So what do we do with Islam?

[The Avon Lady]

A little thought on what to do.

Fitzgerald: Clash of civilizations? Yes and no

The phrase "clash of civilizations," made famous by Samuel Huntington, is misleading. In Huntington's formulation (he owed an unacknowledged good deal to Adda Bozeman, who taught at Sarah Lawrence in the days when Kurt Rausch taught painting to well-bred young women and Randall Jarrell was taking notes for "Pictures from an Institution"), there are the Sinic, the Orthodox, the Hindu, the Islamic, the Western, and so on. And these are all potentially clashing. But this is nonsense. There is only one clash that counts: that of Islam with all of non-Islam. If, in the future, China and America were to go to war, it would not be because the former is "Sinic" and the latter "Christian" or "Western" or somesuch, but because of perceived Great-Power rivalries -- for China and America are now part of the same civilization, the shared, modern, universal civilization, with disagreements at the edges, but nothing like the clash between Islam and all Infidels. In fact, a war between China and America would be about power, and thus no different from, for example, the rivalry, ending in war, between Germany and England in the pre-1914 period.

It is interesting to note, meanwhile, that Arab and Muslim analysts around the world tend to prefer the phrase "clash of civilizations" -- because it avoids the truthful description of the conflict as one motivated by a belief-system, the belief-system of Islam. And it also gives the impression that America or "the West" or Western Christian or Western post-Christian civilization are the enemy, while in reality the global Islamic jihad is as much directed at Hindus and Buddhists, and the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, and the non-Muslim black Africans, as it is against the much more powerful, and therefore more dangerous, United States of America.

Bassam Tibi epitomizes the confusion caused by clash of civilizations talk, and the difficulties to which it gives rise. Tibi is a Syrian, married to a German, who is Muslim in name only. And he has many virtues. But imagination is not among them. When he posits only two possibilities -- Europe becoming thoroughly islamized, or Islam becoming Europeanized -- he shows that limited imagination. When he offers the possibility of Islam becoming Europeanized, he fails to discuss what that would mean. Would it mean simply Muslims wearing Western dress? Throwing out the hadith? Throwing out the hadith and the sira (going beyond the Ancient Mariner, would Tibi have them stoppeth two of three)? Throwing out all of the sira, and all of the hadith, and then in addition throwing out traditional conclusions of the interpreters of the Qur’an -- in a kind of reverse abrogation, in which all the softer verses are now kept and the harsher ones removed, instead of the other way around as mainstream Muslim Qur’an commentators now have it? Just how is this to be done? Who would do it? A committee? What committee? And how would it acquire sufficient authority to command belief from -- Believers?

No, there is another way, or many other ways. And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult. Meanwhile, authorities would engage in wholesale efforts to explain, both to the population of Europe and to the Muslims in its midst, the real nature of Islam. They would explain why it is encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis (the fatalism of Islam -- just look at the "wake-me-when-it's-over" attitude of the Iraqis as the American soldiers struggle to rebuild, or build, a country that is populated by people who in the main are innately and immutably hostile to Infidels, but want to be transformed by those Infidels into New York -- and in a New York minute), intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) and moral failure (the bland acceptance of the division of the world between Believer and Infidel, and the belief that it is right, it is just, to treat the Infidel, no matter what, as an inferior being and an enemy no matter how generous and open-hearted he may be, for after all he remains an Infidel, and not even to grasp the possibility that Infidel peoples and polities, too, no matter how small, deserve to survive, and to possess rights that do not depend on Muslims).

Then one might engage in efforts to convert the Muslims of Europe -- persistent efforts that would either work in some cases, or drive those who were worried or offended to leave Europe for "safer" regions in the dar al-Islam. Both results are desirable. And both would make it clear just what kind of a "clash of civilizations" is now in the offing.

DAB? You still have your head somewhere in Leviticus? If I don't respond tonight, not to worry. I should respond some time tomorrow. I'm not running anywhere.

[DAB]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Walk into your local mosque and say that.

You'd be suprissed I think how often I do walk into Mosques. I think you'd also be supprised how confident I am that if I did say that...people would get the joke.

No problem. Go right ahead. Waiting...................

From the King James Version....

I'd start with Leviticus 20 - with its classic and immortal line on Homosexuality.

Then there is the wonderful Leviticus 24:20 which suggests all sorts of wonderful things. One would imagine that the amputation of limbs, the gouging out of eyes and all sorts of other forms of Justice are allowed because of this. After all, God says its all right

Now I must admit I don't understand Leviticus 24:22... perhaps you could help me there.

Leviticus 25:44 - the enslaving of non-believers...well I never.

If I can ever find a copy of the Giddions Bible I was shown once, I'll be happy. I seem to recall a wonderful part of Leviticus there which suggests that rape is alright if you promise the father of your victim that you will marry them.

But lets get to the point shall we. You will suggest that these quotes are taken out of context and anyway, the bible is open to interpretation.

So why not give the Korran a break and give its readers the same degree of credit you (and I for that matter) claim for yourself


I apologise for the delay in this post...other then the Giddions bible I mentioned above, I've never read the bible in English and thus it took me a while to find the quotes

[joea]

I see deport millions of people, how to do that without provoking civil war or installing a facisoid government in Europe.

[DAB]

My turn perhaps to be pedantic and ask where Avon is.

...shall I make a few comments about how I can wait etc etc etc.

[Hitman]

18 replies and not a single proposition of what to do....not even a radical one

Will keep watching this topic and intervene when someone suggests at least something specific

[joea]

Originally Posted by Hitman

18 replies and not a single proposition of what to do....not even a radical one

Will keep watching this topic and intervene when someone suggests at least something specific

Did you not read the article Avon Lady posted?

In summary: stop immigration and deport the muslims here (oh find "creative" ways to do that) ...

Hence my comment about it's impossibility. Well I admit it would be possible to stop immigration...

[Iceman]

Dab..you crack me up.Your point is right though.Interpretation is the key here.Let me try to help you out though.Followers of Christ were/are instructed to follow one law.The law of LOVE.Love works no ill period.I have tried to explain the difference between the "Old" Testament and the "New" Testament before here and I hope you will understand that the "Old" Testament and it's specific laws were laid down in a time "Before" Christ....After Christ's crucifixtion on the cross...ALL humans have only ONE way into the kingdom of God and that is thru Jesus Christ.....Period.There are no more laws except one...LOVE.In that if you...LOVE....and really LOVE God ...well then you probably won't want to have slaves...or kill...or steal...or do anything ill twords another human being or Yourself....

I do not know one Christain alive today that is saying they are living according to the Old Testament.....All I am trying to say and get at is...hum...what do Christians really go by?...they go by what was laid down by Jesus Christ....In the New Testament..NOT the Old.


Now...the point I think myself and Avon and maybe others are trying to get at is....WHAT?....do Muslims of today actually interpret as the correct way to follow there belief....that's what I want to know....Cause I am Telling you NOW...that I do not and am not under the Old Testaments commands...I am under the New..so plz do not try to draw comparisions between Muslims and Christians because any Christian you ask is going to tell you the "New" Testament is what they follow.

I can't get a straight answer from one Muslim on this board and I suspect that reason is that they are instructed to follow ALL of the Koran to the letter....I have asked before I ask again to any Muslim here....WTF do you believe in and what part or parts of the Koran are subject to personal discretion or interprettion.


P.S. Hitman...tonight I will write as to what is to be done about it actually just had to address the comparision between religions...they are all as different as the rainbow from what I see.

[bradclark1]

Deleted.
I'm not going to go there.

[Kapitan]

cant ban it cant stop it cant out rule it

LIVE WITH IT

[caspofungin]

I can't get a straight answer from one Muslim on this board and I suspect that reason is that they are instructed to follow ALL of the Koran to the letter

ask a straight question, i'll do my best to give you a straight answer.

[TteFAboB]

Well, I live with 186 other million people, I've been researching but can't find one single accurate statistic about the number of Muslims in my country, I do not know if I can even quote this because I can't find the source or the methodology used, but the statistics I found point we have between 1 million up to 2 million Muslims walking around, however I do not know the accuracy of this, it fits some graphs and pies well, but how realistic is it?

Muslims were originally brought here inside slave ships, they were brought from Sudan and neighboring regions and since stepping foot they only caused trouble, insurrections, rebellions, revolts, murder, etc.. There was plenty of blood and no respect or tolerance for the "people of the book", they dealt with us as they deal today with the Black Africans in Sudan, Gabon and wherever else.

The solution back then was the brutal iron hammer of the state, you know, capture them alive, trial, and execute the ringleaders, do not let rebels go unpunished and stop bringing new Muslim slaves. Sounds pretty much like what Avon Lady sugested, Muslim = Problem, no Muslim = No problem. Thank Stalin for that one. And it sure worked back then.

Nowadays, I had a neighbor from Iraq once, he was escaping Saddam's brutal wrath, he didn't dressed in pajamas, his wife and children didn't wore that "scarf" on their heads and they quickly made new friends as they were friendly, open, and with MUCH effort learned Portuguese eventually studying at a local school. During the time they spent here I did not see ONE single Islamic manifestation, did they get along so fine because they were NOT very Muslim at all?

We get along with Catholics and Christian sects, we get along with Spiritism, we get along with many trends of Bhuddism and we have (black) African cults among a few other minorities, is this cohexistance possible because Muslims are part of the minority? I've NEVER seen a Muslim women dressed traditionaly anywhere in this country during all my life, be it even at the TV, a Magazine, anywhere, is it because the traditional fundamentalist Muslims are not present in this society?

Honestly, I'm glad for all of this, I'm glad Muslims are a minority and I'm glad the few Muslims we do have would be considered Infidels in Meca because they are not fundamentalists enough.

So, my answer is to get rid of the problem, get rid of the Muslims, as the Portuguese did, stop the inflow of Muslims, halt all Muslim immigration, then ban all Muslim women from having children, every Muslim women who walks into a Hospital to give birth should be aborted and the baby should be sent to Stem Cell research or whatever use can be made of it.

Next expand the European families, instead of having 1 or 2 kids, Europeans must have 10 or 13 kids and later gradually reduce this number as the native European population majority is assured in the future.

You can also prosecute some Muslim authorities for hypocrisy, the Muslim authority over here likes to blame all problems in the Middle East on Israel, Europe or the USA, when he rarely gets to speak somewhere, he criticizes the Western world for one thing or another, and always speaks the default speech that they are the true Muslims, terrorists are fake Muslims, fundamentalism is not bad, etc. etc. There is no room for people like this in here generating hate and enslaving an entire herd of people, only god knows what they're saying in those Mosques, these kind of people must be banished back to Meca.

We have many immigrants from the Middle East: Arabs, Turks, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, they dropped their traditions, conflicting culture and religion when they immigrated and this is why they integrated so well and in harmony, we live in the most multi-cultural society of all because there is no clash of civilizations, the immigrants dropped Islam to embark on our current century, and these will always be welcome, come all Arabs, but leave Islam at the door.

Radical enough?

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

ask a straight question, i'll do my best to give you a straight answer.

OK....Avon Lady quoted this one a few days back and was not answered with any thing substantial only physco babbling comparisions with the Bible.

Surah 5, verse 38:

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power

Where EXACTLY is this to be followed or not to be...and is that maybe the problem with Islam that it does not make itself clear enough or does it leave itself an "Out" so as not to take responsability for it's actions...?

My meaning in that people continually try to draw a direct connection in that Christians did these things in the old days of the Bible so hence it must be accepted behavior now...I tell you it is Not accepted behavior and I state "Why"..."IE"...under a new law... a New Testament is why we do not follow the "Old Ways".

Where ...if any... is the text in the Koran that says anything different than the above verse and how to deal with a thief?

We'll start there..don't give me opinions give me quotes from the book.


From Konovalov

The reference to male or female in the Holy Qu'ran for the Surah and Ayah that you quoted tie in with the Sharia and this is applicable if that person is a healthy adault, i.e. NOT a minor or a mentally disturbed person. This rule applies to hadd or hudud, tazir, and qisas crimes which are basically the groupings for the seriousness of the crime.

And further with regards to Ayah 38 of Surah 5 where this part of the Qu'ran touches on jurisprudence. The Canon Law jurists are not unanimous as to the value of the property stolen, but the vast majority hold that petty thefts are exempt from punishment such as the cutting off of a hand.

Perhaps you don't get it AL. May be you should stick to the Torah and Halacha.

To me...what Konov is saying is that if a person is a quote "Normal" adult male or female and they steal....they lose a limb?...did I read this right?...

To me you saying the "the vast majority hold that petty thefts are exempt from punishment such as the cutting off of a hand" only says to me that those who don't follow this are in Error and to considered an infidel themself....help me out here.

Where are the vast majority allowed to decide this?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by DAB

You'd be suprissed I think how often I do walk into Mosques. I think you'd also be supprised how confident I am that if I did say that...people would get the joke.

Yes, I would.

From the King James Version....

I'd start with Leviticus 20 - with its classic and immortal line on Homosexuality.

What about it? The Torah views homosexuality as a capital crime. No one versed in Halachah (Jewish legal code), disagrees. There's no room for interpretation.

Having said that, ask yourself:

1. Why has there not been a single case case of carried out capital punishment by a Jewish court of law for over some 2200 years now? The answer is because with the degradation of morality within the Jewish nation in those time, came a response from the judges themselves and the rabbis of the times that such cases should no longer be tried because massive executions is NOT the goal of the Torah and its laws. BTW, even murderers, which I think we can all agree upon that their crime is abhorent (though we may disgaree on the punishment they deserve), cannot be executed upon a guilty verdict, from that time until this day.

Compare this history and the facts that bear it to Islam's sanctioning of capital punishment non-stop sinc its inception some 1400 years ago.

2. Even if Jewish capital cases still existed, they can only be held in the land of Israel. The only exception would be if another country would permit such court cases within their sovereign territory. Never did happen and I don't expect it will. And again, capital punishment cannot be meted out today anywhere.

Islam requires all capital cases to be tried anywhere and at any which time. Any country under Islamic rule (Sha'aria), will carry out such executions on those found guilty.

3. There is no Jewish concept of imposing Jewish law on non-Jews anywhere outside of the land of Israel.

I quoted for you Quran 9:29 above but you laughed at me. Control of other countries, the imposition there of Islamic law and the subjugation of its inhabitants that do not convert are a basic tennet of Islam and have been in practice from the start of Islam until present day.

4. There is no concept of actively proselytizing non-Jews to seek their conversion.

Islam, like much of the Christian world, is big on proselytization and employs numerous methods of persuasion and force to achieve that goal.

Then there is the wonderful Leviticus 24:20 which suggests all sorts of wonderful things. One would imagine that the amputation of limbs, the gouging out of eyes and all sorts of other forms of Justice are allowed because of this. After all, God says its all right

Never has there been a Jewish court, rabbi or legal authority that took "an eye for an eye, etc." literally.

Judaism's law code is based on a foundation of the written law, the Torah, and the oral law, both handed down to Moses at Sinai. The oral law here has never been disputed.

There might be an exception. The Kaarites and possibly the Sadducees may have taken these verses literally. However, I don't believe there's any documentation that they carried such literal punishments out.

Even if they did, be aware that mainstream Judaism does not even view Kaarites, Saduccees and similar sects of old, as part of the Jewish nation. They are easily seperable as them versus us.

You'll find a few Kaarites still lingering around the world today. Holler if you feel threatened.

Now I must admit I don't understand Leviticus 24:22... perhaps you could help me there.

Not sure what you're referring to. Here are verses 21 and 22:

21. And one who injures an animal shall pay for it. And one who strikes a person shall be put to death.
22. One law shall be exacted for you, convert and resident alike, for I am the Lord, your God.

The last half of verse 21 is referring to a murderer, not someone who slaps you silly in the face.

Verse 22 is referring to the application of the Jewish code of law, in these cases, to all Jewish residents of the land of Israel, whether born Jewish or converts.

Leviticus 25:44 - the enslaving of non-believers...well I never.

Neither have I. Again, ask yourself why the practice of "slavery" has not been seen in the Jewish nation and in Jewish law for some 3000 years now.

But again, look into Jewish law - not subject to interpretation amongst us adherent Jews - and you wind up with the following:

The Ultimate Glamour Slammer
"If you buy a Jewish slave..." (Leviticus 21:2)

McKean Federal Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania, USA reminds visitors of a college campus. It's housed in a low-profile building, decorated inside in a gray and salmon Navajo motif. Inmates stroll on concrete walkways to classes in basic reading skills, masonry, carpentry, horticulture, barbering, cooking and catering.

In August 1962, Kerala, India opened its first prison without walls. Viewed as an experiment, the prison holds 280 of Kerala's 5,308 prisoners. The open prison is known for treating prisoners with respect and entrusting them with responsibilities for work on the rubber plantation, personal chores and cooperation within the prison community. To date, there has been only one repeat offender.

And a revolution is taking place inside San Francisco's Jail No. 7 and Jail No. 8, known as the "glamour slammer." The 700 cons inside, doing time for everything from drug possession to armed robbery, mostly stay in open dormitories and spend up to 12 hours each day in some of over 50 separate treatment, counseling, training and education programs. Prisoners can join counseling groups, such as Tools for Healing, Drama Therapy, or take yoga and meditation classes. The idea is to break the cycle of violence by transforming the typical jailhouse culture of humiliation and violence into one of dignity and healing.

In this week's Torah portion we learn of the eved ivri. Eved ivri is usually translated as "a Hebrew slave". However, an eved ivri is a far cry from the typical picture of a slave. For starters, his maximum period of indenture is six years. It is forbidden to give him demeaning labor such as putting shoes on his master. His master must share whatever food he has with his 'slave'. If the master eats white bread, he may not give his slave dark bread. If he drinks wine he may not give his slave water. If he sleeps on a soft bed he may not give his slave straw on which to sleep.

Not only that, but if the master only has one pillow, the slave gets the pillow. And should the slave become ill and costs his master hefty medical bills, he owes his master nothing when he leaves. Some slavery!

How does a Jew become a 'slave'? One way is if someone steals and cannot afford the restitution that the Torah mandates, then the Bet Din sells the thief to reimburse the victim of the theft. However, rather than locking up the thief and exposing him to all deleterious influences that a jail encourages, he is placed in the most positive of environments – a Jewish family home. Rather than subject his family to shame and starvation, the Torah requires the master to not only care for the slave but to support the thief's family as well.

In fact, the master must provide his slave with such excellent conditions that it may seem that rather than acquire a slave, the master has acquired for himself a master.

As enlightened as recent prison reforms may be, they hardly compare with the Torah's emphasis on rehabilitation, for three thousand years ago the Torah had already instituted the ultimate glamour slammer.


Real brutes, we Jews are, hey?

If I can ever find a copy of the Giddions Bible I was shown once, I'll be happy. I seem to recall a wonderful part of Leviticus there which suggests that rape is alright if you promise the father of your victim that you will marry them.

Only with the victim's consent. That is, if she wants to be married to this guy the rest of their lives, he's stuck with her. Not the other way around.

Other than that exception, forced marriages are against Jewish law. That applies equally to men and to women.

There were and still are problems with "arranged" marriages, in small ultra-religious circles. Amazingly, these marriages work out a great percentage of the time. But again, these marriages, when they don't work out, make victims out of both the husbands and the wives. An equal opportunity fiasco. I personally know of only 1 or 2 such cases, verses the 100s of couples who meet and marry under normal circumstances. And we all know that normal marriages don't always end up with the couple living happily ever after anyway.

But lets get to the point shall we. You will suggest that these quotes are taken out of context and anyway, the bible is open to interpretation.

Only to a limited extent. And even when there are different interpretations, they are on very detailed points. It is extremly rare to see 180 degree mirror opinions of any of the Torah's commandments. Please find such a case for me. My mind is drawing a blank.

Not so, Islam. What it says it what they do. It is the word of Allah and there are scriptual and historical precedents for Islamic religious scholars to back themselves up.

So why not give the Korran a break and give its readers the same degree of credit you (and I for that matter) claim for yourself

Well you decide, based on responses above, whether there really is a comparison or not and whether there is a threat of Torah weilding Jews forcefully (or otherwise) imposing Jewish laws and customs upon the rest of the world and blowing up their trains, planes, office buildings and hotels when they don't get their way.

I am super busy today. I will not be able to respond to any other posts or follow ups until tomorrow night or Sunday.

[sergbuto]

Strict immigration policy would certainly be of help. There are good examples, such as Finland.

Deportation for committing a crime.

Maybe, deportation for not getting a job for some extended period and respectively not paying taxes (I mean immigrants).

Restrictions on influence of religious organizations on children, such as not allowing creating kindergardens at the Mosque etc.

Conduct of foreign policy which will stimulate and support divisions inside the Islamic world and enhance disagreements between different Islamic countries

[Sixpack]

Straight to the end of thread:

Close borders for muslims now we still can. The muslims who are here can stay ofcourse but will remain a non-influential minority.

So basically it's very simple. It just takes balls to make the stand.

Democracy is about majority vs. minority (based on fair equal rights ofcourse).

As long as the number of muslims over here doesn't increase because of immigration, I'm fine, and so are they if they think about it. Polls show most Dutch people share my opinions. That's good to know.

However immigrated muslims can still outbreed us in the long run ofcourse. I dont think that will happen tho'. Money from the government has always been extremely generous. It was almost profitable for the poor people to have many offspring. That will come to an end too very soon. Even our most liberal party here (Green Left) says to support reforms now !

Anyway, just dont build a mosq in/near my neighboorhood. I dont need the goatherd style-guys with beards and dresses anywhere near my house. And no, that's no prejudice. I've seen plenty of them near mosqs over here. Yuk.