They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Skybird]

I snipped the rest of that paragraph as I've seen it before in your other posts. I'll grant you that the power of the west to secularise its people is not a proven fact, but I hardly think you can dismiss it as an urban myth. I couldn't say what is or isn't going on in Germany, but my experience here in the UK is vastly different from what you claim is going on there, and I'm not going to put the preachings of some guy on the internet above my own experiences.

Strange that there are reasearch results in your own country that have shown the same tendency like in Germany: that the young are more orthodox than the old, and that in general uneducated social low class people immigrate to the UK - not educated specialist with a medium or upper social class background. I do not look up links again, but I posted according links repeatedly over the past years. And we do not mean telephone polls, but university researches (that this year were countered by a research done by a think tank close to Labour and being payed by the government, which may explain why it is so very friendly on the "success" of government policies).

I'll give you a statistic: 70% of the UK is Christian. You believe that? I know I don't. I've lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of Christians that I've met. Of course it all depends on how you define Christian. Most people think there may be a God, and probably remember a few stories from the Bible, but for me those things alone don't make a Christian. More to the point, they certainly don't make a religious zealot. Nevertheless, when asked in the census they will say they're Christian because that's what fits them best.

Statistics based on subjective data should be treated with caution, and not just because the data is subjective. There are motives to consider as well.

I do not mistake statistics with reality, though there is an obvious link, and for the most I do not talk about individual people, but Islam as a principle ideology. But that does not change the content of that ideology, and you overestimate the importance of different schools in islam, you ignore two things. First: it's clear language that in the given sentence leaves little room for interpreting manouvers (that was not what Muhammad wanted, but he wanted unity, mind you he meant his preachings in order to silence critics and unify and rally his fighters behind him and his ambitions), and second: that it is filled with details on a given issue but these being scattered around, by that you can point at this statement and, when desired, leave out that just some verses later it gets relativised by another statement. the effect is that it can change it's appearance opportunistically to avoid criticism while always sticking to it'S principles nevertheless. For example it is said Islam does not allow suicide. That is correct, there is a passage saying that Muslims are prohibited from suicide. This usually is given as an example why Suicide bombers cannot be seen as Islamic. That is wrong, because at another passage that usually gets not quoted (in Quran versions they distribute on public infomation stands it even already got deleted or replaced by a completely different sentence at times) Muhammad explicitly justifies the self-killing if it helps in the attack on infidels, and he makes mockery of his followers fearing death and shying away from killing, saying this is only because they do not know the rewards that are waiting for them. And finally, for male members of Islam, the participation in the fight against infidels and their killing, is no voluntary service, but a mandatory duty. A Muslim telling you he would not do that, may be a kind guy, but he is violating principles of his "religion" he claims to belong to. Maybe he even does not know it, but the basic problem with the ideology's content remains.

You are right, not everybody claiming to be Muslim or Christian, really is that, but there is a lot of misunderstanding about what Islamic ideology is, even amongst Muslims themselves. It's more about what individual people want it to be in order to not needing to rethink their position. But that does not change neither the content of the ideology itself (which has not seen reforming attempts like Protestantism in Christinaity, for example, and always until today was far more determined - and successful! - than the Catholic church ever was in supressing opposing views and strengthening the orthodoxy), nor does it make it understandable that a massive silent majority of Muslims stay silent when it comes to demands to cooperate with our law enforcement in order to identify dangerous elements in their middle, or accept free opinion being dominant to relgious demands for censorship, or taking a clear stand against act committed in the name of Islam that are of the more unpleasant kind. I want to ask you why there is such an unwavering determination to push islam forward throughout the West, even there were no Islmaic communities do exist. and finally I cannot save anybody wanting to be seen as both following western ideas of humanism and freedom etc, and Islam, why he insists on being seen as a follower of islam, when at the same time he wants to follow freedom, democracy, secularism, humanism, etc. Something like a "democratic Nazi" or a "liberal-tolerant Stalinist"cannot be imagined, and the teaching of Islam is anti-democratic, in total rejection of secularism, and in clear expression of islamic supremacism and the Muslim man being the goal of evolution, while dividing the world clearly in the house of war and the house of peace, and defining peace as the cojmplete absence as anything that is not Islam and by that difference could pose a challenge to Islam'S claim for power. Not before this has been reached, there can be ultimate peace.This, and nothing else, is the content of Islamic ideology, and if you think it is about tolerance and peace and coexistence, than you simply do not know it. "Peace" means "having won", "tolerance" means "accepting the others if they accept to live in a state of subservience to Muslims, "coexistence" means "existence under islamic ruling". I have no doubt that you will think tjhat is extreme, and that i misunderstand it or lie about it, but I do not. And not only do I read these things, but have been told these things in my face.

Considering all this, you say the ideology is no problem in the West? Although it has direct or indirect influence on people's mentality and social identity and thinking? Add to the problems with Islam what I said about lacking education, social low class, and the stress this means for the solcial security systems of ours (always keeping in mind that immigrats get moved around liike foot soldiers by islamic stratgeists who think of dmeograohic warfare and want to make the West collapsing by overloading it's social structures). And then consider the deeply hostile attitude of islam towards females, the patriarchalic social structures in families, the pathology this causes in the minds and hearts of the young men, and the aggression this creates and that needs valves - in becoming orthodx, and supressive to women. If you get all this toegther, eventually, you may get a hint why I call the ideology a problem even if not all Muslims are the same.

You are right, quite some people do not want to be like the Quran demands them to be. And this speaks in their defence and favour. It is the desire to be a better human than just what the Quran and muhammad want them to be. I will not attack such a person for that. But I will ask such a person again and again - why the hell do you still want to be seen as and called "Muslim", if by your deeds and thinking and desires of your heart you nalready have rejected that? We have had a converted member here longer time ago who said he took offence from me telling him that he is no real muslim. But in fact what I told him - was a compliment, and an expression of sympathy.
Mind you that there are people smart enough and brave enough to become apostates, and in principle they are risking their lives by becoming that, even more so when making it public, and criticising Islam. There criticism often is founded on substantial insight, obviously. I hold such courage in high esteeem, since I have made at least two german Muslims leaving Islam myself and saw what tremendnous conflict this caused in their lives, with their families, and how they suffered from that. One of the most prominent voices of criticism against Islam and Turks in Germany - is a Turk herself, and she attacks her countrymen sometimes with real favour about their poblematic atttitude and integration-hostile behavior. But there are other people whose olive really is at risk, who has been tortured, broguht to prison, for having left islam, or foighting for women's equality. By refusing to see the brutal truth about islamic dogma and it'S influence both in East and West, you minimse these peopleS courage and suffering, and you ridicule and mock their cause and in principle declare them fools fighting against windmills. You do not take them serious when refusing to see some grim facts about Islam, much like the British laughed abiuzt first reports of the Nazis running killing factories behind the front. This attitude, theirs and yours, have something in common: the idea that it could not be what according to one's own civilised views should not be.

First, if this "sick old man" is so weak, why do you spend so much time doing your bit to rally him? If he is so doomed then why not let him die in peace?

I hate to loose, and even more i hate the idea of Islam taking over. I also think of the generations comijg n after us. Nobody deserves by birth to live under the rule of Islam, or any other form of totalitarian, inhumane tyranny like this, and no woman deserves to be minimsed to a status comparing to that of a village dog, being held like livestock and for comparable reasons. You could as well ask why the resistance to the Nazis tried to fight back although their chances for success or survival were grim. Some people even willed to get killed while trying to assassinate Hitler - stupid, eh? Not that I want to compare myself to these resistance fighters. Just for illustration. Some people, nowadays many people would follow your advise, and just give up. I'm not like that. I may be frustrated and dislilluzsioned, but I still try to fight. something you probably cannto understand. Maybe it is because I have seen quite some miserable things.

Only somebody not having seen the lack of freedom and always having taken it for granted, could trade it away carelessly. that's why I sometimes say that 70 years of peace have caused havoc in people's minds.

Second, a quote: "If you want to know who someone is, don't ask them about themselves. Ask them about the world, then you will learn who they are." Or something like that. I can't remember who said it. I'll come back to this later.

Okay, I have asked the Quran and the islamic history how it sees the world, and i see the behavior of the crowd indeed reflectin g the answer I got. The answer I got was such that first I was confused, then was in disbelief that what I heared could be meant serious, and finally decided to fight against it.
And now an aside to you. compare the teaching of Jesus (and I do not say Bible, I say the teaching of Jesus as he is quoted in the gospels), and compare it with what Muhammad said. compare the lives of both man: the one preaching peace and not even resisting in self-defence to the violence that was directed against him and that ultimately murdered him, the other having demanded, commanded and ordered 60-70 wars and raids, having slain men with his own hands before he even had become known as a kahin (a seer), and spend his life with submitting others, bribing others, intimidating others, silencing his critics with threatened and/or executed assassination. And then tell me how you can avoid to conclude that in order to be a reasonable, peaceful, civilised person in Christian tradition you follow the teachings of Jesus, but in Muhammeddan traditon you need to violate the teachings of Muhammad. Some ifnantile, braindead zombie-preachers in christian churches think they must take it upon them to compare Jesus with Muhammad and even want to ceolbrate Muhammad's birthday in Christian churches. Well, I can only hope that heaven deicdes to let some serious accidents happen to them as fast as possible before they give birth to even more stupidity, as if the world is not already confused more than enough. - And if somebody wants to be such a rational, reasonable, peaceful, tolerant "good" being - why could he then want to be seen as a Muhammeddan nevertheless - if for no other reason than being in ignorrance of who Muhammad was and what he taught and what he practiced like in life? If he would live today, we would bring him to the tribunal in The Hague, I mean.

Again with the statistics. Sorry but they just don't reflect what I've experienced. Maybe things are very different in Germany. Thinking out loud: Germany isn't exactly renowned for being comfortable with itself. Perhaps when given the choice between adapting Germany's troubled mentality, or sticking with the seeming strength of Islam, immigrants there choose the more attractive option?

No. even more so when seeing the problems with Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands, Sweden, England as well. Muslim integration throughout europe has failed, simply that. In Germany, we have had turks, Greek, Italians, Spanish, Yugoslavs. Except the Turks, most of them have returned to their home countries meanwhile, or stayed and are well-integrated. Just the Turks gave us problems, not every indovoidual, but the group as a whole. the problems grow, and they are today bigger than ever before. I think you just ignore what you do not want to see. Statistics, if collected correctly and by clean methodologic procedures, do not lie. the way they get interpreted is open to misunderstanding (often due to lacking knowledge about statistical methods and principles), or intentional manipulation. But the data itself, if following the known statistical methodology, does not lie. It cannot. I am no mathematics expert, and no statistical analyst by profession, but having studied psychology, statistics and according methodology followed me 8 semesters long, from entering university to final written exams.

I have no rosy image of Islam. I do not 'love' Islam (far from it). I've seen no pro-Islamic propaganda, unless you count the vote-grabbing politicians on TV. Is Islam is 'misunderstood' IMO? No idea. From the conversations I've had with Muslims on the subject, it seems that even they can't fully agree on what Islam is (same as every other religion I suppose).

You might be surprised but I agree: your impression is absolutely correct, I have seen that in germany as well as in ME countries. But you have to understand: there is a difference between the behavior of one or several individual, and that of the mass. In Iran, you might be surprised how many very well educated, west-friendly burgeoise people there are at least in the bigger cities, and many of them in admiration for what the US once promised to be - could you believe that!? If you think they all are just antiamerican, religious hotshots waiting to turn fanatic again in the streets, then you are wrong. This is only one side of Iranian society, of course there are the fanatics as well. But as a whole, the society tends to behave differently again, and often is ripped apart (like you hve seen in the demonstraions against elections). Family dynamics set in. tadition. Tribal relations and the one clan owing to the other. Fear. Habit. and last but not least: humans often being contradictive in their behavior, saiyng one thing, doing something different.

It is not that different, in principle, with Muslim subcultures in the West. The whole community - is something different, not only more but is something different than the sum of all the individuals and their statements you may gain.

that'S why academics differ between psychology (focussing on the individual), and sociology (focussing on group dynamics). The relation between the individual and the collective most of the time is not just linear, and can be one of severe contradictions

There is no contradiction in my mind in need of resolution, because I am able to separate a religion from those who claim to be a part of it.

Islam does not make that separation, but claims every person born from Muslim parents to be it'S own possession. you do not decide for yourself, but you get subjugated. there also is a link to Islam not separating between politics and religion. In Islam/Quran, politics IS religion, and religion IS politics. One of those unpleasant news that illustrate how incompatible Islam is with western constitutional orders, nevertheless exploiting this vulnerability of theirs to the max.

I'm not trying to minimize anything about the "Muslim world" meaning the countries you named, like Turkey and Iran. I have no love of those places, based on what little knowledge I have.

I did not say you were minimising those countries, I said you were minimising (glossing over) the importance of the fact that Islam is a radical fundamentalist ideology in itself.

But people who come from those places to live here?

what'S with them? They have no right to demand form us that we necessarily must accept them. They have a right to ask us whether we want them to stay with us or not. And we have a right to ask in return "Let's see, what do you have to offer us in return, is there some value in your skills or your person that makes you a valuabe addition to our existing community?" We also have the right to say "No, thanks, get away." And also we have any right there is to demand that the newcomer we decided to accept has to sink into our community and has to live by our values and rules and in case of conflict between his past tradition and our rules, his past tradition has to fall back, or he has to pack his things and leave. It is often said that people have a right to live whereveer they want. I totally reject that hilarious claim. No person on earth has the right to move somewhere, meeting an existing community, enforce his presence in this community even against their will and saying "Here I am, now accept that, I demand you to let me live with/amongst you." A community has rights, too. The right to refuse newcomers, for example. - If the West is guilty of one thing, then it is that we still encourage people to move over here even if we have no use for them, and that we refuse to select carefully which candidates we really could use and that would be a valuable contribution to our communities, and which candiate is not. The same type of hilarious hestation you see in the EU refusing to make a clear decisoon on Turkey since many decades now. I can at least understand that the nTurks are pissed by this, althoiugh I totally reject their EU membership. It is non-negotiable for me.

And their descendants, who grow up here from the first day in their life? Those people I will judge on their own merits and behaviours, as and when I meet them.

Again you have to learn that statistics tell a clear language not only in Germany regarding social class, education, and chances for social rise. No sociologist seriously denies that social class decides on education, but also on later social chances. We even have enterd a phase were eduaction falls behind the importance of social class when it comes to job chances - a good education (parents, shcool, university) is no longer a guarantee for a job. Careers depend more and more on social class, we seem to see a re-invitation of the medieval "Ständegesellschaft", as a German commentator wrote some days ago, and I agree. And whether you like it or not, the phenomenon of the youngsters of third generation turning more conservative and orthodox than their grandparents have been, is not a German only phenomenon, but since 2 or 3 years gets reported from all of europe - including England, no matter your impression.

I find it remarkable that you cannot see any difference between the two groups. The general gist of your argument is this: Islam is an extreme religion, and Muslim people come from places where depictions of western Christians getting slaughtered in a Jihad is the favoured pre-match entertainment at a sporting event, so beware of them and all their descendants!

then you must read again what I wrote, for that nonsense I haven't ever written neither here nor anywhere else. And I have adressed history and certain illusions, Grenada for example, several times in past years.

I say that's a flawed perspective which, if it were widely adopted, would not have a desirable outcome. I don't expect to change your mind, but I find it difficult to stomach your endless fear-mongering and feel the need to add some counterweight.

I feel the need that you must add some substance to your "counterweight". Much of what you say in reply, is PC hear-say, or is depending on false assumptions and interpretations, may it be regarding me, or the content and the effectiveness of islamic ideology. Just having an arbitrary opinion, is not enough - such could be chosen by throwing dice. When I check your opinion against reality, I see huge deficits. Not all what you say is wrong. But it is very much uncomplete, often by intended choice of yours. I see a determination to blend out everything that hurts your friendly image of islam while you are trying to rewrite it in such a way that wetsern civilisation and social life could reach and change it. and nthat is the principle idea of eurocrats in Brussel dreaming of creating an euro-Islam that should repalce real Islam.

Islam is a conqueror, and currently it is young, vital, strong and brimming with life, which for demographic reasons will stay that way for the coming half century or so. If we do not take care, it will teach us some lessons on who educates who.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Quite a few Islamaphobes here, I'm pretty dissapointed I guess.

Dann wein doch!

[Onkel Neal]

Speaking of "communist" China ...

PS: @ NeonSamurai, I think your post #136 set some kind of record here.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

PS: @ NeonSamurai, I think your post #136 set some kind of record here.

haha that could be, certainly one of my longest even if ya trim out all the quotes

[onelifecrisis]

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam. Not only is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter. I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

I shared a flat with a deeply religious Muslim guy for two years. He took his religion very seriously, but also intelligently. He said, "The Qu'ran says I can marry more than one woman as long as I love them equally. I don't think it's possible to love two (or more) women equally, so I'll just marry one." He also used to eat bacon for breakfast and get sh!tfaced with me on Saturday nights. So you say he was not a true Muslim? Then I say: there is no such thing as a true Muslim, at least not by your definition, just as there is no such thing as a true Christian.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam. Not only is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter. I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

I shared a flat with a deeply religious Muslim guy for two years. He took his religion very seriously, but also intelligently. He said, "The Qu'ran says I can marry more than one woman as long as I love them equally. I don't think it's possible to love two (or more) women equally, so I'll just marry one." He also used to eat bacon for breakfast and get sh!tfaced with me on Saturday nights. So you say he was not a true Muslim? Then I say: there is no such thing as a true Muslim, at least not by your definition, just as there is no such thing as a true Christian.

Well said OLC!
At least... I agree with you....
My Mulism friend is opposite of your ex room mate LOL, he wont touch pork or booze, and he is deeply opposed to the practice of having mutiple wives in Islam.

There can be no right or wrong when something is open to interpretation, we only judge the difference between right and wrong based on our own set of morals what every they maybe.

Not even Islamic Scholors claim to fully understand how the Qu'ran should be followed -along with exactly how the Islamic faith should be practised, as its open to interpretaion and opinion.
Anyone who makes such claims is a fool. (Muslim or not)

[Respenus]

OLC, you're forgetting one thing. Radicalism, in any way or form, be it Christian, Muslim or pragmatic is dangerous. It is radicalism that we have to be afraid off, that we have to fight and particularly its influence in state affairs and also on the streets. I know deeply religious Christians, and just "Sunday" Christians and I know people in both groups that are acting radically as any Islamic zealot, unable to accept anything other than what they consider to be the truth and no amount of rational discourse or empirical evidence will change their minds. Make no assumption that you are exempt from this process, evidence of which I have seen in your posts which were close to an attack on Skybird's rational discussion and use of academic sources coupled together with empirical evidence.

I wanted to post this article earlier today and changed my mind. Now I changed it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7710822.stm

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Whether you like it or not, I make my own understanding of it the standard of my acting and opinion-forming, since I have a brain and thus intend to use it. I am capable to give the reasons why I think in this way, and no other way, and I do not see you bringing up convincing reasons why I have to revalue my basis. That others do not agree with me cannot be the deciding argument for me to give up my own opinion, if I do not see the reasons why I came to this opinion being falsified and being shown as wrong.

It makes little sense to refer to the great flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in order to illustrate the content of the sermon on the mountain. Obviously, the tone of both things, the image of that deity behind them, could not be any more different. The Quran compares to the old testament, and to orthodox Judaism, it seems to me. jesus introduced a new understanding of the image and concept of good. His god is more a metaphor, and is different to that tyrannic bloodhound the old god in the old testament is. - you do not see such changes introduced in muhammad's teachings, with before him and after him no other form of Islam or Quranic teaching having been. And to be exact, before Jesus the "Christ", there was no Christianity as well. The church refers to all the bible, yes. and right this contradiction is why I always differ between the teachings of Jesus, and the church. And that I do for very precise and legitmiate reasons even if they oppose the populistic messing up of terms.

And could you at least try to post without needing to fall back to harsh language like "from your a###" and "WTF" and "pr!ck" etc. It makes it annoying to deal with you and throws a bad light on you as well, giving an impression that you are just some juvenile in his teen years not being able to control his hormones. We are no close friends knowing each other since schooldays and sitting together and being drunk at the bar.

Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam.

I did not compare "churchian christianity" or the bible and islam there, I did compare Muhammad's and Jesus' life as being known to us, and the preachings that go back to them. Neither did Muhammad author the abrahamic religion of the Jews (he just copied it and altered it to fit his intentions), nor did Jesus create the content of the old testament. Jesus is being called "the Risen, the Christ", and that is where the term "Christianity" comes from. He was a non-violent revolutionery, because he introduced a new concept of what "god" means that is totally different to the conception before him. The old testament has more to do with the old abrahamic religion of the Jews, than with Jesus' teachings. And that is the reason why the old testament is showing as many examples of hate and intolerance and calls for murder and genocide as does the old abrahamic religion and does the Quran. The four gosples went beyond this stage - the Quran never did. In the first two or three centuries after Muhammad's death, there were several different versions of the Quran, which hat undergone local manipulations by local rulers that wanted to use it to justify their own power, but these changes were cosmetically as much as we know, and finally one binding version of the Quran was decided on which in principle is the one that reflects the collection of Muhammad's quotes and sermons (he did not write it himself) until today. The Hadith has seen greater changes in volume and content, and fluctuated massively from up to an estmated I think 280 thousand quotes to as few as just 3 or 4 thousand, because the Hadith canon does not deal with the basics of Islam, but give a guiding line for practical problems and challenges of more prgamatic life and politics, also it's content does not orginally refer back to the mouth of muhammad. Maybe one could say that the Hadith and Sharia compare to the Quran like law codes compare to a constitution, but I am a bit hesitent to really put it that way since there is no separation between politics and religion in islam.

is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter.

You have not understood the argument correctly. I compared the content of Jesus and muhammad's preachings, becasue this is what decides how the ideology of Islam and christianity must be understood if you want to talk about the ideology indeed, not about something else you just happen to have on your mind or have been told by a church or a sectarian leader. And I pointed out that the content of Muhammad's preachings was how to legitimise the use of force and violence to defend his conquests and aggressions, while Jesus obviously preached anything but such things. islam did not form tyrannies and violent opressive governments and did not go on conquest in violation but in explicit following of Muhammad's demands and teachings. The church, the crusaders turned violent, oppressive and barbaric in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings. Two totally different ways to come to the violence and intolerance you see in the church, and islam.

I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

See above. What do I care for the terror god of the old "Abrahamism", none at all I care. It's the same brutal face in orthodox Judaism, the old testament, and islam. To hell with all three of them.

the point is: we have moved beyond that stage of literal believing bloodthirsty hear-say, a move expressed in the existence of the four gospels, the reformation, and the enlightenment. There are no parallels to these three historic facts in islamic tradition. It still is bogged down with the old testament, so to speak. In other words, it still is stuck with it'S head in history, 1400 years deep. Back then, Arbaia was far superior to the dark continent of medieval europe, and by all reason they should have become what later eurpope turned out to be. But in the 300 years after muhammad, something swictched, they lost their civilisational lead, their dynmaic for scientific invention, while europe won in pace of developement, anf finally overtook them and became the dominant global civilisation. I thinkn there is a good chnace that wiothiout Muhzammad, it would have gone the other way around, at least Arabia being en par with europe of the past era (obviously europe is past it's cultural climax nowadays ). that's how it goes, it's a cionstant up and down. But sometimes the phase can be short, and oemtime long. Islam locked down it's vitim societies for a VERY long time, it seems.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

Read again what in an earlier post I said on why the ideology nevertheless causes effects by group dynamics.

Anyhow. This thread has already going on for too long, and I am a bit tired to get in parts ignored, and in other parts being expected to repeat myself time and again, or to just correct the way I get quoted by others.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Dann wein doch!

Speaking of selective quoting Skybird, What was all that about? ^^

I agree that radicalism is the plague of this earth, anyone who lean towards any type of extremism, not only have severely clouds their own judgment, but in come cases it seems to completely disable the part of their brain that can think obectively altogether.

If a person puts too much energy and pride in to something. It makes it almost impossible for that person to admit they are wrong - because the stronger you views become, the harder you fall when they fail you.
And what happens when these people can no longer win an argument with words?
Usually they block there ears and walk away from what they dont want to hear.
But some times they will become abusive and resort to violence.....

Imho - we should keep these folks away from weapons and main stream politics

[NeonSamurai]

Just a quick comment, but the comparison between the Torah and old testament is not exactly correct. They are not the same thing. For one thing the stories (genesis, etc) are more an oral history of a people. Also there are translation problems since ancient Hebrew doesn't have any vowels, which caused trouble. The emphasis placed on sections of the Torah is also rather different. Last Jews have never realty considered the Torah to be an absolute (unlike many Christians and Muslims with their books). Its meanings, laws, etc have been debated for thousands of years. The Hebrew deity also was never really considered a vengeful god (unless you want to go back to the very early origins of the religion) but more of a balancing force, an eye for an eye or in another word, karma.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The old testament has more to do with the old abrahamic religion of the Jews, than with Jesus' teachings. And that is the reason why the old testament is showing as many examples of hate and intolerance and calls for murder and genocide as does the old abrahamic religion

Other then the stories/history part (which isn't taken overly seriously, and come from ancient history), I would like to know where the Torah commands Jews to commit hate, genocide, and murder?

[Skybird]

NeonSamurai,

I readily admit my knowledge on Judaism is not as much as what I know on islam and Christianity and the church. and I certainly have not read the Thora - nor have I referred to it!

However, before Jesus lived, there was only Judaism, and the texts on Jesus were not written earlier than two generations after his assumed death when he is said to have been crucified (something Islam denies to have happened, and since Islam sees Jesus not as God's son but as a high ranking prophet, this christian claim about crucification is one of the three things islam takes extremely queer about the christians, the other two being their suspicious concept of the divine trinity, and the upholding of a book/the bible - meaning a priests' hierarchy and dogma - instead of the idea, which means a profaning of the content, in their view, and they are probably right there).

As I see it, the Bible'S stories of the times before jesus base on the Abrahamic god of the Jews and represent some kind of "reformed", or chnaged/altered form of Judaism. the history of Judaism is a history of constant conflict and war, isn't it, the whole region there still lives and dies by this old tradition's "heritage", and the ,otives for this often were religious. Do nyou want to say the many tribal wars and conquests had nothing to do with relgious beliefs of theirs?

I did not refer to the Thora, becasue I do not know much about it, I do not even know if it is a changed, modernised version today or by content is still the same old thing they already carried in front of their army three thousand years ago (I fear the latter, when seeing orthodox Jews and their habits). But the old stories of the bible are basing on the Judaic concept of a god - as much as I know that is a god as tyrannic and punishing and psychotic like the god of the old testament, which makes sense if both traditions are linked, yes? I think here is a reason for the proverbial hairplitting philosophic thinking - and intellectual superiority - in Judaic tradition, for which already the pharisees in Roman times and earlier were famous: it really needed some tricks and efforts to re-interprete such a brutal deity and change it's image into a man-loving, forgiving, kind old grandfather who takes care for his children. I must admit I tend to see both the church'S and the Jews image of a god like this as truly schizophrenic: celebrating a god that rescues somebody's life after having send him the car that rolled over him, who tests his creations by asking them to sacrifice their children or wiping out opposing people/tribes, and promises salvation and forgiveness - not in life, no, not earlier than after death.

Anyhow, the church's dogma as represented in the full bible moved beyond the Judaic tradition, and Jesus teachings as included in the Gospels moved even further beyond the church'S dogmatic teaching. Muhammad also based on the abrahamic tradition, but took it and implemented changes to it that had the primary purpose of making muhammad's version of abrahamic traditon different to that of the Jews that at that time he already must have hated very much after his collision with their theologicans who showed him how little his insight into Judaism was - a big, narcissistic offence for him. I am convinced that Islam'S hostile attitude especially towards the Jews is nothing else but a echo from Muhammad'S narcissim that was offended so very much by the Jews not accepting him as somebody of equal woprth and qualification.

From all these four (!) traditions, I see the teachings of Jesus as the most advanced, and being the one of the four that is almost completely disconnected from the meaning of the old Abrahamic cult the other traditions (church, Judaism and Islam) are basing on.

Originally Posted by Skybird

From all these four (!) traditions, I see the teachings of Jesus as the most advanced,

I see them all as crap, equally so. What do you think about that?

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I readily admit my knowledge on Judaism is not as much as what I know on islam and Christianity and the church.

No offense meant but I can tell you don't.

As I see it, the Bible'S stories of the times before jesus base on the Abrahmaic god of the Jews and represent some kind of "reformed" form of Judaism.

The two religions are very different, and bare very little resemblance to each other. Later Christians (Greeks mostly) borrowed from the Torah, and in several cases screwed up the meaning of what they borrowed. Christianity has almost nothing to do with Judaism other then having had borrowed from their writings.

the history of Judaism is a history of constant conflict and war, isn't it, the whole region there still lives and dies by this old tradition's "heritage".

Sure, there is a lot of conflict and war. It is an oral history of the Israelites, and there was a lot of warfare and violence during those times (as with everywhere else). There were also times of peace, prosperity, and innovation (such as during the reign of king Solomon). As for what is happening now in Israel, it is hard to have peace when certain groups keep sending suicide bombers and mortar/rocket attack the bordering cities and towns. Its not that the people of Israel don't want peace, but they are not going to leave Israel to get it (which is what the other side wants). So the fighting continues.

I did not refer to the Thora, becasue I do not know much about it. But the old stories of the bible are basing on the Judaic concept of a God - as much as I know a god as tyrannic and punishing and psychotic like the god of the old testament, which makes sense if both traditions are linked.

That interpretation of the Judaic god is the one from their earliest history, when Yahweh was the fire god of the mountain. Also a lot of the earliest stories (genesis, the flood, etc) are also borrowed from other religions of the time, and altered to fit. The slightly more modern interpretation is that G*d is a balancing force, that every action taken by G*d in the stories was to balance out man's actions. For example god destroyed the pursuing army of the Pharaoh at the Red Sea, to balance out the killing of all the first born by the Pharaoh's order.

I think here is a reason for the proverbial hairplitting philosophic thinking in Judaic tradition, for which already the pharisees in roman times and earlier werew famous: it really needed some tricks and efforts to re-interprete such a brutal deity and chnage it's image into a man-loving, forgiving, kind old grandfather who takes care for his children.

I don't believe most Jews view G*d in that way, but more of an enigma that we try to understand, but cannot ever understand. the Pharisees and then Rabbis, have continued to debate and ponder the meanings behind the texts, but it is not hair splitting as you put it. Philosophically they do believe that G*d does care about it's creations.

I must admit I tend to see both the church'S and the Jews image of God like this as truly schizophrenic, celebrating a god that rescues somebody's life aftr having send him the car that rolled over him, and promises salvation and forgiveness - not in life, but after death.

Your mixing up Christianity and Judaism. There is no specific salvation or heaven per say in the Jewish tradition, no hell either. That is an unaddressed enigma. The view is that Jews have a purpose in life, to bring the divine to earth, and bring earth to the divine, or achieve balance between the two.

From all these traditions, I see the teahcings of Jesus as the most advanced, and being the one of the four that is almost completely disconnected from the meaning of the old Abrahamic cult the other traditions (church, Judaism and Islam) are basing on.

A lot of those teachings are not exactly new, and many were lifted from Jewish thinking (also from the Greek gnostics and others), many can't even be directly attributed to Jesus. To be a good Jew, you are to lead a good life, do your work in the world, do your mitzvah or blessings (good deeds basicly), find balance in your life, and show gratitude to G*d for what has been given you.


Honestly Skybird, you don't realy know the first thing about the old Abrahamic cult as you put it. Unfortunately neither do most others, which I think contributes to so much anti-semitism in the world.

I myself am not Jewish, though my stepfather was. I am agnostic, and was raised as one by my mother. I have to say though, if I had to choose one of the three, I would easily choose to be Jewish then the others, far more thought and philosophy, and much less dogma and mishegas.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And could you at least try to post without needing to fall back to harsh language like "from your a###" and "WTF" and "pr!ck" etc. It makes it annoying to deal with you and throws a bad light on you as well, giving an impression that you are just some juvenile in his teen years not being able to control his hormones. We are no close friends knowing each other since schooldays and sitting together and being drunk at the bar.

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.

Originally Posted by Skybird

islam did not form tyrannies and violent opressive governments and did not go on conquest in violation but in explicit following of Muhammad's demands and teachings. The church, the crusaders turned violent, oppressive and barbaric in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings.

Surely this only serves to strengthen the point I was making? Which is that people are just people, regardless of what book they claim to follow.

Originally Posted by Skybird

What do I care for the terror god of the old "Abrahamism", none at all I care. It's the same brutal face in orthodox Judaism, the old testament, and islam. To hell with all three of them.

I was wondering whether to make the same point about Judaism (I was told that Old Testament = Judaism, which is not correct if I'm reading Neon's post right, which doesn't surprise me given my dodgy source of information, but I digress) not because I agree with you, but rather to find out whether your views would remain consistent. And they do, which gives me no purchase, but at least lets me know exactly what I'm dealing with.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Anyhow. This thread has already going on for too long, and I am a bit tired to get in parts ignored, and in other parts being expected to repeat myself time and again, or to just correct the way I get quoted by others.

You are trying to make your point, I am trying to make mine. Making mine does not require that I respond to every single point you care to post, especially given your tendency to take any opportunity to stand on a soap box. The points you feel I've ignored are there for people to see and (since you are preaching after all) people can decide for themselves whether those points can hold up your case. If it's only me you're trying to convince then just give up.

Time will tell which of us is right. In the meantime you will no doubt go right on preaching your message, and I will carry on getting drunk with people... be they Muslim or otherwise. If all you say is correct then maybe one day, many years from now, you will have reason to say to people like me "I told you so". If that day comes then I hope the satisfaction you get is worth the price you paid.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

G*d

Why? Out of curiosity.