[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Nope. First of all, I don't believe Mohammed existed. And people calling for other people being assassinated isn't exclusive to Islam culture.
You've got people calling for war (imo even worse) or people calling for someone getting the death penalty all over the world.

Fine. By that yoiu can even relativise the crimes ciommitted in WWII, the Gulags in Russia, the cultural revolution in China.

Fact remaisn thgat it is claimed Muhammad'S ideology is a religion of perace were in fact it and him demand and legitmise the use of violence and force. That is not a violation of the ideology - it is IN the ideology. Show that in the teching of Jesus or Buddha, the Hindu Vedic scripture, the tradition of humanism, or modern law and order - were do these expolcitly legitmise and demand tghe use of violence to enforce convertation of infidels...? The sermon on the mountain...? The Kalamas Sutra? The Humboldtian ideal of diversive education and general interest in all? The ideals of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité? The Greek tradition of culture and science? The American and French constitutions? And so many other examples - can you read out of them the demand that even violence shall be used to make all making tjhis ideology'S perosnal property, else kill them? Women rights movement - and the status of women as Satan-driven sub-human sex- and djhadi-breeding slaves in Muhammeddan order?

Nope. I haven't forgotten that because it never happened. At least in my country nobody demanded that asking uncomfortable questions (whatever you mean by that) should be banned. Sure, some ten or twenty years ago, political correctness was all too present, but those times have long since changed.

It did not happen? So the comments made by I think the foreign ministers of England and Sweden and several other nations at the time of the cartoon riots that we shall voluntarily pass on igniting Islamic vilence by asking IOslam some uncomfortabel questions they claim to be offensive ha snever happened, yes? Miust I go back to the news and find the headlines and articles from back then? Please, save me.

Oh come on, not this. Ever heard of Godwin's law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The control of public opinion was a goal back then,m and is a goal today. Crtiical thiunking outside the wanted mainstream line is not wanted, and in case of the discussed criminalsiation of crticism of relgion and Islam is censored, supressed and sanctioned. The anonymous pressure of the thoguht police, called pltical correctness, also discourages people to speak out against it, wshoever does so inmmediatelkoy gets branbdmarked as a racist, Nazi, Islamopohobe, hate prescher and igniter of violence - in other words an irrational, criminally acting, not-knowing-anything irresponsible non-solidaric idiot. What is wanted is obedience to the opinion dogma.

I compare this criminalisation of critical thinking about religions and Islam to the Gleiuchschaltungsgesetz - and very rightfully I do. It both serve the same purposes.

So what are you saying? Muslims are infiltrating Europe by means of one large conspiracy that involves the EU?
And each Muslim is part of this? Or only a few?
I really don't get what the EU has to do with this. I'm starting to get the feeling that you try to weave everything that you don't like into one big conspiracy theory.

I am saying what I am saying, in this thread and in other threads. Either you get the meaning of the words and what they say and what not, or you don't. I am attacking the content of an ideology, and the silliness and madness of Wetseren wannabe-wise-men thiunking htey know better themselves than Islam knows what Islam actually is, or who ignore everything that points out its inhumane, aggressive and absolutely totalitarian, racist nature. Wilder's points of criticism are no offences but facts that I know good enough myself, since I learned a bit about Islam, to know them to be facual truths. The problem is he is destroys the collective illusion of that we can appease and arrange ourselves with this monster, and that there can be coexistence between humanism, freedom and Western values basing on these principles and histopric traditions that formed ouzr culture, the great illusion of forming a united Eurabia-sphere of power and influence that compensates our loss of imprtance. But say, when you meet many Nazis who think Nazi very naturally and by conviction becasue they hasd been raised in this way of thinking since always, and they tell you they are in favour of liberal ideas, huimansim, equality of races and democracy - what would you base your assessement on regarding what Nazism is - their polite manners and their speaking (may it be born by lacking education, or the intention to lie for propaganda reasons), or would you consider it to be wiser to judge Nazism by the little book "Mein Kampf", by the academic and historic analysis of the ideology, and the studying of the historic examples it set? I judge Islam on the basis of the Quran, Sharia, Sunna and Sira, and the history of Islam, about all of these things I have read quite some bit, and have had experiences in several countries during longer stays and voyages, sometimes professionally.

And now you're saying it's all our fault. We're all blind, and you know the truth. You know what some people might call someone like that? A prohet. Like Mohammed. Or Jezus. And I'm not particularly inclined to believe prophets.

I see my views basing on a better founded fundament, both theory-wise and regharding experience at location, than thosed trying to tell me that Isalam is what all the sweet-talkers try to make it appear as, under explciit ignorration for every grim fact that prioves them wrong. Islam is no label you can use randomly, it means the one and only ideology that is basing on Quran and Sharia, Sunna and Hadith. I will not chnage my views if the demand to do so is not basing on convincing ingfotrmation that forces me to see that I have been wrong. Critical self-reflection of the ideology is somethign that is totally discouraged in Islam, that wold have endangered the claim for power ogfMuhammad, and would have eroded the fundament of strength-by-uniformity. We think today: strength and worth by multiculturalism. Islam thinks: power by monoculturalism. Jesus and Buddha encouraged their followers to deciude themselves, and to ask whether or not the teching he gave is true, and to approach the everyday-living in thre world the same way. Islams does not question that it is right. It only ask: why is it that Islam/Allah is right. This basic preassumption that there can be no doubt (it is an offensive heresy, and is under threat of death) that Islam is Allah'S will and thus is infgallible and always right, is one of the most decisve differences. Buddha never demanded that, rad the Kalams Sutra which is one of the most important scripts in Buddhist canon, I have quoted the essential passage so very often now over the years. Read the gospels - Jesus spoke about faith in the meaning of trust based on experience - he did not speak about blindly believing some unproven claims. The Greek tradition that has formed and influenced out Wetsern modern cilktgure and scientific methodology so tremendously, also did not accept to ujst take some basic things for granted. But Islam demands hat tis is being done, and it calls every violation against this demand an offence, a discrimination, a heresy, and its mobs go bollocks and hstweric and get rwead faces and yell and kill and behave like monkeys who have not had their daily banana to eat. Detestable, hilarious, ridiculous, unacceptable, uncivilised, barbaric, uneducated and primitive, not to be tolerated.

One more thing Skybird, what would be your solution to the problems you see?

Push Islam back in the West, make no compromise, do not tolerating it.
I spend years of patience, waiting, but have come to the conclusion that the ideology of the Quran and Western cultural tradition and values not only are incompatible and antagonistic, but that trying to multiculturally foster cells of Islamic ideology in our culture inevitably goes at the cost of us, becaseu what we think demonstrate our good will, for Islam is just an opportunity to gain a foothold and grow strong, while copying the ways of our instrumental superiority

Sometimes, compromises are just not possible and not desirable, and in the long run cost more than the willingness for conflict in order to get something settled, or to defend ourselves and what our culture stands for . If I am against Nazism, then I cannot be not against Islam - its both the same evil spirit'S brainchild, named "totalitarianism". Trying to hate Nazism and love Islam, would be shizophrene. I would need to violate my own values and principles to do that. And in the end what it comes down to, is simply this: I see my values and the historic tradition that formed me and educated me, as so very many times more valauable, than Islam's. And thus I do not accept Islam as an equal arguing and thinking on same eye level with us, or me.

Long boring night over here, it seems...