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.

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."

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

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

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

''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.

That's about how I feel about the issue. And wouldn't you know it, I just took my signature down.


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.

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/img181/2...cartoonxe4.jpg

And this:

from: http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006_02...t_archive.html

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

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

Ok, now it's my turn:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

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

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.

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...