What do you say about this?

[mapuc]

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

[scandium]

Originally Posted by mapuc

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by scandium

I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread.

I am bored with all this Islam stuff, there is more to life than this boring stuff. :p

[Skybird]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...2029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...2029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...ef3ebd&k=70588

"CALGARY - A 12-year-old girl accused of murdering three members of a Medicine Hat, Alta., family will not have to undergo a psychiatric assessment at the present time, a provincial court judge ruled Wednesday."

But as we all know only Muslim youths commit acts of violence (except for this Calgary youth who is not Muslim and who is accused of 3 murders), and violence only occurs in places like Niger (and Canada).

Not to say Niger doesn't have plenty of problems (obviously it does), or to suggest that Muslims don't commit violence (obviously some do), only to point out how worthless random Jihadwatch articles are.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria.

No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it.

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:

• Why Dhimmi Watch?
  
  Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
  
  The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.
  
  But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.
  
  More...

[TteFAboB]

If you burn the holy Quran in Dernmark, the holy Quran will burn Denmark.

Well, not really, if the Danish Mohammed cartoons are any hint, things will burn, but not in Denmark.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by mapuc

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

Are they out of firewood? JK.

[TteFAboB]

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know, but to each his own.

If we followed scandium, we wouldn't study nor Islam nor violence nor Niger nor Canada, we wouldn't know anything and wouldn't be able to do anything nor in Niger nor in Canada. Is the real worthless thing really random Jihadwatch "articles"?

I will remove the relativism:

The news in Niger has a victim being stoned to death by a mob for distributing leaflets. She was arrested for her letter because in Niger there is no freedom of expression or religion, and the angry mob invaded the police station where she was taken to and killed her inside it, meaning the state of Niger can't protect its own citizens. Nobody will be punished for this crime, while it is a crime in Niger's law, it is not in Sharia, and while the letter was not a crime in Niger's law, it was in Sharia.

The Calgary news has two Female murderers, one 23 years old and the other 12, they are accused of murdering 3, not with stones or sharp pieces of iron, they did not invade a police station and neither does a pair constitute a mob. Likewise, no angry mob attempted to invade the police station or Jail or court where they were to kill them. There is no conflict of law. No religion is even mentioned.

The only worthless thing here is the continous attempt to shut the curtains, stop the debate, cease discussion, with relativism, pointing similar cases which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. The only significance a murder in Calgary has with a discussion about Islam is what is its place in Islamic law?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know,

Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism. But relativism and rejection of any differences are two different things. Or must I say: are not different things... Damn, now I am confused...

Relativism eh? Hmm. Well context matters. You'd posted what struck me as a meaningless article (since there was no analysis or anything given on it) on violence in a place that is well known for its violence. To try and provoke you into coming out with whatever point you had to make I posted an equally meaningless article about violence somewhere else. Both had youths in common as their perpetrators. If there was any point to my post it was that drawing any conclusions on Islam from this incident in Niger is about as meaningful as drawing conclusions on 12 year olds from that youth in Calgary.

This is my supposed "relativism" at work: trying to understand the phenomena of say serial killers would get you precisely nowhere if you observed that most serial killers are white and Christian (which they are; the phenomena is also a fairly modern and Western phenomena but that is neither here nor there) and equated the acts of serial killing with Christianity - and any person who tried to do so would be laughed at. Yet with Islam and terrorism this is exactly what you, and others, do Skybird and this is what Jihadwatch is all about and you ignore that acts of terrorism committed by the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are about as rare as serial killings committed by the world's population of Christians.

This is a good counterpoint to jihadwatch (but amusing in a wry sort of way instead of full of doom and gloom) from Akram's Razor:

Rule 5: It's always "jihad"

Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them. Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529. Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya, slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris. The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet.

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam...g_t.html#jihad

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by scandium

Relativism eh? Hmm. Well context matters. You'd posted what struck me as a meaningless article (since there was no analysis or anything given on it) on violence in a place that is well known for its violence. To try and provoke you into coming out with whatever point you had to make I posted an equally meaningless article about violence somewhere else. Both had youths in common as their perpetrators. If there was any point to my post it was that drawing any conclusions on Islam from this incident in Niger is about as meaningful as drawing conclusions on 12 year olds from that youth in Calgary.

This is my supposed "relativism" at work: trying to understand the phenomena of say serial killers would get you precisely nowhere if you observed that most serial killers are white and Christian (which they are; the phenomena is also a fairly modern and Western phenomena but that is neither here nor there) and equated the acts of serial killing with Christianity - and any person who tried to do so would be laughed at. Yet with Islam and terrorism this is exactly what you, and others, do Skybird and this is what Jihadwatch is all about and you ignore that acts of terrorism committed by the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are about as rare as serial killings committed by the world's population of Christians.

This is a good counterpoint to jihadwatch (but amusing in a wry sort of way instead of full of doom and gloom) from Akram's Razor:

Rule 5: It's always "jihad"

Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them. Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529. Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya, slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris. The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet.

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam...g_t.html#jihad

What you simply refuse to realize, although it cannot be laid out to you even more clearly and obvious, is the simple fact that certain types of violance are ORDERED by Islam (Islam on the basis of Koran and Muhammad, which is the only ideolgy that is valid to be called Islam), that this is a duty EVERY Muslim is called for to obey, that it is encrypted in their scriptures, that this is what makes it forever totally different from the teachings of Jesus, that it is preached by many of their preachers, and more important: the majority of the really highranking clerics and international representives (the mayor of Medina for example, the president of the highly influential Anzhar academy, and so on) - and that the overwhelming majoirty of the Muslims you would describe as the more reasonable ones does not stand up against this, does not help by deeds to overcome this, does not force those that "abuse" their faith for violant goals to step down, does not take care to make their claims on religion an object of examination, does actively resist the idea to monitor "radical" muslims in their middle, does not take care of these "radicals" themselves, etc. etc. etc. you said it yourself one or two days ago: judge them by their deeds or non-deeds. and that's what I do. What Muslim communities actually do contradicts what you think about them. But you simply do not care and stick to your selfwritten storyboard of what islam is: it is equal to us, and is about the same God, and just mirrors the same lights and shadows of christianity, which is not at all any different from the politics of the church. Here the point is reached where it become useless to talk to you. You simply do not want to hear the truth as told by facts from history, scripture, practice, preaching, and that is all about your position.

You also do ignore that what you accuse the mediaval West of - still is contemporary practice in almost all Muslim countries - not of the past, but TODAY.

Next, you ignore or I suppose: you do not know the reality at schools in the West. In Germany, THE MAJORITY os students from Muslim colonist families since many years had a massive revival of orthodox beliefs. They hail honour murders, and the beating of wifes. A great ammount of their girls agree to the boys on these issues. Now ignore this, too. It's a reality at German schools. Also is it a reality, that turkish ultra-nationalism is not on the march, but on a rushing storm at German schools. Sharia, of course, in their Rucksacks.

And - surprise, surprise - the deeds of the radicals are to be found in congruency with their scriptures (Koran, Hadith), and these radicals accuse the moderates (that try to convince us that Islam is all that NOT) of being no true Muslims anymore - and thus attack them as well. The hostility of Bin Laden towards Saudi Arbaia is just the most famous example.

All your political and theological thinking is noice and well, it is complex, and well-meant and ambitioned - but is based on a fundamwent that ignored simple facts of Islam. Facts that you continue tomignore and declare instead that it is equal to christinaity (without even solving the copntradiction between "church" and "Christianity").

You cannot be helped. But once you realize that you were wrong, be advised that this will mean the arrival of an Islamic socieity that doe snot tolerate opinions like yours. Metaphorically spoken, you will end up like the communists and socialists that also found it clever to help Khomeni to install islam in iran again. they were the first that Islam hund up in the streets. Because what you believe is true Islam, in the understanding of true Islam is an afffront to Islam, and thus needs to be destroyed. you even do not realize that it is not Islam you try to support, but an abstract self-construction.

unfortunetaly the damage opinions like yours are doing can never be repaired again. That's why people like your are so dangerous in their ignorance. you are defending somehting - that in the form you describe it simply does not exist, whereas the real body behind your claims - is of lethal hostility toewards your attitude. they will remain silent as long as the door is not completely open, or their is still a chance that it will be shut again. Once that is no more, you'll get eaten up.

[SUBMAN1]

Simple solution - just Nuke Islam. Next subject please! :p

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You cannot be helped. But once you realize that you were wrong, be advised that this will mean the arrival of an Islamic socieity that doe snot tolerate opinions like yours. Metaphorically spoken, you will end up like the communists and socialists that also found it clever to help Khomeni to install islam in iran again. they were the first that Islam hund up in the streets. Because what you believe is true Islam, in the understanding of true Islam is an afffront to Islam, and thus needs to be destroyed. you even do not realize that it is not Islam you try to support, but an abstract self-construction.

unfortunetaly the damage opinions like yours are doing can never be repaired again. That's why people like your are so dangerous in their ignorance. you are defending somehting - that in the form you describe it simply does not exist, whereas the real body behind your claims - is of lethal hostility toewards your attitude. they will remain silent as long as the door is not completely open, or their is still a chance that it will be shut again. Once that is no more, you'll get eaten up.

You think Canada and other Western countries are in danger of becoming Islamic theocracies. You call my doubt of this prediction "ignorance" but I think such predictions unwarranted hysteria. I simply think that there are enough real, tangible problems in our society to deal with that we don't need to be preoccupied by phantoms. Boogeymen are for children (and the guy making a tidy profit on Jihadwatch and his 5 books selling fear of Islam).

[TteFAboB]

Islam has no conspiracy.

Islam, UNIQUELY, unlike any other religion, received it's gospel directly from Allah, it must not and cannot be interpreted, there is nothing to interpret, think, discuss, think, imagine, feel, guess, figure, there are only things to DO. Mohammed concludes the word of Allah and puts a FINAL DOT on the Quran.

THIS IS UNIQUE TO QURAN AND ISLAM! No other religion has put a final dot. Christianity did not, Judaism did not, Bhuddism did not, Spiritism did not, VooDoo did not, Xintoism did not, Jedi did not, Hinduism did not, fill the rest.

Therefore, this is why Islam is UNIQUE, Islam is a religion, like other religions are also religions, but this is a particular feature of Islam.

And that's why Persia, which has had more philosophers than the entire European continent STOPPED all intellectual activity once Islam conquered it.

There was nothing more to think, invent, discover, there was no need for logic, unlike other religions which solved the issues of logic and dialetic on their own different paths, Islam discarded logic essentially. Any conflict is not a conflict, the Quran is originally correct, there was no need to interpret anything, not the world, not the Quran.

To deny this fundamental difference is to close one's eyes to reality, it's to ignore the difference from Islamic philosophers to philosophers from Europe and China, it is to ignore the shaping of the world.

That's why looking at Islam and comparing it as a historical actor with the Catholic Church is a fatal mistake which will never lead to any meaningfull understanding of the reality.

Muslims, because of this, are far less theological and seek far less reasoning their religion than other people from other religions because there is no need for them to do it, everything is already settled, and it says: conquer the world. Since they are people of peace, they don't occupy themselves with this complicated, exhaustive task and let people like the Hamas do their thing, the peacefull Muslims will only join in embassy burning when necessary to remember freedom of expression is contradictory to Islam.

Example: Islamic revolution in Iran, like the old comming of Islam to Persia which killed intellectual life, it was in Iran that the original texts of the Quran were first translated to another language, French, for the first time in history back in the 70's, the Islamic Revolution quickly stopped the work and burned the research material because there is no point in translating, researching anything, there is no point in communicating and sharing your original doctrine with the Dar al-Harb, Islam has NEVER IN HISTORY shared their original Quran with the rest of the world, and never will if Muslims continue to follow the Islamic doctrine.

This means the only conspirators are people who are in favour of debate, discussion and all those Muslims who have confronted themselves with these questions and reached the conclusions that were denied to be investigated in the past. These are conspiring against Islam.