I don't think it will ever be a major issue up these parts anyway. We have had a religious war for hundreds of years and they even have football teams.

I've said before that the problem is not religion. The problem is people. Man has always striven to dominate his fellow man. Religion is but one of the banners that he waves to rally others in that persuit. Remove it, and it will be replaced by another. Look at the Soviets. They cut religion out of the picture. That didn't stop people from dying, and in record numbers.

:har::har::har::har::har::up:

And yes, Tak, spot on. :yep:

Sorry, this is not true if said this way. Imagine a sxdecond Jesus lived for real (I share some of the doubts, but it is possible he existed for real). And imagine for a moment that what we know about his preachings, is transported more correctly than incorrectly by the bible (mind you, they started to wrtie about Jesuus not before 70 years after his was claimed to have died). Than you have, more or less, a preaching that serves little for the purpose of esxcusing war, slaughter and murdering, conquest, taking prey, anmd abuse. It is true that you can also find the occaisonal quote by Jesus that gives hiom anything but a good name, but the general image of what he said, is not that bad, but is self-reflecting, and relfecting the concept of deity as was present until then in Judaism. The semron on the mount hardly can be absued for excusing war and violence, intolerance and hate with it. And it does not reallyx matter whether Jesus indeed has lived, or not. If he did not, what then is claimed he should have said still holds its ground and icnludes some wisdom and insight, indepednetly fromt he nature of the one who said it first, or wrote it down first. For the content of the sermon on themount, it simply dores not matter who said it, and whthewr it is true historic recording, or just a writer'S imagination - it is what it is independently from that question

Now take Muhammad. The question whether he indeed has lived, for some also is not beyond doubt. However, take what he said, and what is said he should have done and how he lived his life. What Muhammad said, does not compare to what Jesus said, not at all. There is the call for violence, there is the call for war and conquest, the call for subjugation and intolerance, the call for submissve females and slavery of the infidels, there is the call for hate and ongoing fight until Islam - Muhammad, that is - rules all. All while he just copied Jewish - and probably also some Chriostzain lithrugy and concepots, and chnaged and distored them to make them look dfferent and serve his purpose. And hios purose was: justifying his oingoing quest for power and control, unifying his army by wiping out criticism and objection to him by making such opinions a heresy: by claiming that he speaks himself on behalf of a god and is announcing the will of god. And on heresy - and apostacy, for totalitarian'S sake - is death penalty.

How do you dare to compare Jesus' and Muhammad's teaching? I am no believer, you know that, I do not declare Jesus words as holy and divine, I see them as metaphors that try to transcend life ins uch a wa that we can find it easier to get along with it with fewer conflict. My approach on Jesus is pragmatic, and philosophic, not religious. How do you comare the preachings of Jesus to that of Muhammad? How can you claim they gave fundaments to the same kind of relgions? They didn't.

After Paul, and other self-interested ursupators of influenc ein Chriostian communities, the chrch indeed turned into a tyrant acting with great barbarism and fantical mercilessness. That'S why I am so bitterly against leaving it the freedom to ever gain pltical powers again. We have seen what religions do when they are given the opporutnity to live out their real inner nature. But the church did so in violation of what the christ has taught. Jesus cannot be used to excuse the excesses of the inquisition, and later crusades, the chruch'S tyranny in europe over centuries. The fundamentalism of the relgious organisation - is in violation of what Jesus taught.

Muhammad, on the other hand, demanded the oveall violence, he was using relgion only as a tool to control the masses, that'S why I say Islam is more a poltical ideology than a religious one. The war against everybody, the claim to dominate everybody - it is the very basis of Islam'S teachings, from all beginning on. The viloence that thus is seen from the side of Islam, the level of iontolerance, the hate, the aggressiveness, the supremacist mindset - this is a form of funda,mentlaism like the church showed in past times, but this fundaemtnalsim in Islam is in confomrity witzh the basi teachings of the the central figure, Muhammad. Different to Jesus, Muihammad does not get violated or abused to justify it. He gets followed.

Ridley Scott made a nice filom with "Kingdom of Heavens, and there are some scenes with really good words spooen, worth to be quoted. In one scene, the princess descriobes the difference between Islam and Chrsinaty stunningly short, and still with profound insight, she says: "Jesus says: decide! Muhammad says: submit!"

The difference between both, is immense. You are wrong, Oberon.

What...? I prefer a military government in Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt anytime. Have you noted how jciely the govenrment in Tunisia is doing? They are a so-claimed "moderate fundamentalist" party that gets applauded by the West (when there is time somebody must expalion to me what that should be: moderate fundamentalism...). But in fact they left the dirty work of harassing society and pushing fundamentlaism in the streets to another group that indeed is evenb more openyl fundamentlaist. They let them do - and when the damage is done, they half-heartedly coindmen them, and leave the untouched. That gives them the respect by the West for "fighting against fundamentalism", whiole still pushign forward the fundamentalist agenda.

And in Islam, the fundamentalist agenda IS Islam's agenda.

You can expect to see the same happening in Egypt. In Libya, it also has begun. The same will happen inj Syria. And as you alöraedy said, Turkey is in full swing back into the dark time before Attatürk, Erdoghan knows very well how to play the keyboard in order to deceive the EU.

I have a basic issue with religion, because part of its de criptiuon that it wnats the depending, non-thinlking, non-independent follower, else it cannot exist and enjoy priviliges. As Abbey said, "God" is the sound people make when they became too lazy to think by themselves. I hgope I have - once again - described in the opening paragraphs why extremism and violence and hate still have a different origin and status in Christzianity and Islam. And why I call Muhammeddanism, to label it more precisely, as funda,mentlaist and extremsit from all beginning on, while thinking violence and hate is not the called-for action in Jesus' teachings, but a perverting of what he said.

Sure,, but I am not into that business. I am even not attacking "Muslims per se". So often I have made it clear that my primary target is the ideology, becaswue that is what does the brainwashing, that is what motivates people and causes actions. Most people ignore it when I say that, finding it more comfotrtable to attack me over being racist towards a people than about being critical about an ideology'S content.

Again, once again I say this: whether a Muslim is a Muslim to me is not an issue of self-.descriptiuon or claim, but an issue to what degree he obeys the teachings of Muhammad. This is the only authority, the only criterion that decides this. I have told you know how I see that ideology, and I do not buy it when somebody takes it and sitorts it to gloos over it in order to claim he is Muslim while following it, but following it were good. Sorry, I fell for that trick myself many yars ago, and I needed years - YEARS - to get iot sorted out and getting former opinion of mine with harsh realities I experienced into conformity. And that was only possible at the price of realsing that my former - friendly - opinion about islam - were wrong. When I stopped taking Islamic sciurptiure as metaphoirc and partially invalid, it all fell into placer, and sinc e then it all makes sense. Unfortunately in a resulting poricture that is anything but friendly.

Muslim lobby spokesmean will tell you what they know you want to hear. Many others will tell you about 9/11 what you want to hear in order to avoid you becoming angry or alienated. Some meanjt it seriosu when regretting the loss of life. But I claim a majority of the global ummah celebrated. Som ein sielcne, others ba dancing in the streets - of which we also have seen pictures, if you remember.

My grandfather was in the Wehrmacht, both of them, and both lived throught the invasion of Russia. My mother'S father onc etold me, that in the early m,onths, he could stroll off in a tiny village and visit an orthodox church where the monks did this wonderful music, which I like to liosten to at times myself, Gregorian chants. And soemtiomes, when his unit entered a new village, the famrers came with friendly faces, and offered bread and salt. But do you really think they really meant that from the bottom of their heart? They were afraid, and feared for their lives! OF COURSE they behaved friendly, and welcomed the invaders - what else should they have done?

Don'T believe anything a Muslim spokesman tells you. When it comes to explainign Islam, Imams and Muslim group speaker sare the most untrustwporthy soruces you can listen too. You could as well ask the pope about an objective, sober assessement of the role of the church for human history.

I do not judge wjo emant it ral and who m aybe not. But I tell you tjhis: Ahmadinejadh fell out with the Mullahs in Teheran becaseu he behaved so stupid and by boasting and provoking the West in media he attracted attention to the nuclear weapon program that the mullahs had hoped to kept hidden from the spotlights for longer time.

Are they? Muslim is who acts and decides oin basis of M uhammad'S commands. Not birth, not skin colkour decides about that, but only Quran, plus Hadith and Sharia.

Because it gave them a bad name, perhaps? It drew attention to where they do not want it. I said it many times: Islam no longer tries to take over the West by war or by violence, ti cannot win that. It does so by demograohics. By changine the hsoting natiosn from within. By cultural reporgramming. It is a very smart way of attacking the West, and it cokmes at the additonal bonus that the West can only defend itself against that when behaving really nasty, which gives it a bad name again, letting it fall back from that option even more in intimidation. Not to mention that as long as you do not relaise that you are under attack you do not see any need to defend. And when the need is evident, than many peoppole still refuse to stand up and defend their home and their freedom. You rfeer to 9/11 qupotes here, some poages earlier I copied some quotes by Muslim representaives, politicians as well as clerics, making it clear that the West is under attack. Do you dismiss all that as nonsense, when the relaity you can see in society are supporting these claims?

If you think I act by their motives and by their logic, than I am right in thinkling guys like yiou are alost cause, becasue you have not understood anything of what I say since years at all.

I am not about hate, I am about factual arguments that I made time and again that simply speak against an ideology that is the issue here. My stance in no way compares to what the Nazis tried with the Jews. I have spend half of my life to form my view of Isdlam, and I had theortteical as well as practical input, here as well as in foreign, Islamic countries. And this claim that is som often made and that once again yoiu repoeat here, that the "raidcals" are a mionority - that simply is not true. The socalled moderates (which interestingly do surprisingly little to keep the "radicals" in check and become lid when it is about special rights for Islam - in schools, in public places, in legislation - do their best to hinder police cooperation and isolation of fanatical elements, theyx also allow "radical" spokesmen and radical organisations to speak on their behalf) are not the maionstream group in Islam, beleive that or not. They are a minority. Not only globally, but also in our own home countries. Most of them sit still and silent, but are deeply conswrvative in their thimking and feeling, and are loyal to the Shariah. The mainstremja Islam, is not the moderate minority you pout your hope into (wrongly), but the mainstream of Islam is what yiou call the fundamental Isdlam. The one basing on Shariah law. And that is no surprise, when one has understood that you cannot arbiotrarily cut away all you do n ot like, and what remains from Quran and Shariah then still is "Islam". It is heresy, apostacy.

I know you do not like beign told that, since it leaves your thinking model then powerless in the dust, for you would need to realsie that then Wetser intentions and ideas are helpless in the fac eof htis challenge. Like you, many people and evben laders flee into wishful thinking, and self-deception, relaity-denial, illusions.

But the beast is still there. And it comes closer. Maybe you will still be well off (if oyu make it thorugh the debt crisis and European troubles). But the chilkdren of your chikldren will live in a Europoe where many countries will be predominantly Muslim by population. And you can read from the exmaplke set when Islam sporead from arabia talong the North Wetsern coat, as well as to the Niorth and inti Persia and India, they always took the densly settled hostspots, the cities, first. Today, that are places like Malmö, or Rotterdam, or Cologne. And such places today are places with extremely big troubles. From there, they then took the surrounding countries once they had become strong enoigh in humbers ahgain. Today, that is not meaning an army, but demography: birth rates. Franc ewill have a predominantly Muslim population somewhere aorund the middle of this century. Germany will be like that some time later, somewhere it the second half of the century. Converts icnrase in number, Public educaiton at schools will mturn Muslim. Legislation will. Police will. Politics will. Maybe therwe will social riots and breakdowns over the coial system collapsing. Ypou see when Wetsern women have biorth rates below 2.2, the population is shrinking. And when Muslims have birth rates greater than 2.2 (many have a 3 a 4 or a 5 before the decimal), then they are increasing. When you know that most Muslim migrants today do not contribute to the social system but live at its cost, while at the same time native middle and upper class families have birthn rates below 2.2 and thus few and fewer net payers get born to pay for the social system (and so many other things) - well, if so you know there are decreasing net payers and increasing net receivers, and decreasing social upper class and increasing social underclass - then you know that you have a meeting with an iceberg.

Send the band on deck.

Another link, same old site of kooky nuts with an agenda of hatred(just like the fundamentalists ain't they).

I do like their list of muslim attacks though, its laughable that anyone can take that site seriously.
a muslim killed another muslim, a muslim killed two other muslims, some muslims killed some other muslims....its the muslims I tell ya just look at our list:doh:

wow, isn't that from Breiviks manifesto.
Come to think about it didn't sky agree with brieviks "reasoning".
Maybe some link can be found in them both exactly posting the same sources again and again and making the same "factual" arguements.




Of all the days to bring that up.:03:
So are you one of the ones celebrating the religion today or one of the ones protesting the religion today.
Bloody scottish/irish/english/british muslims, its gotta be muslims you see as its always and the muslims apparently.

haha I just realised what day it is haha I am a lapsed catholic who keeps clear of whole thing now. It's the best option up here really. The Muslims extremists don't stand a chance against a bunch of very angry Protestants and Catholics up here lol

Well...if Europe does not stop immigration and will let millions and millions of Muslims in that will happen...
Such massive emigration would change face of Europe...not necessary to sharia state but the distinct European culture might be sort terraformed.
Many Europeans may not to like it and for sake of everybody EU politician should take this into consideration.
It does not really matter what % is violent or extremist the cultural impact will be there...its not matter if one likes Muslims or hate them the question is if this cultural change is acceptable to Europeans.

What Europe might look like then...see turkey now... if you like it then its cool.





...........

I only realised as it was on the news, we don't get as many refugees coming down from the holiday as we used to.
Then again its probably cheaper for them to fly to egypt and stay in a hotel than it is to come down here.:03:

Did I compare Jesus to Mohammed? Not at all, but when you look at the Old Testament, there is enough fire and brimstone to go around for anyone. God alone knows what happened part way through the bible to cause a sudden shift from God spread fire and death on the heathens to the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps the author died and another guy wrote the ending, we'll never know. When I stated that Christians and Muslims are exactly the same, I referred, rather, to the fact that they both have their devout believers and their not so devout believers. Admittedly there's a bit more involved in the Muslim religion, however if I'm honest once upon a time there was in the Christian religion too, regular church visits, festivals and the like. You have Christian radicals and you have Muslim radicals, and the fact that we only seem to hear of the latter is simply because we live in countries that are predominantly Christian. If you were to pick up the news in Tehran, it would give you a different picture completely.
I am wrong, perhaps, on comparisons between Jesus and Muhammad, but elsewise the correlations, particularly the way the Bible has been used to justify so much death and destruction, as much as, if not more, than the Qu'ran.

What unites the Jihadists and Crusaders? Perhaps this quote:
I agree there is a rise in fundamentalist governments in Egypt and Libya, and it is a concern, but it was inevitable from the start, and again, the fanatics, the lunatics get the loudest voice. I am certain that there are quite moderate Egyptian Muslims but they will be drowned out by those calling for the destruction of the Pyramids, because it's easier for people to observe the louder of the crowd than the quieter. I've found that in general though, in any government, when religion mixes with politics, it's just messy.

Getting back to Muhammad again, a quick Google search provides an almost schizophrenic selection of quotes from the Qu'ran ranging from:

“The greatest crimes are to associate another with God, to vex your father and mother, to murder your own species, to commit suicide, and to swear to lie”

to

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Both of which can be taken out of context, and indeed, a quick google search shows that the latter quote is indeed taken out of context and presented on a website which seeks to portray "Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammads own words"
To be honest, I doubt the authenticity of some of these quotes that are said to be 'from Muhammad' and yet do not appear in any version of the Qur'an that I have seen.

If you are not attacking Muslims per se, and are instead attacking the ideology then that is understandable, but I think that you're missing the mark by a fraction in that it is not the ideology that is at fault but the human nature that has resulted in that ideology.

In quoting me there with:

You missed off the other part of the question which puts:
Certainly if I were a Christian living in Iraq I would be very very quiet about my religion because of the extremists. However that would not automatically mean that every Iraqi would want to kill me, or if they did that it would always be about religion as opposed to the several hundred tons of ordinance that has littered their landscape.

When it comes to this plot to take over Europe by birth rates, perhaps it will happen, or perhaps they will just speed up the inevitable population collapse and world war sooner, it's a double edged sword and if this is their ultimate goal, it's not a particularly well thought out one.

There have been moments when we have missed connections, however I have not written you off as a 'whacko Nazi nutjob' like some others have because I know that you possess a good intellect. Perhaps my words are a bit harsh in judgement, however if one were to go on first impressions, then you do not present a particularly appealing one, and it has done little for you to further the message you have put forth outside of the select crowd that already believes that which you already do.

The thing is, Skybird, if there is a great population boom horde coming from the east, then what exactly is the average Subsim forum member meant to do about it? Honestly? Is the Brevik solution the only solution?
You and I both know that the politics of the countries we live in have long since disconnected from the people that they serve. We no longer feature in the running of the country, we exist as peons, as pawns to be milked by the government and then discarded when we no longer serve our purpose.
Any uprisings are put down by the police, and any protests are ignored.

There will come a dark time in the near future, but I do not think that it will be Islam that causes it. It may benefit from it, or it may find itself driven out of Europe once again in a wave of xenophobia. Either way is quite possible at this moment in time. But dark times will come, and I think that we can all feel apprehension at what is to come as we know that the current situation, the current lifestyle is completely unsustainable.

I do see where you're coming from Skybird, although I think that you may have fallen far, far, far into the trap of the boy who cried wolf and no-one is listening to you any more. Certainly there is a great portion of this forum that tires of seeing threads with the term 'Islam, Muslim, or Jihad' in them, and that is how it is, if you expose a person to something over and over and over again then they lose interest in it. Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer create the headlines that they used to because we're used to it now. Sad? Yes, but there's little that can be done about it.

In the meantime, I think it best if we agree that we agree on some matters and disagree on others, for, as I have said already, I'm not here to change your mindset, I'm not that kind of person to fight a fight that cannot be won, after all, as Sun Tzu said "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious."

Perhaps one day, when my German is better (a LOT better) and I win the lottery (lol) I can visit Germany and we can have a good sit down and debate this until the early hours, it would be quite the occasion and I do love a good chat about philosophy and the human psyche. :salute:

Not all of them come from the Koran, some come from the six Hadiths while others come from the Sunnah.

You can read all of Sura 9 here:
http://quran.com/9

It does not get any better in context... :dead:

You see here lies you main problem...there is no great conspiracy to take over west by demography.
Some islamist may have thought about it but that is not the issue.
The issue is natural emigration that may change the face of Europe and threatens the cultural hegemony european love so much.
The issue is also the stupidity of your politicians.
Lets face it....Europeans don't like it a bit hence the rise of ex-Nazi political parties(great Israel lovers all the sudden...*&^&*^ those friends lol)

Yet your link supplies six different versions of each line.
Which is the correct version to place into context?
The link also has 9 different collections of differing texts.
Which translation of which of those texts is to be placed in context?

Could you for the sake of integrity of arguement compare each of those you object to with the matching passages from christian scripture?
Or is that another detail you are going to ignore like the previous flaws pointed out in your attempted reasoning?

Whoops...

http://thedailynewsegypt.com/2012/07...giza-pyramids/

I can hear it now "...well, it sounds like something they'd say, and that's good enough for me!"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...cover-wax.html

You can argue about importance of such proposals...but not that they had been made.
Just think medieval:haha:

Well, every Tom, Dick and Ismal has their opinion or proposal on what to do with religious objects, the Salafist party polls about 20 percent in the Egyptian parliament. It's not particularly likely to happen.
If your intention is to highlight the fact that the idea has been suggested, well, as the saying goes, opinions are like... :up:

20% of egyptian parliament aligned to current government....it is not some outcast fraction on political map.
Also where would you put the current egyptian government on your domestic political map?

Relax. They can't do anything to those pyramids because they don't own them. I have it on good authority (McBee) that some Egyptian guy sold Jimbunas Granddaddy the pyramids for 2 quid and a little bit of "Bob's your uncle" back in '42.

True fact. :yep:

Well, considering the current Egyptian government is run by the military still....

Chaos.

There is some division of roles due to the fact that military is regarded as the pragmatist.They don't have "revolution guards"...at least not yet.

Is that the government the military council abolished a couple of weeks ago?