Could this be counter productive???

Originally Posted by tater

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

Just like women are treated badly in markedly christian communities.

And BTW, what has enabled the wealth of the various mostly christian western nations? War and subjugation of the rest of the world. So if the muslims were to follow the west's lead they would most certainly try to take over the world through war. Are you saying they shouldn't be as power hungry as the christians?

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

So you'd rather keep the people in the developing nations illiterate? The Quran has been translated to English too you know so even if they learned to speak bad English as the Americans they would still have access to it.

Maybe literacy levels aren't the problem here either.

[Skybird]

Oh Mann, Islamophilia has struck again.

http://www.amazon.de/Allahs-Schleier...325661&sr=1-25

A woman is possession of her man.

She is life stock that is breeding Muslims for the islamic missionising effort of the future, and djihad. Compares to the role of fertile healthy women in Nazi Germany's vision of family planning: "soldiers for the Führer". That way, women also are the major weapon for demographic warfare. Algeria's dictator Boumedienne told the UN: "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." The palestinians are breeding as if it were the last year on earth, palestinian birth rates create an imemnse pressure in the palestinian territories, and inside israel - a threatening developement of Israel that in europe nobody want to hear of. In Europe, Muslim birth rates are such that Muslim social low classe shift the social and demographic balances of the infested nations towards growing influence on education, politics, legislation and law enforcement.

Women are driven by satanic energy, their desires must be controlled by their husband by "discharging" them in the act of sexual intercourse that is strictly controlled by religious dogma and magic beliefs to keep the process under control so that Satan cannot be set free, only weakened when discharging his energy. For the same reason, cintrolling satan, women must be whipped and must be kept in an obeident, passive, weak state. they are dangerous. Sexual intercourse is like opening a security valve before the pot explodes and all the demonic energy is set free. Call the ghost busters, so to speak.

By nature, women are dirty, and demonic. In many places their lifes is worth less than the life of a village dog.

Beating women is recommended, for the above reasons, if they are disobedient - or if not.

A man can have up to four wifes. but no wife can have four men.

A legal statement by a women is not even half the worth like a legal cofnession of a man. Reports by male witnesses weigh heavier. A female's testimony is inferior to that of male witnesses.

Women's right to claim a hertitage is only for half of the heritage that a man deserves.


So much for the dogma's ruling. Additionally the reality in islamic societies and Western colonies:

Hundreds of women get stoned to death every year.

Millions of women live in life-long captivity, never leaving the house.

Their life expectancy suffers substantially because of their lack of movement outside the household. Female muslim examiners and apostates report of high numbers od depressions and other related psychological syndrtome that do not get treated, but maybe even win sthem additonal abuse and penalty by their husbands.

Millions of girls get traded as brides without ever being asked.

Millions of women get beaten, whipped, and abused.

Thousands of girls and women get murdered by their family after gotten raped. Becasue they are guilty of having gotten raped.

Now find comapring ratios for legalsied crimes against women in the Wetsern socieites, Safe Keeper.

Western law protects women'S rights. Quranic law dstroys women's rights. the difference is developement here, aphatic stagnation there. The difference is that in the Islamic world the time stands still since almolst one and a half century. The claims made by some ancient bandit for self-justification during the medieval are still valid, and taken literally.

there is no point in nicetalking women'S miserable role in islam. It mocks the fight for equality and liberty of Muslim women rights activists, and renders their personal sacrifices and risks as useless. It prevents islam from ever needing to consider asking critical questions about itself. It prevents right that reformation of islam that Western useful idiots so hopefully wait for. As long as useful idiots refuse to confront Islam with critical questions aboiut it'S self-understanding, and allow it to just ,ove on unchnaged and all others are adapting to it, islam will not stop.

Because then it has no reason to stop.

Before anything else, Islam needs a sexual revolution, and a breakthrough in women's rights and equality and freedoms.


And for a final shot, I read Churchill being quoted from his writing in "The River War", 1899:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Islam is the greatest of all slave holders there ever have been.

Skybird,

I think you're just projecting your own hatred of women.

[Oberon]

This thread =



End.

[tater]

The "West" is effectively Christian. You can make make a false argument based on tiny subclasses of "fundamentalist" Christians living in compounds someplace, but in actual practice, the West that we know is Christian taken as a whole. Women are free, and equal.

Islam, on the other hand, is absolutely, without question misogynistic, and backwards. Women are not full people. Look at the way they treat homosexuals as well. Islamic society has nothing to recommend it.

Regarding war and subjugation to get the West where it is now, who cares? They are welcome to try, IMHO, and we should fight them the way we fight for real. Again, think WW2. They can attack, that's their prerogative, we should fight back in the style of Curtis LeMay.

I hold them to no special standard.

Keeping them illiterate? I said only that in terms of keeping Muslims less radical, illiteracy is desirable. That is because Islam itself is dangerous. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a debate I saw, as long as the Koran exists, anyone who can read it can resurrect "islamism" by doing no more than reading the qur'an and haddith. It's all there in black and white. Since this will not in fact happen, we can expect a larger and larger % of Muslims to hold what we would call "fundamentalist" beliefs. Note that Judaism and Christianity have large numbers of non-fundamentalist adherents. ALL sects of Islam are fundamentalist by the same standards (literalism).

Christians have certainly been violent, but unlike Islam, violence is actually a perversion of their faith (I'm an atheist, remember, don't think I have a dog in this fight). If Christians acted like their savior, they'd be pacifists. Is Muslims act like their prophet, they are violent, generals, spreading their faith at sword point.

Al Qaida is NOT a perversion of Islam, it is simply Islam.

Islam needs a reformation of some sort, but again, it will only be distanced from its inherit violence and misogyny by choosing not to read it.

You always find that there are no shortages of people willing to attack Christianity, yet defend Islam. Attacking BOTH is just fine, but I always see people giving Islam a pass. Christianity is better than Islam---I say this as an atheist---because in spite of Christianity, Christendom created secular, pluralistic, liberal societies. This is a fact---we are communicating as a direct result of this fact. Islam is regressive.

Skybird makes an excellent post, BTW.

IMHO, the "solution" to Islam is only to debauch them with our culture, and NEVER let them win the fight of "multiculturalism" or political correctness. When they come to the West, they need to assimilate, period. That means that they wear bathing suits to the beach or pool---men and women together--and they get no special mediation of marriages, etc (no sharia, thank you). We cannot stop them being backwards scumbags at home, but we can respond not with proportionate, but disproportionate force to attacks.

Ok let's get rid of multiculturalism. Let's start with razing the US to the ground.

[Skybird]

Some nice summary being done here:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch9.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/index.html

Yeah yeah, I know it is a Christian website posting these texts. But what I have read over there about Islam, matches what I know about it, so i would be stupid to skip it just becasue I do not like the messenger eventually (I haven't checked the latter - callme a pragmatic atheist then )

The book "Allahs Schleier" that I linked above probably is the best on the role of women and their meanign for the culture clash that I have ever read about women&Islam.

In the end, it all comes down to Muhammad's assessment of women:

"The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that for a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' "

Originally Posted by tater

The problems with Islam in the MIddle East have nothing to do with US politics. ...

Oh yea that's a lie too.

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Ok let's get rid of multiculturalism. Let's start with razing the US to the ground.

Ah, intelligent commentary.

Multiculturalism is the celebration and enablement of "differences" between peoples. The true, American version---which is sadly in decline in favor of European "multiculturalism"---has traditionally been called "the melting pot."

In that system, new peoples come to the US, and the US absorbs some of what they have to offer and in return they integrate and become less liketheir starting culture, and more like the melted "mess" of the rest of us. Their children are "American" and not some XXXXX-american label.

My grandmother was born in Sweden, for example, my father and uncles are "American" and not "Swedish-American."

Oh yea that's a lie too.

No, it's simple fact. Islam is a problem regardless of the presence of the US or not. Islam attacks the kafir where they find them. The problem is not the US, it's not colonialism, it's Islam. Does that mean there has never been part of the problem related to colonialism (almost entirely non-American, BTW)? No, without Islam we'd also have seen some turmoil regarding the end of the colonial period as we've seen in sub-saharan Africa, and Asia. None the less, the specific flavor of the problem would be entirely different. Again, look to non-muslim Africa and Asia for what to expect.

The US has had troubles since the Washington Administration. We did nothing to them AT ALL, but they felt it was their right under the Qur'an to attack and take us as slaves since we were in the dar al harb (house of war). The US response vs the Barbary "pirates" (really jihadists sanctioned by the Ottoman Empire) was just that, a response to attacks on peaceful merchant shipping in the med.

[Skybird]

Islam claims supreme reign and knows no multiculturalism, only monoculturalism.

Terms like peace, tolerance, coexistence, equality, freedom, multiculturalism all must accept castration by Islam supremacism. It defines the meaning and the limits of these terms, and ensures dominant ruling by Sharia and Quran. Western understanding of these terms has nothing to do with it.

Islamophile useful idiots strongly refuse to recognise that, for it would render their hopes meaningless and ultimately end their quarrel with resistance to Islam (at least as long as they do not have a crush for totalitarianism itself).

Muslim birth rates are such that Muslim social low classe shift the social and demographic balances of the infested nations towards growing influence on education, politics, legislation and law enforcement.

Another demonstration that skybirds hatred really is akin to that from 1930s germany.
Replace the word Muslim with Jew and you have a nice film by Eberhard Taubert.

In this context I remind of that the western world learned a lot about slave holding - from islamo-arabic slave traders who already were there with their businss long before the first black slaves where shipped to Europe and later Northern America.

I could have sworn the first big shipments of black slaves to Europe would have been many many centuries before there was such a thing as Islam.
Come to think of it the two cultures that are described as the cradle of western civilisation shipped slaves from all over the place.
Maybe it was time travelling muslims that taught them, you know how sneaky those infectious parasites are, the Eternal Muslim swarming like rats through time and space breeding good germans out of existance and getting their evil claws into education politics legislation and law enforcement as part of their global conspiracy....hey skybird missed out the media...the global media is run by the muslim horde.

My grandmother was born in Sweden, for example, my father and uncles are "American" and not "Swedish-American."

Really?
Yet in Boston on paddys day how many narrowbacks could you find claiming to be Irish-American because of some great great great grandmother they think came from County Dingle.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really?
Yet in Boston on paddys day how many narrowbacks could you find claiming to be Irish-American because of some great great great grandmother they think came from County Dingle.

This very post proves it true. Some people who have zero cultural affinity with Irish culture (ie: actual culture practiced in Ireland) claim to be more closely related because of some nonsensical drop of blood someplace. My grandmother had a very irish maiden name, and her mother was in fact born there. That said, I'd never suggest that I'd have more in common with someone because of a surname someplace in the family history, that's absurd.

I have more in common culturally with virtually any 3d generation+ american selected at random than I do with someone picked at random from a country represented by some surname in my family heritage. Obviously if you are naturalized, or your parents were, you might have more customs still from wherever "the old country" might have been.

It's funny that sometimes nationality gets taken as "race." Even more silly when one considers that "race" is pretty much meaningless anyway.

This very post proves it true.

Actually it proves your point false.
The "true american" version you claim is sadly in decline never really existed.

BTW you keep saying about equality and the wonderful freedom for women. My memory is a bit fuzzy about primogeny could you remind me again when exactly all this womens equality came about? maybe for example use a bastion against the islamic horde like switzerland, when did they get dragged kicking and screaming to actually dilute some of their institutionalised misogeny?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually it proves your point false.
The "true american" version you claim is sadly in decline never really existed.

BTW you keep saying about equality and the wonderful freedom for women. My memory is a bit fuzzy about primogeny could you remind me again when exactly all this womens equality came about? maybe for example use a bastion against the islamic horde like switzerland, when did they get dragged kicking and screaming to actually dilute some of their institutionalised misogeny?

The melting pot certainly existed, and frankly mostly exists. So-called multiculturalism has also existed with immigrant groups forming enclaves of "sameness," as well. None the less, for the most part, immigrants in this country do assimilate. Even Muslims, actually, which is why US Muslims are less extremist than European Muslims (at least according to polls conducted by outfits like PEW). None the less, they still hold views well outside norms for Americans at large (60% disapproval with al qaida is is 40% pro, or lukewarm towards AQ (having no opinion on such a poll is tantamount to support, IMO)).

That said, much of pluralistic, liberal western civilization is at odds with basic Muslim beliefs. Note that I'm just as vigorous in arguing against prayer in school, ID, or any other attempt by religion to invade public policy. Frequently those who would join such a fight in the US if the antagonist was a Baptist give a pass if he's a Muslim, however.

What do you mean by "primogeny?" I'm unfamiliar with the term (as is google).

Primatology?

Equality is something defined by law, except perhaps where those in the West might use the concept of "Natural Rights" as the US Founding Fathers did. In the West, women have no really had equality for very long.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...686906,00.html

The interesting thing about Kelek is that she defends all of the terms that form the basis of German society: freedom, democracy, enlightenment, secular order, civil society. Yet in doing so, she draws harsh criticism from Germans. She's a woman who makes people uneasy. But why?
(...)
Oddly enough one of the things that can make a conversation with Kelek somewhat disconcerting is the enthusiasm with which she praises freedom. It's unfamiliar because Germans don't talk this way anymore.
(...)
It pains Kelek that she rarely meets Germans capable of mentioning the word "freedom" without immediately alluding to the downsides, whether it be obsessive consumption or pornography. Perhaps it's necessary to have experienced a lack of freedom in order to have such enthusiasm for it. And once the unease subsides, it's actually gratifying to experience Kelek's enthusiasm for the foundations of Western society.
(...)
There are two reasons, it seems, why Germans often make lousy defenders of their own values -- their detachment and their fear of being accused of intolerance. But a free society needs enthusiasts like Kelek. Otherwise, it risks becoming cynical.
Kelek finds herself in a dilemma familiar to all those who defend freedom and tolerance -- namely, that freedom can never be complete freedom, and tolerance never complete tolerance. This means that a rational person who fights for freedom and tolerance is necessarily also always fighting for intolerance and a lack of freedom. In other words, those who fight for tolerance must also be intolerant of those who are intolerant.
(...)
What happens in mosques and Koran schools, she adds, should be transparent and founded on Germany's democratic constitutional order. "Religion," she declares, "is part of freedom. It does not stand above it."