SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158160)

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis (Post 1211290)

Very interesting videos by Pat Condell. Now I'm behind on work after watching a whole bunch of them and reading his website. He certainly has conviction and talent. He may even have a point. :hmmm:

Yes, this is intersting and he does have some good points, but he make ALOT of (very opinionated)assumptions... and Clearly HATES Islam with a passion

http://www.youtube.com/user/patconde.../1/KjSjpNe1-Vc

@JU88

The official organisations condemned it of course, but what else did they do? Where were the mass demonstrations in the streets that we could see when the Muhammed caricatures were published? I didn't see anything like it (maybe that is my selective perception). Where is the cooperation to find fundamentalist?

Schroeder, and everybody understanding German language,

I know Hans-Peter Raddatz from several books. He is currently maybe the most expert, best educated expert on the background of the Islamic ideology, history and legal system in german language, and also one of the most hated critics of islam, being threatened with assassination and left behind by tolerant Eu philantropists who often did not hide they wish him death instead of having to deal with his areguments, which finally made him fleeing europe since the police told him it could not and giovernments told him they would not protect him if he stays. However, those hating him so much for telling out the truth and giving it fundaments and fundaments of referances to islamic sources as a basis, rather always do not have the knowledge to counter his criticsm on equal terms: argument, knowledge and insight. Like some people here, opposition to him is for the most basing on noise levels, and trying to kill the messenger instead of the message. I consider his books to be must-reads.

Here is a 43 pages analysis by him, an analysis he was asked for by the initiators of that Swiss initiative, and it deals directly with the Islamic legal background of building minaretts.

http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/20...pertise-ch.pdf

I just finished over-reading it in turbo mode, and as usual he is brilliant, and shows enormous knowledge on background details.

I took the easy road and copied just some quotes given by other readers on the comments board. There is so much worth to be quoted, these quotes are as good as any others that one could have picked.

Quote:

Alle muslimischen Rechtsrichtungen verlangen das Verlassen des nichtislamischen Landes nach spätestens 4 Jahren, weil die politische Wirkung des Fremdsystems der Heilsbestimmung des Muslim zuwiderläuft.
Dies gilt allerdings nicht, wenn berechtigte Aussichten bestehen, die Geltung der Scharia, des islamischen Gesetzes, auf nichtislamischem Boden durchzusetzen.
(...)
In der Kairoer Menschenrechtserklärung von 1991 erkennen sie die in der UNO-Charta formulierten Grundrechte nur in dem Maße an, in dem sie sich mit den Vorschriften der Scharia in Einklang bringen lassen – eine Haltung, die seither maßgebliche Autoritäten in diesem Sinne wiederholt bestätigt haben wie z.B. die Kairoer Azhar-Moschee, der Imam von Medina, der Fatwa-Experte Yusuf al-Qaradhawi (arab.: fatwa = Rechtsgutachten) und andere mehr.
(...)
Ihr innerer Kontrollzwang führt die muslimischen Gemeinden und ihre Führungen ihrerseits in eine ständige Konkurrenz um die Ausnutzung der westlichen Toleranz, im Rahmen derer die Verantwortlichen vor Ort immer weiter gehende Zugeständnisse machen bis hin zu der Einlassung, mit der auch die Bundesrätin [Frau Calmy-Rey] keine Ausnahme bildet, nämlich daß die Bevölkerung zum „Sicherheitsrisiko“ wird, wenn sie ihre verfassungsmäßig verbrieften Rechte einfordert.
(...)
Der Schweizerische Staat ist zwar bekenntnisfrei und weltanschaulich neutral, kann aber diese Neutralität und damit den inneren Frieden nicht aufrechterhalten, wenn er Weltanschauungen bzw. Religionen duldet, deren langfristige Intention darauf abzielt, eben diese Neutralität zur Durchsetzung eigener Dominanz zu nutzen.
(...)
Die Regierung wäre daher gut beraten, die Volksinitiative als eine Möglichkeit zu nutzen, das Schlagwortarsenal des „Dialogs“ als das zu erkennen, was er nach den bisherigen Ergebnissen und auch nach den nominellen Maßstäben der UNO ist: eine staatsbürgerliche Farce, die eine seriöse Sachdiskussion verhindert, ausgewiesenen Islamisten ein Forum bietet, das sie der Mehrheitsbevölkerung zugleich verweigert, damit die soziale Ausgewogenheit blockiert und insgesamt die Sicherheit des Landes gefährdet.
(...)
Aus der absoluten Dominanz der Scharia und des individuellen Rechts auf ihre Durchsetzung ergibt sich nicht nur die Pflicht, sondern die göttlich verordnete Glaubenspflicht des Muslim, sich dem Gewaltmonopol des westlichen Staates zu entziehen, anderenfalls er sich selbst des Glaubensabfalls schuldig macht und des islamischen Heils verlustig geht. In diesem Sinne untergräbt die Religionsfreiheit nicht nur das moderne Prinzip der gegenseitigen Anerkennung, sondern konserviert und verstärkt auch innerislamisch die für alle zum Extremismus neigenden Systeme typische Kontrollmentalität. Gerade unter dem glaubenswidrigen Druck der westlichen Diaspora kommt es hier – weit mehr als in der islamischen Region – zu strikten Strukturen der Überwachung und Denunziation, zumal fast alle Muslimgemeinden in Europa, damit auch in der Schweiz, unter islamistischer, also besonders orthodoxer Führung stehen.
Umso mehr sind sie als Sachwalter Allahs in der Gemeinschaft berechtigt und verpflichtet, möglichen Schaden von ihr abzuwenden, indem sie verfassungstreue Politiker, rechtstreue Richter, glaubenstreue Kleriker bzw. kritische Wissenschaftler und Journalisten bedrohen und bei hinreichend niedrigem Eigenrisiko auch beseitigen.
Insofern müssen sich die Eliten, soweit sie die Volksinitiative als „Sicherheitsrisiko“ sehen, eine dreiteilige Frage gefallen lassen: ob sie gedankenlose Opfer einer inkompetenten Toleranzideologie sind, ob sie korrumpiert oder erpresst werden oder ob sie den Islam als Herrschaftsinstrument nutzen wollen, um sich von lästigen Mitspracherechten in der Demokratie zu befreien.

Everybody thinking he needs to become noisy now and needs to "argue" by only discrediting Raddatz authority on the issue of Islam and riducling him by parroting PC paroles and catchphrases, should make sure he can play in the same league like Raddatz. As I said, I know several of his books, and they are some of the best founded research and best-afounded arguments I know in both English and German literature. He has learned from several undisputed authorities of european islam-sciences - and has stepped beyond them where his former teacher meanwhile have somewhat given in. His books usually are demanding and take a lot of pre-education as granted, and with his latest book on the financial collapse I had to capitulate, it was too difficult for me though I got the impression it was not only complex, but brilliant and extremely insightful (Raddatz is a highly profiled Islam expert, but also an expert of finance economy, and is advisor to business corporations.) As far as I know he now lives in the hidden in the US. At least that is the last thing I have heared about his current status, one year ago or so.

Other recommended readings by him (I know these books in full):

"Von Gott zu Allah. Christentum und islam in der liberalen Fortschrittsgesellschaft"
http://www.amazon.de/Von-Gott-Allah-...9616374&sr=8-5

"Von Allah zum Terror. Der Djihad und die Deformierung des Westens."
http://www.amazon.de/Allah-Terror-Dj...d_bxgy_b_img_c

"Der Schleier Allahs. Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen."
http://www.amazon.de/Allahs-Schleier...9616374&sr=8-8

these three titles form an inofficial triology, their content is supplementing to each other. If you want to form an educated opinion on Islam that is well-foiunded in islam's own referances, and want to invest into founding a basis in academic literature on the matter, these three are a very good, though not too easy and not too thin start. for German language I consider them to be must-reads and even standard works.

I also liked "Iran: Persische Hochkultur and irrationale Macht", which confirmed many of my impressions from my own longer stays in Iran. http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3776...pf_rd_i=301128

there are quite some more books available.

Quote:

For one thing it isn't racism, at all, period.

Really?
The definition of racism is prejudice on the basis of race colour nationality descent or ethnicity.

Quote:

Its a religion, not a race

Ethnicity is defined as a social group with common traits like errrrr.....religion.
Religious prejudice is racism acoording to the terms of the UN convention on racial discrimination, period:up:

Quote:

Very interesting videos by Pat Condell.

Would you like an interesting one by Bernard Manning about west indians taking over England?

Quote:

At least it didn't shift much for the last three generations.

Actually it did, if you take Pat condells country as an example.
According to the census in the early 1970s there were absolutely no followers of the force living in britain, not a single one threatening to upheave the fabric of the nation.
Fast forward 30 years and they are a significant minority on the census forms and very rapidly growing, if this continues every briton will by bending to the will of the force in a very short time as they gain majority status.
Beware the Jedi, its a demographic timebomb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1211417)

Would you like an interesting one by Bernard Manning about west indians taking over England?

No thanks. ;)
Pat Condell's point of view seems a bit self-contradictory at times, but the law on criticism of religion was news to me and it does sound like a direct violation of our "right" to free speech... which is a bit concerning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1211417)

Really?
The definition of racism is prejudice on the basis of race colour nationality descent or ethnicity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Also its the religion that is taking fire, not specific ethnic groups as many many different ethnic groups follow that religion, so again no its not racism.

Quote:

Ethnicity is defined as a social group with common traits like errrrr.....religion.
Religious prejudice is racism acoording to the terms of the UN convention on racial discrimination, period:up:

Though I could care less what the UN defines, your statement is not correct. The UN never defined the term racism, but rather racial discrimination which is more then just racism. Racism is prejudice against people due to physical differences (typically skin color), not cultural values, or religious beliefs. So again its not racism.

Now as for Islam and "racial discrimination" according to the UN Convention, name one Islamic country that does not practice high amounts of "racial discrimination". I can't think of one that has broken almost all the core provisions.

JU_88 - you asked the following earlier in this discussion.

Anyway when was the last time you saw a Nation and its peoples will broken by terrorism?

To answer that question, let me point you to the bombings in Madrid of 2004, and the threat to bomb French railways at the same time. This occured immediately preceding a national election, and drastically increased the anti-war vote, causing a shift in national power as well as demonstrating an immediate "breaking" of the spirit of the people of spain to carry on against terror abroad. It also had a strong impact upon the French, who shortly thereafter followed suit in turning their back. It should be noted that immediately prior to that act of terror, the anti-war parties were not expected to have much success in the election.

So to answer your question - Spain of 2004.

I have not read this entire thread and not going to.
I will just say one thing:

Karl Marx said that religion is like opium for the people.

I concur. It's a power tool to keep power over the people.
Just forbid all religions around the world. Then it's not discrimination against a particular religion, but against all.

Where's the proof anyway that there is a divine creature in the heaven? Fine that people have their personal beliefs, but don't let those beliefs be part of society, by allowing these religious thoughts in public space a protected right. In word or in stone...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1211522)

Ok you got me there I guess, that was a very interesting one actually, (tragic too of course) as I remember that many belived the election result was demermined by wheather Al Queda or ETA claimed responsibility for the Railway attacks.

If it was Al Queda, the majority would blame the Conservertives for involving Spain in the war in Iraq.

If it was the ETA, the majority would back the Conservatives as they had a tougher stance towards ETA.

The former happened.
The Spanish leader at the time practically licked the shoes of George W Bush - I mean, he LOVED the guy :D

Samurai, of course I am correct, if not then anti-semitism doesn't count as racism.
Are you going to attempt to argue that the Shoah wasn't racist?

Quote:

So to answer your question - Spain of 2004.

:har::har::har::har::har:
Thats not right, the government lost votes by lying to the voters about events and then continuing to lie after the truth was well known.
BTW how could it really increase the anti-war vote when Spain already had 90% opposed to the deployment and how would any increase on that particular issue change anything.

Quote:

Ok you got me there I guess

Think again JU88.
After the bombings the population was out on the streets even in ETA strongholds, they were united as a nation against the terrorist attacks. Then it emerged the government was lying about the attacks and using them for political gain so they turned on them in the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1211645)

Samurai, of course I am correct, if not then anti-semitism doesn't count as racism.
Are you going to attempt to argue that the Shoah wasn't racist?

:har::har::har::har::har:
Thats not right, the government lost votes by lying to the voters about events and then continuing to lie after the truth was well known.
BTW how could it really increase the anti-war vote when Spain already had 90% opposed to the deployment and how would any increase on that particular issue change anything.

Think again JU88.
After the bombings the population was out on the streets even in ETA strongholds, they were united as a nation against the terrorist attacks. Then it emerged the government was lying about the attacks and using them for political gain so they turned on them in the election.

Oh my bad, I though they tried to pin it on ETA intitally, wasnt aware they actually lied about it.
Jesus, and we are supposed to be able to trust our governments.... :(

Just been browsing. I was looking up "infidel" and ended up finding this...

Quote:

*{Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness (birr) and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.}* (Al-Mumtahanah 60:8-9)

That doesn't really seem in keeping with the whole converting/slaying/dominating mentality claimed by some here. Good old selective quoting, eh?

And more:

Quote:

The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the Quranic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom.

{Or have they partners (of Allah) who have made lawful for them in religion that which Allah allowed not?] (Ash-Shura 42:21)

This guarantee also lies in the following statement:

{Judgment rests with Allah alone.] (Yusuf 12:40)

...

A number of Quranic verses clearly state that the responsibility of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was to convey the message of God, not to compel anyone to believe in it. The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed in the Quran.

{And say, "(It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all)," so let those who please believe, and let those who please disbelieve.] (Al-Kahf 18:29)

Taken from www.readingislam.com.

I suppose this explains why my Muslim friends have not tried to convert or slay me.

Quote:

Oh my bad, I though they tried to pin it on ETA intitally, wasnt aware they actually lied about it.
Jesus, and we are supposed to be able to trust our governments....

It wasn't only the voters they lied to, the German interior minister got annoyed that Anzars government was lying to them when they were supposed to be working as allies against terrorism.
Apparently the lies they told the german BKA were initially that it was an explosive ETA always used, when it was shown to be a different explosive they then falsely claimed that ETA had a history of using that too.

@OLC

I didn't read the Quran so I can't say anything to what you've quoted. But if Skybird is right you might want to read a few more passages before and after of what was (maybe) cherry picked for the public to read.

Another thing is that a lot of Islamic countries are denying those very rights you quoted, don't they?

Quote:

The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed in the Quran.

So what's wrong with Iran, Saudi Arabia and some other countries then? Hamas anyone...?
As I said, maybe the Quran doesn't support behaviour like that altogether but to me the writing is irrelevant. What counts for me is how people act. And there I see a lot of problems caused by people who claim to be Muslims.