade a police station and neither does a pair constitute a mob. Likewise, no angry mob attempted to invade the police station or Jail or court where they were to kill them. There is no conflict of law. No religion is even mentioned.

The only worthless thing here is the continous attempt to shut the curtains, stop the debate, cease discussion, with relativism, pointing similar cases which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. The only significance a murder in Calgary has with a discussion about Islam is what is its place in Islamic law?

[scandium]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/012029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria. Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012031.php).

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:
Why Dhimmi Watch?

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.

But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.

More... (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/#)
This is the part I have trouble with: This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

That's the stuff that tinfoil hats are made of. As to the article on the attempt to create a Muslim world court, I found this commentary from the Jijhadwatch authors amusing:

But what is noteworthy, alongside the proposal of a world Islamic court, is the extent to which responsibility is displaced: Not only are Western nations to blame for the problems of the Muslim world, but now the entire UN is just a tool of the West. And the IMF. And the World Bank.

Its amusing because the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank were created by the West and there is no question who disportionately benefits. Consider the UN: who holds veto power? The US, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - what's that if its not the West AL? And what have those vetoes been used for? Well in the US (to quote Wiki): "The USA first used the veto power in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and first issued a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution censuring Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel (see Negroponte doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine)). This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council." But given the ongoing hostility between various Muslim countries and Israel we can ignore this, since it doesn't fit with the Jihadwatch slant that there might be even an ounce of legitimacy in their claims :roll:.

And of the 3 the UN is the most "impartial" (such as it is) and universally represented, so that says little for the IMF and World Bank. I don't know... maybe I wouldn't mind Jihadwatch if they weren't so hysterical and stupidly (like black is white stupid) slanted in their potrayal of things from the potentially meaningful to the trite and meaningless - the latter seeming to be their specialty.

[The Avon Lady]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/06/012029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria. Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012031.php).

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:
Why Dhimmi Watch?

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.

But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.

More... (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/#)
This is the part I have trouble with: This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

That's the stuff that tinfoil hats are made of.
No. That's the stuff that Islam preaches - and has for 1400 years - as Islam's ultimate goal.

Maybe you're wearing tin-foil shades.
As to the article on the attempt to create a Muslim world court, I found this commentary from the Jijhadwatch authors amusing:

But what is noteworthy, alongside the proposal of a world Islamic court, is the extent to which responsibility is displaced: Not only are Western nations to blame for the problems of the Muslim world, but now the entire UN is just a tool of the West. And the IMF. And the World Bank.

Its amusing because the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank were created by the West and there is no question who disportionately benefits. Consider the UN: who holds veto power? The US, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - what's that if its not the West AL?
Who owns the oil? How large is that Islamic bloc in the UN? Who are you fooling?
And what have those vetoes been used for? Well in the US (to quote Wiki): "The USA first used the veto power in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and first issued a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution censuring Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel (see Negroponte doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine)). This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council."
Yep. The Muslims just can't get their way. Tsk.
But given the ongoing hostility between various Muslim countries and Israel we can ignore this, since it doesn't fit with the Jihadwatch slant that there might be even an ounce of legitimacy in their claims :roll:.
Straight UN facts (http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp). Oh, you'll have to remove those tin foil spectacles to read them.
And of the 3 the UN is the most "impartial" (such as it is) and universally represented, so that says little for the IMF and World Bank. I don't know... maybe I wouldn't mind Jihadwatch if they weren't so hysterical and stupidly (like black is white stupid) slanted in their potrayal of things from the potentially meaningful to the trite and meaningless - the latter seeming to be their specialty.
Go to the mirror, boy! Go to the mirror, boy!

[SUBMAN1]

What exactly are we arguing here? I see two or three distinct sides.

If you are arguing that Islam has a lot of fruitcakes, then you are correct.

If you are arguing that all this Islam stuff is boring, then you are correct.

If you are arguing that police don't have the ability to protect their people in Niger, yet they do in Western countries, then you are correct.

So what is the issue? Everyone is right! :)

-S

[scandium]

No. That's the stuff that Islam preaches - and has for 1400 years - as Islam's ultimate goal.

Maybe you're wearing tin-foil shades.
Right, naturally the all powerful World Muslim Conspiracy will finally achieve what they haven't in 1400 years. Because... ?


Who owns the oil?
Damn those sly Muslims for having the nerve to occupy our oil! Wait.. not "our" oil, since the part of the West I call home is a net energy exporter and doesn't need their oil (rendering it meaningless as any kind of bargaining chip). I don't think Russia is particularly dependent on ME oil either so you must mean the US, since its the US that consumes something like 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while having very little relative capacity of its own anymore). But where does the US import all its oil from? The ME of course! Wrong. #1 source is Canada; #2 is Venezuela; since neither country is "Muslim" maybe you can see the pattern there (hint: #3 is not Saudi Arabia either).

So by your reasoning its actually Canada and Venezuela that control the UN (since these 2 countries are the largest exporters to the world's largest oil consumer and sole superpower). Nice theory AL. Of course that's absurd, but that just makes your reasoning all the more amusing. Even with Canada's other tremendous natural resources, that are not abundant in the ME (hydroelectricity, agriculture, lumber, minerals, etc) we can't even resolve our simple trade dispute with the US over softwood lumber.

But, really, what does this single natural resource mean when compared to the fact that all the Veto holders possess tremendous conventional and nuclear military capability, diverse natural resources of their own, treaties among them like NATO, the world's largest financial institutions, the only commodity exchanges where oil is traded, the only currency that oil is traded in, etc? Not much really eh. :lol:


Yep. The Muslims just can't get their way. Tsk. And if they do try and organize any collective voice it means they're conspiring to take over the world rather than look out to their own interests (you know... like the rest of us do).

[Skybird]

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know,

Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism.

[Skybird]

So by your reasoning its actually Canada and Venezuela that control the UN (since these 2 countries are the largest exporters to the world's largest oil consumer and sole superpower).

Caseless comment.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Please take note of the overall oil production capacity of Venezuela and Canada, and the difference between potential ressources in Canada, and their actual production, and export, and then tell us again that these two are sufficient to feed the hunger of the greatest ouil consumer there is (not to mention all Wetsern industry nations together).

[TteFAboB]

Islam has no conspiracy.

Islam, UNIQUELY, unlike any other religion, received it's gospel directly from Allah, it must not and cannot be interpreted, there is nothing to interpret, think, discuss, think, imagine, feel, guess, figure, there are only things to DO. Mohammed concludes the word of Allah and puts a FINAL DOT on the Quran.

THIS IS UNIQUE TO QURAN AND ISLAM! No other religion has put a final dot. Christianity did not, Judaism did not, Bhuddism did not, Spiritism did not, VooDoo did not, Xintoism did not, Jedi did not, Hinduism did not, fill the rest.

Therefore, this is why Islam is UNIQUE, Islam is a religion, like other religions are also religions, but this is a particular feature of Islam.

And that's why Persia, which has had more philosophers than the entire European continent STOPPED all intellectual activity once Islam conquered it.

There was nothing more to think, invent, discover, there was no need for logic, unlike other religions which solved the issues of logic and dialetic on their own different paths, Islam discarded logic essentially. Any conflict is not a conflict, the Quran is originally correct, there was no need to interpret anything, not the world, not the Quran.

To deny this fundamental difference is to close one's eyes to reality, it's to ignore the difference from Islamic philosophers to philosophers from Europe and China, it is to ignore the shaping of the world.

That's why looking at Islam and comparing it as a historical actor with the Catholic Church is a fatal mistake which will never lead to any meaningfull understanding of the reality.

Muslims, because of this, are far less theological and seek far less reasoning their religion than other people from other religions because there is no need for them to do it, everything is already settled, and it says: conquer the world. Since they are people of peace, they don't occupy themselves with this complicated, exhaustive task and let people like the Hamas do their thing, the peacefull Muslims will only join in embassy burning when necessary to remember freedom of expression is contradictory to Islam.

Example: Islamic revolution in Iran, like the old comming of Islam to Persia which killed intellectual life, it was in Iran that the original texts of the Quran were first translated to another language, French, for the first time in history back in the 70's, the Islamic Revolution quickly stopped the work and burned the research material because there is no point in translating, researching anything, there is no point in communicating and sharing your original doctrine with the Dar al-Harb, Islam has NEVER IN HISTORY shared their original Quran with the rest of the world, and never will if Muslims continue to follow the Islamic doctrine.

This means the only conspirators are people who are in favour of debate, discussion and all those Muslims who have confronted themselves with these questions and reached the conclusions that were denied to be investigated in the past. These are conspiring against Islam.

[scandium]

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know,
Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism. But relativism and rejection of any differences are two different things. Or must I say: are not different things... :-? Damn, now I am confused... :lol:
Relativism eh? Hmm. Well context matters. You'd posted what struck me as a meaningless article (since there was no analysis or anything given on it) on violence in a place that is well known for its violence. To try and provoke you into coming out with whatever point you had to make I posted an equally meaningless article about violence somewhere else. Both had youths in common as their perpetrators. If there was any point to my post it was that drawing any conclusions on Islam from this incident in Niger is about as meaningful as drawing conclusions on 12 year olds from that youth in Calgary.

This is my supposed "relativism" at work: trying to understand the phenomena of say serial killers would get you precisely nowhere if you observed that most serial killers are white and Christian (which they are; the phenomena is also a fairly modern and Western phenomena but that is neither here nor there) and equated the acts of serial killing with Christianity - and any person who tried to do so would be laughed at. Yet with Islam and terrorism this is exactly what you, and others, do Skybird and this is what Jihadwatch is all about and you ignore that acts of terrorism committed by the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are about as rare as serial killings committed by the world's population of Christians.

This is a good counterpoint to jihadwatch (but amusing in a wry sort of way instead of full of doom and gloom) from Akram's Razor:

Rule 5: It's always "jihad"

Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them. Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna). Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya), slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri). The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld) is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet.

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/05/understanding_t.html#jihad

[Dan D]

What is this, the beginning of another Muslim debate that in the end will turn into a pointless spiral of mutual hostility, despair and bitterness with no resolution and no escape because people are either unable or reluctant to let others know what conclusions they want to draw from their findings?

No football today and I am on holiday, so I will join in, if you don't mind.


In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus
Who says that? Let me guess, it is the same people that puff up their cheeks and seriously claim that forced marriages are not outlawed by the English criminal law?
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94243

God may protect children, drunks and also crackpots but the criminal law does not.
An excuse such as "exquisite silliness" is unknown to the law. No matter if you try to shoot down a passenger plane with an airgun or try to poison your wife by pouring salt instead of sugar in her coffee each day because you read in the newspaper that salt is unhealthy, you will be held liable for your actions, if not the men in white overalls think that you better spend your time in a lunatic asylum anyway. That is because even morons may have a bright moment sometimes and they may find better ways to take down a passenger plane or to poison the wife.

With regard to forced marriages, people consider it to be unethical when someone compels others to commit, acquiesce or omit an act by using force or menaces without justification. It is called "coercion" in Chinese. You see, you can't force others to kiss your feet, to give you the parking space or even worse: to marry you, not even in England. That is so obvious, that you can not claim, you did not know that(Ignorance is no excuse).
If JihadWatch wants their voice to be heard in the muslim debate and wants to be taken seriously, they really have to work on their reading skills. In the article that is the subject of the controvery it is clearly stated that the legal debate in England is not, whether forced marriages should be outlawed or not. They are outlawed already. The question in debate is, is there is a problem of insufficient laws or is there is a problem of efficiency of law enforcement or both. In other words, is there need for new laws or is it just that the existing laws need to be applied more efficiently.
So it is either laziness or intellectual dishonesty. JihadWatch will probably become a target of DummieWatch.

A little message to the embassy and flag-burning thugs:
The opening statement, that you can burn flags in Denmark is misleading.
You are not allowed to burn other people's property. People don't like that.
For the same reason you can not burn down embassies because they belong to someone else.
You can not buy them in shops, btw.

If you want to burn flags, bibles, korans, please bring your own.

Supposed it were true, then it can not be tolerated that in Denmark you are allowed to burn your own bible but at the same time you are disallowed to burn your own koran. Futhermore, I think, if Christians are allowed to burn their holy books, then this can't be denied to Muslims. They have the equal right to burn their holy books.

I am well aware, that I can go on denouncing Danish Government's violation of the religious freedom of koran-burning muslims in the internet until I am blue in the face to no effect.
Therefore I have decided to do something about it and I will found an activist group to support the Danish Muslims struggle for a right to burn korans in accordance with the principle of religious freedom as it can be found in the Danish Constitution since 1849.
Thank you.

[scandium]

So by your reasoning its actually Canada and Venezuela that control the UN (since these 2 countries are the largest exporters to the world's largest oil consumer and sole superpower).
Caseless comment.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Please take note of the overall oil production capacity of Venezuela and Canada, and the difference between potential ressources in Canada, and their actual production, and export, and then tell us again that these two are sufficient to feed the hunger of the greatest ouil consumer there is (not to mention all Wetsern industry nations together).

I was right and wrong: right that Canada is the #1 foreign supplier of oil to the US, but wrong that Venezuela is #2 (they're actually #4); Mexico is #2, and Saudi Arabia is in fact #3. Though that changes nothing of the substance of my post. Here are the relevant figures:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Of the 12.2 million barrels/day of oil the US imports, only 1.5 million barrels comes from Saudi Arabia.

[Skybird]

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know,
Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism. But relativism and rejection of any differences are two different things. Or must I say: are not different things... :-? Damn, now I am confused... :lol:
Relativism eh? Hmm. Well context matters. You'd posted what struck me as a meaningless article (since there was no analysis or anything given on it) on violence in a place that is well known for its violence. To try and provoke you into coming out with whatever point you had to make I posted an equally meaningless article about violence somewhere else. Both had youths in common as their perpetrators. If there was any point to my post it was that drawing any conclusions on Islam from this incident in Niger is about as meaningful as drawing conclusions on 12 year olds from that youth in Calgary.

This is my supposed "relativism" at work: trying to understand the phenomena of say serial killers would get you precisely nowhere if you observed that most serial killers are white and Christian (which they are; the phenomena is also a fairly modern and Western phenomena but that is neither here nor there) and equated the acts of serial killing with Christianity - and any person who tried to do so would be laughed at. Yet with Islam and terrorism this is exactly what you, and others, do Skybird and this is what Jihadwatch is all about and you ignore that acts of terrorism committed by the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are about as rare as serial killings committed by the world's population of Christians.

This is a good counterpoint to jihadwatch (but amusing in a wry sort of way instead of full of doom and gloom) from Akram's Razor:

Rule 5: It's always "jihad"

Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them. Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna). Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya), slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri). The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld) is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet.

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/05/understanding_t.html#jihad

What you simply refuse to realize, although it cannot be laid out to you even more clearly and obvious, is the simple fact that certain types of violance are ORDERED by Islam (Islam on the basis of Koran and Muhammad, which is the only ideolgy that is valid to be called Islam), that this is a duty EVERY Muslim is called for to obey, that it is encrypted in their scriptures, that this is what makes it forever totally different from the teachings of Jesus, that it is preached by many of their preachers, and more important: the majority of the really highranking clerics and international representives (the mayor of Medina for example, the president of the highly influential Anzhar academy, and so on) - and that the overwhelming majoirty of the Muslims you would describe as the more reasonable ones does not stand up against this, does not help by deeds to overcome this, does not force those that "abuse" their faith for violant goals to step down, does not take care to make their claims on religion an object of examination, does actively resist the idea to monitor "radical" muslims in their middle, does not take care of these "radicals" themselves, etc. etc. etc. you said it yourself one or two days ago: judge them by their deeds or non-deeds. and that's what I do. What Muslim communities actually do contradicts what you think about them. But you simply do not care and stick to your selfwritten storyboard of what islam is: it is equal to us, and is about the same God, and just mirrors the same lights and shadows of christianity, which is not at all any different from the politics of the church. Here the point is reached where it become useless to talk to you. You simply do not want to hear the truth as told by facts from history, scripture, practice, preaching, and that is all about your position.

You also do ignore that what you accuse the mediaval West of - still is contemporary practice in almost all Muslim countries - not of the past, but TODAY.

Next, you ignore or I suppose: you do not know the reality at schools in the West. In Germany, THE MAJORITY os students from Muslim colonist families since many years had a massive revival of orthodox beliefs. They hail honour murders, and the beating of wifes. A great ammount of their girls agree to the boys on these issues. Now ignore this, too. It's a reality at German schools. Also is it a reality, that turkish ultra-nationalism is not on the march, but on a rushing storm at German schools. Sharia, of course, in their Rucksacks.

And - surprise, surprise - the deeds of the radicals are to be found in congruency with their scriptures (Koran, Hadith), and these radicals accuse the moderates (that try to convince us that Islam is all that NOT) of being no true Muslims anymore - and thus attack them as well. The hostility of Bin Laden towards Saudi Arbaia is just the most famous example.

All your political and theological thinking is noice and well, it is complex, and well-meant and ambitioned - but is based on a fundamwent that ignored simple facts of Islam. Facts that you continue tomignore and declare instead that it is equal to christinaity (without even solving the copntradiction between "church" and "Christianity").

You cannot be helped. But once you realize that you were wrong, be advised that this will mean the arrival of an Islamic socieity that doe snot tolerate opinions like yours. Metaphorically spoken, you will end up like the communists and socialists that also found it clever to help Khomeni to install islam in iran again. they were the first that Islam hund up in the streets. Because what you believe is true Islam, in the understanding of true Islam is an afffront to Islam, and thus needs to be destroyed. you even do not realize that it is not Islam you try to support, but an abstract self-construction.

unfortunetaly the damage opinions like yours are doing can never be repaired again. That's why people like your are so dangerous in their ignorance. you are defending somehting - that in the form you describe it simply does not exist, whereas the real body behind your claims - is of lethal hostility toewards your attitude. they will remain silent as long as the door is not completely open, or their is still a chance that it will be shut again. Once that is no more, you'll get eaten up.

[SUBMAN1]

Simple solution - just Nuke Islam. Next subject please! :p

[TteFAboB]

Dan D, I'll tell you the point.

As I've said, Islam comes as a complete finished package.

The comparison with Christianity persists, very well, then let's compare:

Again, since the Quran is the object of a prophecy, it was brought to the world by a prophet, Muhammad, this prophecy is the main event.

Christianity spreaded as a news of something that has happened. There was a guy there, he said he was the son of God, he did a bunch of miracles and died and then reappeared. What else did he said? Some say he said this, some say he said that.

There were alot of versions of that event, and because of these many different versions, each of them had to be examined and compared. And so only very slowly and gradually the Christian doctrine came to be and Christianity spreaded as only the news of a fact that took place.

In the Islamic world that's not how it happened, the event is not transmitted as a narrative of a fact, it's an already complete, prepared book, and the Author placed the final dot after dictating the last sentence, you cannot touch the text anymore. That's why there is no substantive variation between any version of the Quran since the 7th century. To avoid any doubts, the first successor took the version the people closer to Muhammad considered most trustworthy and burned every other version, and everything to this date must be copied from there to avoid any problems, Sunni and Xiite. This means the phenomenon of prophecy and the phenomenon of the holy book are the fundamental events in Islamic history.

Naturally, this became the object of philosophical reflection and for centuries you had exactly what Skybird calls "Muhammetism", a philosophy of prophetology that remained almost entirely ignored in the Occident untill the 20th century.

Now that we finally started to study it and compare it, some are quick to accuse us of anti-Islam and anti-etc.?! What is suggested? That we ignore Islam and let the 25th century investigate it instead? Let's live our normal lives without thinking, using our brains hurt too much? Let's suppress intellectual activity because the conclusions might offend somebody?

Even in the Islamic world Muhammetism was ignored because of the specific conditions under which religious and philosophical activities develop inside the Islamic context. Because of the simple fact the book was already completed, from Day 1 a doctrine was established that outlawed questioning, and allowed only to question the interpretation of the doctrine. You cannot compare and examine, question, if Jihad is necessary AT ALL when the days of tribal wars are gone, you must either accept it or simply ignore the fact Jihad exists and pretend it to be a spiritual struggle for self-improvement.

Scandium picked a Muslim crying over Jihad. Jihad is a fact, are we going to face it or pretend it's irrelevant? You cannot pick some elements from one religion and drop others. That is heretical, if you don't accept the religion as a block, and include Jihad and it's significance and meaning, then it is no longer Islam we're talking about. Compare: When Catholicism is not accepted as a whole block, you get Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, when somebody believes there must be a focus on re-incarnation, you loose Catholicism and get Spiritism. To ignore Jihad and pretend it doesn't mean what it means, it's not what it is, and isn't called what it's called, is to deny Islamic doctrine and therefore heretical.

Anyway, the same ready-book phenomenon does NOT happen in the Christian world. To reach a more or less stable text was already a very complicated problem, so the text itself became the object of discussion. There is no such thing in the Islamic world. Therefore, from the beginning it is formed, with greater ease, an Islamic moral and an Islamic Law, an Islamic jurisprudence, by the direct application of the word of the Quran.

Compare: In the Christian world it took centuries and more centuries to reach a Christian moral and a Christian Law. It was in the 18th century that St. Alphonsus Liguori started the first sistematical formulation of the Christian moral. He was the confessor of Priests so he managed to discover each Priest was teaching a completely different moral, and this in the 18th century! This problem never existed in the Islamic world because everything came organized from inside the principle.

Because of this phenomenon of a unified Islamic Law from the beginning, the Islamic society organized from day one based on a large moral and juridical cohesion, on a very rigid orthodoxy, which means the possibility of free intellectual investigation was problematic in this context.

What was the solution found? The solution was to consider groups of investigators, be them mystical or philosophical, as special human types that conducted their activity inside their own club in such a way that this shouldn't interfere at all in the order of things. This means the deeper discussion activity was considered limited to a specialized circle and the rest of the society didn't had to even understand such things. From then, quasi-monastical orders were formed to discuss with each passing generation those same subjects only for their own eyes and ears and without any tendency of influencing the rest of the society. This right was granted as long as they didn't change the right itself, the moral, because everything was fixated.

This means in most Islamic countries all this mystical and philosophical tradition is totally ignored by the population and in many cases the entire material, the internal discussion, is passed from generation to generation, for centuries, as a simple manuscript that nobody ever thought about copying or editing to the outside world.

In 1930, by an accidental coincidence, French ambassador to Iran, Henry Corbin, became interested in translating this material, and he released it in French first, and later Persian. But as I've said, the Aiatolahs not only stopped this research, but destroyed the translated material.

What do we do? Leave it at that? Cry too bad? Ignore all this history and reality? Deny? Close our eyes?

We need to SOLVE THIS CONFLICT!

In the Occident we reached logic, the Orient also reached it without ever reading Aristotle, Plato or Socrates. For example, in China and India the Vedanta and Bhuddic logics are exactly the SAME logic discovered through entirely different ways.

The Aristotle tradition works with the linear idea of identity, if it's yes, it's yes, if it's no, it's no. Dialectical science developed very little compared to logic, but it's where the conflict between yes and no is present.

In these other contexts it is called Logic the study of what we call identity with its 3 possible denials. If it is, it is, if it isn't, it isn't. If it is and isn't at the same time, that's a dialectical problem, the confrontation of contraries. In the Bhuddist world this is also, however, called Logic. The Bhuddist admits 4 possibilities: what is, what isn't, what is and isn't, and what isn't nor is.

We must not silence, nor listen to the voices who are quick to pull hate, prejudice anti-this and anti-that flags to accuse us because only through this discussion and only if we continue to investigate Islam, pick up from where it was dropped, and reach the same conclusions a Muslim who is interested in his philosophical and mystical material will also reach, otherwise we are doomed to this conflict because Islam is what it is, in essence, nature, name and meaning, and it will not tear down the barriers that separates it from Dar al-Harb if the folks from the Iranian Revolution continue to run the show.

Unless you want to ignore the reality, ignore all this history, unless you want to do like Scandium and his Muslim and pretend it's all an economical issue. All this philosophical difference I shared with you means nothing, it's all because they are poor, rich Muslims don't practice terrorism, rich Muslims integrate, rich Muslims vote for moderate candidates, discussion is the only way.

I'll learn what Islam is to be able to speak with Islam and with the Muslims who dropped Jihad and formed their own new heretical religion. You can go live your normal life and pretend it's all about poverty, the fact Persia has had more philosophers than Europe is irrelevant and what not. But since it's not only through Aristotle that you can develop logic, it's perfectly possible for Muslims to turn Islam upside down not just personally, it is necessary to break the cohesion, the bond that keeps them all glued to each other, and draw the line, on this side Jihadists, on the other side all who despise the entire concept of Jihad, do not accept it, submit to it or believe in it.

The problem is exactly the lack of mystical and philosophical study by the Muslim society in the Muslim world, silencing debates just like they were silenced and kept to minimal in the Islamic world through the centuries will only serve to maintain the status quo.

[Skybird]

It seems this has just been written for Scandium. From the "Patriotist" (the source is not so important, the content is what counts):

Politically-Correct Islam

After only three weeks, political correctness has obscured the nature of the terrorist threat we face. First, Reuters has dropped the term 'terrorists' in favor of 'alleged hijackers' in a overly-fastidious attempt to not prejudge the matter of legal guilt, as though this were a matter of crime, not war. Then, careful to not offend the sensitivities of the 6 million Muslims living in the US, and mindful of our dependence on moderate Moslem nations in building an anti-terrorist coalition, the President has advised that we should avoid describing terrorists as 'Islamic,' stating "The people who did this act on America, and who may be planning further acts, are evil people. They don't represent an ideology, they don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're flat evil." Then both the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense solemnly told the public that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam. And when Italian Premier Berlusconi was so insensitive as to state that the values of Western civilization , with its tradition of respect for human political and religious rights, was superior to those of Islamic countries, which lack that respect, his remarks were treated with either shocked silence or righteous indignation and denouncement by his fellow Europeans.
True Islam, we are constantly being told by moderate American Moslems, means submission to God; it is a religion of peace, equality, and tolerance. Typical was Muslim doctor Al-Hazmi, quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that the 11 September attacks were 'insane' crimes which have "nothing to do with any religion and it has nothing to do with Islam. The teaching of Islam is totally against violence" Another Times article informs that "Muslims don't proselytize," and quotes Nasreen Haroon, a Muslim who regularly speaks at churches and schools: "They [the terrorists] are not practicing Islam. ...Islam is a peace-loving religion." We are also informed that the concept of Jihad [struggle or holy war for Allah] is really a personal war for self-mastery, having nothing to do with waging war against others. In sum, we are being told that the 'alleged hijackers' were not True Muslims, but deranged and aberrant members of some fringe cult foreign to Islam.
None of these depictions correspond with the facts.
While there is no dispute that these barbarians are evil, they are not insane. They are cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. They most certainly represent a specific ideology, albeit a minority one, within Islam. It is a view that is shared by some 165 million other Muslims [of 1.2 billion] in an arc running from Lebanon through Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan to Indonesia, who are busy burning American flags and pronouncing Jihad against us. That ideology is Islamism, a fanatical fundamentalist revivalist movement seeking to establish a theocratic Islamic Nation over all Moslems, one nation at a time. The first was Iran in 1979, when an Islamic fundamentalist religious revolt toppled the pro-western Shah in reaction to his 'White Revolution' which allowed women to vote and hold jobs, built large cities, and created a more secular society with Western freedoms, much as Kemal Attaturk had done in Turkey beginning in the 1920's. After the Shah, an Islamic Republic under the Ayatollah was created; he promptly called the US 'The Great Satan,' and Western-type freedoms disappeared. Shortly thereafter, mobs seized the US embassy and its staff, holding them hostage for two years. In 1996, Afghanistan followed a similar repressive path under the Taliban. The goal is to eventually unite all Muslim states into one Islamic Nation, ruled as an Islamic anti-democratic and totalitarian theocracy. This ideology finds expression through many organizations whose names have become all too familiar - Islamic Jihad, Al-Quaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, Moslem Brotherhood, Abu Sayyaf , Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya - and a host of others less well known but with similar objectives in every Moslem country. Their enemy is secular society, secular governments, and Western civilization, which they see as corruptive and destructive of Islamic values. They scorn 'moderate' or secular Moslem governments such as Turkey and Egypt and even Saudi Arabia; there are active terrorist movements in all such countries seeking overthrow of the governments They are committed Moslems, praised in mosques across the world for their devotion to Islam and to the concept of the Khilafah, a term referring to restoration of the Caliphate abolished by Attaturk in 1924 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and which has been defined as the total rulership of Muslims all over the world in a centralized unitary state that implements the Islamic Shariah [Koranic law] and carries Islam to all people as a global ideology.
The Islam of history began in violence, was expanded in violence, and even now practices violence. Three of the first four Caliphs or Khalifah [deputy of the Prophet or leader] were murdered. The fourth was Mohammed's son-in-law Ali, whose brief rule was marked by constant civil war. The forced abdication and mysterious death of his son Hasan and the subsequent defeat and massacre of the second son Hosain and his army, led to the great schism between the Sunni traditionalists and the minority Shiites [partisans of Ali] who believe that only the familial line of Mohammed could be the ruler or Caliph. They revere Ali as a saint; the anniversary of Hosain's death is observed as a day of mourning. Politically defeated and and persecuted, the Shiites became an underground movement marked by suffering and protest. They adopted an esoteric interpretation of the Koran, finding a hidden level of meaning beneath the explicit and literal meaning of the Qur'an [Koran] known only to the Imam [religious leader,] who can reveal it to chosen followers. Modernly, Shiites are the majority in Iran , with large populations in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.
Within 100 years of Mohammed's death in 632 AD, Muslim armies had swept across North Africa, the Middle East, and India, bloodily conquering from the Atlantic almost to the Pacific, and into Spain and France where they were finally stopped at the battle of Poitiers. At that time, the Muslim empire was the largest the world had ever known. They remained in control of Spain until the 15th century, and, under the Ottoman Turks, laid siege to Vienna as late as the 17th century after the fall of Constantinople and occupation of the Balkans in the 15th and 16th centuries. This amazing military conquest arising out of Arabia over centuries was done in the name of religion. As Ibn Khaldun, the great Islamic historian of the 14th century wrote: "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."
As for tolerance toward Christians and Jews, known as "the People of the Book," Ibn Khaldun wrote "It is for them to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death." And the 14th century Imam and Islamic scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote, "...jihad is obligatory until the word of Allah reigns supreme, and until all are of the religion of Allah, until the religion of Allah triumphs over all religions and until they pay the poll tax while in a state of inferiority." Those in this state of inferiority were called dhimmis [protected minority,] and were required to wear a distinctive garb so Muslims would know not to treat them as equals. As Ibn Qyyim notes "The dhimmis are the most disobedient of His command and contrary to His word; consequently it befits them to be humiliated by distinguishing them from the comportment of the Muslims whom Allah has exalted through their obedience to Him and His Prophet above those that have disobeyed Him. These He has humiliated, belittled, and rendered abominable so that the sign of contempt is manifest upon them, so that they can be distinguished by their appearance." The imprisonment and trial of two American girls among eight Christians charged by the Taliban for speaking of Christianity is typical of Islamic tolerance to other religions.
Nor is the concept of self-martyrdom or suicide killings new to Islam. In the 9th through the 12th centuries, the secret Shiite orders of the Karmathians and Assassins disposed of their enemies by ruthless murder. The Devotees were marked by unquestioning obedience and by a fanatic disregard for their own safety. Self-martyrdom was sought as a guaranteed admittance to Paradise.
Modernly, Islam is at war with Hindus in Kashmir, with Christians and animists in Sudan, with Catholics in the Philippines and Indonesia, with Coptic Christians in Egypt, with Christians in Nigeria, and of course, with Jews in Israel. As the Ayatollah Khomeini stated: "We shall export our revolution, to the whole world. Until the cry 'Allahu Akbar' resounds over the whole world. There will be struggle. There will be Jihad...Islam is the religion of militant individuals...Islam will be victorious in all the countries of the world, and Islam and the teachings of the Quran will prevail all over the world...This is the duty that all Muslims must fulfill..." Now, I assume that Muslim citizens and residents of the United States do not share the foregoing views, and are fully supportive of this nations' traditions of equality and religious and political freedom. Many if not most may have come here specifically for the freedoms that have been denied in the countries from which they fled. No one wishes to denigrate or insult Muslims or their religion. We must practice the tolerance that we preach and respect the rights and persons of Muslims. But so must the Muslims who are telling us how peaceful Islam is and denouncing terrorism as not part of Islam. They should be telling, not the American public, but the Arab, Iranian, Pakistani, Afghanistani, Indonesian public - all the Muslims of the world, all the Moslem countries - that to abandon the Islamic principle of peace is a desecration of their religion. That to endorse self-martyrdom or suicide bombings anywhere is a betrayal of the Koran and a defamation of Islam. American Muslims should be insisting that every Imam in every mosque in the world speak out against terrorism, mass killing, and jihad against our civilization as a perversion of the Islamic ideal of peace and equality. They should insist that Islam abandon its fiery rhetoric which only encourages more terrorism, and that Moslem countries cease their oppression of other religionists. When those messages are resounding around the world, then it will be time to praise Islam as peaceful.


http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/cp20011119.htm

[tycho102]

I'm in favor of nuking everyone that posts more than 50% of their text in a color other than white or light grey.

Jesus wept.

[Skybird]

Okay then come over and tell me how to post those more than 50% of that text in black or white (not too mention that these two colours only fits the need of users of one forum layout, not the other). THE DEFAULT COLOUR DOES NOT WORK WHEN I INSERT EXTERNAL TEXT!!!!! I am as annoyed by this as you are. I have not turned that posting into red and white colour, I just selected ONE colour,and then in editing mode tried red, light blue, green and light blue green, as well as black and white. Black resulted in black on black, and white resulted in white and red.

Please do not nuke me. :smug:

[scandium]

You cannot be helped. But once you realize that you were wrong, be advised that this will mean the arrival of an Islamic socieity that doe snot tolerate opinions like yours. Metaphorically spoken, you will end up like the communists and socialists that also found it clever to help Khomeni to install islam in iran again. they were the first that Islam hund up in the streets. Because what you believe is true Islam, in the understanding of true Islam is an afffront to Islam, and thus needs to be destroyed. you even do not realize that it is not Islam you try to support, but an abstract self-construction.

unfortunetaly the damage opinions like yours are doing can never be repaired again. That's why people like your are so dangerous in their ignorance. you are defending somehting - that in the form you describe it simply does not exist, whereas the real body behind your claims - is of lethal hostility toewards your attitude. they will remain silent as long as the door is not completely open, or their is still a chance that it will be shut again. Once that is no more, you'll get eaten up.

You think Canada and other Western countries are in danger of becoming Islamic theocracies. You call my doubt of this prediction "ignorance" but I think such predictions unwarranted hysteria. I simply think that there are enough real, tangible problems in our society to deal with that we don't need to be preoccupied by phantoms. Boogeymen are for children (and the guy making a tidy profit on Jihadwatch and his 5 books selling fear of Islam).

[Skybird]

And again you have ignored several pieces of simple references to ongoing present events, as described by me and others. simply ignoring anything that does not have a place in your view of things, insisting that your view is right, without founding that claim. It's the boogeyman, it's hysteria, it's Islamophobia - then it should be very easy for you to pick apart every argument people like me are giving, since they al,l are not real, and not based on any real facts. Should be very easy to destroy such arguments. Instead we get evasive phrases, vague references, changes of categorial levels, distractions. This is my last direct reply to you. Talking to a wall is not interesting.

Muhammad unfortunately was no boogeyman. He was a reality. So are his teachings thnat you prefer to ignore, which have survived almost unchanged until today, and who are the unquestioned, living, undoubted basic of any Islam there could be, every Muslim agreeing on that. You will not find any musolim in the world who tells you that the koran could be changed and certain chapters could be erased. You will not find a simpole Musli9m that doubts that Muhammad, a bandit, warmonger and mass murder, was a very great and peace-bringing man. You will not find a single muslim who agrees that something that does not stand on the basis of Koran, Hadith, muhammad and medina-Model could ever be "Islam".

Even when we will have lost all and everything, our identity, our history, our culture, our homes and our values, and when we will have become strangers in our own forefather's heritage, you still will argue that Islam has nothing to do with it. In forty years, by the single logic of birthrates, roughly a 60-70% majority of French population will be Muslim, from families that never had any link to european peoples and tribes. No problem for you. The same fate will be suffered by Germany, and then the other european countries. European culture and historical identity as we know it today and since the last centuries - will be completey wiped out and it's remains distorted until they could not be recognized in roughly 80-120 years - due to the simple charm of birthrates of already existing colonies in europe. we have more urgent problems in society, you say. I wonder what that could be, becasue Islam will take care of all this, in it's own ways. Possible that we will not like to see how it deals with it. It will deal with it in the same way it dealt with such problemsa in the past 1400 years, and that led to the societies of the muslim nations we have today. And we even do not talk about additional immigration levels in this, we just talk on the basis of already existing Muslim population sizes in Europe.

but you say all that is no problem, and we have more important things to adress. I start to wonder if maybe you are a Muslim propagandist yourself, being so eager to help Islamization of the West at all cost and so stubbornly. At least Islam loves you - you also assist it'S 1400 years old ambitions with all your determination, you not only perfectly suit it's needs, you also perfectly obey it's demands (written down black on white, btw, and obeyed by over one billion people worldwide). And you even do not realize it - that is the real joke in it.

Before questioning the reputation of Robert Spencer, better make sure that you can compete with his competence on the matter - and that this could be the case I do not see even by way of a hint. That way you damage not his but only your own reputation.

From his biography:
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. He is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, and his monographs on Islam are available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context.
His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, FrontPage Magazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. He has consulted with United States Central Command on Islam and jihad, and has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, PBS, C-Span, and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

There certainly may be even more educated guys out there, writing even more significant books, but you cannot even challenge this one! Only saying "I don't believ it!" Your only weapons so far has been "I don't care for facts and ignore them, I simply do believe different, it cannot be what shall not be". And that is too thin for me. But it makes me angry, for you help to destroy what I prefer to see surviving without being Islamized. I have been in Islamic countries, anf for quite a logner while, and not in tourist hotels, but in the reality of poor villages and forgotten countrysides, conflict zones in eastern Turkey and religiuous corelands in iran, the unknown countrysides where you see the real face of the country, the people, their believings. This is the side of Islamic culture you almost never see in the TV news, and in evening-filling docus. I don'T like that world a bit, because it represents where Europe mentally was - a thousand years ago.

If you happen to understand written German, get copies of H.-P. Raddatz : "Von Gott zu Allah?", "Von Allah zum Terror?" and "Der Schleier Allahs." These books, a trilogy, are some of the most fundamental literature I ever red about Islam (which was quite some, btw.), they are scary, although a bit difficult to read, since they are overloaded with informations and cross-references. Because they uncompromisingly and straight present simple facts in Islamic scriptures, compare them simply to present practice, and compare to history again, so far critics have found it extremely tough to argue with their content - they tend to ignore and bypass them instead. All info can be easily checked by yourself in any history book you want to pöick up for that purpose, and in present national statistics which are available via internet. No way to evade that information, his ammount of straight references and his encyclopedic knowledge simply are too overwhelming. Needless to say that Muslims since years try to kill him, and Europe is glad that it got rid of him (he finally fled to America).

[Skybird]

The last word goes to Robert Spencer whose credibility you try to undermine holding him guilty of being biased, somewhat:

Q: Why should I believe what you say about Islam?
RS: Because I draw no conclusions of myself, and I do not ask anyone to take anything on my word. Pick up any of my books, and you will see that they are made up largely of quotations from Islamic jihadists and the traditional Islamic sources to which they appeal to justify violence and terrorism. I am only shedding light on what these sources say.
It is amusing to me that some people like to focus on my credentials, when I have never made a secret of the fact that most of what I know about Islam comes from personal study. It is easier for them to talk about degrees than to find any inaccuracy in my work. Yet I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself. As this site has shown, I am always open to new information.

[scandium]

And again you have ignored several pieces of simple references to ongoing present events, as described by me and others. simply ignoring anything that does not have a place in your view of things, insisting that your view is right, without founding that claim. It's the boogeyman, it's hysteria, it's Islamophobia - then it should be very easy for you to pick apart every argument people like me are giving, since they al,l are not real, and not based on any real facts. Should be very easy to destroy such arguments. Instead we get evasive phrases, vague references, changes of categorial levels, distractions. This is my last direct reply to you. Talking to a wall is not interesting.
Your view of Islam and its followers is deterministic and monolithic. Monotholic because you lump all the branches of Islam into the same neat and tidy little category, ignoring any differences among them, and deterministic because you take this already flawed and simplified perspective and project from it the views and actions of its 1.2 billion adherents and even the future of Europe and the world while ignoring all other variables outside the Koran and related Islamic dogma. To me this is hysteria of the highest order since its completely irrational to predict that France will resemble say Saudi Arabia based on current birthrate data. This is nuts, plain and simple.

France is not a Monarchy, it is not a theocracy, it does not have the same cultural heritage as Saudi Arabia, nor does it have the same demographics and it is foolishness to extrapolate from current birthrates that it ever will. You, correctly, realize that immigrants do impact the culture of their host country but fail to realize the other side of it which is that they in turn are impacted by it as well and that these changes may not manifest themselves overnight.

Even when we will have lost all and everything, our identity, our history, our culture, our homes and our values, and when we will have become strangers in our own forefather's heritage, you still will argue that Islam has nothing to do with it. In forty years, by the single logic of birthrates, roughly a 60-70% majority of French population will be Muslim, from families that never had any link to european peoples and tribes. No problem for you. The same fate will be suffered by Germany, and then the other european countries. European culture and historical identity as we know it today and since the last centuries - will be completey wiped out and it's remains distorted until they could not be recognized in roughly 80-120 years - due to the simple charm of birthrates of already existing colonies in europe.
This is unwarranted hysteria because birthrates are not static and you're drawing conclusions from them that are not warranted by the data - not to mention so far fetched as to come across, to me, as pure lunacy.

I start to wonder if maybe you are a Muslim propagandist yourself, being so eager to help Islamization of the West at all cost and so stubbornly.
More lunacy :lol:. I'm a person with an opinion that is informed by 4 years of studying sociology and such in university; this doesn't make me any kind of "expert" but I am hardly a "Muslim propagandist" (whatever that is).


At least Islam loves you - you also assist it'S 1400 years old ambitions with all your determination, you not only perfectly suit it's needs, you also perfectly obey it's demands (written down black on white, btw, and obeyed by over one billion people worldwide). And you even do not realize it - that is the real joke in it.
Right... because I have an opinion and I share it here. That is the terrible thing you know about universities and democracies: the one encourages critical thinking and skepticism while the other encourages you to share it. Probably we would all be better off without universities and democracy, since then we wouldn't have the means to develop independent thoughts of our own (lest sharing them would get us labled a "Muslim Propagandist" if we dare disagree with such luminaries as Robert Spencer). It never ceases to strike me as ironic just how rigid your thinking and insistence that others conform to it (lest the big bad boogeyman get them) resembles the theocratic demands of your enemy - same **** different dogma.

Before questioning the reputation of Robert Spencer, better make sure that you can compete with his competence on the matter - and that this could be the case I do not see even by way of a hint. That way you damage not his but only your own reputation.
Had already read it, and being myself a product of academia I'm not terribly impressed by someone's M.A. since an M.A. is not guarantee of infallibility, nor does it even necessarily make one an "expert" when their thesis is not even based on that which they claim their expertise in (naturally Spencer takes issue with anyone who points this out, since serious scholars tend to base their work upon a community of scholarship, citing other experts and what not, whereas Spencer substitutes anecdotal evidence and obscure dogmatic references as though they were the same thing - and they are not the same thing). I doubt any serious social scientist would wipe their asses with his popular literature (which is what it is) but being popular literature it never the less has its rabid following who eat it up as though his were the definitive work on Islam.

And no, I haven't written anything of my own but that is the luxury I suppose of being a critic and a skeptic. Spencer, on the other hand, has found his niche and is getting his two minutes of fame - all the more power to him since many gain far more with far less than an M.A. But, as I said, an M.A. doesn't mean you should be taken uncritically or even regarded as any kind of "expert". Generally for that to happen your peers have to review your research and findings and then cite it in their own works or at least mention it in their own academic writings. Where is the peer review Skybird? The guy's written 5 books so if he's at all credible than other experts in this field (if Spencer is indeed an expert) should be discussing his findings somewhere. Show me the discussion (and no, his blog "Jihadwatch" is not peer review in any academic sense of the term).

[Skybird]

Peer review. :dead: That guy says himself that he smiles that people focus so much on his academical credits, and that he openly admits they are low-ranking. You better educate yourself a bit in Islam's view of itself, and the content of it's teachings, and the going of it'S history, and the figure of muhammad, and then check what Spencer is saying yourself. He says it himself:he is picking up what Islam is saying himself, and reprints it. That simple.

Judge yourself. but no, that would lead you to perspectives that do not match what you want it to be, and what believe you know about it. Instead cling to wishful thinking, and flawed perceptions.

At the end of that History of Islam-essay of mine (no peer review for that as well, I apologize), I have given a short list of books, that I especially payed attention to in recent years. the list is far from complete, but go through these books only, and when you have done that, you can come back and tell us you have learned a bit about Islam's theology, history, self-perception and the figure of Muhammad. Until then, you are only defending selfmade illusions and talk of something you have no clue of, sorry. Believing to know something, and actually knowing, are two different things. i also recommend you try to arrange yourself a longer stay, let's say 4-6 months somewhere in the Middle East or North Africa, and do a little travelling offside the metropoles and tourist centres, and try to get your nose into people's lifes in small communities, and tribes. this is the face of these countries there vast majorities do live in. Here you find the the man-material that determines Islam's future acting - not in its Westernized tourist traps. Check your elf, check your own perspectives for a change. So far you always demand others to proove the views differing from you, and when someone points you at something, or gives you a solid info, or comes with a logical argument, and it happens to be not what you want to hear - you ignore it, label it as absurd and wipe it off the table with big gesture, and hold the others responsible for doing what actually you do yourself. But you do not come up with solid data and argument that would destroy these flawed and heavily mistalen arguments and information confronting your opinion. Test your own knowledge, for a change. Test if your political correctness really is that much correct.

Done here.

[Drebbel]

Done here.

:rock:

[tycho102]

Skybird, I agree with most of your views.

[Dan D]

The idea of "political correctness" comes from the 2 big immigration states USA and Canada. The meaning is simple: "You don't mock people for something they are born with". I don't think that is too abstract. Here you have the reason why women always say: "size does not matter" btw.

Last Friday on my way to the sensitivity training
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/883/saxydude4jh.jpg

IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken. It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.
Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy? You think the ME can't be democratised? Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions? What to do with Iraq?
The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?

What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?
What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?

I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?

[Kurushio]

For a bearded man...his buttocks aren't half bad. Arse-Zakawi?

[The Avon Lady]

IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken.
If only that were true. Opinions here suggest that it's not.
It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.
Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy?
Islam should be banned by non-Islamic countries.
You think the ME can't be democratised?
:nope:

Nor liberalized.

:nope:
Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions?
Some. If you mean the continuance of the war there for the purpose of establishing a democratic free Iraqi society, then yes.
What to do with Iraq?
Leave and let them sort it out. Give unconditional support for an independent Kurdistan in the north.
The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?
Mostly. Turkey is heading in the direction of Islamism - not away from it. To keep Turkish Islamism at bay requires the military junta there to intervene on the political level. You know how most of those stories end........... :roll:
What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?
Toss out any person, group or institution proclaiming alegiance to Islamic scriptures as the absolute word of G-d, which cannot be modified or rescinded.
What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?
The banishment of an ideaology that wishes to eventually overpower the host society it lives in.
I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?
I think your questions were spot on. We have been discussing this. Not the first time here.

[TteFAboB]

I can answer that.

Don't listen to the Avon Lady she's ultra-conservative.

IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken. It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.

Good to know we won't deny the reality. It's always important, just in case, to separate Islam from Muslims, every Islamist is a Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists.

Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy?

The same way you'd treat a Communist block. Understand that the Islamists who want to conquer every Muslim country and beyond have no interest in your Democracy, rather, you are their escape goat, their main target and justification of existence. Keep diplomatic stability where it's possible, keep dialogue where it's possible, but be aware of the Ayatolah.

You think the ME can't be democratised?

Depends. Modern Democracy is a recent construction, this type of Democracy we can, might, or should enjoy today is not like any "democratic" society of the past. It has, like many other things, evolved from a past. The Middle East having an entirely different past would have to make a much greater effort to "democratize" itself than we even do day by day to maintain ours. More than half of all Europeans don't give a damn about Democracy, it could be taken away from them and most wouldn't even notice it untill it started affecting their interests. Yes, it is possible to democratize the Middle East. If Japan was democratized in less than a century, you can democratize anything, anyone, it simply would take a tremendous effort to do so, and it would be easier or harder depending on the past at hand. Examples:

In Egypt, if you open up the elections too much the Muslim Brotherhood will gain seats. The Muslim Brotherhood is THE anti-democratic force in Egypt, and one of the top ones in the rest of the Middle East. There will be no Democracy in Egypt untill the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer a powerfull political force.

On the other hand, in Qatar you can already allow women to vote, there's no Muslim Brotherhood, the political scenario is mostly stable, and there's no reason why in 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 years Qatar couldn't become a solid, established, vibrant Democracy.

Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions? What to do with Iraq?

Two things can be done. If the presumption is real, then it will cost blood, tears, sweat and folly to democratize it. It will be necessary to maintain a foreign presence for a very long time, this presence will have to endure the terrorism and insurgency and fight it untill it is destroyed or reduced to decent levels that provide enough security for democratic institutions to drop anchor. You can't have politicians, journalists, judges and whoever else scared of being the target of the next car bomb, you especially can't have them falling to any black-mail.

Or, you can quit and let the Anarchy resolve the issue, letting the strongest force rule over the others. In this case anything could happen, democrats having the least chance of survival.


The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?

Good example, Turkey, but indeed the Avon Lady is right. With the fall of the Ottomans, Turkey de-Islamified itself, Mr. Kemal Daddy-O attempted to reform the nation, setting the potential necessary milestone for a Democracy in the, perhaps very distant, future. Today Turkey is balancing on a very thin rope, you have the rebirth of Islamists who have a thrist for vengeance and want to turn Turkey back into an Ottoman Islamo-party, only if democrats are strong, resist and offer, convince the Turkish people, that Khalifah is not worth it, Turkey will have problems to secure democratic institutions. These are long-term investments and projects. It is not wrong to attempt to assist a people to construct their own Democracy, this is a virtue, but then it must be understood that it may take longer than the EU would like for Turkey to become a modern Democracy and patience is required, give time some time, and be alert with the Islamist forces. Do like Felipe Calderón from Mexico, attack the Islamists and prove to the Turkish people the society they want to build is worse than what even a most infant Democracy could offer. And don't blame the people who support and follow the Islamists, if I were Turkish I would be scared to join the EU too. I'm Italian and I want out!

Now, take Yemen. In the case of Yemen, one of the most dangerous places for a Western Christian tourist to visit, I don't see any hope for Democracy in the next 500 years. Hopefully I'm blind, but anyway, if it is impenetrable to Democracy, then let's leave Yemen alone as long as they don't sponsor any terrorism and leaves us alone too.

What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?
What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?

This is what I wanted to answer, let me play with the forum now:

DO NOTHING!

Nothing at all! Every single damned policy towards Muslims in Europe has only made the situation worse!

Do NOT build them public schools, there are already plenty of problems with the public education system, but Muslim children must see, talk, play, and make friends with native Europeans. No, they don't have to be best friends, no they don't have to engage in long-term love relationships, no they don't need to like native Europeans. They need to know them and respect them, and they shall get respect in return and be welcomed. What Muslim children don't need is complete alienation and segregation, we don't need gangs of Muslims walking around together because they can't communicate with anybody else or know anybody else, we want them walking together because that's what they chose to do, they know everybody else, they know every group and are most comfortable around that one, but nothing stops them from meeting a new native friend tomorrow.

France, the lovely country that gives university students assistance to pay their rent, allowing you to live in Paris even with a substandard job. Now, what was the policy in France towards the Muslims? Help them pay their rent too, but how did it turned out? They took every incoming Muslim and settled them at the isolated cités, creating a massive segregated ghetto. It would've been better to let Muslims homeless sleeping on the streets or seeking their own homeless shelter! Don't do this, don't throw all the Muslims into the same isolated basket just because it's easier to contain any revolt there or kill them all with one bomb. If you want to help them pay their rent, spread them apart, these immigrant-only communities are pure hell to get rid of, and it can create, when too isolated, a state within a state, they will feel free to make their own laws and rules and carry out their sentences.

Don't give them any legal priviledges. If they immigrated to Europe it's because they are seeking something Europe has to offer. Be it a new home, a better home, a job, an opportunity. Then it is in the best interest of Muslims that European Democracy isn't destroyed by approving a separate parallel Muslim Constitution. Treat everybody as equal before the law. Muslims want to be treated equally, they don't want this new society to become just like their old home, otherwise they'd have never immigrated at all.

But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion. Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imagines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.

So if a Muslim wants to start a new church, without any blood or confront like it took the Christian churches of the past, then he must be encouraged to do so and be assured he will not become the target of the religious intolerance of his cousins and will be protected from terrorism like anybody else. The current Dalai Lama has said that when science proves Bhuddism wrong, then Bhuddism is wrong indeed and must be changed. Have you ever seen a Muslim say that since Islam no longer exists in an enviroment of tribal warfare the entire concept of the holy-warrior is outdated and unecessary to the modern peacefull man and should be kept as a souvenir, not as practical doctrine? You certainly don't see the Pope invoking the faithfull to engage on a holy-war of preaching, how would you react if Pope Benedict XVI called every Catholic to a ceremonial holy-war of pilgrimage? There is no place for "war" in a religion of peace, you can philosophy about the concept of a fair war and how to treat the enemy and their prisioners nicely, but not the other way around, philosophy about how vicious and ferocious and powerfull you can become when fighting a holy-war and how many unarmed citizens you can behead in a minute.

If most Muslims living abroad are not Jihadists, then they have already fomed their own chuch but don't realise it, and nobody is willing to inform them of such because then they would start picking different Immams, forming their own Immam schools instead of importing them, rejecting the occasional obscure ones who came from Iran, and eventually develop a doctrine that condemns alot of stuff necessary to support Sharia, creating a different juridical code, probably similar to the truly peacefull religious codes out there.

I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?

True. Everybody willing to join, not willing to destroy, is welcome, but if mass manpower is required, there are certainly possible alternatives out there.

Example: In the US Brazilian immigrants should be preferred instead of Mexican (except in Connecticut), because the Brazilian immigrant has to take a plane to immigrate, this means he's either from a low (or middle) middle-class or has the cunning to raise enough money for the trip, on the other hand, the most desperate illiterate Mexican can simply jump a fence and he's in.

[scandium]

Islam should be banned by non-Islamic countries.
Because, of course, it is an evil ideology and all of its adherents are evil. Not only are they evil, they are working in concert to overthrow Western civilization, and here is a perfect example:

"The family of the first British Muslim soldier to be killed in the "war on terror" said yesterday that he had been committed to bringing peace to Afghanistan.

L/Cpl Jabron Hashmi, 24, a devout Muslim, died during an attack by Taliban fighters on a British base at Sangin, in Helmand Province."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/04/nafg04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/04/ixuknews.html

This is obviously part of their sinister plot to take over the UK by first taking control of its military, and this soldier's participation in the War on Terror in Afghanistan was really a ruse since we all know these sly Muslims never denounce acts of extremism by other Muslims, and never do anything to aid in the fight against such extremism.

[scandium]

But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion. Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imagines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.
A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.

Rule #5: Its always Jihad:

"Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them.

Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna). Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya), slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri). The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld) is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet."

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/05/understanding_t.html#jihad

[mapuc]

Hey! I just posted a little notice about what's allowed i Denmark and not when it comes to Quran contra Holy Bible

And furthermore it's forbidden to burn the american flag, but not the danish

Well here's my opinion

No religious book should be burned, no flag should be burned, as a respect

Markus

[Etienne]

Hey! I just posted a little notice about what's allowed i Denmark and not when it comes to Quran contra Holy Bible

Welcome to the Subsim radio room general comment forum.

Please be advised that if you mention so much as a hint of possibly thinking of considering talking about islam in your post, and someone makes a comment about it, some people will descend upon the thread to tell you, and everybody, why Islam is Bad.

Then end result is this : :damn:

[Skybird]

TTeFAbob,

You sound as if you have red a single book recently, and suddenly believe you know it all. I think it has been the wrong single book.
I can answer that.
Don't listen to the Avon Lady she's ultra-conservative.
Not necessarily. She is in better knowledge of what Islam is and what it wants than most Westerners who replace true knowledge of Islam with what they want it to be so that they can solve the problem it poses more easily. This may have something to do that she lives in a place that is more obviously under attack by Islam, whereas most of Europe is object to a more hidden strategy of defeating European culture and replace it with Islam’s demand for global ruling.
Good to know we won't deny the reality. It's always important, just in case, to sepa-rate Islam from Muslims, every Islamist is a Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists.
"Separate Islam from Muslims." :stare:

But maybe we can agree that every Muslim who is Islamic in the understanding of Islam's self-definition (which demand this classification to be based on the Quran, the Hadith (which includes the sharia), Muhammad, and the Medina-model, else no one has a cause to de-scribe something as Islamic or Muslim) is a Muslim indeed? Which implicates the conclusion that someone who ignores this criterion of what Islamic and Muslim is - is not Islamic and Muslim, then? :88)
The same way you'd treat a Communist block. Understand that the Islamists who want to conquer every Muslim country and beyond have no interest in your Democracy, rather, you are their escape goat, their main target and justification of existence. Keep dip-lomatic stability where it's possible, keep dialogue where it's possible, but be aware of the Ayatolah.
“want to conquer every Muslim country” :88)
You still don’t get it. Islam IS militant and Islamistic and militant by it’S very own nature, like the life of Muhammad was, too. Islam wants ALL. Without restriction. Without coexisting with something that is not itself. It tells that openly. In written scripture. In preaching. In history. It keeps diplomatic stability only where it is too weak to advance at the moment. It uses that time to adopt, to rebuilt sufficient strength, and then advance again. It does not know a concept of peace that is different from Islam ruling all. It only knows cease-fires that allow it to prepare for the next attempt.
Diplomatic stability…? You can only have that with corrupted “Muslims” who are not repre-sentative for true Islam. Eventually, if you decide you want to trust them.
Depends. Modern Democracy is a recent construction, this type of Democracy we can, might, or should enjoy today is not like any "democratic" society of the past. It has, like many other things, evolved from a past. The Middle East having an entirely different past would have to make a much greater effort to "democratize" itself than we even do day by day to maintain ours. More than half of all Europeans don't give a damn about Democracy, it could be taken away from them and most wouldn't even notice it untill it started affecting their interests. Yes, it is possible to democratize the Middle East. If Japan was democratized in less than a century, you can democratize anything, anyone, it simply would take a tre-mendous effort to do so, and it would be easier or harder depending on the past at hand.
You compare to Japan…? That shows how little you understand the heart and nature of Is-lam. IT IS SOMETHING SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN JAPANESE CULTURE AND MENTALITY AND SELFUNDERSTANDING THAT NO COMPARISON TO ISLAM COULD WORK. You can’t be any more wrong. Islam celebrates totalitarism, and monoculturalism. The Turks tried de-mocracy, but it was more like a junta, and now they are loosing Kemal’s little experiment to Islam again. History will remember it as nothing more than a little intermezzo. True Islam never was defeated there. It just hid from the bajonets, it hid in the coreland, away from the Westernized tourist cities.
This is not WWII. No comparison like yours works here, none.
In Egypt, if you open up the elections too much the Muslim Brotherhood will gain seats. The Muslim Brotherhood is THE anti-democratic force in Egypt, and one of the top ones in the rest of the Middle East. There will be no Democracy in Egypt untill the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer a powerfull political force.
Just the demand for free elections and more democracy has turned them into a more power-ful political faction that now can claim legal rights for itself. You do the classical mistake of American foreign policy: you create the free space that an enemy is needing to unfold. In-stall free elections and democracy in Egypt, and they will be swept away and replaced by true Islam in no time. That is the only democracy you will get there. Democracy and Islam are incompatible, always, under all circumstances. Only an Islam that is no true Islam any-more could maybe live with democratic rules. And I want to remind you that elections are not democracy itself, but just a tool of it. It is more an attitude, a way of acting on all levels of public life, a set of certain basic values and view on things like freedom and peace and authorization. And the absence of corruption.
On the other hand, in Qatar you can already allow women to vote, there's no Muslim Brotherhood, the political scenario is mostly stable, and there's no reason why in 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 years Qatar couldn't become a solid, established, vibrant Democracy.
You also have a very high corruption again, semi-feudal social structures nevertheless, and the absence of political alternatives that are not in congruency with the Islamic agenda. Try to establish a political left party there, or one that protects interests from minorities from other cultures and religions, or one that by any means challenges Islamic beliefs or even just ignores them - and you will see where their democracy ends – at the granite wall of Quran at the latest.
Two things can be done. If the presumption is real, then it will cost blood, tears, sweat and folly to democratize it. It will be necessary to maintain a foreign presence for a very long time, this presence will have to endure the terrorism and insurgency and fight it untill it is destroyed or reduced to decent levels that provide enough security for democratic institutions to drop anchor.
Unbelievable that one could still think in these terms after what we have seen the last THREE years.

The place is lost to democracy and Western ideals, totally, completely, FUBAR. The American elections are the only reason while the withdrawal is delayed. GI’s are risking their lives there for republican innerpolitical interests only, and there is not anything more to it. You better start to believe it. And there is very good reason to assume that the insur-gents/terrorists/Islamists have undermined all structures of the weakened state so substan-tially that even government members, police, intel and military have contacts to them and support them. Please, don’t bet your money on them becoming a democratic, modern state. I hate to see you ending in complete bancrupcy.
You can't have politicians, journalists, judges and whoever else scared of being the target of the next car bomb, you especially can't have them falling to any black-mail.
Or, you can quit and let the Anarchy resolve the issue, letting the strongest force rule over the others. In this case anything could happen, democrats having the least chance of sur-vival.
Exactly. The by far strongest faction, btw, is not America and is not it’s democracy and is not the helpless representatives of Iraq’s artificial political structures, but Iran and Shia or-thodox Islam. And time works for them at the speed of a sprinter. Options for the West: none, just to invest more, and loose all that is invested nevertheless. It has been ap-proached and done in a totally wrong way from the very beginning, by the wrong people, at the wrong time, by use of wrong means, and now it consequently is a lost case. Period.
Good example, Turkey, but indeed the Avon Lady is right. With the fall of the Otto-mans, Turkey de-Islamified itself,
NO!!!! It did not!!! That is the great self-deception here in the West, to think that Islam was in any way “defeated”. It was not, it just evaded the places were it was on open display for the state’s organs that pursued them. “The front was readjusted to avoid obvious incoming fire”, that was all!!! But the orthodox Islam has been alive and well all the time in the Anato-lian coreland, and the East. IT NEVER WAS GONE. It’s a great folly you fall victim too, be-lieve me. I have travelled these areas I talk of for half a year, I witnessed the people and their habits and opinions, and they were not any Western of modern at all. The vast majority of people lives in almost ridiculous poverty, and as they say: poverty makes people pray. Haven’t you realized in what remarkably short time Erdogan’s party (who was in prison for his Islamic motivations when Kemalism still were stronger in Turkey) has come from being a forbidden organisation to be voted the governmental party, and the military not stepping in like before? Islam just stepped back and took a doze while Kemal was busy. Now it awoke again, and raises again, quickly, because it never was gone. Believe me, you really have to change your view of this phenomenon, and fundamentally. In thirty years, I tell you for sure, there will not much be left reminding you that Kemal ever was there. The negotiations witzh then EU and the growing unrest on both sides ironically help them to reorient to their own cultural identity, which necessarily must remind them that they still are Islamic, after all.
Mr. Kemal Daddy-O attempted to reform the nation, setting the potential necessary milestone for a Democracy in the, perhaps very distant, future. Today Turkey is balancing on a very thin rope, you have the rebirth of Islamists
As I said, no rebirth at all. It took a doze in the hidden while Kemal blew some heavy winds only, and then it woke up again, still the same that it always has been.
who have a thrist for vengeance and want to turn Turkey back into an Ottoman Islamo-party, only if democrats are strong, resist and offer, convince the Turkish people, that Khalifah is not worth it, Turkey will have problems to secure democratic institutions. These are long-term investments and projects. It is not wrong to attempt to assist a people to construct their own Democracy, this is a virtue, but then it must be understood that it may take longer than the EU would like for Turkey to become a modern Democracy and pa-tience is required, give time some time, and be alert with the Islamist forces.
You mix up Islam and aggressive Turkish nationalism as it is coming in the shape of the “Grey Wolves”, for example. The first is more focussed on Islam’s superiority, the second more on “Great Turkey” in a nationalistic understanding. Since the idea of the grey wolves is increasingly popular especially with the young Turks in and outside turkey (it already is a very big problem at German schools, for example), both a movement like the wolves and Islam are two clear reasons why the democratic future of Turkey must be put in substantial doubt. I do not see them forming a stabile democracy, but revitalizing their traditional Is-lamic origin. And, just for every Westerner who think the Turks want lessons in democracy – this is the best and usually shortest way to set them up against you. They are extremely proud a people. The whole attitude of the EU towards Turkey is for the wrong goal (mem-bership), and by the same means (lecturing them). And this is why nothing good will come from all this, no matter if they join the EU (currently more and more of their people do not want it anymore), or stay out. If they withdraw from these so-called negotiations, I’m sure that many stupid Europeans will start to think how they can make them coming back, in-stead of being thankful that this time complete disaster has chosen just top pass by.
The recent irritations Ankara caused in Washington, over the last couple of years, should be a warning for everyone who thinks Turkey is compatible with the West. After all, it still is Islamic, and nothing will ever change that.
Have good neighbourhood, but don’t increase their already big access to Europe, agreed. But don’t hold your breath for Turkey becoming a democracy. The indices point clearly to-wards Islam recapturing again what always had been it’s own during it’s nap. I fear the guy following Erdogan. Don’t hold your breath that he will fight back the progress party.
Now, take Yemen. In the case of Yemen, one of the most dangerous places for a Western Christian tourist to visit, I don't see any hope for Democracy in the next 500 years. Hopefully I'm blind, but anyway, if it is impenetrable to Democracy, then let's leave Yemen alone as long as they don't sponsor any terrorism and leaves us alone too.
Unfortunately, the latter they don’t. Now what?

[Skybird]

This is what I wanted to answer, let me play with the forum now:
DO NOTHING!
Nothing at all! Every single damned policy towards Muslims in Europe has only made the situation worse!
Guaranteed suicide. While I agree that all Western interventions in the Muslim sphere, since the Medieval, did not achieve anything, we cannot afford to do nothing with regard to our own homes. Islam already is too strong in our own places and has developed a self-dynamic that will guarantee it’s total victory within the next 200 years (at the latest) if we do not do anything about that – and that can only mean: accept the challenge, pick up the fight, con-front Islam head on, and brake it with superior force, as far as our territories and homes that we need to defend are concerned. Superiority power and might ALWAYS has been the only language Islam has ever understood. It never stopped anywhere when not being con fronted by a superior force that pushed it back vio9lantly, never. You will not get a true free-dom by that, but a constant cease-fire that will last as long as you keep your status of being the undisputable superior opponent that it cannot overcome.
That’s the grim, scaring truth, and to some degree I can understand people’s hesitation to accept it. I do not like the sheer size of this conflict myself, too. But it will not go away just because I hope for something better. If you help your enemy to become stronger, this must not necessarily earn you his sympathy, and make him your friend. It is more likely that you just win a stronger enemy. That is especially true for an enemy whose declared goal and intend is total, undisputed, uncompromised global ruling and the deleting of any culture, religion and tradition that is not himself.
Do NOT build them public schools, there are already plenty of problems with the public education system, but Muslim children must see, talk, play, and make friends with native Europeans. No, they don't have to be best friends, no they don't have to engage in long-term love relationships, no they don't need to like native Europeans. They need to know them and respect them, and they shall get respect in return and be welcomed. What Muslim children don't need is complete alienation and segregation, we don't need gangs of Muslims walking around together because they can't communicate with anybody else or know anybody else, we want them walking together because that's what they chose to do, they know everybody else, they know every group and are most comfortable around that oe, but nothing stops them from meeting a new native friend tomorrow.
You’re cute. Be advised that all these invitations are given in Germany since decades. I needed to craw the conclusions that they did not work too well. Those Muslims that have integrated themselves, have so many basic violations against Islamic ideology and it’s most fundamental principles in their bookings that I cannot see them fulfilling Islam’s definition of what a Muslim is. They may think of themselves as Muslims, but they are not. In fact, their description of Muslim faith shows that they have big holes in their knowledge about what they claim to be. That is why it is so important to confront “moderate Muslims” and make them aware of the contradiction they are living in without realizing it. Tolerating them as well as you tolerate other types of Muslims (types as defined by Western thinking) does not help, by that you just help to increase the ignorance and uncritical attitude that helps the true and real Islam to spread in these moderate Muslim’s names while being anything else but Muslim. If these people do not understand how far they are different from true Islam, and do not challenge it and testify their factual retreat from basic principles of Islam, you do damage to them, and you do damage to us non-Muslims. All in the name of your good inten-tions and your tolerance and willingness for coexistence. An attitude of indifference is de-structive, and leads to our western cultural death.
France, the lovely country that gives university students assistance to pay their rent, allowing you to live in Paris even with a substandard job. Now, what was the policy in France towards the Muslims? Help them pay their rent too, but how did it turned out? They took every incoming Muslim and settled them at the isolated cités, creating a massive segregated ghetto. It would've been better to let Muslims homeless sleeping on the streets or seeking their own homeless shelter! Don't do this, don't throw all the Muslims into the same isolated basket just because it's easier to contain any revolt there or kill them all with one bomb. If you want to help them pay their rent, spread them apart, these immigrant-only communities are pure hell to get rid of, and it can create, when too isolated, a state within a state, they will feel free to make their own laws and rules and carry out their sentences.
that is a very complex theme for itself, and I do not open a parallel discussion on it. Just say that you see it in form of simplified clichés, ignoring the inner dynamic of Muslim immigra-tion in general, and the details of social communities in the West, and French strategic poli-cies designed to be in opposition to the anglosaxon alliance and it’s influence in Europe (which the French still think of as their backyard, somehow :lol: )
Don't give them any legal priviledges.
Easier said than done when they hide behind freedom of religion to push Islamic political agendas. Unfortunately, Islam does not know the concept of secularism. That way they can turn our own constitutional orders against us and destroy our legal system and communties by that.
f they immigrated to Europe it's because they are seeking something Europe has to offer.
Yes. It is rich, and wealth is what Islam demand to earn now, although having done nothing to build that wealth. It’s is a selfish perspective of a certain old desert bandit who robbed and stolen himself excessively, you know.
I wonder why Europeans usually take is as granted that every guy coming here from other continents should have a right to squeeze himself into our homes and places. Why do we have no right to demand something in return that he must offer for our acceptance of him? Why do we not object when it is said he has a right to live in our place? Do you open yo0ur appartmenet for every stranger who strolls by and demands to live in your third room from now on? Has he any historical merits for having build our homes?
Be it a new home, a better home, a job, an opportunity.
Be advised that on the level of global strategy many Islamic clerics have expressed in clear words that they understand immigration as the new weapon in Islam’s jihad to subjugate the West. I have repeatedly quoted in the last 18 months or so from conference papers where they talk of “demographic bombs replacing the swords”, “Muslim colonies”, the “driv-ing out of the infidels from Islam’s heritage in Europe”, and that Europe must be brought to fall by sending more Islamic population there. It is a strategy for conquest. This sounds so absurd that it is completely ignored in the West, and people laugh about it. They still laugh although it is highranking representatives and conferences saying that, and in clear words. Islam will be the last man laughing, thanks to the silliness of the Europeans who always think they know it better than the speaker of words himself.
Then it is in the best interest of Muslims that European Democracy isn't destroyed by approving a separate parallel Muslim Constitution. Treat everybody as equal before the law. Muslims want to be treated equally,
No, they want more and more be treated on the basis of Islamic cultural demands. Western democracies and their understanding of liberty and freedom and the value of the individual are so much in opposition to Islamic views that they are understood to be the arch-enemy of Islam. Democracy and Islam are excluding each other, that’s why Islam tries to overcome the West. If it wants to remain true Islam, it MUST do so.
they don't want this new society to become just like their old home, otherwise they'd have never immigrated at all.
that may be true for those “Muslims” that are not really Muslim in an Islamic understanding, like I explained above. Such people are not the problem that finds my hostility, but true Muslims. Unfortunately we learned in recent years that both types of Muslims, the true and the untrue ones, are more and more difficult to discriminate. That is because even the un-true Muslims do not take effective measurements and do not take an active stand against true Islam, that way they behave as if they are true Islamic. And now it starts to be difficult, doesn’t it!? ;) If a Muslim is against certain aspects of Islam, but still confesses to Islam and defends it and does nothing to see "extremists" being overcome and does nothing to prevent them acting in his name – he still is helping the cause of true Islam by his passivity and ignorance, and acts the same way like a true Muslim. What is “Mitläufer” in English? However, when behaving in this way, he poses the same problem like a true Muslim for Western communities. And if he is critical of some aspects of Islam or not, does not change anything in the real effects that result in the end - he helps the cause of true Islam by his passivity. Judge them by deeds, not words. And when doing that, I must reject to see socalled “moderate” Msulims so much different from true Muslims.
But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion.
Now here you touch the important thing: you talk about “new religion”.
Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imag-ines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.
It would spend too much time to go into the history of the creation of the Quran again, and to analyse the character and personality of Muhammad. I refer top my old essay “The his-tory of Islam” chapter 2 where I gave a brief introduction on the creation of quran and Hadith and the historical biograhy of Muhammad. Nevertheless you are in great need to read one or two books about these two issues alone. You think it is queer that there is no quran banning jihad. But in reality it is a consequence deriving from Muhammad’s way of thinking. It is not queer at all (and I ignore the constant debate the inner and the outer aspects of the idea of jihad here).
So if a Muslim wants to start a new church, without any blood or confront like it took the Christian churches of the past, then he must be encouraged to do so and be assured he will not become the target of the religious intolerance of his cousins and will be protected from terrorism like anybody else.
According to our more developed set of values. Remind you that the Western civilization has moved beyond a state where it was dominated by comparable levels of religious blindness and intolerance. We just moved on and left that state behind since long. Islam has not changed and developed since over a thousand years – it is stuck where we were in the early medieval. It is a clash of civilizations, and a clash of times. Of different millenias in this case. When the Europeans came to china, this giant was so much frozen in it’s history of not hav-ing changed since many centuries that it was complelety unable to react to the pressure fromm outside, and the Chinese emperors very much destroyed themselves by that. Islam is even more frozen, but where china was focussed on it’s centre (the empire, and the em-peror) and ignored the outside (foreign countries), Islam ignores it’s centre (does not exam-ine itself in self-reflecting and self-testing), but focuses on the outside: it conquers, subju-gates and consumes the prey. All this religious theatre is only for one reason, in the end: like Muhammad was a robber and bandit and assaulted other tribes and subjugated them, Islam’s history is about control, conquest, and securing power over foreign wealth and res-sources.
The current Dalai Lama has said that when science proves Bhuddism wrong, then Bhuddism is wrong indeed and must be changed. Have you ever seen a Muslim say that since Islam no longer exists in an enviroment of tribal warfare the entire concept of the holy-warrior is outdated and unecessary to the modern peacefull man and should be kept as a souvenir, not as practical doctrine?
That just is a logical consequence and not the thing to wonder about as you paint it.
You certainly don't see the Pope invoking the faithfull to engage on a holy-war of preaching, how would you react if Pope Benedict XVI called every Catholic to a ceremonial holy-war of pilgrimage? There is no place for "war" in a religion of peace, you can philosophy about the concept of a fair war and how to treat the enemy and their prisioners nicely, but not the other way around, philosophy about how vicious and ferocious and powerfull you can become when fighting a holy-war and how many unarmed citizens you can behead in a min-ute.
[quote]If most Muslims living abroad are not Jihadists, then they have already fomed their own chuch but don't realise it, and nobody is willing to inform them of such because then they would start picking different Immams, forming their own Immam schools instead of importing them, rejecting the occasional obscure ones who came from Iran, and eventually develop a doctrine that condemns alot of stuff necessary to support Sharia, creating a differ-ent juridical code, probably similar to the truly peacefull religious codes out there.
Na ja… While it seems to be something like what I expressed somewhere above, it just seems so. Your questions nevertheless indicate that you have not realized the true nature of Islamic ideology.
True. Everybody willing to join, not willing to destroy, is welcome, but if mass man-power is required, there are certainly possible alternatives out there.
certain basic economical thoughts indicate that we do not need plenty of workers paying into the social insurances to secure social systems and future security for the old. Despite the constant loss of jobs in the last 15 years, the economy grew nevertheless and in germany booked one record profit following the next. To produce the cash that is needed for commu-nal structure to remain functional, you do not need high job numbers in principal. The prob-lem is that too much of the profits get consumed by a more and more greedy elite that does not return these cash funds into the economical cycle. That too many betray the system is what threatens us, not so much sinking birth rates that need to be compensated by import-ing future tax payers from Muslim countries. The whole discussion is very premature, but without doubt wanted in this style and course by those you profit from this constant crime of robbing the chashflows of a nations economy.
I oppose the idea of everybody who wants to come can join us. I oppose the idea of unlim-ited immigration. I reserve the right to ask what they have to offer us in return that is of important value for us. I also reserve the right to keep our national character and cultural identities. And that excludes something like unlimited immigration.
Example: In the US Brazilian immigrants should be preferred instead of Mexican (ex-cept in Connecticut), because the Brazilian immigrant has to take a plane to immigrate, this means he's either from a low (or middle) middle-class or has the cunning to raise enough money for the trip, on the other hand, the most desperate illiterate Mexican can simply jump a fence and he's in.
No good example. In Africa it is common practice that a whole village, or even several vil-lages, put all their families’ money together to enable one of them to make his way ti Europe. The majorities of the African boat people landing at Spanish and Italian coats fit for this description.

[Kurushio]

At the moment, North Korea looks like a nice place. I, unfortunately, live in a metropolis...and I hate it. Everyone flocks here like flies to ****...it smells like it as well, and the air is crap. I hate it. :down: Big cities? It's a cop out...once you get used to the conveniance of being able to buy anything with not much effort..you start to see the bad points. Like idiots who think that making noise at night is clever. Yes, I hate it. Idiots in general like big cities...don't know why...maybe a short attention span. I hate it.:damn: We have every nationality here and everyone is trying to turn their patch of dirt to something resembling back home. If you miss your home, why don;t you eff off back there...nobody is forcing you to stay. Yes I hate this effing bastard place.

Why don't I move? Good question...where I would like to move, everyone wants to live there...i.e. far enough outside the city to get out of the dump, but close enough to work and commute. And unfortunately a lot of these bastards have money (a lot of it) and priced everyone out of the market. So we have to suffer...until we can do something about it...and that's why we really work...to get out of this smeg hole.

I used to live in a small and beautiful spa town...I loved it. So instead of going forward...I must be going backwards. :damn:

The point of this rambling?....I would prefer living in North Korea to this ****hole. People denounce the simple things in life too easily. Do you know what it's like to never experience REAL darkness at night? I would love to have NO lights in the street... Cars also...it seems like paradise a place where you don't have to sit in a 7 mile tailback...and yes I would ride a bike, if it wasn't so dangerous...you know, 24 people have been killed on a bike here in the past 2 years....that's not to mention the badly injured. Crime...they'll kill you here of you look at someone funny...or drug adicts will kill you for your watch...some will kill you for fun.

So yes...in some ways they are lucky...

[Skybird]

I would prefer living in North Korea to this ****hole.. (...) ... in some ways they are lucky.
Has your desease already been given a name?

[Kurushio]

I would prefer living in North Korea to this ****hole.. (...) ... in some ways they are lucky. Has your desease already been given a name?

Yes...it's called "waking up and smelling the roses"....when you shag a beauty queen all your life and you get over the great ass and tits...all you have left is a shallow, bimbo. Wouldn't you be yearning to shag a nice, simple next-door type who can give you a conversation on, say, the weather without getting a migraine?

I dunno...I'd just like to get back to the simple ways...good honest living...fresh air. Yes, 46 inch Plasma, computers, cars etc etc are all good...but there's more...!

It's a kop out...:cry:

[mapuc]

??

Please enlighten me. How did North Korea come into my thread?

Maybe it's something I have missed

Markus

[scandium]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. :stare:


That’s the grim, scaring truth, and to some degree I can understand people’s hesitation to accept it. I do not like the sheer size of this conflict myself, too. But it will not go away just because I hope for something better. If you help your enemy to become stronger, this must not necessarily earn you his sympathy, and make him your friend. It is more likely that you just win a stronger enemy. That is especially true for an enemy whose declared goal and intend is total, undisputed, uncompromised global ruling and the deleting of any culture, religion and tradition that is not himself.
"For their sake alone we must win the war. If we lose it, these harmless-looking Jewish chaps would suddenly become raging wolves. They would attack our women and children to carry out revenge. There are enough examples in history. That is what they did in Bessarabia and the Baltic states when Bolshevism marched in, even though neither the people nor their governments had done anything to them. There is no turning back in our battle against the Jews — even if we wanted to, which we do not. The Jews must be removed from the German community, for they endanger our national unity.


That is an elementary principle of racial, national and social hygiene. They will never give us rest. If they could, they would drive one nation after another into war against us. Who cares about their difficulties, they who only want to force the world to accept their bloody financial domination? The Jews are a parasitic race that feeds like a foul fungus on the cultures of healthy but ignorant peoples. There is only one effective measure: cut them out." -- Joseph Goebbels, "The Jews are Guilty!"

It is rich, and wealth is what Islam demand to earn now, although having done nothing to build that wealth. It’s is a selfish perspective of a certain old desert bandit who robbed and stolen himself excessively, you know.
"Wherever Jewry has appeared, it has never built anything. It has always and everywhere destroyed or torn down, sucking others dry to fill itself. From the days of the Romans to our day, Jewry in every century, in every people, was and remained a foreign body, a destroyer of real and ideal values, a denier of any upward progress, a plague for body and soul. It sneaks in through deceit and treachery, trickery and slyness, murder and assault, understanding how to establish itself." -- Hermann Esser, "The Jewish World Plague"


Be advised that on the level of global strategy many Islamic clerics have expressed in clear words that they understand immigration as the new weapon in Islam’s jihad to subjugate the West. I have repeatedly quoted in the last 18 months or so from conference papers where they talk of “demographic bombs replacing the swords”, “Muslim colonies”, the “driv-ing out of the infidels from Islam’s heritage in Europe”, and that Europe must be brought to fall by sending more Islamic population there. It is a strategy for conquest. This sounds so absurd that it is completely ignored in the West, and people laugh about it. They still laugh although it is highranking representatives and conferences saying that, and in clear words. Islam will be the last man laughing, thanks to the silliness of the Europeans who always think they know it better than the speaker of words himself.
"Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the other. -- Dr. E. H. Schulz & Dr. R. Frercks, "Why the Aryan Law? A Contribution to the Jewish Question"


Islam is even more frozen, but where china was focussed on it’s centre (the empire, and the em-peror) and ignored the outside (foreign countries), Islam ignores it’s centre (does not exam-ine itself in self-reflecting and self-testing), but focuses on the outside: it conquers, subju-gates and consumes the prey. All this religious theatre is only for one reason, in the end: like Muhammad was a robber and bandit and assaulted other tribes and subjugated them, Islam’s history is about control, conquest, and securing power over foreign wealth and res-sources.
"One is overcome with horror upon reading the history of the Jews, as for example in an unabbreviated and unfalsified version of the Old Testament. One feels horror at the unique depravity of the Jews, at the crimes they have committed, at the devilish hate they have from the beginning directed against all those who did not want to bow to the yoke of Pan-Jewry! This horror becomes terror when one reads the rabbinical writings and reads such outbursts of Jewish rage as one finds in the Talmud Schulchan-Aruch. There it is written:

From Mt. Sinai:

What does Sinai mean? Sinai is the mountain on which Moses received the Jewish laws from the God Jahwe. From this mountain, the hatred of the Jews against all other peoples of the world has spread. (Schabbath, 89a)

Every Jew has the obligation to see that Christian churches are burned down and wiped out. The faithful must be insulted and the clergy killed. (Schulchan Aruch, Jore dea, 146, 14)

The Gentile is human ****. He is just as unclean. (Orach Chajim, 55, 20).

That is what the "holy" books of the Jews say. Every Jew, regardless of whether he lives in Germany or America, whether he speaks Russian or Spanish, whether he lives in the ghetto or on Wall Street, thinks and feels as the Talmud commands him. The term "Old Testament hatred" expresses the deep antipathy Jews feel toward Gentiles. Despite its inferiority, Jewry was able to survive over the millennia because of its satanic hatred against Gentiles." -- Ernst Hiemer, "The Holy Hate"

The above quoted texts are from the leading German "thinkers" and policy makers of the WWII era, and if you substitute Islam or Muslim for "International Jewry" or Jews" than you could use them interchangably with Skybird's writings on Islam (and that of a few others on this forum as well).

No offence intended Skybird, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its a duck. An article I've read elsewhere theorized that Anti-Muslim hostility is now replacing the Anti-Semitism in Europe that raged throughout it in the 1920s and thirties, and if your writings are any indictation than I'm believing to believe it.

[bradclark1]

??

Please enlighten me. How did North Korea come into my thread?

Maybe it's something I have missed

Markus

You can send out an SOS and claim your threads been Hijacked. :/\\x:

[The Avon Lady]

The mistake that Scandium makes (again and again and again and again....) is that he can only quote historical racists' views in an attempt to compare Nazi's hate for Jews with the current opinions here against Islam.

All we ask Scandium to do is to go to the sources themselves of Islam. Read their own scriptures and their own jurists legally binding interpretations of them. Then follow what current Islamists are saying - not simply based on their own self-created hatred and bigotry - but hate and threats whose foundations are within Islamic scriptures and teachings themselves.

If you want to stop the next best thing to the Nazis, then read and learn Islamic scriptures, law and history and then read their lips.

But Scandium doesn't get it again. Instead, like so many of his ideological ilk, he blames the victims.

Scandium can do not more that sarcastically quote Nazi ideological thugs. Here's my counter-quote:

"This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."
- Winston Churchill, War Speech (excerpt), September 3, 1939, House of Commons

This has nothing to do with being ultra-conservative or radical-liberal. It has everything to do with fact versus fiction and right versus wrong.

History repeats itself. Yet the Scandiums will insist that the "Churchills" have become the "Hitlers" and the "Hitlers" have become the "Churchills". Chose wisely.

[scandium]

The mistake that Scandium makes (again and again and again and again....) is that he can only quote historical racists' views in an attempt to compare Nazi's hate for Jews with the current opinions here against Islam.
I compare historical racists to the modern day ones. And your racism is just that, racism, not opinion. It is fear and hatred. The same fear and hatred that led the German people of the 1920s and 1930s to rally around Hitler and pretend his madness was anything other than what it was.

Germany back then, after their defeat in the Great War, the shame of the Versailles treaty, and the economic crisis of the '20s, faced radical change and challenges that are not terribly unlike those in Europe after the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, and the creation of the EU. The changes this time are much more positive, but perhaps no less radical and challenging to one's national identity. That, at least, could explain (in part) the irrational Islamophobia that is suddenly sweeping through Europe; if you look at North America you will find it is not present here (and both Canada and the US has millions of Muslim immigrants each).

But Scandium doesn't get it again. Instead, like so many of his ideological ilk, he blames the victims.
What victims AL? The 6 million of your people reduced to ash in the greatest tragedy of all of history was done in place that was not known as a bastion of Islam. In fact, it was done by people who gassed Jews on Friday, cremated them on Saturday, and went to church on Sunday.

Scandium can do not more that sarcastically quote Nazi ideological thugs.
Sure I can, and have, many times tried reason and logic that has fallen repeatedly on deaf ears. So now I try another tactic, which is merely to quote your ideological predecessors; the times have changed, as have the scapegoats, but the irrational fear and hatred is the same, and so the quotes are fitting.

Here's my counter-quote:

"This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."
- Winston Churchill, War Speech (excerpt), September 3, 1939, House of Commons
Don't quote something that you have no understanding of. You might take note of the fact that Churchill didn't make that speech with an "except for Islam" or "except for Muslims" caveat, and ponder what that means. He sure as hell didn't mean we should liberate the Jews enslaved and tyrannized by Hitler so that we can tyrannize and enslave the Muslims in their place.

This has nothing to do with being ultra-conservative or radical-liberal. It has everything to do with fact versus fiction and right versus wrong.

History repeats itself. Yet the Scandiums will insist that the "Churchills" have become the "Hitlers" and the "Hitlers" have become the "Churchills". Chose wisely.

You are insane AL.

[scandium]

Meanwhile, back in reality, as a followup to that story I posted earlier in this thread:

"WHEN Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi returned home a fully fledged soldier in 2004, he was proud, confident and keen to be seen in his combat uniform.

Nothing could persuade him to change out of his camouflage gear as he met his best friend, Zulqar Waheed, and went to see a film in Birmingham. “It was right after his passing-out parade and he was wanting to show off his uniform,” said Mr Waheed, who had been close to the young soldier since he had arrived in the city at the age of 12.

On their way home, they encountered abuse from a white man. “He shouted, ‘Hey, Paki, you shouldn’t be wearing that’. I thought, ‘Oh my God’, this guy is willing to give up his life for you, and that’s what he gets.”

Last Saturday the soldier died in the Afghan badlands, across the border from his childhood home in Pakistan."

I can just picture Churchill saying "Hey, Paki, you shouldn't be wearing that." :roll:

Editting to add a link to the article in case anyone else is interested in reading it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2256694,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

The mistake that Scandium makes (again and again and again and again....) is that he can only quote historical racists' views in an attempt to compare Nazi's hate for Jews with the current opinions here against Islam.I compare historical racists to the modern day ones.
You fudge the facts and blur all the lines so that you can claim that everything is mud.
And your racism is just that, racism, not opinion.
What race are Muslims? Islam is not a race. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don't want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here or there, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don't hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. And you? :hmm:

Your Nazi analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that Judaism does not advocate imposing Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism on anyone in the world. Are there Jews the do? Sure. There are Christians and Muslims, too, that advocate various ideologies but that does not mean that these ideologies are core pillars of their respective religions.

And, no, it is not opinion. It is fact. Simply quote the Islamic texts, interpretations and religious leaders who base themselves on Islam. Again, you fudge the facts.
It is fear and hatred. The same fear and hatred that led the German people of the 1920s and 1930s to rally around Hitler and pretend his madness was anything other than what it was.
Yours is the same ignorant bliss that lead Neville Chamberlain to declare "peace in our time" to the lethargic masses of his countrymen.

Here comes the usual "pity the post-WWI Germans" cry:
Germany back then, after their defeat in the Great War, the shame of the Versailles treaty, and the economic crisis of the '20s, faced radical change and challenges that are not terribly unlike those in Europe after the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, and the creation of the EU. The changes this time are much more positive, but perhaps no less radical and challenging to one's national identity. That, at least, could explain (in part) the irrational Islamophobia that is suddenly sweeping through Europe;
How about the fact that for possibly the first time in history, Islamic texts and lierature has become available to the public to read and digest?

How about the fact that what Islamic preaches say today and are recorded for posterity in their own web sites, on video, in printed material and trascripts, declares that Islam does indeed advocate using a variety of methods, from preaching (da'wa) to lying (taquiya) to physical military force (Jihad - yes, that kind of Jihad) to subjugate an infidel world (dar al-harb) into following Islam or, at the least being subserviant to it (dhimmitude) in countries that are to convert to the Islamic legal system (Sha'aria)?

Where or by whom has all of this been abrogated? We await with baited breath your expert analysis of Islam that will surely contradict these tenets.
if you look at North America you will find it is not present here (and both Canada and the US has millions of Muslim immigrants each).
Here's a Jewish quotation from the Talmud:

"Eizeh hu chacham? Haro'eh et ha'nolad." - “Who is wise? The one who can see what is coming”.
- Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) 2:9

You live in Canada. Skybird in Germany. Myself in Israel (though born and raised in the US).

North America might have more time on their hands than Europe but the same trends are there because the same goals are there.

Islamists know what there goals are. They are planting the seeds for their children and grandchildren to reap in the generations to come.

You can't see past the morning paper.
But Scandium doesn't get it again. Instead, like so many of his ideological ilk, he blames the victims.
What victims AL? The 6 million of your people reduced to ash in the greatest tragedy of all of history was done in place that was not known as a bastion of Islam.
This is totally irrelevant. But while we're on the subject of Nazism and Islam, let me refresh your memory (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html#part2).

Ask yourself why Mein Kampf is a best seller, from Turkey to Egypt.
In fact, it was done by people who gassed Jews on Friday, cremated them on Saturday, and went to church on Sunday.
So?

So?

I'll ask it again:

So?
Scandium can do not more that sarcastically quote Nazi ideological thugs.
Sure I can, and have, many times tried reason and logic that has fallen repeatedly on deaf ears. So now I try another tactic, which is merely to quote your ideological predecessors; the times have changed, as have the scapegoats, but the irrational fear and hatred is the same, and so the quotes are fitting.

Here's my counter-quote:

"This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."
- Winston Churchill, War Speech (excerpt), September 3, 1939, House of Commons
Don't quote something that you have no understanding of. You might take note of the fact that Churchill didn't make that speech with an "except for Islam" or "except for Muslims" caveat, and ponder what that means. He sure as hell didn't mean we should liberate the Jews enslaved and tyrannized by Hitler so that we can tyrannize and enslave the Muslims in their place.
I'll repeat another Churchill quote, much to your disliking:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
- Winston Churchill, The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

Churchill saw what was coming - more than once.
This has nothing to do with being ultra-conservative or radical-liberal. It has everything to do with fact versus fiction and right versus wrong.

History repeats itself. Yet the Scandiums will insist that the "Churchills" have become the "Hitlers" and the "Hitlers" have become the "Churchills". Chose wisely.
You are insane AL.
If being ruthlessly honest is insanity, I am not insulted.

[The Avon Lady]

Meanwhile, back in reality, as a followup to that story I posted earlier in this thread:

"WHEN Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi returned home a fully fledged soldier in 2004, he was proud, confident and keen to be seen in his combat uniform.

Nothing could persuade him to change out of his camouflage gear as he met his best friend, Zulqar Waheed, and went to see a film in Birmingham. “It was right after his passing-out parade and he was wanting to show off his uniform,” said Mr Waheed, who had been close to the young soldier since he had arrived in the city at the age of 12.

On their way home, they encountered abuse from a white man. “He shouted, ‘Hey, Paki, you shouldn’t be wearing that’. I thought, ‘Oh my God’, this guy is willing to give up his life for you, and that’s what he gets.”

Last Saturday the soldier died in the Afghan badlands, across the border from his childhood home in Pakistan."

I can just picture Churchill saying "Hey, Paki, you shouldn't be wearing that." :roll:

Editting to add a link to the article in case anyone else is interested in reading it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2256694,00.html
Once again, Scandium falsely equates a person who is a "Muslim" with the faith "Islam."

But false equations are in season apparently.

[scandium]

What race are Muslims? Islam is not a race. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don't want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here or there, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don't hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. And you? :hmm:
Right, bigotry was the word I was looking for, not racism. My bad.

As to Sharia law, those who immigrate to Canada are obligated to follow the laws of Canada, and not Sharia, and it is the same in the United States and Europe. And generally speaking this vast group of immigrants (numbering in the tens of millions at least) do follow our laws, so that is a red herring; especially since many of these immigrants flee to our countries from Sharia law. I don't equate Islamic theocracies with the religion of Islam any more than I equate our secular, Western societies that are based upon Christianity with the Christian theocracies of our not so different past. In fact, many of the first Christians to inhabit the New World were those who fled religious persecution in Europe - yet they were not turned back because they were Christian, nor were they forced to abandon their Christian faith. :hmm:

Your Nazi analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that Judaism does not advocate imposing Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism on anyone in the world. Are there Jews the do? Sure. There are Christians and Muslims, too, that advocate various ideologies but that does not mean that these ideologies are core pillars of their respective religions.
Not really. The bigotry of the time (and the heinous actions that followed) were grounded in fear and hatred, not reality -- it mattered not what Judaism advocated, it mattered only (in the consequences) what the non-Jewish self-proclaimed "experts" on Judaism could attribute to it.

And, no, it is not opinion. It is fact. Simply quote the Islamic texts, interpretations and religious leaders who base themselves on Islam. Again, you fudge the facts.
Do I? Here's a fact for you: the Islamic scholars seem to agree on about as much as the Christian scholars do, so which interpretations would you have me quote? Why of course the ones that would appear to support your viewpoint, and ignoring anything else.

Yours is the same ignorant bliss that lead Neville Chamberlain to declare "peace in our time" to the lethargic masses of his countrymen.
Oh please, spare me this laughable comparison (for one, I am not British :)). I think Islam has existed a lot longer than Hitler or Nazism... yet curiously Hitler was no Muslim. :hmm: Perhaps Islam is not Nazism eh?

How about the fact that for possibly the first time in history, Islamic texts and lierature has become available to the public to read and digest?
*shrug* for most of its history, Mass was given in Latin (which only the Clergy understood) and beyond the more recent IRA squabble (not to trivialize it), I don't recall the Catholics revolting en masse to take over the world the way you claim Muslims are - in fact, the church was much more powerful during the days the Mass was delivered in Latin.

How about the fact that what Islamic preaches say today and are recorded for posterity in their own web sites, on video, in printed material and trascripts, declares that Islam does indeed advocate using a variety of methods, from preaching (da'wa) to lying (taquiya) to physical military force (Jihad - yes, that kind of Jihad) to subjugate an infidel world (dar al-harb) into following Islam or, at the least being subserviant to it (dhimmitude) in countries that are to convert to the Islamic legal system (Sha'aria)?

Where or by whom has all of this been abrogated? We await with baited breath your expert analysis of Islam that will surely contradict these tenets.
You'll be waiting a long time then, since I leave the Islamic theological expertise to you and Skybird ;)

My point all along is that Islam no more inhabits a vacuum than does any other ideology - religious or otherwise. It may come to a bit of a shock to you, but prior to the collapse of the USSR the great scourge of mankind was actually Godless Communism; it would probably shock you even further to learn that Marxism, as invented by Karl Marx, and Communism, as subverted by Joseph Stalin, have very little in common; nor do the Salem Witch Trials much resemble anything written in the New Testament. Everything changes, everything evolves - Islam included, Muslims included.

Here's a Jewish quotation from the Talmud:

"Eizeh hu chacham? Haro'eh et ha'nolad." - “Who is wise? The one who can see what is coming”.
- Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) 2:9

You live in Canada. Skybird in Germany. Myself in Israel (though born and raised in the US).

North America might have more time on their hands than Europe but the same trends are there because the same goals are there.

Islamists know what there goals are. They are planting the seeds for their children and grandchildren to reap in the generations to come.

You can't see past the morning paper.
*shrug* I take tomorrow's weather forecast with a grain of salt. Whenever religion is involved I take a particularly larger grain than otherwise ;)

This is totally irrelevant. But while we're on the subject of Nazism and Islam, let me refresh your memory (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html#part2).

Ask yourself why Mein Kampf is a best seller, from Turkey to Egypt.
Sure, but its also a fact that Mein Kampf was written by a Christian Austrian. Of course the Europeans have moved beyond their Anti-Semitism (after gassing 6 million of them)... to replace it instead with Islamophobia. Meanwhile the ME has embraced Anti-Semetism. I make no apologies for either, nor do I put one above the other - both are contemptible.

I'll repeat another Churchill quote, much to your disliking:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
- Winston Churchill, The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

Churchill saw what was coming - more than once.
Its been how many years since he wrote that? 50? 60? 70? 80? The truly sad thing is that likely so little has changed in Middle Eastern and African society since then. Churchill was many things, but he was not a prophet, nor an Anthropologist. As always, whenever I contemplate the dire situation in Africa and the ME I wonder how much of it is due to factors such as illiteracy, famine, poverty, disease, repressive dictatorships, Western intervention (or lack of it as the case may be), etc. Naturally you will dismiss all of this to single out Islam, but before you do consider one factor from this list only: could European society have evolved and flourished under feudalism?

[scandium]

Meanwhile, back in reality, as a followup to that story I posted earlier in this thread:

"WHEN Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi returned home a fully fledged soldier in 2004, he was proud, confident and keen to be seen in his combat uniform.

Nothing could persuade him to change out of his camouflage gear as he met his best friend, Zulqar Waheed, and went to see a film in Birmingham. “It was right after his passing-out parade and he was wanting to show off his uniform,” said Mr Waheed, who had been close to the young soldier since he had arrived in the city at the age of 12.

On their way home, they encountered abuse from a white man. “He shouted, ‘Hey, Paki, you shouldn’t be wearing that’. I thought, ‘Oh my God’, this guy is willing to give up his life for you, and that’s what he gets.”

Last Saturday the soldier died in the Afghan badlands, across the border from his childhood home in Pakistan."

I can just picture Churchill saying "Hey, Paki, you shouldn't be wearing that." :roll:

Editting to add a link to the article in case anyone else is interested in reading it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2256694,00.html Once again, Scandium falsely equates a person who is a "Muslim" with the faith "Islam."

But false equations are in season apparently.
Muslim: an adherent of Islam. Your "false equation" is like suggesting the Allies went to war with Fascism, not Germany or Italy, or Japan (and of course it was Fascism that was on trial at Nuremburg, not Nazi war criminals). I've seen you split hairs before AL, but this is just retarded. :nope:

Edit: I suppose it makes it easier to discriminate against one's religion if you tell yourself you're only discriminating against the religion and not the ones who practice it. Indefensible actions are much harder to defend when held up against the actual people who would be affected by these actions rather than abstract concepts like "Islam". I wonder if Goebbels used such rationalizations when he wrote his diatribes about "International Jewry".

Edit #2: the Goebbels comment may be below the belt if taken to mean that I am calling you Goebbels (I am saying in advance now that I am not, as that would be absurd of me and a very nasty thing to do); I suppose this is the danger of introducing Nazi propagabda and what into the discussion, and in retrospect that might have not been such a wise step to take in this discussion;

One other thing to add: despite my disdain for theological arguements, I find myself reading more and more 'Biblical' type stuff lately... I wonder what will come next, my going to Mass for the first time in decades or my reading the Koran ;)

[Skybird]

The mistake that Scandium makes (again and again and again and again....) is that he can only quote historical racists' views in an attempt to compare Nazi's hate for Jews with the current opinions here against Islam.

Yes, but that it common practice here today (here=Europe). Call every critic of Islam a racist, compare him to the Nazis. Nothing worse can happen to you especially in Germany. People being in danger to get called like that, no matter if for right or for wrong, usually immediately fall silent. The language reform of the EU, to clal it like that :dead:, follows the same path. If a teeeor attack by Muslims is not named a terrorist attack by Muslims and not named as being done in the name of Allah, then it is no terrorist attack by Muslims in the name of Allah, but an attack commited by "men" (Tony Blair). We should have a medical exmaination in such cases to be sure that they are really "men", then. It is a discriminative abuse of language that offends all men in Europe, doesn't it.

Therefore such accusations usually come from the political left, the SPD, the Greens, left political organisations and institutions that want to push through their total and uncritical embracing of multi-culti in general and Islam in special. That the latter two are even excluding to each other is not taken note of. And all this, and that we are still waiting for earlier question he got asked will be answered or even take note of by him, is why I couldn't care less about him. Islam has managed to get Europeans brandmarking every opposition to it as the raise of the Nazis again. So now they behave like sheep being driven to the slaughterhouse and telling each other that in principle the man with the white skirt is a nice guy with a lot of humour.

[The Avon Lady]

What race are Muslims? Islam is not a race. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don't want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here or there, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don't hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. And you? :hmm:
Right, bigotry was the word I was looking for, not racism. My bad.
The fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted. Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology. If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.
As to Sharia law, those who immigrate to Canada are obligated to follow the laws of Canada, and not Sharia, and it is the same in the United States and Europe. And generally speaking this vast group of immigrants (numbering in the tens of millions at least) do follow our laws, so that is a red herring; especially since many of these immigrants flee to our countries from Sharia law.
If my facts are correct, England has been one of the biggest absorbers of asylum seekers over the last few decades. Here are some fresh and interesting statistics to ponder:

Muslim Britain split over 'martyrs' of 7/7 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html).

And here, I'm sure you'll be shocked (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011450.php), too.

Again, you still don't catch. Islamists will, if necessary, take their time and use the democratic rules and laws to their advantage, to eventually impose Sha'ria law (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006332.php) on their host countries.

Once again, you can't see past the morning paper. Islamists are looking decades ahead of you.
I don't equate Islamic theocracies with the religion of Islam any more than I equate our secular, Western societies that are based upon Christianity with the Christian theocracies of our not so different past.
What's the comparison? Again, what do the Islamic theocracies say that is in contradiction with the religion of Islam? They are accurately preaching it, based on the writing of present and past Islamic theocrats that say the same things and sight the same Islamic scriptures, many of them blatantly and literally apparent.
In fact, many of the first Christians to inhabit the New World were those who fled religious persecution in Europe - yet they were not turned back because they were Christian, nor were they forced to abandon their Christian faith. :hmm:
Who? Huh? What? How is this relevant? In other words:

So?

So?

So?
Your Nazi analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that Judaism does not advocate imposing Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism on anyone in the world. Are there Jews the do? Sure. There are Christians and Muslims, too, that advocate various ideologies but that does not mean that these ideologies are core pillars of their respective religions.
Not really. The bigotry of the time (and the heinous actions that followed) were grounded in fear and hatred, not reality -- it mattered not what Judaism advocated, it mattered only (in the consequences) what the non-Jewish self-proclaimed "experts" on Judaism could attribute to it.
Maybe you can catch on. How about the fear and hatred of Nazi Germany by the few in the west who understood what was happening while the rest of the world slept?

You again mix or equate proclaimers of fiction with those of fact.
And, no, it is not opinion. It is fact. Simply quote the Islamic texts, interpretations and religious leaders who base themselves on Islam. Again, you fudge the facts.
Do I? Here's a fact for you: the Islamic scholars seem to agree on about as much as the Christian scholars do, so which interpretations would you have me quote? Why of course the ones that would appear to support your viewpoint, and ignoring anything else.
Since you know better, please tell me which Islamic schools of Jurisprudence have a different interpretation than what I have been stating and linking to? Name it/them. You have yet to do so even once.

Here's my list: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i - all 4 schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

Shall we start dealing with the much smaller world of Shi'ite Islam, too? Just ask.
Yours is the same ignorant bliss that lead Neville Chamberlain to declare "peace in our time" to the lethargic masses of his countrymen.
Oh please, spare me this laughable comparison (for one, I am not British :)).
Was that an attempt at humor?
I think Islam has existed a lot longer than Hitler or Nazism...
Indeed that's a fact (http://www.libyana.org/maps/atlas/8-umayya.htm).
yet curiously Hitler was no Muslim. :hmm: Perhaps Islam is not Nazism eh?
It isn't. Brutal communism isn't Nazism either. And again:

So?

So?

So?
How about the fact that for possibly the first time in history, Islamic texts and lierature has become available to the public to read and digest?
*shrug* for most of its history, Mass was given in Latin (which only the Clergy understood) and beyond the more recent IRA squabble (not to trivialize it), I don't recall the Catholics revolting en masse to take over the world the way you claim Muslims are - in fact, the church was much more powerful during the days the Mass was delivered in Latin.
Where does the Bible tell Christians to take over the whole world by hook or by crook?

I have already quoted numerous times the Quranic verses, ahaddiths and elementary Islamic texts that teach Muslims that they are to achieve domination of Islam throughout the world and not only by peacefully proselytizing.

Where is the Christian equivalent? Waiting (again)..........................
How about the fact that what Islamic preaches say today and are recorded for posterity in their own web sites, on video, in printed material and trascripts, declares that Islam does indeed advocate using a variety of methods, from preaching (da'wa) to lying (taquiya) to physical military force (Jihad - yes, that kind of Jihad) to subjugate an infidel world (dar al-harb) into following Islam or, at the least being subserviant to it (dhimmitude) in countries that are to convert to the Islamic legal system (Sha'aria)?

Where or by whom has all of this been abrogated? We await with baited breath your expert analysis of Islam that will surely contradict these tenets.
You'll be waiting a long time then, since I leave the Islamic theological expertise to you and Skybird ;)
Indeed. But believe me, we'd love to seriously argue with you once you have the facts at hand. This admission of ignorance on your part is much appreciated.
My point all along is that Islam no more inhabits a vacuum than does any other ideology - religious or otherwise. It may come to a bit of a shock to you, but prior to the collapse of the USSR the great scourge of mankind was actually Godless Communism; it would probably shock you even further to learn that Marxism, as invented by Karl Marx, and Communism, as subverted by Joseph Stalin, have very little in common; nor do the Salem Witch Trials much resemble anything written in the New Testament. Everything changes, everything evolves - Islam included, Muslims included.
And here you make the major error of not understanding the difference between the religious view of the verbatim validity of supposed god-given religious texts verses the admitted inventive creations of man.

If a Muslim tells you that the Quran's texts can be ignored because times have changed, he is violating a law already defined by Islam that forbids him to say or bleieve so. He may still be a Muslim but he is a sinning Muslim practicing some offshoot variation that is not Islam.

If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.
Here's a Jewish quotation from the Talmud:

"Eizeh hu chacham? Haro'eh et ha'nolad." - “Who is wise? The one who can see what is coming”.
- Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) 2:9

You live in Canada. Skybird in Germany. Myself in Israel (though born and raised in the US).

North America might have more time on their hands than Europe but the same trends are there because the same goals are there.

Islamists know what there goals are. They are planting the seeds for their children and grandchildren to reap in the generations to come.

You can't see past the morning paper.
*shrug* I take tomorrow's weather forecast with a grain of salt. Whenever religion is involved I take a particularly larger grain than otherwise ;)
As they say, you are what you eat.
This is totally irrelevant. But while we're on the subject of Nazism and Islam, let me refresh your memory (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html#part2).

Ask yourself why Mein Kampf is a best seller, from Turkey to Egypt.
Sure, but its also a fact that Mein Kampf was written by a Christian Austrian.
So Christainity equals Nazism?

Or is it a particular Christian equals a Nazi.

You just keep repeating the same mistakes of equivalence over and over.
Of course the Europeans have moved beyond their Anti-Semitism (after gassing 6 million of them)...
I disagree with your assertion that Europeans have moved beyond anti-Semitism but that is another subject.
to replace it instead with Islamophobia.
If this is "Islamophobia", show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history). Show me why it is an "irrational" dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur'an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the "guidance" of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Meanwhile the ME has embraced Anti-Semetism. I make no apologies for either, nor do I put one above the other - both are contemptible.
As I always say, read and learn, read and learn:

References to Jews in the Koran (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/koranjews.html)
I'll repeat another Churchill quote, much to your disliking:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
- Winston Churchill, The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

Churchill saw what was coming - more than once.
Its been how many years since he wrote that? 50? 60? 70? 80? The truly sad thing is that likely so little has changed in Middle Eastern and African society since then. Churchill was many things, but he was not a prophet, nor an Anthropologist. As always, whenever I contemplate the dire situation in Africa and the ME I wonder how much of it is due to factors such as illiteracy, famine, poverty, disease, repressive dictatorships, Western intervention (or lack of it as the case may be), etc. Naturally you will dismiss all of this to single out Islam, but before you do consider one factor from this list only: could European society have evolved and flourished under feudalism?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[scandium]

And all this, and that we are still waiting for earlier question he got asked will be answered or even take note of by him, is why I couldn't care less about him.

Which questions? You write the longest essays here on Subsim, and as often as not in the most reader-unfriendly way possible (hard to read colours, all one or two paragraphs, etc) so if I skipped something it was more likely for brevity's sake or to save my eyes than to deliberately dodge answering you.

[The Avon Lady]

Meanwhile, back in reality, as a followup to that story I posted earlier in this thread:

"WHEN Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi returned home a fully fledged soldier in 2004, he was proud, confident and keen to be seen in his combat uniform.

Nothing could persuade him to change out of his camouflage gear as he met his best friend, Zulqar Waheed, and went to see a film in Birmingham. “It was right after his passing-out parade and he was wanting to show off his uniform,” said Mr Waheed, who had been close to the young soldier since he had arrived in the city at the age of 12.

On their way home, they encountered abuse from a white man. “He shouted, ‘Hey, Paki, you shouldn’t be wearing that’. I thought, ‘Oh my God’, this guy is willing to give up his life for you, and that’s what he gets.”

Last Saturday the soldier died in the Afghan badlands, across the border from his childhood home in Pakistan."

I can just picture Churchill saying "Hey, Paki, you shouldn't be wearing that." :roll:

Editting to add a link to the article in case anyone else is interested in reading it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2256694,00.html Once again, Scandium falsely equates a person who is a "Muslim" with the faith "Islam."

But false equations are in season apparently.
Muslim: an adherent of Islam. Your "false equation" is like suggesting the Allies went to war with Fascism, not Germany or Italy, or Japan (and of course it was Fascism that was on trial at Nuremburg, not Nazi war criminals). I've seen you split hairs before AL, but this is just retarded. :nope:
Here's where you're defeated. The world went to war against Germany, Italy and Japan. The war has been over for over 60 years. Why are these countries still here?

You really are thick.
Edit: I suppose it makes it easier to discriminate against one's religion if you tell yourself you're only discriminating against the religion and not the ones who practice it.
Nope. Let me make this loud and clear. Any Muslim who believes or practices Islam is the rest of mankind's enemy.

I hope that's clear enough for you. And again a reminder: by "Islam", I mean authentic Islam, as advocated by the Quran, trhough Mohamed's words, deeds and instructions and through the teachings that expound and promote that.
Indefensible actions are much harder to defend when held up against the actual people who would be affected by these actions rather than abstract concepts like "Islam". I wonder if Goebbels used such rationalizations when he wrote his diatribes about "International Jewry".
Here we go again. The same stupid imbalanced comparisons.
Edit #2: the Goebbels comment may be below the belt if taken to mean that I am calling you Goebbels (I am saying in advance now that I am not, as that would be absurd of me and a very nasty thing to do); I suppose this is the danger of introducing Nazi propagabda and what into the discussion, and in retrospect that might have not been such a wise step to take in this discussion;

One other thing to add: despite my disdain for theological arguements, I find myself reading more and more 'Biblical' type stuff lately... I wonder what will come next, my going to Mass for the first time in decades or my reading the Koran ;)
King David said:

"Shun evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it." (Psalm 34:15)

The prerequisite to seeking peace and pursuing it is knowing what is evil and what is good.

Read and learn, read and learn.

[Skybird]

Scandium

You simply ignore all and everything that you do not want to hear, and try to wrap up people in distracting and often hairsplitting pseudo-discussion on an almost semantical level. That's why I have stopped to bother with you. For everyone who has collected some basic knowledge about Islam, it's history, it'S scritpure, it'S theology, it is very obvious that you do not know anything substantial about it. As long as you do not change that and stop your ignorance towards Islam, you do not talk, but distort. you need to know the general content of the quran and it'S structures, you need to have some basic exoerience in the diversity of contradictory quotes you can get from it if you just happen to know where to find the single sentence that matches you cause. You need to understand how it was created, and rearranged, and that Islam denies that this process has taken place. you need to have a basic idea about what Hadith is, and what it deals with, ahnd in what form it incorproates the sharia. You need to be able to compare the Sira to the biography of the histoircally true figure ofMuhammad, you need to have some basic knowledge about his historically true life in order to understand why he preached what he preached. You need to understand what is meant with the socalled medina-model. You need to have enough information so that you can build a well-founded guess about what kind of character and personality he had. You need to know the history before Islam, both woitzh regard to the arabian peninsula, and the splitted Rome. You need to learn by what criterias Islam defines itself, and it'S goals. And finally you need to accept on the basis of knoweldge that Islam actively prohibits that such questions are asked, and that answers or knowledge in egenral are sought outside the Koran and the Hadith, and that this is why in other parts of the world schools and teachers are one preferred kind of target for Islamic terror strikes.

Since weeks we see in your answers that you do not have this knoweldge, instead your stuff perfetcly mimics the content of the pro-Islamic propaganda. I - and others - judge you on the basis of your performance, and that is a performance that shines with ignorance of facts. I do not know why AL still spends so much effort with you. I have decided different, becasue as long as you do not equip yourself with some basic knowledge about Islam, you do not talk, but distort. That knowledge is difficult to achieve, I do know myself, it takes time and studying. until some years ago, I defended islam myself, for difefrent reasons than you do. But I had to accept the growing flood of information I gained that indicated that my BELIEFS were wrong. when I changed my opinion, many of my often contradictory experiences from my times in the middle east all of a sudden fell into place and formed a consistent, smooth picture. To get there, took me years, and many illusions to be killed.

[scandium]

First off, AL are you competing with Skybird on who can write the longest Posts? :) Well, as long as you don't start using red and blue text ;)

The fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted.
Provided you make that distinction, which you don't, and which is why it is bigoted.

Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology.
In order to be a "group" the group must have something in common (a shared space if nothing else). In any case, would you make the generalizations you make of Muslims to any other group? "Jews" are a group, as are "Catholics"... "Irish"... "Capitalists".... "Communists"... "Hispanics"... "Plumbers". :hmm:

If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."
Ideological purity, what a concept... Is Judaism ideologically pure? No skeletons in the closet anywhere? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I agree that facts should be dealt with, however if you're looking for "facts" in anything theological than that is half your problem right there.

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.
Who would that be?

If my facts are correct, England has been one of the biggest absorbers of asylum seekers over the last few decades. Here are some fresh and interesting statistics to ponder:

Muslim Britain split over 'martyrs' of 7/7 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html).

And here, I'm sure you'll be shocked (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011450.php), too.

Again, you still don't catch. Islamists will, if necessary, take their time and use the democratic rules and laws to their advantage, to eventually impose Sha'ria law (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006332.php) on their host countries.

Once again, you can't see past the morning paper. Islamists are looking decades ahead of you.
Interesting how that juxtaposes with your assertion in another thread that they can't see past the 72 virgins in the afterlife. :hmm:

In any case, the Times article has some interesting findings. One has to wonder if the fact that 79% of the Muslims believe they have since experienced increased hostility (understandably or no) has any bearing on the finding that 16% of them were 'sympathetic to the cause but not the attack'. Would I expect, based on this poll, that 16% of Muslims in the UK is planning a terrorist attack? No. In fact, the only conclusion I make from this is that it proves Muslims don't all think and act alike the way you seem to think they do.


What's the comparison? Again, what do the Islamic theocracies say that is in contradiction with the religion of Islam? They are accurately preaching it, based on the writing of present and past Islamic theocrats that say the same things and sight the same Islamic scriptures, many of them blatantly and literally apparent.

Do they?

Maybe you can catch on. How about the fear and hatred of Nazi Germany by the few in the west who understood what was happening while the rest of the world slept?
The rest of the world has been asleep for the last 1,400 years eh? Quite the coma. If only I could sleep so peacefully at night :)

Since you know better, please tell me which Islamic schools of Jurisprudence have a different interpretation than what I have been stating and linking to? Name it/them. You have yet to do so even once.

Here's my list: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i - all 4 schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

Shall we start dealing with the much smaller world of Shi'ite Islam, too? Just ask.
And which Western countries do they dispense justice in? How about you name those, since that has quite a lot more to do with my point.

Where does the Bible tell Christians to take over the whole world by hook or by crook? What difference does theological nuance make in regards to historical fact? Perhaps if you'd been born 3 centuries ago you could have pointed that out to the Christian hordes that were busy conquering all of North & South America (by hook and by crook). Surely they would have listened to you. But of course Christianity doesn't conquer and enslave. Christians do (or did). Similarly, Islam doesn't conquer and enslave. Muslims do (or did).

I have already quoted numerous times the Quranic verses, ahaddiths and elementary Islamic texts that teach Muslims that they are to achieve domination of Islam throughout the world and not only by peacefully proselytizing.

Where is the Christian equivalent? Waiting (again)..........................
See above. History cares little for theological nuance.

Indeed. But believe me, we'd love to seriously argue with you once you have the facts at hand. This admission of ignorance on your part is much appreciated.


You are only just now catching onto something that I have surely said all along. Theology is all well and good, but if it is as you say it is then it should be borne out by actions and by history. Are they? I've been waiting for something more tangible than obscure theological references, but neither of you are providing. So I guess we've both been waiting.

And here you make the major error of not understanding the difference between the religious view of the verbatim validity of supposed god-given religious texts verses the admitted inventive creations of man.

If a Muslim tells you that the Quran's texts can be ignored because times have changed, he is violating a law already defined by Islam that forbids him to say or bleieve so. He may still be a Muslim but he is a sinning Muslim practicing some offshoot variation that is not Islam.

If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.
Nonsense. The Bible is every bit as God-given as the Koran and there are very few Christians who still hold to a literal view of it. Almost all Christians (through their churches) ignore parts of the Bible precisely because times have changed.

As they say, you are what you eat.
I eat Pork, as do many other Christians - does that make us Swine?

If this is "Islamophobia", show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history). Show me why it is an "irrational" dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur'an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the "guidance" of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Interesting standard you have there, and it is symptomatic in itself of the double standard you hold Islam to which can lead nowhere. On the one hand, you expect me to show you facts based on observable behavior - based on theological evidence! Absurd. Then, the double standard, any Muslim who disagrees with your belief is an "Islam apologist". This is a preposterous proposition, completely, and sorry but you are going to be waiting a long time since I won't be involving myself in such lunacy.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing to those who inhabit the metaphysical sphere you appear to ;).

[scandium]

Here's where you're defeated. The world went to war against Germany, Italy and Japan. The war has been over for over 60 years. Why are these countries still here?
Because Fascism was defeated.


You really are thick. Now AL if that were true you wouldn't waste so much of your time arguing with me (or get so upset ;)).

[scandium]

Scandium

You simply ignore all and everything that you do not want to hear, and try to wrap up people in distracting and often hairsplitting pseudo-discussion on an almost semantical level. That's why I have stopped to bother with you. For everyone who has collected some basic knowledge about Islam, it's history, it'S scritpure, it'S theology, it is very obvious that you do not know anything substantial about it. As long as you do not change that and stop your ignorance towards Islam, you do not talk, but distort. you need to know the general content of the quran and it'S structures, you need to have some basic exoerience in the diversity of contradictory quotes you can get from it if you just happen to know where to find the single sentence that matches you cause. You need to understand how it was created, and rearranged, and that Islam denies that this process has taken place. you need to have a basic idea about what Hadith is, and what it deals with, ahnd in what form it incorproates the sharia. You need to be able to compare the Sira to the biography of the histoircally true figure ofMuhammad, you need to have some basic knowledge about his historically true life in order to understand why he preached what he preached. You need to understand what is meant with the socalled medina-model. You need to have enough information so that you can build a well-founded guess about what kind of character and personality he had. You need to know the history before Islam, both woitzh regard to the arabian peninsula, and the splitted Rome. You need to learn by what criterias Islam defines itself, and it'S goals. And finally you need to accept on the basis of knoweldge that Islam actively prohibits that such questions are asked, and that answers or knowledge in egenral are sought outside the Koran and the Hadith, and that this is why in other parts of the world schools and teachers are one preferred kind of target for Islamic terror strikes.

Since weeks we see in your answers that you do not have this knoweldge, instead your stuff perfetcly mimics the content of the pro-Islamic propaganda. I - and others - judge you on the basis of your performance, and that is a performance that shines with ignorance of facts. I do not know why AL still spends so much effort with you. I have decided different, becasue as long as you do not equip yourself with some basic knowledge about Islam, you do not talk, but distort. That knowledge is difficult to achieve, I do know myself, it takes time and studying. until some years ago, I defended islam myself, for difefrent reasons than you do. But I had to accept the growing flood of information I gained that indicated that my BELIEFS were wrong. when I changed my opinion, many of my often contradictory experiences from my times in the middle east all of a sudden fell into place and formed a consistent, smooth picture. To get there, took me years, and many illusions to be killed.

She is simply more tenacious ;) She would probably be a good chess player. :lol: She had me skewered, ironically, on my own arguement. I have to say that after this last exchange I am at a loss for a rebuttal. :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.

That's quite arrogant Scandium, what do you know about me?

I demand you answer me the name of the Immam I have been talking to for months now.

It's you who have no clue about Jihad, not me. I believe fatwah-eligible Immams have more authority than a Muslim blogger to state what Jihad is, if the Muslim blogger disagrees, he is heretical and is a member of a different religion: the Islam of Jihad-heretical Muslims.

Muhammad did not fought his battles with an army of Zen Monks. As the Avon Lady said: "If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.".

Your behavior is Xiite, you say that everything changes and that not all Muslims think exactly the same, yet you do not recognize my understanding of Jihad.

If you believe everything changes then why do you oppose a new Islamic school of thought? Why do you oppose my Quran? Is it because I'm not Xiite?

[scandium]

A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.
That's quite arrogant Scandium, what do you know about me?
How is stating that as a third possibility arrogant? It is precisely because I know nothing about you that this is a third possibility (otherwise I could rule it out either way ;)).

[Skybird]

Nice sig, TetFaoBob.

And couldn't you change your name? It's a pain to keep track of that useless chain of symbols. :lol:

[TteFAboB]

A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.
That's quite arrogant Scandium, what do you know about me?
How is stating that as a third possibility arrogant? It is precisely because I know nothing about you that this is a third possibility (otherwise I could rule it out either way ;)).

The third possibility is my cluelessness. That presumes I speak out of ignorance, when my understanding of Jihad comes straight from Islamic sources, and personally from Sunni Muslims, who are progressive enough not to fall on the trap of deception. We're all clueless, you're lucky we're not all Xiite! :arrgh!:

[The Avon Lady]

The fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted.
Provided you make that distinction, which you don't, and which is why it is bigoted.
I did make the distinction, as have other here. We have quoted over and over again from purely reputable Islamic sources what Islam says regarding, jihad, dhimmitude, Sha'ria and other relevant topics.

Skybird is right. You simply ignore facts and plow on.
Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology.
In order to be a "group" the group must have something in common (a shared space if nothing else). In any case, would you make the generalizations you make of Muslims to any other group? "Jews" are a group, as are "Catholics"... "Irish"... "Capitalists".... "Communists"... "Hispanics"... "Plumbers". :hmm:
More ridiculousness. So now Islamists, which are Muslims that adhere to Islamic laws, cannot be grouped?

And Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam, though they may be lenient with themselves with Islamic laws (alchohol, non-halal food, etc.) could not possibly have anything in common with their more adherent co-religionists?

Who are you fooling?
If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."
Ideological purity, what a concept... Is Judaism ideologically pure? No skeletons in the closet anywhere? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Who is talking about "ideological purity"? How about sticking to the subject.
I agree that facts should be dealt with, however if you're looking for "facts" in anything theological than that is half your problem right there.
No. Only you do. The facts have been presented numerous times to you. You don't even counter with facts that would show the contrary to the facts you've been presented with.
In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.
Who would that be?
Islam. Tough to keep a single train of thought, I suppose.
If my facts are correct, England has been one of the biggest absorbers of asylum seekers over the last few decades. Here are some fresh and interesting statistics to ponder:

Muslim Britain split over 'martyrs' of 7/7 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html).

And here, I'm sure you'll be shocked (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011450.php), too.

Again, you still don't catch. Islamists will, if necessary, take their time and use the democratic rules and laws to their advantage, to eventually impose Sha'ria law (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006332.php) on their host countries.

Once again, you can't see past the morning paper. Islamists are looking decades ahead of you.
Interesting how that juxtaposes with your assertion in another thread that they can't see past the 72 virgins in the afterlife. :hmm:
All to achieve the same goal. Again, you are confronted with facts and make snide attempts at humor to reflect them.
In any case, the Times article has some interesting findings. One has to wonder if the fact that 79% of the Muslims believe they have since experienced increased hostility (understandably or no) has any bearing on the finding that 16% of them were 'sympathetic to the cause but not the attack'. Would I expect, based on this poll, that 16% of Muslims in the UK is planning a terrorist attack? No. In fact, the only conclusion I make from this is that it proves Muslims don't all think and act alike the way you seem to think they do.
Yet you don't bother dealing with the source of contention between non-Muslims and Muslims.

As for planned terror attacks, obviously your paper only prints what you want to read:

Terror plots accelerating, warns police chief (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/04/nterr04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/04/ixuknews.html).

Undercover on planet Beeston (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2252571.html). Highlight excerpt:
Once again, I felt as if I had entered a strange bubble, a world where the reality I had known before had been suspended. Bham then asked me if I would ever blow myself up for Islam. I replied that the Koran says you should not harm innocent people.

“What Koran was that?” he countered. “Don’t fool yourself by saying jihad is a struggle within, to get on with life, to motivate myself to get up for prayers and that sort of thing,” he said. “That’s not jihad. Who told you that?”

Try absorbing all of the facts and statistics and not only the ones that make you happy.
What's the comparison? Again, what do the Islamic theocracies say that is in contradiction with the religion of Islam? They are accurately preaching it, based on the writing of present and past Islamic theocrats that say the same things and sight the same Islamic scriptures, many of them blatantly and literally apparent.
Do they?
Once again, not countering with any facts as you claim to know otherwise.
Maybe you can catch on. How about the fear and hatred of Nazi Germany by the few in the west who understood what was happening while the rest of the world slept?
The rest of the world has been asleep for the last 1,400 years eh? Quite the coma. If only I could sleep so peacefully at night :)
You are truly ignorant of the ongoing Jihads that have continued in Africa, Turkey, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, India and in the Asia Pacific area. Get educated.
Since you know better, please tell me which Islamic schools of Jurisprudence have a different interpretation than what I have been stating and linking to? Name it/them. You have yet to do so even once.

Here's my list: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i - all 4 schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

Shall we start dealing with the much smaller world of Shi'ite Islam, too? Just ask.
And which Western countries do they dispense justice in? How about you name those, since that has quite a lot more to do with my point.
Their followers are in any countries that allow immigration. You have seen their justice dispensed on 9/11 and 7/7, just as 2 outstanding examples.
Where does the Bible tell Christians to take over the whole world by hook or by crook? What difference does theological nuance make in regards to historical fact? Perhaps if you'd been born 3 centuries ago you could have pointed that out to the Christian hordes that were busy conquering all of North & South America (by hook and by crook). Surely they would have listened to you. But of course Christianity doesn't conquer and enslave. Christians do (or did). Similarly, Islam doesn't conquer and enslave. Muslims do (or did).
Your ignorance shows again. I'm in a rush but try finding an Islamic sight with search functions to go through the Quran and Ahaddiths. Search for "slave", "slaves", "slavery", etc. Quick link: Islamicity (http://www.islamicity.com/).
I have already quoted numerous times the Quranic verses, ahaddiths and elementary Islamic texts that teach Muslims that they are to achieve domination of Islam throughout the world and not only by peacefully proselytizing.

Where is the Christian equivalent? Waiting (again)..........................
See above. History cares little for theological nuance.
Wrong again, as above.
Indeed. But believe me, we'd love to seriously argue with you once you have the facts at hand. This admission of ignorance on your part is much appreciated.

You are only just now catching onto something that I have surely said all along. Theology is all well and good, but if it is as you say it is then it should be borne out by actions and by history. Are they?
Yes. Your ignorance is showing once more.
I've been waiting for something more tangible than obscure theological references, but neither of you are providing. So I guess we've both been waiting.
Go by a book I've already mentioned multiple times: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591023076/sr=8-1/qid=1152113763/ref=sr_1_1/002-5860147-0288848?ie=UTF8), by Andrew G. Bostom. It is a tedious but fact filled book of several hundreds of pages that reproduced historic texts from Islamic conquerers, as well as from their victims, with a heavy emphasis on indicating the scriptural and theological foundations for much of what Islam has done for 1400 years.
And here you make the major error of not understanding the difference between the religious view of the verbatim validity of supposed god-given religious texts verses the admitted inventive creations of man.

If a Muslim tells you that the Quran's texts can be ignored because times have changed, he is violating a law already defined by Islam that forbids him to say or bleieve so. He may still be a Muslim but he is a sinning Muslim practicing some offshoot variation that is not Islam.

If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.
Nonsense. The Bible is every bit as God-given as the Koran
I never said otherwise.
and there are very few Christians who still hold to a literal view of it. Almost all Christians (through their churches) ignore parts of the Bible precisely because times have changed.
No and pardon me for not googling for it now (late, late, late). I understand that there are clear indications in the NT that claim that the law of the OT was anulled or similar. Other posters here can more easily find these verses than I can.
As they say, you are what you eat.
I eat Pork, as do many other Christians - does that make us Swine?
Now look who's the literalist!
If this is "Islamophobia", show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history). Show me why it is an "irrational" dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur'an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the "guidance" of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Interesting standard you have there, and it is symptomatic in itself of the double standard you hold Islam to which can lead nowhere. On the one hand, you expect me to show you facts based on observable behavior - based on theological evidence! Absurd.
No. You just cannot come up with the facts. Nothing absurd about it.
Then, the double standard, any Muslim who disagrees with your belief is an "Islam apologist".
Go ahead and quote me from such Muslims. We are still waiting.
This is a preposterous proposition, completely, and sorry but you are going to be waiting a long time since I won't be involving myself in such lunacy.
As you like it.

[Skybird]

There were indications before that the Catholic church's attitude towards Islam is in a change since the new pope got elected and mentioned the need for reciprocity several times since then - something that seem to have been unthinikable under John Paul II. How far this change of attitude goes, remains to be seen. It is a push into the right direction. what it now needs is energy and endurance.

From:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23225
and quoted in http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012102.php#more

The Vatican Confronts IslamBy Daniel Pipes (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=2283)
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2006

“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves.” Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-religion-vatican-muslims.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus’ admonition to his followers to “turn the other cheek,” De Paolis noted that “The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century…and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.”
De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund’s Patrick Sookhdeo (http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/art.php), increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.
These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to flee their ancestral lands for the West’s more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are in a free-fall (http://www.meforum.org/article/487). Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/487) and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.
This reality of oppression and decline stands in dramatic contrast to the surging Muslim minority of the West. Although numbering fewer than 20 million and made up mostly of immigrants and their offspring, it is an increasingly established and vocal minority, granted extensive rights and protections even as it wins new legal, cultural, and political prerogatives.
This widening disparity has caught the attention of the Roman Catholic Church, which for the first time is pointing to radical Islam (http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/06/05/news/politicus.php), rather than the actions of Israel, as the central problem facing Christians living with Muslims.
Rumblings of this could be heard already in John Paul II’s time. For example, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L3165607.htm), the Vatican equivalent of foreign minister, noted in late 2003 that “There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens.” Tauran pushed for reciprocity: “Just as Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well.”
Catholic demands for reciprocity have grown, especially since the accession of Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, for whom Islam is a central concern (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3281). In February (http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=53826&eng=y), the pope emphasized the need to respect “the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all.” In May (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060515_pc-migrants_en.html), he again stressed the need for reciprocity: Christians must love immigrants and Muslims must treat well the Christians among them.
Lower-ranking clerics, as usual, are more outspoken. “Islam’s radicalization is the principal cause of the Christian exodus,” asserts Monsignor Philippe Brizard (http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/06/05/news/politicus.php), director general of Oeuvre d’Orient, a French organization focused on Middle Eastern Christians. Bishop Rino Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University in Rome, advises the Church to drop its “diplomatic silence” and instead “put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities.”
The Danish cartoons crisis offered a typical example of Catholic disillusionment. Church leaders initially criticized the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. But when Muslims responded by murdering Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria, not to speak of scores of Christians killed during five days of riots in Nigeria, the Church responded with warnings to Muslims. “If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us, ” said Cardinal Angelo Sodano (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-religion-vatican-muslims.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), the Vatican’s Secretary of State. “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts,” added Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6091), its foreign minister.
Obtaining the same rights for Christians in Islamdom that Muslims enjoy in Christendom has become the key to the Vatican’s diplomacy toward Muslims. This balanced, serious approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well beyond the Church, given how many lay politicians heed its leadership in interfaith matters. Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity, the results should indeed be interesting.

[scandium]

Interesting article Skybird.

[The Avon Lady]

Ciao Italia (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012115.php). :nope:

[Arwen]

It has been pretty difficult for me to get str8 to the essence of your ideas...
We already live in a century when nobody cares too much about who`s ass was bigger: the germans` or the others`.

Meine liebsten geliebten Damen und Herren, you can neither qualify people in humans and untermensch taking into account political, social, economical, religious, racial features, nor hate the grandchildren of those who did it. Why? Because it is incorrect to judge a whole "group" by their grand-grand-grand parents` mistakes.

Religion? It is pure bull****. Faith? That`s different. Why? Because religion is a tool, and faith is so much different when logics are implied.
Tool - for wars, murders and so on.
Much different, when logics are implied - it leades to development.
Without logics - fanatism...

You where talking about wars, big bowls, Islam... well, since the Second World War, as far as i could see, the armed conflicts, eventual wars that took place where started by economical reasons... not for freedom.

Rasism, religion, gods and the past ... all these are tools.
A friend of mine is a reporter and went to Iraq to write and article about the war situation (that was about 2 years ago). He told us, after coming back, that most of the Iraq "great warriors" are children, grown up with the AK in their heands, tought in the name of Mohamed and Allah, that Cristians, and Budists are wrong and they are right. What do you expect?

Ideological purity - :lol: there is nothing perfect in this world, as nothing is absolute. Evrything is RELATED to us, to events, things, past, future, to each other.
As one can say about comunism that it is an utopia, I can say just the same thing about ideological purity.

Lieblinge...

You are truly ignorant of the ongoing Jihads that have continued in Africa, Turkey, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, India and in the Asia Pacific area. Get educated.

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.
:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.
I am not an artist of debate. You may call me an amateur. Really.
Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.
:hmm:
Yes and no. I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're looking for political correctness, that isn't me.

I'm in a rush but I disagree with much of what you wrote. The word that comes to mind is "ethereal."

[Skybird]

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.
Damn, I KNEW that Muhammad has forgotten something important.

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.
I find it a little bit rich if this kind of lecturing a - by now wellknown - longtime member of this board is done by someone who is a newcomer himself who just has posted his second or third reply on this board. Maybe you should better listen to your own advise, Alawan. YOU are the one prematurely judging established board members here. ;)

(...) when logics are implied - it leades to development.
Without logics - fanatism...
Sounds like a perfect description of Islam's eternal dilemma and lacking developement for me.

[Wim Libaers]

Germany back then, after their defeat in the Great War, the shame of the Versailles treaty, and the economic crisis of the '20s, faced radical change and challenges that are not terribly unlike those in Europe after the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, and the creation of the EU. The changes this time are much more positive, but perhaps no less radical and challenging to one's national identity. That, at least, could explain (in part) the irrational Islamophobia that is suddenly sweeping through Europe;

How about the fact that for possibly the first time in history, Islamic texts and lierature has become available to the public to read and digest?

How about the fact that what Islamic preaches say today and are recorded for posterity in their own web sites, on video, in printed material and trascripts, declares that Islam does indeed advocate using a variety of methods, from preaching (da'wa) to lying (taquiya) to physical military force (Jihad - yes, that kind of Jihad) to subjugate an infidel world (dar al-harb) into following Islam or, at the least being subserviant to it (dhimmitude) in countries that are to convert to the Islamic legal system (Sha'aria)?


The assumption that a significant part of the European population opposes Islam because they recognize its inherent dangers seems too optimistic to me. I am more inclined to believe that they merely distrust (and in some cases hate) muslims because of their obvious tendency to cause trouble (many crimes, vandalism, robbery, random violence, harassment), often combined and apparently at least partially caused by their very obvious contempt for those who are not of their kind.

That is, at least, what most people who object to muslims and that I interact with seem to have as their motivation for being against muslims. Not so much the religious basis (which most do not understand, and are not inclined to learn about when they could spend their time on more omportant things like TV and alcohol), but the fear that they, or people they care about, might also become victims of infidel-hating or white-hating muslim criminal gangs.




Regardin certain people's tendencies to assume that Churchill would oppose "Islamophobia", well, maybe. On the other hand, perhaps he'd recommend colonizing the Middle East and gassing the muslims. Who knows? And we can't really ask him anymore.

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
--Winston Churchill

I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. -- Winston Churchill

[scandium]

Regardin certain people's tendencies to assume that Churchill would oppose "Islamophobia", well, maybe. On the other hand, perhaps he'd recommend colonizing the Middle East and gassing the muslims. Who knows? And we can't really ask him anymore.

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
--Winston Churchill

I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. -- Winston Churchill

As you say, he is not here to defend himself and as such it is not proper to ascribe a particular view of current events to a man long dead. Further, the things he said when he was alive have to be viewed from the historical lens of the time he lived in. At that time the UK still had colonial interests, and our understanding (and tolerance) of other races and cultures was even less than it is today. Then there is the matter of the Eugenics movement whose influence can be seen in the colour of his commentary on a "higher-grade" race; that was a movement that had reached its height during Churchill's lifetime and whose conclusions on the superiority of races was accepted as "scientific fact".

[Skybird]

That is, at least, what most people who object to muslims and that I interact with seem to have as their motivation for being against muslims. Not so much the religious basis (which most do not understand, and are not inclined to learn about when they could spend their time on more omportant things like TV and alcohol), but the fear that they, or people they care about, might also become victims of infidel-hating or white-hating muslim criminal gangs.

Good! Precise observation. Public discussion of Islam is being done on the basis of an incredible ammount of lacking knowledge in fact.

[Arwen]

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view. Damn, I KNEW that Muhammad has forgotten something important.

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum. I find it a little bit rich if this kind of lecturing a - by now wellknown - longtime member of this board is done by someone who is a newcomer himself who just has posted his second or third reply on this board. Maybe you should better listen to your own advise, Alawan. YOU are the one prematurely judging established board members here. ;)

(...) when logics are implied - it leades to development.
Without logics - fanatism... Sounds like a perfect description of Islam's eternal dilemma and lacking developement for me.
I am sorry, Herr Skybird if my post looked like a critical comment or a judgment towards somebody. I can`t actually afford myself to give advice... it was a simple suggestion.

Concerning Islam, I think this whole area is judged taking into account what wasn`t supposed to happen instead of understanding their "teachings" (if one can put it in this way). Well, you may call me a dreamer :doh: :lol:

[Ducimus]

What do you say about this?
In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

edit: damn i read that wrong. Should be the other way around. Not that i care about the Bible, but Islam should be discouraged. ITs the only religion you see that sets of bombs and crashs planes.

[scandium]

By the way, its worth pointing out that if we were to reduce Churchill to this comment by him:


I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.

And if we ignored the times he lived in, the enemy he fought, the colonial practices of the military he'd spent his life in, and his triumph over Nazism, then we would likely have a very different view of him today. Indeed, as this is exactly one of the things that Saddam Hussein is on trial for then it would be logical to view them as contemporaries. Of course this is absurd and a complete injustice to Churchill, but this is why context matters and things as often as not really are relative.

Many of the historical figures we - justly in my opinion - revere today have skeletons in their closet when held up in light of today's civilized standards. Perhaps they'd merely married and consumated the act with a "woman" of 13 or 14, the norm not so long ago, or kept slaves, again the norm in many societies not so long ago, or killed enemy prisoners, another common practice, or whatever. But the dirt is almost always there for anyone inclined to go digging for it.

This is worth keeping in mind whenever one seeks to "objectively" examine another culture or its religion -- especially when their own views are inevitably coloured by the lens of their own religion, culture, upbringing, and time period.

[scandium]

What do you say about this?
In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus
edit: damn i read that wrong. Should be the other way around. Not that i care about the Bible, but Islam should be discouraged. ITs the only religion you see that sets of bombs and crashs planes.

The religion doesn't set off bombs or crash planes. People set off bombs and crash planes, and not everyone who does this has Islam as their religion. Timothy McVeigh, for instance, was Christian, as were those detonating bombs during the not so distant Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland.

[Skybird]

Ideology motivates. Motivation is what makes people do things, or not. Therefore, goals of deeds are different because different motivations. Different motivations derive from different ideologies. conclusion: the differences between idologies count.

Don't let yourself get scandiumized. It's complete flatland what he preaches. Too much and too abstract theorizing, I suspect.

[Skybird]

Concerning Islam, I think this whole area is judged taking into account what wasn`t supposed to happen instead of understanding their "teachings" (if one can put it in this way).

Hä...? :huh:

[Dan D]

Part of the problem seems to me, that the big currents of Islamic thought do not recognise a difference between state and church. The separation of state and church is the basic idea to safeguard religious freedom which is essential for the public peace. The western world as well had a long learning curve in this context. We have had forced christenings "baptism or die", witch-burning, religious wars (e.g. the thirty years' war), and as far as I know in Nothern Ireland British soldiers are still patrolling the streets to prevent Catholics and Protestants from killing each other.
Separation of state and church means you can live in accordance with all your non-criminal (so no forced marriages e.g.) religious practises while you are in private but you can't take them with you into the public space where a different sets of norms applies to you. If your religion tells you that women are subservient to men, you can live those practises at home but in the public realm men and women are equal. So if you have daughters you may explain to them why your religion is such a good thing while in the public space they are treated equal to men. Your daughters won't be allowed to attend school wearing jijabs because of the separation of church and state for example.
If you don't play by the rules and want to to live under the shari'a and think others must too, you will face trouble and you will be tossed out of the country indeed if you are no citizen or put to jail if you are citizen. Religious zelaots no matter of what religion that create religious riots and spread religious hate are a threat to the public peace and are treated as such.
Amongst those muslims living in Europe, extremists, that pose a genuine threat are a small number compared to the total of about 15 million muslims.
Most of them are like you and I just want to be left alone to get along and earn a living. Actually, many chose to come and live here instead in countries with backward regimes and less personal freedom. So, I am not afraid of Europe's muslims.
To import democracy to the ME is imo very difficult as long as the basic idea that the religious and the secular are discrete realms is rejected and every reform change which does not come from within is understood as an attack from the West on the Islam.

[Ducimus]

The religion doesn't set off bombs or crash planes. People set off bombs and crash planes, and not everyone who does this has Islam as their religion. Timothy McVeigh, for instance, was Christian, as were those detonating bombs during the not so distant Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland.

http://premium1.uploadit.org/DJShamrock/allah-akbar.jpg
Funny :lol:

http://hausa.irib.ir/sharhi/20.jpg

http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aolnews_photos/05/07/20050201140409990001
Allah Akbar! is what they're yelling.

http://www.caribooskies.com/cartoon%20protests.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/hillary666/IslamSMALL.jpg
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/cartoonriot215.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200602/r71802_199957.jpg
http://boortz.com/images/muslim_cartoon_protests.jpg

All that, and thats not even the real extremists. For that, all you have to do do is look for pics of beheadings, car bombs, hijackings, etc etc.

Timothy Mcveigh indeed. Comparing a drop water to a flood.

[scandium]

Ideology motivates. Motivation is what makes people do things, or not. Therefore, goals of deeds are different because different motivations. Different motivations derive from different ideologies. conclusion: the differences between idologies count.
In the US, for many, many years, there has been a very lively public debate on abortion. A few of those engaged in the debate have very strong views on it, and a segment of them are motivated, in their opposition to abortion, by the Christian commandment "thou shall not kill" and believe that doctors who perform abortions are committing murder. Whether their motivation was to avenge aborted fetuses (or babies depending on your ideological bent on this issue) or to prevent more abortions from taking place ("murder" to these Fundamentalist Christians), some of them have bombed abortion clinics. This is a criminal act and an act of terrorism, but to them it is righteous act - for the Bible does talk of "an eye for an eye", and I have no doubt that in their mind they have committed no sin, and committed no crime.

The motive, therefore, was their Fundamentalist Christian belief that abortions are state sanctioned murder and that as good Christians they have an obligation to intervene if nobody else will. You don't need a degree in theology to understand this, and you don't need a degree in theology to understand that despite the crimes, the terrorist acts of a few, that not all Christians - not even all Fundamentalist Christians - are criminals, or terrorists, or even inclined to commit such crimes whatever their particular views on abortion or how they feel about it.

[scandium]

All that, and thats not even the real extremists. For that, all you have to do do is look for pics of beheadings, car bombs, hijackings, etc etc.

Timothy Mcveigh indeed. Comparing a drop water to a flood.
If you have a strong stomach (I will warn you up front though that it is very graphic) then I recommend you check out the Army of God website, maintained by the Christian group of the same name. I'm not going to link to it directly from here, but you can find a link to it at the bottom of its Wiki entry:

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

Does this group represent all of Christianity? I don't think so, no - but they are a very tangible faction within it all the same.

Edit: before anyone accuses me of "relativism" I should elaborate my point, which is this: Christianity has always had its militant factions, and the fact that they are now marginalized may have a lot to do with the fact that our society is a secular one; on the other hand, much of the Muslim world still lives in societies that are not secular and where, since religion and the state are accordingly one and the same, the expression of force (which is the legitimate monopoly of the state) is harder for us to differentiate from their religious expression and thus their violence aqppears religiously motivated. I think it more complex than that, however, but I see the part played by religion as owing to their theocracies rather than to the religion itself.

My point is that if we consign the blame to the religion, rather than to the theocratic states where it belongs, then we are merely scapegoating. Not only that, but it will be futile and - worse yet - we only lend strength to the theocrats who are running the show.

It is a real life tragedy: the state, to maintain its absolute hold over the people, calls the West the Great Satan and tells the people it is really us who hate and oppress them; the Skybirds and AvonLadys of the world then play their part in this drama when they legitimize what the tyrannts preach by becoming tyrants themselves and calling for the very oppression and persecution we are accused of (whenever they yell "ban Islam", the one thing that probably gives any hope to some of these people); our governments further contribute to this cycle by arming these states with the weapons needed to oppress their people so that we can, in our short-sighted insanity, extract the resources we need to fuel our economies (just as we did throughout the 80s with Saddam Hussein and still do today with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan); and a handful of these people play their part by appropriating these same weapons and using them to terrorize us.

And then the ultimate irony: that so many, rather than critically examining this dynamic and the parts they themselves play in it (if only as consumers), and their governments, seek to reduce it all to a religion and simply point the finger at its adherents.

"My God (the Christian God of course) what a mess Saudi Arabia is in" they say to themselves while watching the latest televised state conducted beheading. They then finish pumping a full tank into the 4 ton SUV that they carry around with them wherever they go, and mutter "someone really should do something about things over there" as they again thank God for having the luck to be born into a society where men are free.

"Its all good" says the Skybirds and the AvalonLadys, "for we are good", since all of the world's problems, and all of the world's evil can be reduced to one variable and one variable only: Islam.

[August]

Tangible faction? Horse hockey. When was their last crime committed? 10 years ago? Who turned in the murderer? IIRC a fellow Christian.

Sorry, but you'll have to do a lot better than that to draw any valid comparison between Christian and Islamic inspired terrorist acts.

[scandium]

Tangible faction? Horse hockey. When was their last crime committed? 10 years ago? Who turned in the murderer? IIRC a fellow Christian.

Sorry, but you'll have to do a lot better than that to draw any valid comparison between Christian and Islamic inspired terrorist acts.

The fact that either can inspire terrorism (or at least be used by the perpetrators to justify these acts) is the point, August.

[Skybird]

Rejecting the importance of ideologies when it comes to Islam's call for violance against infidels. Referring to the importance of ideologies as a motivational factor when it comes to abortion in Western countries. :dead:

And what the hell has jihad to do with abortion? :dead:

And for Scandium's strong stomach, some info, and two movies:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm#video

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/handcutting.htm

Guys, I have linked to these two several months ago and you were not too happy, some of you complained. but I link them again. This is Islam in congruency with it's teachings and scriptures, planet earth, year 200x. But be reassured, the ideology has nothing to do with it. :up:

[Ducimus]

In my mind scandium's argument doesnt hold much merit. yes, true, every religious denomination has its nutjobs. But.. per capita, Islam generates a whole lot more of them then. For proof of that, all one has to do, is look at the worldwide islamic protests turned violent over a.... cartoon. That, speaks far far louder for Islam, then a couple whackjobs do for Chrisitiantity.

For the record, im agnostic. I have no vested intrest in either idologies or dogma.

[scandium]

Rejecting the importance of ideologies when it comes to Islam's call for violance against infidels. Referring to the importance of ideologies as a motivational factor when it comes to abortion in Western countries. :dead:
You miss my point Skybird: we, society, did not blame Christianity for the actions of the few of its followers who committed crimes that were so obviously religiously motivated. Nor should we.

And what the hell has jihad to do with abortion? :dead:
Are you implying Islam has a monopoly, whether good or bad, on everything that is religiously motivated? Does one require Islamic Jihad to give alms to the poor as their church instructs them to? Further, is it fair to dismiss such acts of charity because they are done in accord with one's religion and not recognize the essential kindness of the act itself and the goodness within those who perform it?

Your view of the world is too narrow and simplistic Skybird.

[scandium]

In my mind scandium's argument doesnt hold much merit. yes, true, every religious denomination has its nutjobs. But.. per capita, Islam generates a whole lot more of them then. For proof of that, all one has to do, is look at the worldwide islamic protests turned violent over a.... cartoon. That, speaks far far louder for Islam, then a couple whackjobs do for Chrisitiantity.

For the record, im agnostic. I have no vested intrest in either idologies or dogma.
Though brought up Catholic I am also an Agnostic, Ducimus, and likewise have no dog in this race.

That said, I would love to see some real "per capita" style scientific scrutinity of these issues and see exactly what the demographics are, what correlations we can find where, and then get down to some real - empirical - cause and affect.

As one who's always had a strong interest in social science I am very open to it - just as soon as someone bothers to try and prove their point with some, instead of the theological/metaphysical "evidence" and anecdotal "evidence" that so many are so willing to substitute instead.

I believe the very first Christian commandmant is "thou shalt not kill", and it follows from this that, on theological grounds alone, if I look at any Christian society in any period of time I will find not one instance of murder being committed -- this is the level of thought that runs rampant throughout the thread: whatever religious dogma prescribes must be the reality, because all societies live in accord with their religion, all societies are expressions of their religion, all people who commit crimes do so purely out of religious motivations, and the religious dogma itself never changes, never evolves, is never reinterpreted, and has only one translation (no matter how many times its been re-translated as its been passed on).

[Arwen]

Concerning Islam, I think this whole area is judged taking into account what wasn`t supposed to happen instead of understanding their "teachings" (if one can put it in this way).
Hä...? :huh:

As long as a religion (it doesn`t really matter which one) is used to serve war/economical/political purpose it stops being what it was meant to be, and starts being a tool.
As Scandium said,
we, society, did not blame Christianity for the actions of the few of its followers who committed crimes that were so obviously religiously motivated. Nor should we.

It is easy to point fingers to the guilty party.
I had an interesting conversation with some friends about the 2nd World War concerning the "guilty parties" and the mass murderers... People usually blame the SS and the German army, but they forgot about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
People forgot about Dresden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II/Dresden

Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometres was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, 5 theatres, 50 banks and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.

The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Estimates are made difficult by the fact that the city and surrounding suburbs which had a population of 642,000 in 1939[20] was crowded at that time with up to 200,000 refugees[21], and some thousands of wounded soldiers. The fate of some of the refugees is not known as they may have been killed and incinerated beyond recognition in the fire-storm, or they may have left Dresden for other places without informing the authorities. Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000, but historians now view around 25,000–35,000 as the likely range[22][23] with the latest (1994) research by the Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert pointing toward the lower part of this range[24]. It would appear from such estimates that the casualties suffered in the Dresden bombings were not out of proportion to those suffered in other German cities which were subject to firebombing attacks during area bombardment

And that was in the name of freedom... at least some of them thought so.
Now, we are going to point fingers and judge 100.000 men, religiously educated, ruled by people with economical purposes that tell them that Allah sent them to war...

[Skybird]

You miss my point Skybird: we, society, did not blame Christianity for the actions of the few of its followers who committed crimes that were so obviously religiously motivated. Nor should we.
You did, repeatedly in the last weeks, insisting on that the term christinaity is not relevant for descriobing the message of Jesus, but the historical deeds of the church in the medieval.
And if People beside you do not hold Christinaity rersponsible for the few, the very few, the extremely few car bomb attacks that are commited in it's name (and in clear violation to the Christ's non-violant message), then maybe this has something to do with the understanding and insight of people that Jesus never authorized such violant acts against your next one? Now try another time to compare that to the explicit calls and demands and authorizations for the use of violence, war and subjugation and the need to make infidels feel humilated as you can find it encrypted and codified in the Koran.

Yesterday on TV an Imam said that Islam does not allow suicide. By that, he argued, it is prooven, that Islam cannot be hold responsible for suicide attacks. what he has hidden is that Islam explicitly allows and encourages to fight in the name of Islam and against the infidels, and that it is a virtue to fight with not being afraid of death, and that one should have no fear to die in fighting, but should welocme it as an enterance to paradise. don'T have it at hand, but there are several according psssages in the first Suras of the Quran.

Are you implying Islam has a monopoly, whether good or bad, on everything that is religiously motivated? Does one require Islamic Jihad to give alms to the poor as their church instructs them to? Further, is it fair to dismiss such acts of charity because they are done in accord with one's religion and not recognize the essential kindness of the act itself and the goodness within those who perform it?
You have no cause here. The object of this discussion is the ammount of violance being commited in total congruence with Islamic demands to do so. In no other religion violence as a valid tool to overcome infidels is so purely, exemplary, strictly codified, as in Islam. And that'S why there is such ammount of terror, military conquest, subjugation, ethnic cleansing, repression, terror strikes coming from this ideology. The peacefulness of fololowers of Buddhism and Jesus Christ is also no suprirse, since this is exaclty what their teachings have taught them.

And there is no way you can put Islam into relation to what other religions do today. although you try exactly that time and again.

Your view of the world is too narrow and simplistic Skybird.
No. I just don'T mean my last diver-holiday in the Red Sea when I discuss the differences betwenn a refractor and a reflector telescope. I do not mix up the sound of music with the weather report for Andalusia. And I do not mix up the message of Islam with Abortion practice in the US. you try to give an opoinion on something that you have not thorughly understood. You simply do not have knowledge about the inner nature of Islam, and you illustrate that handicap every day. Why do you not stop writitng, get yourself half a dozen books, and start to read.

I haven't checked if these books are available in English, some were translated, if they still are available I do not know.

Johann Bügel: Allmacht und Mächtigkeit. Religion und Welt im Islam
Ignaz Goldziher: Muhammedanische Studien 1+2 (since long time an academic standard work that cannot be avoided if one is seriously intersted to study islam.)

You try to make it appear as a question of interpretin symbols, sometimes, and misunderstanding what Islam really is pointing at, and that it is so much the same than other religions. Here is your cure:

Bernard Lewis: Die politische Sprache im Islam
Tilman Nagel: Staat und Glaubensgemeinschaft im Islam
T.N.: Geschichte der islamischen Theologie
T.N.: Die islamische Welt bis 1500

For some reference to actual political events:
Peter Scholl-Latour: Kampf dem Terror - Kampf dem Islam? Chronik eines unbegrenzten Krieges
Basam Tibi: Kreuzzug und Djihad. Der Islam und die christliche Welt.

These are some books I regard as essential only. I have alraedy recommended them once at the end of "History of Islam". They are not coming from a certain political direction, and many of them are academical literature. I know them all, and own them all, although I have already forgotten again a whole lot. They are only a fraction of what I have red about Islam, my bookshelf today holds 24 books about the matter, it was much more in the past. Just in case you want to tell me that just repeating a list one has snapped up somewehre without ever having read a single book from it does not mean anything.

You theorize too much, on the basis of non-existing knowledge about what you theorize about.

[Skybird]

Arwen,

WWII was fought because the Nazis were identified (correctly) to be "unacceptable" for the future of mankind. Accepting such evil ideology to have a word i human history is not acceptable. So they were removed by the means that were necessary to do that. since the turmoil was long and chatoitc, mistakes had been done on both sides. The mass killings you refer to resulted from military thinking of that time about how the war must be fought in order to mwin it, sometimes that thinking was correct, militarily, sometimes not. But the masskilling done by the Nazis in the camps and occupations was evil ideology only. And ideology was what seperated the good from the bad in that struggle. Most Nazis were Germans. Not all Germans were Nazis.

And that's all there is in it.

[Sea Demon]

You theorize too much, on the basis of non-existing knowledge about what you theorize about.

I don't know why you even bother Skybird. Or Avon Lady for that matter. There are simply people out there that refuse to see things for what they are. They shield themselves from certain truths that make them feel uncomfortable. This is what moral relativism and political correctness is built on. Simply put, you are trying to lift the blinders on people who wish to be blind.

[Skybird]

You are right, SD, and for several times I said to myself "stop talking to this guy", and then I don't stick to it. Maybe because I take self-ordered stupidity as a provocation, I don't know. but this certain attitude of arrognace kills my nerves. Yesterday someone send me three PM and told me the same like you ;) You both are right.

[scandium]

You are right, SD, and for several times I said to myself "stop talking to this guy", and then I don't stick to it. Maybe because I take self-ordered stupidity as a provocation, I don't know. but this certain attitude of arrognace kills my nerves. Yesterday someone send me three PM and told me the same like you ;) You both are right.

For arguement's sake, and to put an end to the endless circular discussion we've had, let's pretend I agree with you 100% and that we agree Islam is the menace to the world that you and Avon say it is.

With that aside, tell me your solution, and I don't mean bland proclamations like "banning Islam", I mean the program you envision to solve this menace. And if you do think the solution is to ban Islam, then tell me how you would enforce this Skybird.

What do you envision doing with the 100+ million Muslim immigrants that live in Europe and in North America, the millions more who plan to emigrate there, and the hundreds of millions who live in other parts of the world?

Enlighten us, please, with the solution you say you have spent so much time thinking on.

Or for that matter anyone who agrees with you and believes they have a solution, then by all means share it.

I am calling your bluff now. Put up or shut up.

[tycho102]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/hillary666/IslamSMALL.jpg

The Leader has spoken! That adulteress will recieve the Justice of Mohammed, Peace be upon Him!

PRAISE AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI!
*cough*
and allah...


@scandium
I will neither put up with Islam, nor will I shut up about Islam. I will neither put up with the 9th Sura, nor shut up about the 9th Sura.

[Skybird]

You are right, SD, and for several times I said to myself "stop talking to this guy", and then I don't stick to it. Maybe because I take self-ordered stupidity as a provocation, I don't know. but this certain attitude of arrognace kills my nerves. Yesterday someone send me three PM and told me the same like you ;) You both are right.

For arguement's sake, and to put an end to the endless circular discussion we've had, let's pretend I agree with you 100% and that we agree Islam is the menace to the world that you and Avon say it is.

With that aside, tell me your solution, and I don't mean bland proclamations like "banning Islam", I mean the program you envision to solve this menace. And if you do think the solution is to ban Islam, then tell me how you would enforce this Skybird.

What do you envision doing with the 100+ million Muslim immigrants that live in Europe and in North America, the millions more who plan to emigrate there, and the hundreds of millions who live in other parts of the world?

Enlighten us, please, with the solution you say you have spent so much time thinking on.

Or for that matter anyone who agrees with you and believes they have a solution, then by all means share it.

I am calling your bluff now. Put up or shut up.
Search button, old forum. Exactly this I have already done in a nice point-by-point-list sometime during the last 3-4 months. And I am not to repeat it AGAIN.

And like the links I have given you before, and essays I have linked before, and material other shave given you or linked you to, i am sure that you will remain silent about this thread from back then as well, if you find it.

Search yourself for that thrwad (it has not been started by me, that I remember). You will not like what I said back then, so why should I even bother.

[TteFAboB]

Actually, although scandium speaks of solutions, according to Dounia Bouzar and Olivier Roy he's part of the problem.

Dounia Bouzar was a member of the French Muslim Council and participated in a three-year research project for an institution of the French government to raise the issues and point solutions to Muslim extremism in youth.

She knows there is a problem, together with discussion groups of educators, social assistants, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychanalists, school managers, sociologists, anthropologists (like her), historians and a few others. It's all resumed in the book Quelle Éducation face au Radicalisme Religieux, perhaps they are all just Islamophobes like Skybird and the Avon Lady, pitty the French government wasted money with this, what we see in Seine Saint-Denis, Essone, Nord Pas-de-Calais must be all a mirage.

If anyone wants to know why 15 years ago Muslim radicals weren't a problem but today they are, it has nothing to do with finding a new boogeyman because the USSR is no longer an option. It has to do with problems Muslim youth have in relation to territory, historical memory and the law.

"The radical speech gives the impression to the young of being elected to be above other human beings, above africans, above europeans, above americans."

"The Bin Laden-type speech fabricates a virtual community in a virtual space. To the young who grew up without a connection to the territory, who don't really know exactly where they came from or to where they want to go, the temptation of radicalism is a solution."

"Historical memory was underestimated and many young Muslims grew up with holes in their memory, without references in their own history and in the history of manking in general, in this context the radical speech gives them the illusion of historical filiation."

"In the metropolis, the immigrants couldn't verbalize a definition for the failed migratory journey. Comming to work in the country of the old colonizer was a certainty of better life, and when one falls in unemployment, the symbolical place of the father and even of the family begins to be questioned."

"The list of guilts include the national education which doesn't value the exchange of knowledge between civilizations, the institutional multiculturalist speech present in phrases like 'we and the others', the political speech which fed the memories of victimization and based on these, demanded rights such as reparation for descendants of slaves, and the religious speech for the imposition of the idea that the values found in the holy book precede the history of mankind, as if societies produced nothing, as everything was already in the Quran. Today the young grow up in this confusion of history and memory."

"(...)The third problematic element is the introjection of Islam, put above the law and theology".

Then there is the testimony of Imam Tariq Oubrou from the Mosque of Bordeaux: "You don't know anything, I know the true Islam." - The young Muslims confront him with anytime he wants to discuss Islam.

Oliver Roy, author of Globalized Islam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0231134991/qid=1152304013/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9559241-8844938?v=glance&s=books), Généalogie de l'islamisme (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/2012790518/qid=1152304075/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/102-9559241-8844938?v=glance&s=books) among others, is also in the study: "'De-culturalization' leads to the thinking of a 'pure' religion, independent of cultural influences. The believers of the 21st century insist much more on faith, on spiritual experience, on individual and personal rediscovery of religion than in heritance, in culture, in transmission, in authority and in theology".

It's the phenomenon of the "born again", one who reborns to religion and bases his entire life on this discovery. "This makes religiosity more important than religion".

"All forms of fundamentalism are based on the same aspects: explicit 'de-culturalization', personalization, rupture of family and social bonds and the 'positivation' of all these ruptures."

Forgive my choking French, anyway, when scandium disregards theology and points religion to be a "personal" thing, he's doing no different than the many young extremist Muslims of France.

The solution cannot be separated from the discussion of Islamic theology with Muslims or not, by Muslims or not. Shutting up is the worst thing any of us can do.

[scandium]

@scandium
I will neither put up with Islam, nor will I shut up about Islam. I will neither put up with the 9th Sura, nor shut up about the 9th Sura.


The "put up or shut up" remark was made in reference to what I quoted when I said it:


You are right, SD, and for several times I said to myself "stop talking to this guy", and then I don't stick to it. Maybe because I take self-ordered stupidity as a provocation, I don't know. but this certain attitude of arrognace kills my nerves. Yesterday someone send me three PM and told me the same like you ;) You both are right.


@Skybird

As I haven't seem them before I wouldn't know what to search for, would I? Since you wrote them, how hard would it be for you to dig them up and do a copy/paste? Surely if the problem is as dire as you say it is then it is worth that little amount of effort isn't it?