Muslim uproar - (Merged)

Skybird · 09-15-06, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

No, that is so easy. Just blame people's religion and you are free to ignore anything. Follow the money instead. Who gains by this?

For me it is not even a religion, but a political agenda, aiming at totalitarian control of society, and subjugating societies that are not already part of it by force, violance, war, lies, bribing, deception, infiltration, colonization - whatever it takes. That ruthless Western economists and plutocratic elites and family clans like the Bushs (but also so many others!) make profit by doing opportunistic business with hostile factions does not change the fundemantal queerness in Islamic "thoelogy", it's lack of self-testing and self-analysis, self-reflecting and uncensored theollogical research on the matter of Islam. In Quran school, "studying the Quran/Islam" means effectively only this: learning it word by word (the word quran has a linguistcal root leading to a translated meaning of "recitation"), copying the teachers comments uncritically, not raising questions about it. Like I just wrote yesterday: not asking "is the quran right?" but "Why is it that the quran is always right?"

So, you can rightfully criticise both Islam and western plutocratic structures (what I do, btw.), but do not lead back one problem to the other. You are dealing with two independant problems, not one that is also causing the other. The problem with Islam is very much the religion and teaching itself, the content, the message, the ideology; the demand and self-perception of being for the best of all mankind, so that it is even in mankind's interest to be subjugated by Islam. that's why it sees no harm in using force against infidels. We infidels must be forced into our luck, you see. It does not compare to any other religion.

STEED · 09-15-06, 07:17 AM

News of the World, headline

Former Hitler youth member bites back.

I bet they wished they ran that one.

The Avon Lady · 09-15-06, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

News of the World, headline

Former Hitler youth member bites back.

I bet they wished they ran that one.

They did.

monkee · 09-15-06, 07:19 AM

I've lived 12 years as christian in Islamic country. All muslims I knew were against fundamentalism. I don't have problems with their theology. IMO any theology can/will be abused.

Skybird · 09-15-06, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkee

I've lived 12 years as christian in Islamic country. All muslims I knew were against fundamentalism. I don't have problems with their theology. IMO any theology can/will be abused.

Define difference between "Islam" and "fundamentalism".

monkee · 09-15-06, 07:57 AM

same difference as christian and their fundamentalism and judaism vs zionism.

Not every muslims follow all the guidelines in the Quran.
The same way that not all christians would follow all Bible guidelines like:

Stoning fortune tellers to death
Death sentence for cursing one own's parents
Death sentence for adultery
Kill homosexuals
Kill non believers
etc...

Skybird · 09-15-06, 08:43 AM

Christianity and fundamentalism, and the church as a third faction settled somewhere between these two. Christianity, depending on the Christ and his teachings, as covered by definition in the four gosples in the new testament, probably best interpreted by the tradition of the so-called Christian mystic. Fundamentalism then being founded on - what? Old testament? Psalms? Letters? Probably. the bible is of that structure, an ancient and archaic teaching (OT), and then Christ who said he did not came to obey the old teachings, but to fulfill prophecies. Later, afetr the gospels, the ursurpation of authority by Paul, but that is another story. The formulation Jesus choosed is extremely important, for it indicates what he wants to express: fulfillment, instead of carrying on with the old tradition. that means an end to something, because it got fulfilled, something new therefore is started: Christ's teachings that new thing was. By ending the old dogma of the old God, he was a thread to the privileges of the pharisees depending on the old teachings to found their earthly power and influence, thus they tried to get rid of him.

Now, show me a comparable kind of structure in the Quran. By language analysis some suras can be attributed to Muhammads time in Mekka, and other Suras that seem to have their origin in his time in medina (none of them has been written by himself, btw, for he could neither read nor write). But you have no formal structure, no division of the Quran into several parts or sections, In fact the quran is only one complete section, without further supplementations, adn the closer to the end you come, the more ocnfused an impresison the (increasingly shorter) Suras give, until you think they are just hasty notes written down in haste on a piece of paper, as a reminder for later. Islam also claims it has been given as a complete whole, and did not emerge over a time period, it did not develope, was not adjusted, supplemented, or anything like this (different to what the churches today admit about the way the bible was formed). there is no such thing like Old testament (eye for an eye and so on), and four gospels ending that kind of thinking in the Quran. Quran compares not to the bible, it only compares to the oldest parts of the bible. The archaic, unforgiving ones. So, if in Christianity these old parts of the bible are "fundamentalistic", and Islam'S pendant in scripture only holds a comparable fundamentalistic content to this part of the bible, but has no pendant to the other ones, nothing like a reformating "four gospels", how could Islam produce anything that is not Islamic-fundamentalistic? In fact it never has, those heretics, often bright thinkers, that tried to point at the limits of the quran and wanted a free testing and questioning of Islam's scriptures - by that had left the ground of true Islam that in the overwhelming majority of cases they were imprisoned or murdered. the only way of Islam to defend itself agaisnt questions and doubts about why it is how it is - is by wiping out these questions, for it has no answers that would stand a reasonable testing.

It is sometimes said that all religions are hostile against reason and logic, for they cannot cope with these. That is not true of

a.) Buddha, who even ordered and demanded for reasonably analysis instead of believing, and logic (he is said to even have outhought greek philosophers of his time that seeked him for dispute, and they later amditted their defeat and some gave up their former philosophical tradition and studied buddhist psychology instead); and

b.) i have no problem to see reason and logic in Jesus' teachings as well, I can approach them the same way approach Buddhist psychology: one only needs to understand that the verbal symbols he uses must no longer be decyphered in the archaic way older parts of the bible had been encoded in, means: Jesus taught a new conception of what God is, and that has nothing in common with the God of the old testament, but is more metaphoric, and not to be taken literally (one of the problems with Chriszian and islamic fundamentalists as well: word-for-word interpretation, thinking in absolute literal ways: the archaic religion before Jesus' appearance has been, and all of Islam still is like that).

Islam IS fundamentalism, and exclusively so, and it is very much a "mono-cockpit", made of one piece only - you cannot strip it of some things you do not like, like christians in the following of the Christ's teachings can (and must!) reject much of what has been said in older parts of the bible. A Muslim doing so feels the illness and incompleteness of Islam's teaching, that is good for him for he is aware that he suffers a deficit, so he is yearning for more, western rights and values for example. By that he is no more muslim, but an apostate that is not willing or unable to admit that he already has rejected Islam. There is a reason why moderate "Muslims" and Muslim governments cooperating with the West and trying to implement certain western measures (legal systems for example) get targeted by "fundamentalistic Muslims" as well. For they are rightfully defined as treachery, and islam's teachings do not allow apostacy.

What I ask is why such Muslims that are no Muslim anymore, nevertheless reject to end their official following of this islamic ideology, and are offended when one is telling them that they are violating integral parts of what they claim is still their belief. I also ask why they remain so damn passive about Islamic aggression, and deficits in Islamic culture and nations, are so eager to "conquer" (in the widest sense of the word) new hunting ground, and even allow "extremists" to commit mass murder and war and terror in the name of that wonderful ideology these moderate muslims claim they still want to be a part of. "Moderate muslims" are contradicting themselves. For me, they are deeply confused and illogical people.

Just btw, most of the last year'S Muslim attackers in London, Madrid, are said to be coming from integrated, eductaed families. They had jobs, and perspectives, where considered to be ordinary, normal, kind. Nevertheless, western culture somehow did not find entrance into their Islamic thinking, obviously, or was driven out by Islamic thinking again. I wonder why this is so...

How many terror acts we have seen that were commited by christian fundamentalists in modern times? How many uproars of Christians about the DAILY massive insultings and mocking at Jews and Christians in Arab and Palestinian TV programs, calling them swine people, telling Islamic kids that they are no humans, but the offsprings of donkeys and apes??

You are chasing shadows.

Onkel Neal · 09-15-06, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkee

same difference as christian and their fundamentalism and judaism vs zionism.

Not every muslims follow all the guidelines in the Quran.
The same way that not all christians would follow all Bible guidelines like:

Stoning fortune tellers to death
Death sentence for cursing one own's parents
Death sentence for adultery
Kill homosexuals
Kill non believers
etc...

Well said!
Yes, the Bible, Old Testament and New, prescribes some insane (by today's standards) rules and punishments for transgressions. Most Jews and Christians pay no attention to stuff like:

Quote:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 -If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

That's a direct commandment from the Lord yet even the most Bible-as-literal-truth fundamental Christians ignore it. And my point: if any Christians did try to implement such a barbaric law, the rest of the Christians would oppose and condemn such behavior. They wouldn't be silent and then "outraged" when some non-Christian said such a law was evil.
The ME Muslims, I can understand them being "outraged" for everything, they're pretty ignorant. But the western world Muslims, they should not be so silent. As I said before, IMO, western/moderate Muslims should get their religious house in order and spare us their indignation.

Skybird · 09-15-06, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

That's a direct commandment from the Lord yet even the most Bible-as-literal-truth fundamental Christians ignore it. And my point: if any Christians did try to implement such a barbaric law, the rest of the Christians would oppose and condemn such behavior. They wouldn't be silent and then "outraged" when some non-Christian said such a law was evil.
The ME Muslims, I can understand them being "outraged" for everything, they're pretty ignorant. But the western world Muslims, they should not be so silent. As I said before, IMO, western/moderate Muslims should get their religious house in order and spare us their indignation.

Well said.

Immacolata · 09-15-06, 09:39 AM

Perhaps that is all the islamic religion needs. A sound theological overhaul to drag it into the 21st century, screaming and kicking. Awful lot of screaming and kickin' going on already. Just isn't well on the dragging side of things.

It would help if some of the oh-so-liberal-egalitarian european countries would create a modern theological faculty for islamic studies. Not just the dissection of ancient text but actual education of imams and theological study. Might even develop some new doctrines out of it. Problem is perhaps that today the imams are educated in countries that are not keen on that kind of debate.

moose1am · 09-19-06, 10:53 AM

More wars have been fought over Religion that I care to think about.

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

The Avon Lady · 09-19-06, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moose1am

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

Someone's been cutting history class!

Naughty! Naughty!

moose1am · 09-19-06, 11:47 AM

So you are saying that they didn't use the sword to spread Islam across North Africa 3 decades after the death of Mohammad?

I guess the History Channel got it wrong again!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/af...chapter3.shtmls/storyofafrica/7chapter3.shtml

Immacolata · 09-19-06, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moose1am

More wars have been fought over Religion that I care to think about.

History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa.

Nah, most wars perceived as religious probably just used it as a pretext for political aims. Name me one religious war and I will point out to you it's vested power and economical interests between the warring parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

The region was in turmoil way before any oil was produced there. I believe that unless we are willing to embark on a new Crusade, all will be lost.

Well that turmoil was caused by the meddling British empire and France as far as I recall. The middle east was AFAIK not severely unstable under the ottomans, for instance.

As for a crusade is needed, it is a fool who thinks that he can solve the problems of terrorism by a crusade or a war. If all it takes is a bright idea in the head of a random person to go on a jihad suicide attack, how do you except you can prevent this by conventional means?

So far the crusades in the middle east have all turned out to be disasters. A thousand years ago, and today.

The Avon Lady · 09-19-06, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

So far the crusades in the middle east have all turned out to be disasters. A thousand years ago, and today.

Could you please explain to us all why much of this in Europe is (for the moment) no longer so?

Also, could you please tell us why there were Crusades to the ME in the first place?

09-15-06, 07:17 AM	#2
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	News of the World, headline Former Hitler youth member bites back. I bet they wished they ran that one. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

09-15-06, 07:19 AM	#4
monkee Watch Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 24 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I've lived 12 years as christian in Islamic country. All muslims I knew were against fundamentalism. I don't have problems with their theology. IMO any theology can/will be abused. __________________

09-15-06, 07:57 AM	#6
monkee Watch Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 24 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	same difference as christian and their fundamentalism and judaism vs zionism. Not every muslims follow all the guidelines in the Quran. The same way that not all christians would follow all Bible guidelines like: Stoning fortune tellers to death Death sentence for cursing one own's parents Death sentence for adultery Kill homosexuals Kill non believers etc... __________________ Last edited by monkee; 09-15-06 at 08:07 AM.

09-15-06, 08:43 AM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,687 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Christianity and fundamentalism, and the church as a third faction settled somewhere between these two. Christianity, depending on the Christ and his teachings, as covered by definition in the four gosples in the new testament, probably best interpreted by the tradition of the so-called Christian mystic. Fundamentalism then being founded on - what? Old testament? Psalms? Letters? Probably. the bible is of that structure, an ancient and archaic teaching (OT), and then Christ who said he did not came to obey the old teachings, but to fulfill prophecies. Later, afetr the gospels, the ursurpation of authority by Paul, but that is another story. The formulation Jesus choosed is extremely important, for it indicates what he wants to express: fulfillment, instead of carrying on with the old tradition. that means an end to something, because it got fulfilled, something new therefore is started: Christ's teachings that new thing was. By ending the old dogma of the old God, he was a thread to the privileges of the pharisees depending on the old teachings to found their earthly power and influence, thus they tried to get rid of him. Now, show me a comparable kind of structure in the Quran. By language analysis some suras can be attributed to Muhammads time in Mekka, and other Suras that seem to have their origin in his time in medina (none of them has been written by himself, btw, for he could neither read nor write). But you have no formal structure, no division of the Quran into several parts or sections, In fact the quran is only one complete section, without further supplementations, adn the closer to the end you come, the more ocnfused an impresison the (increasingly shorter) Suras give, until you think they are just hasty notes written down in haste on a piece of paper, as a reminder for later. Islam also claims it has been given as a complete whole, and did not emerge over a time period, it did not develope, was not adjusted, supplemented, or anything like this (different to what the churches today admit about the way the bible was formed). there is no such thing like Old testament (eye for an eye and so on), and four gospels ending that kind of thinking in the Quran. Quran compares not to the bible, it only compares to the oldest parts of the bible. The archaic, unforgiving ones. So, if in Christianity these old parts of the bible are "fundamentalistic", and Islam'S pendant in scripture only holds a comparable fundamentalistic content to this part of the bible, but has no pendant to the other ones, nothing like a reformating "four gospels", how could Islam produce anything that is not Islamic-fundamentalistic? In fact it never has, those heretics, often bright thinkers, that tried to point at the limits of the quran and wanted a free testing and questioning of Islam's scriptures - by that had left the ground of true Islam that in the overwhelming majority of cases they were imprisoned or murdered. the only way of Islam to defend itself agaisnt questions and doubts about why it is how it is - is by wiping out these questions, for it has no answers that would stand a reasonable testing. It is sometimes said that all religions are hostile against reason and logic, for they cannot cope with these. That is not true of a.) Buddha, who even ordered and demanded for reasonably analysis instead of believing, and logic (he is said to even have outhought greek philosophers of his time that seeked him for dispute, and they later amditted their defeat and some gave up their former philosophical tradition and studied buddhist psychology instead); and b.) i have no problem to see reason and logic in Jesus' teachings as well, I can approach them the same way approach Buddhist psychology: one only needs to understand that the verbal symbols he uses must no longer be decyphered in the archaic way older parts of the bible had been encoded in, means: Jesus taught a new conception of what God is, and that has nothing in common with the God of the old testament, but is more metaphoric, and not to be taken literally (one of the problems with Chriszian and islamic fundamentalists as well: word-for-word interpretation, thinking in absolute literal ways: the archaic religion before Jesus' appearance has been, and all of Islam still is like that). Islam IS fundamentalism, and exclusively so, and it is very much a "mono-cockpit", made of one piece only - you cannot strip it of some things you do not like, like christians in the following of the Christ's teachings can (and must!) reject much of what has been said in older parts of the bible. A Muslim doing so feels the illness and incompleteness of Islam's teaching, that is good for him for he is aware that he suffers a deficit, so he is yearning for more, western rights and values for example. By that he is no more muslim, but an apostate that is not willing or unable to admit that he already has rejected Islam. There is a reason why moderate "Muslims" and Muslim governments cooperating with the West and trying to implement certain western measures (legal systems for example) get targeted by "fundamentalistic Muslims" as well. For they are rightfully defined as treachery, and islam's teachings do not allow apostacy. What I ask is why such Muslims that are no Muslim anymore, nevertheless reject to end their official following of this islamic ideology, and are offended when one is telling them that they are violating integral parts of what they claim is still their belief. I also ask why they remain so damn passive about Islamic aggression, and deficits in Islamic culture and nations, are so eager to "conquer" (in the widest sense of the word) new hunting ground, and even allow "extremists" to commit mass murder and war and terror in the name of that wonderful ideology these moderate muslims claim they still want to be a part of. "Moderate muslims" are contradicting themselves. For me, they are deeply confused and illogical people. Just btw, most of the last year'S Muslim attackers in London, Madrid, are said to be coming from integrated, eductaed families. They had jobs, and perspectives, where considered to be ordinary, normal, kind. Nevertheless, western culture somehow did not find entrance into their Islamic thinking, obviously, or was driven out by Islamic thinking again. I wonder why this is so... How many terror acts we have seen that were commited by christian fundamentalists in modern times? How many uproars of Christians about the DAILY massive insultings and mocking at Jews and Christians in Arab and Palestinian TV programs, calling them swine people, telling Islamic kids that they are no humans, but the offsprings of donkeys and apes?? You are chasing shadows. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 09-15-06 at 09:13 AM.

09-19-06, 10:53 AM	#11
moose1am Frogman Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 303 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	More wars have been fought over Religion that I care to think about. History as taught in the West shows that the Muslims used the sword to spread across North Africa. __________________ Regards, Moose1am My avatar resembles the moderator as they are the ones that control the avatar on my page.

09-15-06, 09:39 AM	#10
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Perhaps that is all the islamic religion needs. A sound theological overhaul to drag it into the 21st century, screaming and kicking. Awful lot of screaming and kickin' going on already. Just isn't well on the dragging side of things. It would help if some of the oh-so-liberal-egalitarian european countries would create a modern theological faculty for islamic studies. Not just the dissection of ancient text but actual education of imams and theological study. Might even develop some new doctrines out of it. Problem is perhaps that today the imams are educated in countries that are not keen on that kind of debate.

09-19-06, 11:47 AM	#13
moose1am Frogman Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 303 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	So you are saying that they didn't use the sword to spread Islam across North Africa 3 decades after the death of Mohammad? I guess the History Channel got it wrong again! http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/af...chapter3.shtmls/storyofafrica/7chapter3.shtml __________________ Regards, Moose1am My avatar resembles the moderator as they are the ones that control the avatar on my page. Last edited by moose1am; 09-19-06 at 11:53 AM.