New president IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth ! - Page 8

Type941 · 10-30-05, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caspofungin

Quote:

they should not come to Western countries and start demanding that we conform to their desires. And that's exactly what's happening...

...But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them?

While it certainly is unfair to look at a group of people as if it were composed only of its nastiest members, one has to keep in mind that the nastiest ones are likely to be far more active than the average decent guy, and will have much more impact on the group.

i agree with you completely -- this is the crux of the problem. Solution? I don't know. But ignorance about Islam and Muslims, generalizations perpetuated by the media and self-serving politicians certainly doesn't help things.

= result of such stance though is that things are only getting worse / continuing on the same path.

caspofungin · 10-30-05, 09:07 PM

so how do you fix things? bear in mind the problem of absorbing an immigrant culture into your own has been around for decades, even before the current issues we're talking about. Think about West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis in the UK, Algerians and Morrocans in France, Turks in Germany, East Indians in Holland... a long list, and not a single country has found a solution, whether it be multiculturalism or absorption.

Col7777 · 10-31-05, 12:22 AM

Whim Libears worte

< But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most Muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them? >

As an example of this how many of you have been to a trade union meeting and a show of hands has been asked for a certain motion to be carried, when SOME see the large show of hands for that motion they reluctantly put their hand up too because they don't want to be singled out later even though they don't fully agree?

Abraham · 10-31-05, 01:19 AM

Since its independence, Holland has always had great influxes of emigrants, because of our freedom of religion. Percentagewise these influxes were as big or even bigger than the influx of Muslims immigrants (allochtones) we face now.
To name a few: French Hugenots, Flemish Protestants, Portugese Jews, Germans from the MÃ¼nster & Colone region, British Protestants all in the first century of our independence. These people were happy to find a new place to live in peace, adapted - while often sticking to their believes/traditions. After WW II and during the decolonialisation period there have been several hundred thousend of immigrants from the East Indies and Moluccans, and from Surinam (Dutch Guyana) in South America. Their integration went traumatic, but after a generation it can be said that it was succesful.

With the Muslims there seems to be a more serious problem and I think it is caused by their religion (I'm generalizing for arguments sake).
A substantial group of them is not interested in taking part in Dutch society, although that society welcomed them and pampered them with social support in a way no other group of immigrants had ever experienced.
It's not an identifiable group, but a gliding scale of fully integrated Muslims - too few - all the way to those reactionaries, who do not accept the secular Dutch authority and call this 'dar al-harb' (land of conflict).
The majority of Muslims struggle somewhere in the middle, on the positive side those who struggle with the language, with our customs and which try to start little businesses, on the negative side those who are hardly interested in integration, speaking our language in an understandable way and those who switch on an Arab satelite station as soon as they come home.
I really wonder whether there is much progress within this group in terms of absolute numbers.
The appearence of traditional preachers from countries like Saudi Arabia certainly did not help integration, like the one who asked the mayor of Amsterdam last year for a special Muslim park in Amsterdam, where all women had to wear feils and where he would not be confronted with girls, sunbathing in shorts or bikini's, nor by homo's, walking hand in hand!
Nor did the slaughter of filmmaker Theo van Gogh on broad daylight by Mohamed Bouyeri ("for offending Allah" in the movie "Submission").

I cannot help but think that it is the Muslim religion that prevents Muslims from a succesful integration and a prosperous life in their new country.
For those who might not know I want to say that I am a Christian and I respect everybody who takes his religion seriously. But not being a Muslim, I see the moral message of the Quran (in my view of course written by Mohammed) encapsuled in a very limited and completely outdated social-political-cultural set of rules. Mohamed and the people who wrote the Hadith can't be blamed for that of course, they were living in 6th and 7th century in the Arab peninsula and had limited reference points.

Christianity accepts the Ten Commands as God's guidelines for a good and prosperous life, but does not know any strict set of social, cultural or political rules. Islam, if it wants to bring its followers progress, urgently needs to be liberated of its social, political and cultural ties that do not fit in the modern world and consequently must lead to undemocratic, backward dictatorships or (attempts of) theocracies...
Just like Christianity Islam should direct its religious and moral message to the hearts and minds of its followers and leave social, political and cultural rules to the evolving society.
It can only do so when it subjects itself to severe self-criticism. I doubt very much whether it is capable to do so. If not, it will always breed lunatics who will be all to willing to lend Allah a helping hand in exchange for eternal life and seventy-some virgins...

Kissaki · 10-31-05, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWarren

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

If you read the Bible it has places in there that says children who disobey their parents are to be killed. And all "sinners of the flesh" - so to speak - are to be killed. Now, does this mean that Christians actually heed or even pay attention to these ancient edicts? Certainly not. I know a handful of Christian fundamentalists (who believe in a literary interpretation of the Bible), and not even they would kill in the Name of the Lord (except in war).

If exceptions can be found in the Bible, why is it so strange that there are exceptions in the Koran as well?

The Avon Lady · 10-31-05, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caspofungin

not surah 6, the 6th surah you learn -- starting at the end, since those are shorter. "Al Kafiroon" -- The Unbelievers.

That would be Surah 109.

Still doesn't answer my questions, though.

Quote:

I haven't read the Torah, but I have read the Bible -- and there's plenty of bits in there about how those that don't believe are doomed/cursed/whatever. Same in all religions, afaik.

Islam can curse me all they want. The problem is not with verbal abuse.

Quote:

And since we're quoting -- Surah 2, "Al Bagara" -- The Cow

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believe in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness -- their wages awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

What's the rule in Islam of a later Surah that contradicts a prior one? Surah 5, verse 51:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Abraham · 10-31-05, 01:58 AM

Your suggestion that not killing childeren is an exception to a Biblical rule is ridiculous. So is the idea that consequently there must be exceptions in the Quran as well. You can't compare apples and pears, dear Kissaki!
I don't think the New Testament promotes killing, let alone the killing of disobedient children.
Perhaps you refer to texts of the Torah (the Old Testament), the first 5 books of Mozes. Even that I doubt, because contrary to its neigbouring tribes the offering and slaughtering of children was strictly forbidden in Israel. Anyway I would like to see your source. If there is any, you should realise that such text would be more than 3.000 years old.
For (fundamental) Muslims the text of the Quran is holy and untouchable and does not allow for exceptions.
That's why Dutch cineast Theo van Gogh was slaughtered (tomorrow one year) ago for 'offending Allah' based on texts 'only' 1.400 years old.
That's why a substantial segment of Muslims in Holland holds the opinion that he asked for it himself by making the movie 'Submission'.

darksythe · 10-31-05, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

I have had Muslim friends.... Untill they no longer had a need for my aid. Then i was just a infidel again. such a shame that a religion that appears to be based on hate can still cause such problems for people today.

But hey what do i know i am just an Infidel, and anything i say is just words from the devils mouth anyway.

Iceman · 10-31-05, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWarren

Agree 100%. Just read Revelation.

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous.

I for one don't want to live in a Muslim country. If they had their way, all non-muslims would be killed.

If you read the Bible it has places in there that says children who disobey their parents are to be killed. And all "sinners of the flesh" - so to speak - are to be killed. Now, does this mean that Christians actually heed or even pay attention to these ancient edicts? Certainly not. I know a handful of Christian fundamentalists (who believe in a literary interpretation of the Bible), and not even they would kill in the Name of the Lord (except in war).

If exceptions can be found in the Bible, why is it so strange that there are exceptions in the Koran as well?

Dude....now your gonna get me stirred up with the Bible lol...Anything truly can be taken and twisted I'll grant you that but I guess the easiest thing to do for ya is to Skip....all the way to the End of the Bible....

He that is holy let him be holy still, he that in unholy let him be unholy still....and if you read just a little more ya get the whole point of the Bible...God doesn't force anyone in heaven or earth to follow him....but if the path one chooses conflicts with His way...ya can't live with a being like that....light and dark cannot dwell together...its all about choice.

Murderers..thieves...etc etc can go live where they want and God and His people will go to a place where He has prepared for them...the beauty of it is, is that a way back to be able walk again with God was paid for in blood...it is thru grace...this is the difference from what I gather from Christians,Jews and Muslims....Muslims and Jews think it can be earned...it can not be and live under the curse of the law...subjecting themselves to the law yet failing to fufill it.The law was meant to show sin it it's true light....hence an "Old" Testament and a "New" Testament in the Bible.

Sorry to go on but you try to draw compairisons between the Bible and what is taught in the Koran and I don't think you have studied the Bible enough to say that....if someone in the Bible was told to kill someone I think it may have been at least over 2000yrs ago...and is not taught at all anywhere in any sect of Christinaity...but from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?

There are no Exceptions...Thou Shall Not Kill has been a pretty big theme of the Christian God for a long time.

and ancient edicts ya got it..."New Testament" is what Christians go by.

If you are a Muslim and believe that non-believers are to be treated this way than be faithful to your faith don't be ashamed.

There are no exceptions....and I think the "True" Muslims will follow that as well....

Christians...No kill.
Muslims.....You tell me....ok or no?
Jews....I don't think so....but again enlighten me.

The Avon Lady · 10-31-05, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

Christians...No kill.
Muslims.....You tell me....ok or no?
Jews....I don't think so....but again enlighten me.

If you read your Old Testament (our Torah), there are numerous cases of capital punishment. The same Torah you quote as coining the law "Though shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments, also requires a person found guilty of violating numerous commandments to be punished by death.

The requirements for someone to receive capital punishment are numerous and were rarely met. Advanced and precise warning of the violaition he/she was about to commit by two or more witnesses, their accurate and precisely matching testimony, etc.

According to the Talmud, a court of law empowered to carry out the death penalty that executes a criminal more than once in seventy years is considered a "murderous court." Capital cases were forbidden to be judged in Jewish courts of law over 2000 years ago because of the degeneration of the Jewish people's obedience to the Torah's laws. Mass executions was never what the Torah wanted to lead to. Hence the Sages back then disbanded capital court cases.

I haven't read it through thoroughly and I am not a big fan of theirs but Chabad have this related article out: Replacing Fundamentalism... With What?. Might be of interest.

Iceman · 10-31-05, 04:53 AM

Thank you Avon Lady for the link and the response.

Abraham · 10-31-05, 05:31 AM

@ Iceman:
I remember from my law studies that the Mozaic laws, while sounding brutal today, were extremely moderate compared with those of Israels neigbours. In those days fights tended to end in a spiral of violence and led to vendetta's between families, which could go on for generations - and still do in the Middle East.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", even without the Talmudic interpretation, meant to restore the peace of the land after a fitting retribution.
As far as penalties are concerned, when Israel received the Mosaic laws it was wandering around in the desert. No police stations and penitentiary or correctional facilities, which left very few options for any punishment, other than physical. The worst punishment was stoning, a lighter one was being excluded from the people and send away in the desert as a cast out. You still might have a small chance.
Usually smaller criminal acts could be retributed by atonement or some form of doing penance.

caspofungin · 10-31-05, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous

...from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?

what verse quoted on this thread says that? So, yes, you are wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

There are no Exceptions...Thou Shall Not Kill has been a pretty big theme of the Christian God for a long time.

I agree -- it's been a theme, but not one that evryone has lived by. So if Christians have killed and slaughtered on a grand scale over the course of history, does that mean Christianity is a dangerous religion, and Christians are to be feared? No, because we are capable of recognizing the difference between a faith and those who interpret it to suit their ends. As long as that faith isn't Islam, because then terroristas and murderers are "just following their religion." Two-faced bollocks.

The Avon Lady · 10-31-05, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caspofungin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

If you read the Koran it has places in there that says everyone who dose not convert to Islam is to be killed. That is why Islam is so dangerous

...from the quotes I am reading here from the "Practiced Today" Koran...to hack ..mame...or kill is acceptable...and required as a good follower...am I wrong here anyone?

what verse quoted on this thread says that? So, yes, you are wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Surah 5, verse 33:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned [Pickthall and Yusuf Ali have "exiled" rather than "imprisoned"]

Surah 8, verses 12 and 13:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

Abraham · 10-31-05, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caspofungin

I agree -- it's been a theme, but not one that evryone has lived by. So if Christians have killed and slaughtered on a grand scale over the course of history, does that mean Christianity is a dangerous religion, and Christians are to be feared? No, because we are capable of recognizing the difference between a faith and those who interpret it to suit their ends. As long as that faith isn't Islam, because then terroristas and murderers are "just following their religion." Two-faced bollocks.

I don't completely agree, I think.
There were many instances in history where Christianity was rightfully perceived as a danger by other religions. This started as soon as Christianity got a hold on political power (during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great - 4th Century) and lasted till the Renaissance. The final liberation for Christianity from the mortal danger of being percieved as a political threat came when as a result of the Enlightment and with the help of Humanism (which was in itself a result of critical Christianity) the separation between State and Church was established as a Western principle.
Only from the moment that Christianity lost political power it can rightfully distance itself from those who interpret it to suit their political ends.
A few well known examples:
Nazi's used the slogan: 'Gott mit uns' (God with us);
Apartheid policy in South Africa claimed a 'Christian' fundation;
IRA claimed to protect Catholics against Protestants.

Islam doesn't seem know it yet, but it will be a better religion when it gives up all political aspirations, including the submission to the Sharia, and sticks to its moral message.

10-31-05, 12:22 AM	#108
Col7777 Grey Wolf Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 944 Downloads: 260 Uploads: 0	Whim Libears worte < But, you can say, those are just extremists and criminals, and most Muslims are not like that. Sure. I agree. The problem is, in that majority of non-extremists, will we find many who are loyal to the Western societies that host them? Or will they join the fanatics when their numbers become sufficient to start taking over, because the fanatics' view of society, while a bit too extreme for them, is still closer to what they want than our current society? Or maybe they just won't dare to oppose them? > As an example of this how many of you have been to a trade union meeting and a show of hands has been asked for a certain motion to be carried, when SOME see the large show of hands for that motion they reluctantly put their hand up too because they don't want to be singled out later even though they don't fully agree? __________________ Silent and Violent

10-31-05, 01:19 AM	#109
Abraham Eternal Patrol Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,572 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	New president IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth ! Since its independence, Holland has always had great influxes of emigrants, because of our freedom of religion. Percentagewise these influxes were as big or even bigger than the influx of Muslims immigrants (allochtones) we face now. To name a few: French Hugenots, Flemish Protestants, Portugese Jews, Germans from the MÃ¼nster & Colone region, British Protestants all in the first century of our independence. These people were happy to find a new place to live in peace, adapted - while often sticking to their believes/traditions. After WW II and during the decolonialisation period there have been several hundred thousend of immigrants from the East Indies and Moluccans, and from Surinam (Dutch Guyana) in South America. Their integration went traumatic, but after a generation it can be said that it was succesful. With the Muslims there seems to be a more serious problem and I think it is caused by their religion (I'm generalizing for arguments sake). A substantial group of them is not interested in taking part in Dutch society, although that society welcomed them and pampered them with social support in a way no other group of immigrants had ever experienced. It's not an identifiable group, but a gliding scale of fully integrated Muslims - too few - all the way to those reactionaries, who do not accept the secular Dutch authority and call this 'dar al-harb' (land of conflict). The majority of Muslims struggle somewhere in the middle, on the positive side those who struggle with the language, with our customs and which try to start little businesses, on the negative side those who are hardly interested in integration, speaking our language in an understandable way and those who switch on an Arab satelite station as soon as they come home. I really wonder whether there is much progress within this group in terms of absolute numbers. The appearence of traditional preachers from countries like Saudi Arabia certainly did not help integration, like the one who asked the mayor of Amsterdam last year for a special Muslim park in Amsterdam, where all women had to wear feils and where he would not be confronted with girls, sunbathing in shorts or bikini's, nor by homo's, walking hand in hand! Nor did the slaughter of filmmaker Theo van Gogh on broad daylight by Mohamed Bouyeri ("for offending Allah" in the movie "Submission"). I cannot help but think that it is the Muslim religion that prevents Muslims from a succesful integration and a prosperous life in their new country. For those who might not know I want to say that I am a Christian and I respect everybody who takes his religion seriously. But not being a Muslim, I see the moral message of the Quran (in my view of course written by Mohammed) encapsuled in a very limited and completely outdated social-political-cultural set of rules. Mohamed and the people who wrote the Hadith can't be blamed for that of course, they were living in 6th and 7th century in the Arab peninsula and had limited reference points. Christianity accepts the Ten Commands as God's guidelines for a good and prosperous life, but does not know any strict set of social, cultural or political rules. Islam, if it wants to bring its followers progress, urgently needs to be liberated of its social, political and cultural ties that do not fit in the modern world and consequently must lead to undemocratic, backward dictatorships or (attempts of) theocracies... Just like Christianity Islam should direct its religious and moral message to the hearts and minds of its followers and leave social, political and cultural rules to the evolving society. It can only do so when it subjects itself to severe self-criticism. I doubt very much whether it is capable to do so. If not, it will always breed lunatics who will be all to willing to lend Allah a helping hand in exchange for eternal life and seventy-some virgins... __________________ RIP Abraham

10-31-05, 01:58 AM	#112
Abraham Eternal Patrol Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,572 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth ! Your suggestion that not killing childeren is an exception to a Biblical rule is ridiculous. So is the idea that consequently there must be exceptions in the Quran as well. You can't compare apples and pears, dear Kissaki! I don't think the New Testament promotes killing, let alone the killing of disobedient children. Perhaps you refer to texts of the Torah (the Old Testament), the first 5 books of Mozes. Even that I doubt, because contrary to its neigbouring tribes the offering and slaughtering of children was strictly forbidden in Israel. Anyway I would like to see your source. If there is any, you should realise that such text would be more than 3.000 years old. For (fundamental) Muslims the text of the Quran is holy and untouchable and does not allow for exceptions. That's why Dutch cineast Theo van Gogh was slaughtered (tomorrow one year) ago for 'offending Allah' based on texts 'only' 1.400 years old. That's why a substantial segment of Muslims in Holland holds the opinion that he asked for it himself by making the movie 'Submission'. __________________ RIP Abraham

10-31-05, 05:31 AM	#117
Abraham Eternal Patrol Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,572 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth ! @ Iceman: I remember from my law studies that the Mozaic laws, while sounding brutal today, were extremely moderate compared with those of Israels neigbours. In those days fights tended to end in a spiral of violence and led to vendetta's between families, which could go on for generations - and still do in the Middle East. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", even without the Talmudic interpretation, meant to restore the peace of the land after a fitting retribution. As far as penalties are concerned, when Israel received the Mosaic laws it was wandering around in the desert. No police stations and penitentiary or correctional facilities, which left very few options for any punishment, other than physical. The worst punishment was stoning, a lighter one was being excluded from the people and send away in the desert as a cast out. You still might have a small chance. Usually smaller criminal acts could be retributed by atonement or some form of doing penance. __________________ RIP Abraham

10-30-05, 09:07 PM	#107
caspofungin Commander Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 459 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 0	so how do you fix things? bear in mind the problem of absorbing an immigrant culture into your own has been around for decades, even before the current issues we're talking about. Think about West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis in the UK, Algerians and Morrocans in France, Turks in Germany, East Indians in Holland... a long list, and not a single country has found a solution, whether it be multiculturalism or absorption.

10-31-05, 04:53 AM	#116
Iceman Ace of the Deep Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mesa AZ, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,253 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Thank you Avon Lady for the link and the response.