Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
Your lengthy response is very interesting . . .
|
There are many here by now who will see that totally different! :lol:
Quote:
if there is no melting pot, i.e. integration and assimulation into to the host culture, even while preserving the best of your original culture, leads to civil fracturing, leading to a disintigration of its present political boundries.
But are there not sect of the muslim faith?
And if there are, do all of them preach conversion of the "infadels", even if by force . . . or death?
|
There are many sects, as a matter of fact there are even sects that teach things that are in violation of what muhammad has taught. People in Musklimnnations are not stupid by birth, they just get educated by Islam to be stupoid. you will never find a passage anywhere from me where I said turks are stupid, Algerians are stupid, or soemthing liek that, I am no racist. I always go for the ideology of Islam instead. without Islam, Arabia would probably be a centre of civilization, trade and knowledge like the West has become. Remember that in the medieval, Arabia was far more advanced than Europe, it had the better starting conditions. It was a truly multi-cultural soociety, with almost all known cultures present inside it'S realm. Look what it is now: a pure monoculture, and if you as a Christian try to enter it with a bible in your suitcase only for your own private use, you are in extremely deep and potentially lethal trouble - by law you oculd get killed for that. After the medieval phase of Arab cultural blossoming came Muhammad, and deleted all these advantages once and for all. If I were Arab, I would curse him for the misfortune he had brought over my people. Oil also played to the disadvanatge of Arab culture, becasue having found the hen that gives them golden eggs, they had no need to invest in education, industry, sciences, research, much of it already was forbidden by Shariah law. Instead they got corruption, and even more phlegmatism, as if Islam ever were short in supply of the latter.
Somewhere in Turkey, I think, i once read about a Muslim community that even is fully matriarchalic! However, a modernization of Islam like it was tried when the Protestants separated from the Catholic church never took place in Islam, Islam has no pendant to the reformation in the West - it fought and still fights all such efforts down with the Islamic pendant to the Inquisition: the law of Shariah. The split into Shia and sunni is not for theological reasons, but comes from the Islamic civil war that started as a stzruggle for political power after Muzhammad's death and in principles last until today - see the high tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the major facitons of both parties. The prkmary conflict in the ME is not that between Israel and the Palestinians, like the Eu and the US often assume, it si the clash between sunni and shia power. That's why the Western policy never has achieved anything substantial there, it is basing on wrong assumptions. - We we have left Inquisition behind us since long, while the Sharia is demanded by a majority of the people in almost all Muslim nations (including Turkey, if only those witty laserbrains from the West would ever care to move beyond the tpourist centres and western-style metropoles and visit the rural areas. In fact some of the most orthodox Muslims I ever met, I did not meet in Iran, or Algeria, or whereever - but in Turkey).
My very determined argument over and ove again ist that what is considered to be tolerant, peaceful, coexisting Islam - is not really islamic at all, not in the meaning of the quran, and not according to what Muahammad taught, or is quoted with in Quran and Hadith. Has there been peace-loving, democratic, tolerant germans in the Third Reich? Yes. Have they found representation in the third Reich, have they influencd the evil that came from fascism, have they ibnfluenced the theory of Naism? No. The Third Reich and nazism remained to be of the evil and aggressiveness that they were from the beginning. Same way i see muhammad'S ideolgoy. He erected this cult with himself in the focus of it, so that he could not be critized without the critic getting accused of being heretic. He erected an artifical "religion" as a tool to implement his power politics, and keep it all under control, and swear in his followers to follow him in his ambitions withoiut asking questions abiout him, without relfecting abiut him, without being critical about him. That is all what islam is about. That'S why "Muhammedanism" is the by far more precise term to name this ideology. Evertyhing muslims believe to know about allah, the Sharia, Islam, and what the ought to do - came from one only source: Muhammad's mouth. and that man was an epilleptic, a gangster, a murder, a mass- murderer and a power hungry mobster, sorry, but that is the historical truth, check it out yourself if you don' believe me. Historians count 60-70 wars and predatory raids in his favour. the people that collected the taxes, or better, the protection money, in muhammad's name - were the same who used to teach muhammad's religion at that opportunity. I think it is rooting here that there is no separation between state and religion in Islam. He originally may have started in an effort to adress the social crisis that had appared from the raise of the trader's elite and their growing wealth that split up the traditional tribal social security systemns for the weak and old, but it then went like we also see it happening in the present: there is a given orgnaization of freedom fighters in some third world country, that had started to free the people from capitalistic tyranny and blablabla, and erect a systm of more social justice. It then ends tne or twenty years later in a mafia-like gang kidnapping people, blackmailing, trading drugs and weapons and assassinate people by death squadrons, still calling all that "rebellion" and "people's front" and "freedom movement".
I urge you not to believe it just because I say it, I have read and experienced quite some lot about it all, yes, but I am no professional with making a job of knowing about it, so my expression of these things, and my summarizing is inadequate and incomplete, and over the years I also have forgotten many details again. I just referate the very basics, and general trends in history, that's why I am repeating myself so often, becasue these basics are few, and simple. Search literature and sources yourself, eduate yourself on Islam, do not trust Islamic scholars that when you ask them they will give you an objective answer, and will not trys to hide the many flaws and dark sides of it - they wouldn't have become Imams and scholars if doing so. If you want an objecztive, true assessemnt of Catholicism - would you expect the pope to be that objective source of information? Hardly. we have a wonderul tool here in the West, that in no other culture was developed to that sharp-skilled degree than here: the scientific methodology, the tradition of Greek logic, the reason of the elightenment, the principle of trial and error, sceptical analysis. Use them on Islam! Islam will cry heaven and hell and will be offended 24/7, and will demand not do so so, knowing that it will fall apart in the light of the spotlights of reason and logic, but just do not believe me or others here. Educate yourself, there is over 100 years of thorough academic research being done on Islam, the results having put down in many good books that are far more objective than what Islam (like any other religon and cult) has to say about itself. ironically, by collected material the West has gained far more knowledge about Islam, than Islam ever showed intreest for other cultures, it'S just that the West deliberatly has choosen to ignore this knowledge.
The best antidot to Islam (and any fundamentalistic religion or cult!) is - logic and reason. It simply does not stand them, like sunlight kills vampyres.