@TteFAboB
1. where are you posting from?
2. What about being friendly, open, or making an effort to fit in is or isn't islamic? not very muslim? i don't pretend to know them -- but how do you know they didn't pray, or fast, or believe in God? what does "dressing in pyjamas" have to do with islam? Don't confuse culture and religion.

3. I'm from Sudan originally. I'll bet you anything you like if I put 2 people from Darfur in front of you, you couldn't tell me which one was the "Black African" and which one was the "Arab." What's going on in Sudan has more to do with culture and resources than religion -- the simple black and white Muslim vs Christian picture is a confabulation of Western media. There's Southerners in the government army, and theres Muslims in the rebel SPLA. So don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.

4. I'll say it first -- that's pretty racist. How much does an annual membership in the Nazi party cost, anyway?

If you said that about Jews, you'd be an anti-Semite. If you said that about blacks, you'd also be in trouble. But I guess its OK to say it about Muslims, because in a time of conflict, it's alright to ignore civil liberties and common humanities. Check the 1st post -- thats the ironic point he was trying to make, unless i miss my guess.

5. LOL. so where are you going to move to?

Brazil.

The Jew man on the top of this thread, is his clothing religious or cultural? You know the deal, I'm not talking about random clothing, I'm talking about relogious outfits designed to impose your sectarism over everybody else. By no means is this sort of behavior restricted to Muslims or religions.

I bet your are right, just as I couldn't tell any woman from another if they were both wearing "Burqas", but the same goes for you, if I put two Nissei (Japanese 2nd gen. immigrants) next to each other I bet you can't tell which one is the Xintoist and which one is a follower of Seicho-No-Ie, anyway that's nice, you could have distant family ties over here, if you could dig far enough into your faimly tree, who knows.

Don't stress about Sudan, I just took the opportunity to use it because that's one of the places where the first Muslim immigrants came from, they slayed non-Muslims back then, they slay non-Muslims today, and the other way around, I'm not really talking about the big picture, just a genocide here and there, but thanks for your non-western media overview.

It's cheaper than a trip to Meca, also, you earn Nazi bumper stickers to glue to your car, I have my own Nazi-mobile now.

But we have some few anti-social orthodox Jews, they'd get the same treatment tomorrow if they started threatening our society, in the 20th century we deported a soviet (communist) Jewish agent into the hands of Adolf Hitler's SS, in the lack of the SS I'd say deport them to the Hamas. We also have a few African cults that involve the sacrifice of children, virgins or adults, we reached the conclusion these religious practices are outdated and criminal hence we arrest and sentence any African religious man commiting sacrifice of living beings in their religious rituals, so apparently you are wrong, I am a Nazi, an anti-semite AND a racist! But above all, I am pragmatic, just like Muhammed was, "there is no greater victory than turning your enemy against his kind", a wise man once said that.

No Muslim has the civil liberty or common humanity to give birth to 9 kids in Europe if that threatens the native European majority in the decades to come, you know how South America was conquered? By annihilating the native population by brute force and by drastically reducing their fertility levels, they were all reduced to insignificant numbers and the Europeans started procreating like Rabbits, the result, in 5 centuries natives are no more, in a few years one more native tribe will enter extinction as they only have 5 men and an old lady left, their untranslated language with the rest of their culture will disapear into the dust of history, if the future of the native Europeans is the same, then you can go back to Saudi Arabia and guarantee the next government is not a tyranical teocracy like Iran, then build a constitution, import western rights and go enjoy your western civil liberties over there.

I'm not moving, Veni Vidi Vici, we came, we destroyed the natives, now we have to stay, first come first serve, as long as you want to live in peace you are welcomed down here, but if you want to Jihad then it's a battle you already lost as you are utterly, thank god, outnumbered.

Now how about quoting me on the whole for a change, let's remember my plan of action on the whole:

So you see, the plan is to remember Europeans growing a family is fantastic and the way to continue to exist, instead of slowly fading away like native SA tribes, so if you put that before the Chinese-like child control proposal we can assume child control is an emergency measure to be taken in case the native European population continues to diminish and the Muslim numbers continue to grow uncontrolled.

If guaranteeing your survival, that of your family and of your culture is being a Nazi or a racist then I hereby declare all South American native tribes were Nazi's in their very nature as they fought to the bitter end against extermination by foreigners, if they had NEVER converted to Christianity, if they NEVER accepted European immigrants, then South America today would be divided between the Mayans, Incas and a bunch of smaller tribes and I, today, would be sitting in Milan organizing Nazi organizations to protect the native Italian culture.

Either way, I'm sending you and joea's invitations to my Nazi party for splitting my plan in two, censorship and deception are good Nazi qualities and you are both promising members, welcome aboard.

As usual you give no specifics..AGAIN...you answer only with..look for myself..NP...And your lack of defensible quotes from your book only tell me you have none.

NP...Hitman....here is what WILL be done.

Matthew 25
[31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.



Revelation 20
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Only Christ can rightly and justly judge....and look...See..he has made a place for all...you choose.I will let Christ decide what to do with the Muslims and the Christians and the Jews..I will treat people like I want to be treated in the mean time.

Thks for your informative insight into Islam Caspofungin I thank ya. :up:

A tree is known by it's fruits.....what fruit is Islam producing? or is it just a few bad apples?

Carry on.

So what do we do with Islam?
 

This must be one of my favorite postings by The Avon Lady, that though kevlar helmeted steel eyed Sabra! Her new avatar certainly didn't mellow her down...
Sharp, straight, whitty, matronizing Sixpack like a real Ãœber Mom and... no links!
I love her!

I must recognize that the God of the jews probably does not love them very much when he gave them such a place as their land :huh: ...almost a desert, subject to continuous conflicts, and right in the middle of the most radical muslim communities :huh: I'd better have a God who promised me Hawaii or the Scheychelles :know:

So what do we do with Islam?
 

@ Hitman:
God did love His people: when the country was promised by Him it was overflowing with milk and honey, more or less like it is today again...
The Avon Lady will no doubt point out after the Sabbath that there were no (radical) Muslims around at that time. Life was so much better...
:D
By the way: also what we call now 'the Arab world' was not always a total desert. Ancient cultures in that region were highly develloped and the land was often fertile.
Think about the Garden of Eden and the old Mesopothamia... the craddle of human civilisation... the birthplace of human's greatest invention ever, the letter (otherwise I could not have written my next posting).
:D

So what do we do with Islam?
 

Here is my reaction, probably too long, but then, I used to debate a lot with Skybird...

First of all, I want to thank Hitman for bringing up this subject, the serious question: "what to do with Islam?" Excellent idea.

I want to analyse the European position and the perceived thread from both perspectives. A little bit of thinking about the background never hurts when faced with a problem.

I. What do we see?

Western (European) society with human values like they have never been reached before in European culture, human rights, extreme freedom, but also individualism, materialism and a growing lack of cultural and religious awareness...
We seem to suffer from Relativism: our values seem as valid as - or even less than - the values of others, our culture seems equal to - or even less equal than - the culture of others, and our religion seems as credible as - or even less credible than - the religion of other...
In my opinion you can only say these things if you don’t know your own values, morals and religion anymore, which is the basis for our current problems in Europe.

I want to name some of the great thinkers of the past, which helped to develop Western thinking about political theory and brought us the values and the freedom we are enjoying now – often while taking those values for granted:
Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Macchiavelli, Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jean Bodin, John Althusius, Hugo Grotius, Spinosa, Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Edmund Burke, Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Nietsche.
These names may seem irrelevant to many, but these men have led a spiritual and cultural struggle that is unique in world history. Their ideas often led to revolutions and wars to break down the moral and political power of the established order. Many hundreds of thousands of Europeans fought and died for those ideas consequently. Their thinking shaped our perspective…

II. What can we conclude from this list?

First of all, there are no Muslims present. This is remarkable because in the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance the Islamic culture was at its zenith and well connected with European culture. Obviously Muslims had nothing to add in the field of political theory…
Secondly, the first thinkers up to Erasmus were (at least nominally) of the Roman Catholic religion, the ruling cultural and political establishment. Then came the Reformers and after the Reformation there was little influence of the Roman Catholic church on the development of political thinking in Europe anymore. This has been one of the crucial turning points in our culture.
Thirdly and remarkably, few Jews did contribute to European political thinking and those who did were operating outside Judaism (Spinosa, Marx). Obviously also Judaism had no additional value for the development of our political thinking.
Finally, after the Enlightment and the separation of State and Church non of the major political thinkers can be considered as representing a religious denomination.

It is obvious: critical, progressive and political thinking had to liberate itself from uncritical and rigid dogma’s in order to evolve.
Obviously political theory had to break the chains of the Establishment over and over again to let those values evolve and to ‘tune’ them.

Islam is a 7th century religion uncritical rigid dogmatic religion with world ruling aspirations, but without a clear concept of state and a separation between state and religion, and therefore we cannot expect it to contribute to political progress. This is clearly demonstrated in almost all Islamitic countries: democracy is a farce, theocracy (Caliphate) the ideal, and dictatorship the rule…
Islam is also used to be the dominant religious and cultural force and is quite awkward in contacts with other religions and cultures when it is not dominant. Under those circumstances it has a natural tendency to resort to violence…

III. Both parties face serious problems.

European nations are faced with hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions, of Muslims, of which the first generation either immigrated to former colonial powers or was invited to provide cheap labour. That last category was drawn from the lowest social class of a number of North African countries.
In the end, most of them preferred continue living in their host countries. Many of them adapt slowly into Western society. However, fundamental Islam works as a reactionary force, constantly fuelled by dialectic speeches from radical “import imams�. The result is that women have to give up their rights to dress the way they want, to learn the language of the host country (in the smaller European countries), to have sexual relations or marry the one they want, to earn money if they want, to integrate, in short, to be emancipated. Enormous social pressure is exercised upon the very few that openly break with the Islamic culture and adopt Western ideas, or try to do so.
Young men radicalise and turn their backs towards our (and their!) society...

Most of us see all this as a huge problem for our societies, and it certainly is, in my opinion. However, the problems Islam is facing are much bigger and much more fundamental.
For the first time in history a substantial number of Muslims is confronted with a superior political and social system, with freedoms that have been mastered from religions before and with an open society. The smart ones will realise this, count their blessings and pick up the opportunities to make personal progress. That is only possible when they adapt, integrate and give up (fundamental) Islam. The start of this natural trend can already been seen in some Western countries, where youth are not interested to go to mosques anymore and consider Islam a personal thing. Fundamental Islam perceives this - rightly - as a threat and is fighting back by sending radical imams, by sending huge amounts of money and by missionary activities among its most vulnerable group, Muslim young man.

IV. What to do?
It is inconceivable to me that radical, perhaps even fundamental Islam with its political aspirations, can exist in Europe without seriously undermining our own culture and its freedoms we value so much.
Two things seem therefore obvious to me: to strengthen ourselves and to weaken the influence of radical Islam.

Strengthening ourselves we can through realising what lucky bastards we are to live in such freedom, compared not only with other countries, but also seen in its historic dimension: there was never in history so much freedom and liberty for all.
Dare to say that we are proud of our superior culture and its superior values. It sounds very political incorrect, but we have to realise that political correctness leads to relativism which brought us into this mess in the first place.
Strengthening ourselves we also do by fighting off any attack on our freedoms.
Attacks from the side of Islam, even if that attack is disguised as a “demand of respect for a different culture� or a “manifestation of a different religion�.
We should realise that 'respect' is something even a religion - just like any human being - has to earn first and foremost...
But also attacks from the side of the eternal enemy of liberty, the Establishment, nowadays the almighty Nation state, that is eager to curtail or take away our human freedoms under false pretexts, just as the Roman Catholic church did during the Middle Ages and Islam is still doing today in the countries it controls.
Because only our freedom and our tolerance can help allochtone immigrants to integrate in Europe and make a succesful contribution to our society.
We should help integrate especially those Muslims who show a desire to do so.
Freedom, tolerance and human rights will be too tempting to resist for young generations of Muslims and will therefore be the focus point of attack by radical Islam.
We should not bulge an inch when freedom is attacked…

Weakening fundamental Islam by showing that our freedom of religion fully respects ‘foreign’ religions as well, as long as they are what they are, religions, and not theocratical political systems. As long as they direct themselves to the soul of the believer and do not strive to change our culture. As long as they remain within the limits of the law and accept our constitutional principles. As long as they accept the separation between State and Curch.
Weakening fundamental Islam we also do by stopping all attempts of fundamental Islam to obstruct integration of Muslims.
In practice that could mean a lot of administrative measures.
Forbidding radical imams to preach in mosque in Western Europe. Forbidding any attempt by fundamental Muslims to introduce restrictions to the freedom and liberty of all, especially Muslim women, even if it is done under the pretext of freedom of religion.
Forbidding the - often by imams stimulated - constant influx of traditional Muslim brides from North Africa, who teach the third and forth generation backwards values and hamper their integration.
Forbidding sexual mutulation of women under the pretext of religious rites.
This list should be extended whenever the individual freedom is harrased by the freedom of religion...
All this creates a constant conflict between two important freedoms, which should be solved by the only forum available: the Judiciary, the Courts of Law. Those are the essential rules in our culture and whomever can't abide to them better finds himself a more suitable society...

V. What should Muslims do with Islam?

The biggest task of all is not for us, but for Islam itself: if it wants to survive in Western Europe - and be a positive and relevant force in the world – it will have to take a hard and critical look at itself. It will have to take the hi-speed train through history to the 21th century and not get out before it has passed those stations of no return: its own Renaissance & Enlightment.
Only then it can live in peace with and within an other culture.

:zzz:

Re: So what do we do with Islam?
 

:up: That's what it comes down to.

Unfortunately, Islam is not the most flexible thing there is to make itself object to changes and analytical examination. What they should do, and what the could and will do are two different things, for that reason. That's why I insist on much stricter control of Muslim communities in the West.

Not only that one...

Since the crusdaes? That is not really correct that way. Since the 8th century Islam had violantly pushed in three directions: North and northwest towards the hated orthodoxy in Byzanz, eastward towards india, and westward along the Christian (!) northafrican coast, and then into Spain and France. Often the people in Northafrica, who for the most were dominated by orthodox Christian rules from Byzanz (not the westroman tradition of Christianity), were not by force converted to Islam, but only became object to tax-collections by the Islamic rulers. Later, more by fiscal and economcial meaning, not so much by violance, they were convinced with more and more riprisals to convert to Islam "voluntarily", primary means to acchieve that were to avoid growing discrimination concerning taxes and the possession of land. Since these Christian's love for Byzanz was not too high, there willingness to militarily resit the muslim conquerors was limited, but present on a low scale (the absence of their military resistance explains why Islam made it so quickly to Gibraltar). The conquering of northafrica as well as the drive towards Byzanz were the two first attacks of Islam against Christianity. It then continued with the attack on the Western Goths in Spain. After Islam had been stopped in central France and pushed back to Spain, after the Islamic civil war, and several military conflicts between rivalling factions under the Califates established by the Ummayades and the Abbasides, two centers of Islamic power emerged over time, the one shifting from Mekka to Damascus and later to Baghdad 8and later got crushed by the momngoles there, 1256), the other beeing raised by a deafeted Ummayade Calif in Grenda. After the defeat of Byzanz longer time later, the Middle east was dominated by Muslim power, with Christianity defeated there. The european crusades were a defensive counterattack to win back ground that was lost to an aggressor, because as a consequence of Rome, Jerusalem and many territories in and around today's Israel and Lebanon, leading towards Syria and Byzanz, were christian soil at that time. The crusades were an attempt to gain back what was lost before (ignoring European inner-politics), like the (more successfu)l reconquest of Spain, and the liberation of Sicily (which also had fallen to Islam temporarily). After Islam took over Byzanz, in follwing times more and more Turkmen tribes from Northern Iran and northern Afghanistan moved westward, partially fleeing from Mongol tribes (that obliterated Bagdhad in the middle of ther 13th century). These Turkmen tribes saw more and more service in elite guards of Islamic rulers, and their warriors were wanted and competent figthers, later their ethnicity concentrated the influence they gained by this on the territory of today's Turkey, by that they became the later Ottoman empire, which again pushed Westward, along the Balkans, into Hungary, Austria and made it as fas as to the siege of Vienna.

Not until the modern present, and before: the age of colonialism and imperialism, Christian factions themselves aggressively reached out towards muslim territory. In the centuries until the age of imperialism, they had been in a defensive and often highly pressed posture against Islamic conquest. This is not been forgotten in parts of Europe. The high level of suddenly outbursting hate and hostility, the level of violance and barbarism that was to be seen between the groups during the Balkan wars in the nineties, cannot be explained by milosevic'S appearrance alone, it has roots leading back into history . the whole area had been Ottoman empire for centuries, and although in this part of the world the Ottomand had been >relatively< peaceful, but economicall ruthless exploiters, throughout all those centuries tensions and limited conflicts between Muslims and Christianties popped up time and again and led to occasional bloddsheds all over the Balkans. Kosovo and Bosnia are nothing new. they are centuries old centres of intercultural unrest.

I agree completely with that, and this is the logic thing to do in our constitutional conutries: We tolerate Islam but not radical manifestations of it. Same as we tolerate conservative right-winged parties but not nazi skin-head groups who commit violent acts.

I don't see a difference between radical islamic groups and nazi skin-heads, they all are the same for me: People who want through fanatism to force others -and the whole society- to follow their rules. We had here in Spain some time ago, after Franco's death a group called "Warriors of King Christ" who performed violent acts in the name of God against communits, democrats and similars. They used to go into cinemas and stop the exhibition of films that supposedly were against their moral rules, and attacked people who demanded democracy. I can't see any difference between them and radical muslims except the method used (Self blowing with bombs), but both wanted their religion and moral to be the rule for all.

Islam interpretations, like christianism and any other interpretation of a religion, shall exist in our states only as long as they do separate accurately religion and politics. If people act like bad muslims and do not respect the rules of Quran, then they will not go to muslim paradise when they die, period. That is a personal decission everyone shall take, and muslims have no right to supercede the state laws with the Sharia. Same as christians have no right to supercede the state's law with rules extracted from the bible. That is the only way to guarantee a peaceful cohexistance frame for all. Other manifestations of radical interpretations who induct to violent acts or disobbeying the law, shall simply be punished like any other ordinary crime.

But of course that will never be an argument to banning Islam as a whole, it would be our own freedom's end if we did so...what would come next?

So what do we do with Islam?
 

@ Skybird:
Great posting.:up:
Knowledge is power!
(I decided that I had written enough for the day...)

@ Hitman:
I agree completely with you. You stand in the tradition of separation of State and Church (=religion).
That certainly would be a disaster for your Western values...

The decisive question remains: Can Islam operate accepting the Rule of Law of Western (host) nations and survive?

Since France, Germany, Russia were against the war in Iraq I thought it was their desire to protect their interests abroad. But since the outbreak of hostilities in France I wonder if what what is happening there now is what the leaders of the 3 above mentioned countries were really afraid of.

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion. It is not me saying that, you can read that in any competent analysis on islamic sociology and history. Have you never noticed how damn many Arabs for that reason vote FOR the religiously motvated law of sharia as basis for the legal system in their countries, in egypt, Algeria, arabia, iran, Iraq, Afghanistan? The turkish court may have been decided different recently, but they are one of the last and retreating bastions of retreating laicism in Turkey. Espeically the young ones not living in the metropoples, and the orthodox old, are FOR Sharia in Turkey.

What? No one else knows a minimum amount of history to respond to this ignoramus? Let me start.

What came first? The Islamic invasion of Europe or the Crusades, which tossed Muslims back out of Europe?

Hindus? How many Hindus were slaughtered when Muslims invaded India, beginning in the 8th century?

Bah! Get an education.
In the cases of Sabra, Shatila and Jenin, it's called massacres.[/quote]
Quick, fool, who slaughtered the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla?

Why did Israel invade Jenin? How many Palestinians died? How many Israelis?

Go ahead. Lie some more.
No suprises here. Truth is irrelevant to the ilks you associate with.

This is not true. In the concept of everything worldy being relevant to man's relationship to G-d, Islam mimics Judaism.