New cartoon scandal brewing - danes does it again (MERGED)

[Immacolata]

Danish Video Sparks Fresh Outrage
Saeed Al-Abyad, Arab News
JEDDAH, 8 October 2006 — The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) yesterday said it will demand an explanation from the Danish government for the state TV’s broadcasting of a video mocking the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Danish state TV on Friday aired amateur video footage showing a number of members of the anti-immigrant Danish Peoples’ Party (DPP) at a summer camp in August drinking, singing and engaging in a competition to draw humiliating images of the Prophet.

A source at the 57-member OIC said the group will try to “find out the reasons behind the repeated ridiculing of the Prophet in Denmark” and warned that the incident would have dangerous repercussions.

|Full story| (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=87842&d=8&m=10&y=2006)

Cor blimey! I wonder if it is some sort of national personality disorder that makes us do that. Like the wet paint syndrome. Or "Do not press this button"-button pressing compulsive disorder. Sort of like Dexter's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter's_Laboratory) big sister Dee Dee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter's_Laboratory) of international politics.

The thing is that the DPP is a xenophobic as you can get. They aren't overtly racist, but they view islam as a threat to Denmark. The video in question was taken at a political summer camp for young people. Which means it was, unlike the cartoons, not meant for public consumption. someone decided that it should be sent to a news station and thus it became public.

I don't know how it is in other countries but around here youth party organizations are always where the most radical people are. No matter if they are lefties or righties. And this is no excuse.

Me, I hope this one just blows over silently. The fickle arabs have hopefully figured out that throwing hissyfits and storming embassies gets then no where fast.

I wonder if they (DPP) are brave, in their just right or just really stupid.

[Skybird]

Quite the opposite, I hope that it blows out of proportion again - it works against sympathies for Islam, and increases the numbers of Westerners that are pissed off by Islam. It seems that such things are the only chance to revive some fighting spirit in europeans so that they realize that they are in danger again and need to fight against it.

[Immacolata]

You are a very strange person to encourage for, and wish war upon us.

I wish they get the message. If they stop reacting like imbeciles, THEN we have won the war. And without a shot fired.

[Skybird]

Who necessarily talked of "war"? To wage war against the West or not, and trying to impose Islam onto the West - that decision is theirs, not ours: we did not invite that decision intentionally, but you are signalling htem that you will not resist by efficent means. I talked of fighting against Islam and resisting the islamic ideology spreading all over the west, and to enforce the integration of Muslims into Western cultural habits, laws, and values - else these people must leave europe if they think integration and full surrender to the non-negotiable dominance of Western culture in the Western sphere is demanded too much. I just have come to the conclusion that the damage being inflicted by islam onto Western societies still is not hurting enough as that sufficient majorities of Western residents see the need to confront Islam and tell it: not one inch further. So, the West must make more - numerically - and more intense hurting and painful experiences before it will realize what's the name of the game really is - and that is not tolerance and reason. "Wer nicht hören will, muß fühlen." You want to wait until they change being "imbeciles", as you put it, and they should do it all by themselves, just for fun. But you do not want to do anything towards that goal. You spare them any need to rethink their ideology. By your non-action - they see it working as planned. So why should they stop behaving like imbeciles when it works so well for them, and people like you are willing to help them to avoid all direct hurting consequences that are coming as a consequence of Islam's nature and essence? You may think waiting for the fairy-queen fixing things is an option. I do not. You want it all to change for the better, but you do not want to accept the work and conflict-readiness needed for that. That's why things will constantly detoriate as long as people of your opinions dominate policy-making, for you will always step back to avoid conflict and confrontation. Islam is an ideology of winners and conquerors, and it takes all. It does not know the option of loosing, a prsent loss only means that the bfight will be continued later, until victory is secured. Your peaceful attitude is no match for it. From it's perspective you are just an unworthy weakling whose wellmeaningness waits to be exploited. Your sig is a joke only. You are not aware of the consequences it means: active resistance, that is. Guys like you are too kind - and they know that, and take maximum advantage of that.

[Yahoshua]

A bit late to try and avoid war since the Western World has been at war with Islam for some centuries now.

Besides, when will they start answering for their flag burning? That's quite insulting to the nations whose flags are involved.

[TteFAboB]

I'll take the side of the Muslims on this one.

Down with the state TV!

Now, down with the state TV in Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East too!

Or don't they air programs just as bad and insulting if not far worse than this and do so on an almost daily basis? http://www.memritv.org/

The Danish get rid of their state TV and the Middle East does the same, deal?

The rest is the same ol': many of our radical youth grow out of their radicalism and those who remain radical have stopped practicing terrorism even if they still support it. Their radicals are maintained in radicalism by the Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, and end up dead in Israel, Iraq, UK, Germany, Spain and abroad in some cases practicing mass murder or attempting to do so. We have opposing voices in Denmark. All opposing voice to the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad are promtly silenced or suppressed. We have the liberty of despising this youth organization, changing the channel and complaining to the TV station, they have to pretend they abide by the official speech even if they don't.

If Muslims, Islamic orgs and Islamists outside Denmark believe they have the right to criticize foreign TV stations then they cannot deny my criticizing of their stations.

What dangerous repercussions are we talking about here? Calling for the assassination of the Pope? The destruction of the Vatican? The murder of all expatriated voices from the Middle East? Stabbing movie directors you don't like? The attack on two skyscrapers, a military headquarters and somewhere else? The hijacking and explosion of 10 airplanes or so above the Atlantic? The explosion of buses? The explosion of subway trains?

[bradclark1]

Me, I hope this one just blows over silently. The fickle arabs have hopefully figured out that throwing hissyfits and storming embassies gets then no where fast.

To them it's just an excuse. I think it's a disgrace to God that they don't go to church on Sunday. Lets go protest in Iran.

ps. Bring your 357 magnum.

[Immacolata]

No what I am saying is that they do know already. IF they know what is good for them, they will ignore it. But they cannot.

They must show that they are good muslims and fight vehemently to protect its honour. Not because it matters to most, not even the muslims I believe, but because it is prestigious to be the upholder of propiety. So everyone tries to be the first to condemn these things with firebrand rhetorics.

So you see, if they were able to for once to just shrug and move on, I think the west would have won a small victory. Of course they won't, because that would be to admit defeat.

[Godalmighty83]

anti-muslim sentiment is growing in the UK as well, many people are getting fed up with the massive over-reactions from certain muslim groups.

there may be a war brewing a lot of people on both 'sides' are getting mighty annoyed.

[Immacolata]

I think its not as much the overreaction as it is one is continously reminded of their ambiguos affinity. Are they democrats or muslims that want the sharia or caliphate? At least some muslims have figured out that they are democrats first, national citizens next then muslims. So what ever the great prophet has to say, he comes third when it conflicts with king or country.

Unfortunately they do not receive much media attention ,and a lot of hatred from the foaming-at-the-mouth radicals.

[Skybird]

A true Muslim is Muslim first, citizen second - in a Western understanding. In Muslim understanding, there is only Ummah.

Every third British Muslim citizen wants the Sharia. I say that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide prefers caliphate to democracy - in congruency with Quran, Hadith, Muhammad's example, Islamic history.

[Immacolata]

I think you mistake that for orthodox muslims. There is no one unifiedmuslimhood out there, already they had divergent paths of faith a few years after the prophets death. Otherwise shiites and sunnis wouldn't be at each other's jugulars in Iraq. So if they can have one schizm, lets help them get another. The good thing is that some of the brighter heads have figured out they can be just fine putting islam third in the rank. It is a hard fight but I think the war will be easier won with nylon stockings, coca cola and jeans rather than blood and iron.

[The Avon Lady]

I think you mistake that for orthodox muslims. There is no one unifiedmuslimhood out there, already they had divergent paths of faith a few years after the prophets death. Otherwise shiites and sunnis wouldn't be at each other's jugulars in Iraq.
Neither Shiite nor Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence differ much in their concepts of Jihad and Islamic global domination and the subjugation of infidels.
So if they can have one schizm, lets help them get another. The good thing is that some of the brighter heads have figured out they can be just fine putting islam third in the rank.
I would not necessarily assume such people to be brighter. Many Muslims are ignorant of their own religion, same as most Jews and Christians are of theirs today.

You might say that ignorance is bliss. But what happens once they do learn? Do such "enlightened" Muslims then reject their religion altogether, live knowing the facts that they are mediocre sinning Muslims or become repentant and join the Uma?
It is a hard fight but I think the war will be easier won with nylon stockings, coca cola and jeans rather than blood and iron.
:nope:

Anyway, heads up!

Strychnine found in Danish reservoir (http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20061006-040710-3448r.htm).

Sounds like:

Hundreds of Iraqi police poisoned, officials say (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/08/iraq.poisoning.ap/index.html).

And is all this an answer to the call (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD130906)?

It's a different world. :cry:

[Immacolata]

The strychnine was put into water supply by teenagers. So far they are not described as jihadists.

I think you have the same set-in-stone view on islam as Skybird has. There is only a Uma because people choose to join it. If they choose otherwise, like Naser Khader of the newly founded Democratic Muslims, you put democracy first, nationality second and islam third. He stated that on public tv several times, in newspapers and - of course- have received several death threats by deranged second generation muslim immigrants.

The breaking of orthodox islams stranglehold on people's mind will first subside when the clan family structures are broken. Today it is very costly to break with islam if your family has orthodox members. If you asked a well educated man in private, would he say yes to democracy and no to sharia he might answer yes, of course. Put a camera up his nose and have him say that in public. He will most likely not dare due to peer pressure. This also means that the power of the imams should be diminished. The danish priests do not concern themselves with politics in the media, nor should the imams. But someone, apparantly, decided that they are qualified to speak on behalf of muslims. Which I believe is the mistake, as Skybird have mentioned earlier. Or at least I think that was the gist of his long rants :)

I reiterate my sentiment from earlier debates. Islam is used as a political tool. Always has been. Is still. People choose or are forced to choose this particular way. To give them a real choise means to allow them to say no to orthodox islam without receiving death threats. Unfortunately that is the case right now.

It is the people that is the problem, not the religion. Once we thought the pope was almighty and the church dogma untouchable. But some stood up and hammered an eloquent if slightly long "FU!" on the church door of Wittenberg. See what happened. We patiently await a muslim theologist with enough cojones to do that.

And no, Skybird, before you launch into a 95 paragraph explanation of why islam cannot change, I disagree. Islam can change if the believers want it, no matter what the prophet said or did not say.

That doesn't mean I believe we should just sit down and let fickle muslims throw hissy fits all over the place everytime someone pokes fingers at Mohammed. Enough of that, no more groveling. We will not submit.

[The Avon Lady]

The strychnine was put into water supply by teenagers. So far they are not described as jihadists.
Where did you see this update? Even the Copenhagen Post newspaper says nothing about this since the original story was published on the 6th.
I think you have the same set-in-stone view on islam as Skybird has.
Definitely. I'm glad you used the term "Islam" and not "Muslims".
There is only a Uma because people choose to join it.
That's true about Islam, too, or conceptually about any group association.
If they choose otherwise, like Naser Khader of the newly founded Democratic Muslims, you put democracy first, nationality second and islam third. He stated that on public tv several times, in newspapers and - of course- have received several death threats by deranged second generation muslim immigrants.
He is an Islamic apostate. So what is your point?
The breaking of orthodox islams stranglehold on people's mind will first subside when the clan family structures are broken. Today it is very costly to break with islam if your family has orthodox members. If you asked a well educated man in private, would he say yes to democracy and no to sharia he might answer yes, of course. Put a camera up his nose and have him say that in public. He will most likely not dare due to peer pressure.
Some of the most well known Islamic terrorists, including Mphamed Atta and many more, were western educated, had no lack of money, etc., and yet.................

Bin Laden is worth billions but he doesn't care. It's what Allah wants that counts. Either you're a believing Muslim or you're not. There is no middle ground.
This also means that the power of the imams should be diminished.
Islam grants them the powers. To diminish them means putting Islam on a leash first. And you grand plan is what exactly?
The danish priests do not concern themselves with politics in the media, nor should the imams.
You do not understand the all-encompassing essence of Islam. Politics is no different that personal life. All must be performed to please Allah by following Allah's teachings and commandments as handed down by Mohamed. Nothing is excluded from Islam's scope. This is a critical point.
But someone, apparantly, decided that they are qualified to speak on behalf of muslims.
Islam and Islam's teachings. And who exactly has disqualified them?
Which I believe is the mistake, as Skybird have mentioned earlier. Or at least I think that was the gist of his long rants :)
I do not believe that Skybird said this but let us await his reply.
I reiterate my sentiment from earlier debates. Islam is used as a political tool.
That is essential Islam - not a mutated rendition of it.
Always has been. Is still. People choose or are forced to choose this particular way.
It is written in the Quran and ahaddiths. It is taught by the greatest of Islam's jurists throughout the centuries. It is not a particular way. It is THE way of Islam.
To give them a real choise means to allow them to say no to orthodox islam without receiving death threats.
Then you will have to fight Islam.
It is the people that is the problem, not the religion.
Prove it.
Once we thought the pope was almighty and the church dogma untouchable. But some stood up and hammered an eloquent if slightly long "FU!" on the church door of Wittenberg. See what happened. We patiently await a muslim theologist with enough cojones to do that.
Skybird will answer this much better than I can from his more accurate knowledge of Christianity. However, in a nutshell, the Emperor of Rome was naked, in the sense that there is no precise commandment or scripture in the new testament that the Pope is holier than............... the Pope. :lol: Is that correct, Skybird?

But as for Islam, please prove to the world that Jihadic Islam is not what Islamic scriptures and sources teach. The world awaits you as its savior. Good luck!
And no, Skybird, before you launch into a 95 paragraph explanation of why islam cannot change, I disagree. Islam can change if the believers want it, no matter what the prophet said or did not say.
Then it is no longer Islam. It is some fuddy duddy rendition of it. Whether it would be called I-slam or We-slam would simply be a question of semantics.

[Skybird]

According to Islam's law, you are already Muslim when you are born as a child of Muslim parents. It is genetic, so to speak :lol: islam already possesses and opwns the still unfold future, that means.

People have strange perception of Islamic identity, and time and again make the mistake to comapare it to western culture, translated into Arabic. they do no realise to what degree it is very, totally, completely ALIEN indeed. The comparison with the events in Wittenberg just is an example. AL is totally, completely, 100%ly, absolutely right, and many international academic experts on Islam agree, that you can'T pick away some unwanted aspects of Islam and then you have a reformated Islam, like you had a reformated church in Europe after Luther. You have something totally different indeed.

Muhammad wanted to rule the world even beyond his death. For that he taught rules and laws that declare it illegal to leave Islam, seek answers outside the Quran, live a live outside Ummah, and so on. He also knew that only totalitarian unity is the guarantee for maximum strnegth of a social network and community. what I call the massive "cultural penetration power" of Islam is coming from it's neverchanging structure and theology, even it'S inability to change and reformate. It means stagnation, but it also means maximum power inside the limits and barriers of these stagnated communal order, and maximum resisting power towards the outside of that community. The bad news about totalitarianism is: it works so extremely well and forms the strongest of all possible social communities - only the price for the individual is hefty. Think of ants, and other state-building insects - the single unit is nothing, the community is an almost irresistable force. - These rules and laws of Islam are considered to be valid once and for all. These are essential and substantial and most basic parts of Islamic ideology, of it's laws and theological demands. If you say they are no longer part of Islam, you are not talking about islam at all. It only is all Islam, or no Islam at all.

I stayed a longer time in Turkey: Kurdistan and Anatolia. The poor heartland, where around 80% of Turkish people are living. This is not the Westernized tourist metrpoles that give the imprerssion of Turkey being a Western state. This is the turkish reality, harsh and extrneely poor. for many it is a fight for most essential survival. Plus in the East, there is war and coinstant fighting, sometimes noticed by world medias, sometimes not. And here, ultra-orthodox Islam always was alive, and was hiding from Attaturk's reach and attempt to supress it. It is totally wrong to think that laicism ever was in control of Turkish Islam - Islam was not dead, but was hiding, sleeping during a winter, and now has awakened again - and the military and Attaturk and laicism was not able to do anything about it to prevent it. I have repeatedly explained some impressions from those times that I collected, I must not repeat all that again. I just refer to it again to illustrate how unmoving and undividable Islamic ideology is. western liberties and rights and demcoracy - are no match for that determined attidue of mind.

People here sometimes attack my oncompromised stand against Islam and try to label me as being blind towards Islam's true nature. but I insist I am not so determined because I do not know Islam, but because I know it's ideological drive, it's political motivation, and it's heart and essence so well now, both by theoretic study and experience in real life.

The most competent critic of Islam that I do know of (both in english and German language) is H.-P. Raddatz, a studied orientalist and internationally reputated Islam-expert, and the ammounts of background references in his books both to Christian and church and Islamic theology and history as well are monumental, making his voluminous books very demanding to read. It is not by random chance that his extremely detailed knowledge also makes him the most unforgiving and uncompromising critics of Islam that I have ever red. Knowledge about Islam must turn you into a sceptic and critic of it sooner or later. John Paul II. was a layman concerning Islam, and consequently his policies towards it were naive and led to growing distortions in the perception of islam and the chances of a dialogue. Benedict is an intimate expert of Islam, a reputation he has held since long inside the church: and he has taken a far more realistic and thus: tougher stand towards Islam. Islam needs the uneducation of people, both amongst it's followers, and the infidels, thus it limits education to the Quran and Hadith, and has ruled out all sciences and arts that are knowledge-oriented and not exclusively focussing on pragmatic uses. And thus it tries to deceive and hide and prevent any objective information of infidels about it's true inner core and mechanisms. Islam does not lead to higher knowledge - it prevents knowledge. What wisdom means in the teachings of Jesus or Buddha - is dogmatic obedience and believing in the teaching of Muhammad.

Raddatz is also one of the most-hated troublemakers and saboteurs of the "dialogue", killing illusions of western naivists with simple overwhelming academical proof and evidence taken from Islam's scriptures and history itself. No wonder that european lefties love that he had fled to the US, and is threatend by Muslim murders. there has been anti-raddatz hate-sites in the past, just wishing him death and all hell - and run not by Muslims, but by western dialogue-drunken "pacifists".

Too bad his books are not available in English, Avon Lady, you would love him. His books are also excellent reference works.

His coreworks are "Von Gott zu Allah?", "Von Allah zum Terror?" and "Allahs Schleier-Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen", these three books are forming a trilogy of thopurough academical analysis on Islamic history, ideology and scripture. There also is "Die türkische Gefahr. Risiken und Chancen", and just released: "Iran: Persische Hochkultur und irrationale Macht", which I still have not red myself. If you read just the trilogy, you will be equipped with a very fundamental, clear-seeing and illusion-killing knowledge about Islamic history, scripture and theology. I recommend these three books before any others that I know in English or German. I red many other books, too, of course, but these i consider to be the best. He also is unforgiving in his criticism of the west, and the church, btw. It is hard to accuse him of one-sided bias. Islam's strength not only derives from it totalitarian monolithism, but also from the weakness of illusions of the West - Raddatz makes that hurting truth very clear. He refuses to accept irrational compromise, and plain lies.

Before next time somebody accuses me of not being informed on real Islam - make sure your own knowledge is at least of that standard.

[Skybird]

We patiently await a muslim theologist with enough cojones to do that.
You are not well informed. There were quite some people. they enjoyed an early death or a lifelong hosting in a zero-star hotel. famous Sahaladin himself for example ordered the execution of some of the most promising reformists. none of the reformed ways of islamic thinking ever developed forming influence inside Islam. this includes the Sufis, whose influence is perceived extremely over-exaggerated in the West (btw, Sufis in Iran by new laws are effectivly being thrown to the wolves currently). Teachers that could maybe be understood as a Muslim pendant to mystic religion had been wioped out during the mongolian attack on Perisa. after the destruction of Bagdhad, whatever mystic Islam ever had, was dead. we met Sufi cycles two times in Turkey, and I found it disgusting. It was no living mystic, but cheap mysticism, self-mutilation, mixing up mystic experience with sensation-hungry performances and primitive superstition.

Maybe this is the one great weaknesses of Islam that makes it so dangerous: that it has no living heart, no living mystic. A religion that has no immediate mystic experience, is no religion, but dead dogma that lives or dies with the obeying of superstituous beliefs only.

and to cut short the many answers I could give to various parts of the dialogue between Immacolata and AL, some days ago there was a Muslim woman on TV, living int the US, and being very critical of "conservative Islam". She said something, one sentence, that Scandium, Immacolata and other guys like these should contemplate about and inhale it and make it a part of their thinking: "It is not only religion, it is not only politics, it is not only both of it in one form: Islam is our life, and our death. Islam is all." Another muslim women from the US said something very similiar in the video "Obesession" that somebody has linked to two weeks ago or so, if I recall it correctly, she also said "Islam is our life, it is all what life is about."

[NEON DEON]

Jihad.

How do you interpret the word?

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

"Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Djehad or Cihad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle. Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist" or "jihadi".

The term "jihad" is often used to describe purely physical and military "religious war", through physical struggle. Some Muslim scholars say that this only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance. A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (in plural: mujahidin) (Arabic: striver, struggler). Such a person might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an. Jihad has gained a negative connotation and reputation in much of the West because of its usage by various groups classified by the United States of America as terrorist organizations as part of its War on terror. The Jihad had a reputation for this at the time."

Editorial comment comming!:huh: :huh: :huh:

Enlightment on the word of Islam comming from a Christian and a Jew.

(Tie in to original post comming)

We should hold a cartoon contest about the subject and submit it to a Dannish Newpaper. Maybee the winner could get an all expenses paid trip to his or her favorite religious site! :D

[CB..]

if this is still about the depiction of the profit (ahem sorry the prophet)
after all financail profit - spiritual profit...what does a man profit etc etc..
it's all about being one step up some ladder or another than your fellow human beings..status power rank etc etc both on earth and in heaven...

back to the subject...i fail to see how the depiction of a religiuos leader thru a cartoon can be any more influencail than the depiction of a religiuos leader thru a series of actions or inactions...if Bin Laden's depiction of the Prophet thru various acts of terrorism is not offensive to muslims...then how is it a cartoon can be considered offensive...?

there were world wide muslim protests at the publiction of the original cartoon...but no comparable world wide protest at the acts of terrorism...now call me an idiot for musing on this inconsistency...but it's precisely these sorts of details that reveal the true nature of peoples beliefs...IMO

power control and manipulation is all this has ever been about

[Immacolata]

I have no possible way to argue against any of you. Especially not you skybird, with your massive information carpet bombing.

So let us take for a fact that Islam is a dogmatic religion that is unable to change without changing the religion into something new.

However, dogma is only upheld by dogmatists. The words of the quran are meaningless if do not read them. Or they are powerless if you do not heed them. That goes for all religions or philosophies. Or the meaning change if you revise the quran. You both seem to agree that Islam is unchangeable, and as history so far has not shown us otherwise, I guess that is what we have to take it for.

But how do you tell millions of europeans that are muslims that their religion is wrong?

[CB..]

I have no possible way to argue against any of you. Especially not you skybird, with your massive information carpet bombing.

So let us take for a fact that Islam is a dogmatic religion that is unable to change without changing the religion into something new.

However, dogma is only upheld by dogmatists. The words of the quran are meaningless if do not read them. Or they are powerless if you do not heed them. That goes for all religions or philosophies. Or the meaning change if you revise the quran. You both seem to agree that Islam is unchangeable, and as history so far has not shown us otherwise, I guess that is what we have to take it for.

But how do you tell millions of europeans that are muslims that their religion is wrong?

you tell them to stop having a religion and start having a FAITH

secular societys exist allmost entirely on FAITH....odd that isn't it?
faith that if you have kids they will have a better life than you ...
secular society exist allmost entirely without certainty...secular society simply has to have faith that everything will..given enough time work out for the good...no garantues at all...
somewhat oddly..again
religious society find uncertainty untenable and seeks to eradicate it at every opportunity...which fuels the drive towards fundamentalist "literal" interpretations of the various religiuos texts...so whilst secular society seeks to have faith religious society seeks to have certainty...
brain stakingly odd...
tell them to get some FAITH.....God whom ever you deem him to be is quite capable (by the very definition) of taking care of himself...and if such a diety exists then one can reasonably assume he/she has got it pretty much under control...and that one needs to have faith that in spite of the glaringly obvious contradictions the plan is unfolding as best it could...

or you could make the plan unfold as you believe it should..but then that is in itself a contradiction..as others may have other interpretations....once you start down that route FAITH becomes redundant and a vast inconvienience ..
blah etc

[HunterICX]

''But how do you tell millions of europeans that are muslims that their religion is wrong?''

You can't, because if you say that, voíla an masive rampage.

you can let them know that we dont tolerate their bad behaviour by kicking them out of our country. because that is the same you do with people visiting your house. and he start to break stuff because you said something about his religion what doesnt fall under the term !''Insulting''!

kicking them out out of the country? isnt that too hard because where to they go?
Answer : Back to their own country where they can do everything they want without pissing me off.

[tycho102]

Quite the opposite, I hope that it blows out of proportion again - it works against sympathies for Islam, and increases the numbers of Westerners that are pissed off by Islam.
That's about how I feel about the issue. And wouldn't you know it, I just took my signature down.


You are a very strange person to encourage for, and wish war upon us.
Where is this quote from? Was that Neville Chamberlain talking to Winston Churchill? Benedict Arnold talking to George Washington? General Santa Anna talking to Davey Crockett?

[Immacolata]

Where is this quote from? Was that Neville Chamberlain talking to Winston Churchill? Benedict Arnold talking to George Washington? General Santa Anna talking to Davey Crockett?

Immacolata to SkyBird, october 2006.

[Skybird]

what the Danes can do, I can do as well - from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or the Westfälische Nachrichten, I do not remember where I cut it out:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2707/muslimcartoonxe4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Skybird]

And this:


Can you imagine if the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John said this:

We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12

Let not the Christians take for friends or helpers the Muslims or Jews. 3:28,

Rouse the Christians to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,

Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,

Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14,

O ye Christians take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,

O ye Christians! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,

O ye Christians! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123,

Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. 47:4,

**(Note: All quotes are verbatim from the Qu'ran except 'Muslims' has been replaced by 'Christians' and 'infidels' has been replaced by 'Muslims')

I wonder if our own valiant New York Times would be so sensitive towards Christianity if Christian dogma contained the above phrases? Oh....wait a minute....the teachings of Christ actually contain stuff more like this, yet NYT and MSM still attack it incessantly:

Forgive those who repeatedly offend you Mt 18:21-22

Love thy neighbor as thyself Mt 22:39

Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely Lk 3:14

Love you enemies; do good to those who hate you. Lk 6:27

Treat others as you would like to be treated. Lk 6:31-34

This is my commandment, That ye love one another. Jn 15:12

Isn't it great that we have the brave NYT and its lackeys in the Mainstream Media to protect both the general public and Islam from the evils of Christian teaching?

In all honesty, MSM's cowardly refusal to print the Danish Muhammed cartoons allegedly out of 'respect' for Islam (as if the left respects any religion, lol) has taught us all one real lesson:

MSM will not attack your religious beleifs so long as you threaten them with riots and bodily harm.

Now violence in the name of Christ is an absurdity to any true Christian (YES, the Crusades were a CORRUPTION and a MANIPULATION of Christainity- although provoked and perefctly justified to a person who did not take Christainity seriously), but if a fundamentalist whacko were to bomb a newspaper and/or an MSM office, where do you suppose they would have gotten such an idea? Who do you think would get the blame for such a bombing?

I can tell you this much: It certainly would not be blamed on MSM's own craven cowardice (I also want to give a big kick in the groin to my beloved New York Post for chickening out as well).


from: http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_dicklist_archive.html

(hell, that is a politically uncorrect site! :lol:)

[NEON DEON]

As usual out of context.

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. " Quran 2:190.

:p :p :p :p :p

[Yahoshua]

Ok, now it's my turn:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

[Skybird]

As usual out of context.

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not
love those who exceed the limits. " Quran 2:190.
Why do you do it, then? ;)
The academical standard translation of the Quran into German is by Rudi Paret, 1966, because it is usually agreed to be the linguistically most profound one and pays tribute to the enormous difficulties of translating Arabic into European languages by having checked linguistical roots and links of critical words to different words that often are "overseen" in standard translations. I just discovered it this summer.
I try to translate precisely and word-by-word from my German copy of the Paret edition, and in context, and you will see that it all gets a complete different meaning then what your isolated quote seems to express.

" 2-190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not
transgressors. 2-191. And kill the heathen opponents wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out! The attempt to seduce the believers to brake away from Islam is worse then killing. But do not fight them by the holy place of worship in Mekka, as long as they do not fight you in that place. But if they fight you there, kill them. Of that kind is the reward of the infidels! 192. But if they stop, Allah then is forgiving, and mercyful. 193. And fight against them, until there is no more seducing to brake away from Islam and all faith remaining is the faith in Allah[...] 216. To fight against the infidels is what you are obligated to do, although you find it unpleasant. But maybe you find something [slaugthering] unpleasant although it is good for you, and maybe you love something [peace], that is bad for you. Allah knows all, but you do not.

Islam regards everything that it ever has conquered as it's possession until the end of all time, since it always has been the possession of Allah anyway and Islam just corrected a state of injustice when conquering that place, so when it conquers a place and that place frees itself and brakes away, that is a violation of Islam, and the place is demanded back (like Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy and Greece, for this reason). This with regard to "and turn them out from where they have turned you out".

Note the word AND that I have marked in above quotes. It indicates that all the limits that restrict the fighting against the infidels and make it situation-dependant - are somewhat meaningless, and that the fight must be carried out no matter what.

Concerning infidels that do "seduce" the faithful: the islamic concept of peace is not that of tolerant coexistence, but that of Islamic unilateralism and undisputed dominance. There is a seduction taking place as long as there is something left that is not Islamic. If you check history you will see that Islam is constantly on the attack, until being confronted with a power that is too strong to be conquered - it then settles down in a temporary cease-fire (no lasting freedom!, treaties with infidels the Quran - or the Hadith, I may mix it up here - demands to be limited to 5-10 years only!) and waits until it has accumulated the needed additonal power (or has resupplied previous losses) and then marches again. The concept of being defeated, of constant loss, is unknown in Islamic thinking, it is more a concept od delay of total victory and total subjugation of the enemy, even if it is measured in centuries (Jerusalem, Europe), and so is the situation of lasting peace with non-Islamic factions, or the "house of war", unknown as well. This relativizes any comments in the quran that seem to express that there could be peace with the infidels if they do not attack first, or provoke an islamic defense or counterstrike - the simple fact that the infidels are there already is the fulfillment of the definition of being attacked in Islamic understanding. Like it already is offended by the simple fact that somebody does not accept to believe in Islamic faith. The Islamic interpretation of peacefulness of infidels as a matter of fact as meaning to be submissive to Islam also points in this general direction. Peace in islam sounds nice and well, if one does not know the mental (and historical) context. The words peace, tolerance, and attack are used in very different understandings than in Western thinking and languages.

4-89 They want you to be infidel, for they are infidel themselves, so that you all shall be equal. So do not
accept any of them as a friend, as long as they do not walk on the way of Allah. And when they turn and ignore your just demand to believe in your faith, then catch them and kill them whereever you find them, and do not take any of them as a friend of helping hand!

Must this really be commented? Just demand, eh? It illustrtaes Islams unshaken self-understanding that when it wants to rule all world this only is for the best of mankind, and the fulfillment of a divine intention anyway. You can't ague with such a determined and self-convinced power.

I leave it to these most incomplete remarks, forgive, but I do not want to end up writing another essay with multiple dozen pages about how to interpret the Quran. the context of quotes from the Quran often is not limited to the immediate verses the quote is embedded in, but often links to Suras scattered over the whole book that in their totality form a view of the world, and a mental attitude and an understanding of terms that is very different to that of the West and that one needs to take into account, else one is in danger of interpreting single quotes from the Quran in a way they are not meant. Always see it not from a logical perspective first, but an Arabic (culturally, not verbally) perspective.

[CB..]

i consider most religions to be some sort of inteligence test...if you believe it ..you failed..if you disbelieve it..you failed..if you simply understand the need for religious thought... you passed...religious thought must evolve along with everything else..it's a big universe.... the Sun does not orbit the Earth...

[August]

i consider most religions to be some sort of inteligence test...if you believe it ..you failed..if you disbelieve it..you failed..if you simply understand the need for religious thought... you passed...religious thought must evolve along with everything else..it's a big universe.... the Sun does not orbit the Earth...

I've always believed that the true concept of God is beyond our pitifiul human ability to fully comprehend. All religions are therefore little more than flawed attempts to explain the unexplainable, very simililar to the way one uses analogies and stories to explain things like right and wrong to children.

[Skybird]

i consider most religions to be some sort of inteligence test...if you believe it ..you failed..if you disbelieve it..you failed..if you simply understand the need for religious thought... you passed...religious thought must evolve along with everything else..it's a big universe.... the Sun does not orbit the Earth...

I've always believed that the true concept of God is beyond our pitifiul human ability to fully comprehend. All religions are therefore little more than flawed attempts to explain the unexplainable, very simililar to the way one uses analogies and stories to explain things like right and wrong to children.

:up: :yep:


The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the essence of the Unknowable.

The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner Essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires, means to reach the invisible inside.
Acting with desires, means to stay by the limited outside.
The all-One and the all-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to true understanding.








TaoTeKing, verse 1, translated into English by my own German translation.

[Immacolata]

i consider most religions to be some sort of inteligence test...if you believe it ..you failed..if you disbelieve it..you failed..if you simply understand the need for religious thought... you passed...religious thought must evolve along with everything else..it's a big universe.... the Sun does not orbit the Earth...

I've always believed that the true concept of God is beyond our pitifiul human ability to fully comprehend. All religions are therefore little more than flawed attempts to explain the unexplainable, very simililar to the way one uses analogies and stories to explain things like right and wrong to children.


I lately believe that the true concept of god is in mankinds nature to conceive. It is precisely within our pitiful ability to fully comprehend. The very nature of the human cognition is to make sense of things, to order causally and logical what is neither. Therefore god and religion emerges. God is the ultimate causality that explains all, a natural and quite rational induction carried out by mankind through ages.

[Skybird]

i consider most religions to be some sort of inteligence test...if you believe it ..you failed..if you disbelieve it..you failed..if you simply understand the need for religious thought... you passed...religious thought must evolve along with everything else..it's a big universe.... the Sun does not orbit the Earth...

I've always believed that the true concept of God is beyond our pitifiul human ability to fully comprehend. All religions are therefore little more than flawed attempts to explain the unexplainable, very simililar to the way one uses analogies and stories to explain things like right and wrong to children.


I lately believe that the true concept of god is in mankinds nature to conceive. It is precisely within our pitiful ability to fully comprehend. The very nature of the human cognition is to make sense of things, to order causally and logical what is neither. Therefore god and religion emerges. God is the ultimate causality that explains all, a natural and quite rational induction carried out by mankind through ages.


:up: :yep: , too. I think all three of you are right. Understanding the mysetry that we cover by the term "God" is within our reach. but possible that we need to transcend ourselves for that, must learn to "oversee" our "selfs". It is within man's reach to experience it - but possible that man has to change fundamentally his perception and awareness of "himself".

[The Avon Lady]

Heh heh (http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/) :lol:

[goldorak]

Quite the opposite, I hope that it blows out of proportion again - it works against sympathies for Islam, and increases the numbers of Westerners that are pissed off by Islam. It seems that such things are the only chance to revive some fighting spirit in europeans so that they realize that they are in danger again and need to fight against it.
You know Skybird if you were a politician I would vote for you. :up:
At least on the islamic problem.

[Immacolata]

Heh heh (http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/) :lol:

:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

The Danes have done it again (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/this-little-piggy-went-to-mecca.html)! :88)

[Skybird]

nice find! :lol:

[Immacolata]

Heh, Ive seen those piggybanks. But not the mohammed one. I still think that baguette cartoon you found is a riot :rotfl:

[Narcosis]

The drawings of Mohammed printed in Jyllands-Posten newspaper were not racist, a court in Århus has decided

Two editors of Jyllands-Posten newspaper have been acquitted of racism charges stemming from its publication of 12 drawings of the prophet Mohammed in September 2005. Seven Muslim organisations had charged editor in chief Carsten Juste and culture editor Flemming Rose with racism in civil suit.
The court said the organisations had not proven that the drawings or the accompanying articles had intentionally offended Muslims.

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=4042988/





Common sense prevails .....