That is what is is according to you, but not according to the majority of it's
civilized practitioners.
I think they have more right to define it than you do.

ed: Tell me you didn't just spend (how long?!) transcribing that. :o
Wow, such energy indeed.

No, that is just what you claim, and you are wrong, because you refuse to open your eyes to face a reality not matching your kind and "civilised" model of the world. You are about your fantasy of what "Islam" means. to you it is just a word that you fill with your imagined content, but to me - and true devout Muslims as well - it is a historic fact that bases on solid tradition and teaching, fixed black on white with ink and paper: the Quran. Whenever you talk about Islam, you reveal that you talk about your own images only of what islam should be, or could be - accoprding to you, and according to those wishful thoughts of people that Pat just called the "appeasement monkeys" - you are not about Islam according to Muhammad and the Quran. But that is the only islam worth to be named "Islam". Anything else is something different only.

That sounds fundamentalistic? Yes, it is. All Islam is deepoly fundamentalistic in general, funda,mentlaism is not just one sect inside a canon of islamic traditions, like it is the case with the huge diversity of Christian branches. I get criticised for saying that Muslims not being fundamentalists are not truly Muslims, I get criticed that I make it easy for me by just deleting all non-fundamental "Muslims" from my list of what islam is. but it is not the easy path at all - it simply is the truth. Moderate muslims are heretics, if they really comnpare to the true Muslim standards set by the Quran. and I think that this is a widespread subconscious knowledge that is one of the reasons for the modern, deep-rooting inferiority complex in Muslim societies, that causes - in form of over-compensating mechanisms - much of the hostile energy, the expansive aggressive dynamic and collective hysteria over so-called western "offences" in their societies.

Islam is neither a peaceful religion, nor a teaching of tolerance and coexistence. It is a tyrannic call for ultimate militant conquest, and subjugation of all that is not islamic already. Says not me, but Muhammad. Says the Quran. Says Islamic history from the first day on.

Speak to any given Muslim in England or Germany and chances are he will
interpret the Quran and Muhammad and talk of a very different Islam to
yours and Pat's.

Again, I think they have more right to interpret the Quran and Muhammad
and define Islam than you do. That's a good thing to! If all Muslims did
treat Islam they way you do, we would be in a pickle. Clearly they do not.

You fool probably also think that the pope is the best and most objective authority to give you a fair assessement of catholicism and it'S shining history.

And you are wrong - I have all right in the world and certainly as much right as any other person that is or is not Muslim to interpret the Quran. that's one of the great things in our societies here in the West. And what Islam is and what it is not, does not get defined by you, or other people, or me - but the term is reserved for a preset, given set of teachings and traditions, whether you like that or not. the Quran is not really open for interpretation. a lot of weaseling around single quotes in it is just deception and opportunism. Especially opportunism. It is the most hypocritical and lying piece of written work I ever have read. and I think that character of it is not by chance, but intentional - to always find the best excuse for piushing muhammad's demands. He might have been a murderous greedy bastard, but sure as hell he was clever.

And btw, I have talked to Muslims in far more countries than just England and Germany (but in germany as well, for sure). Where do you think I have gotten my ideas about Islam? From smoking some kraut? I tell you: from academic books as the first source of information, and then from travelling in Muslim countries later, seeing people there.

An finally this, and you may finally want to pay attention to it: a,lot of Muslims speak pout about islam exactly the way I do and Pat does - they spit their hostile truth into your very face - and you fool ignore it, and claim it never happeend, and they do not exist even if you read their hate-filled pamphletes in the newspaper, or on posters, or on TV! wjhat the heck is wrong with you...? you get a slap in the face - and your only reaction is: "nothing happened." Or better: "It did not happen."

So it's new, and that means it's inappropriate? Not a sign that some people, not all of course, are able to differentiate?

I second Letum's response. I second it most decidedly.

Dear old McCarthy would be proud of Pat. And I am deeply concerned.
Why?
Because I think that he does a very nasty thing. He redefines one of the most crucial achievements of Western civilization and society as one of its greatest vices. It is the ability of self criticism, which Mr Condell redefines as self hatred.
His is the process of mentally outlawing a whole religion.
I do not know how the society looks like Mr Condell is conceiving of. But I do know that I would not want to live in it.

No need for name calling.

Catholicism and the history of Catholicism are two very different things.
even the Catholic church has changed a lot since it was a part of the
Roman empire. It has even changed since last year and will do so
indefinitely.

Catholicism today is not it's history and it is not the bible.
If a Martian had only a copy of the bible, he would learn very little about
Catholicism and would likely guess a great many false things about it.

The same is true should a Martian try to learn about modern Islam from
the Quran or today's Judaism from the Torah.

A religion is the belief system/values held by the body of it's practitioners.

the problem is not our attitude. The problem is Islam's inhumane, intolerant values, and it'S fundamental hostility towards other ciltures, and women. You can weasel as much as you want and relabel Western self-deception as it's precious "self criticism". You can offend all victims of islam that suffered so miserably from it, and offend all women trying to escape from it, and can excuse the ongoing mass killing of infidels by pointing out that a thiousand years ago the crusades were like uislam still is today - you can do all that, as long as you still have the freedom to form your opinion, even if it is simply ignoring the facts. that is the freedom ou have been given by living in our coutnries, the freedom that you value so low and throw away so carelessly by inviting it's enemies and encouraging them and ennobling them.

This your freedom that you use withio9ut even noticing it - this freedom is what Islam detests most.

What really is to be criticised is not criticism of Islam, but Islam'S values. They are a problem, becasue they are strictly against those values that we have anchored in our own cultures and constitutions, after our forefathers fought to achieve them in centuries of bitter fights and miserable suffering.

And you give it away headlessly - and even be proud of doing so. You should feel ashamed.

:nope:

Ah, an Islam thread, I've been waiting for one of these to pop up again. Makes a change from Obama I suppose :hmmm:

Yup, I guess those two are the staple diet of this forum. :ping:

Nothing wrong with that. Semi-respectful discussions about the things people are passionate about are good for society, despite controversy.

OK guys, I'm keeping an eye on this.

Skybird, no name calling even if it is just to call someone a fool. This is a hot topic and can get out of hand very quickly.

I do not see it as "semi-respectful" anyway. Detemined: yes, maybe sharp, but not personally hurting.

For Letum and anybody feeling concerned, i just have asked Xabba about possible language differences between German and English, when using word like Narr and närrisch (fool, foolish). From my perspective, and from my honest experience in life and when watching TV, calling the actor of a "närrisch" deed or speech as "närrisch" or a "Narr" is no big deal in German,
and depending on the context of the conversation sometimes is leaning more to a matter-of-fact side, as a description, sometimes more to a very mild form of rethoric fingerpointing at a given person.

I called Letum a fool, and I still think he is foolish in his thinking on the matter, yes. But it is not as if I wished to aim a personal insult or offence at him by doing so. And it is not as if I have copied Pat's language here: I did not call anybody a "useful idiot" (or "useful fool") here. ;)

I will apologise for things where I have been wrong, and my record shows that I indeed did so in the past on repeated occasions where I went wrong. But not here, because I cannot see that I failed somewhere - not with regard to Islam, and not with regard to Letum.

I was being tongue-in-cheek when I wrote "semi-respectful". I pretty much meant "sharp" and "determined".

On topic, though, I do agree with your assessment on Islam. The unfortunate truth is that the texts so deeply embedded within the religion must actually be misinterpretted to prevent out-and-out condemnation of Islam by most of the modern civilized world.

Which I find particularly amusing...especially when you consider that Islam is not a "race" to begin with....silly liberals and their emotional name calling...