Here's the one I meant to post:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVnmUVULEbk&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ
GC
Oklahoma beheading - Islam is a disease
by Simon 1524 Replies latest members adult
-
-
Gustv Cintrn
And, you know, although I didn't mean to post the crazy orthodox jews video, here indeed is another example of how nuts can practice a determined religion.
We love Israel and I'm sure we know reasonable jews, but on the other extreme here are these idiots on this plane ride causing problems for the crew and other passengers due to some off the wall religious dogma. Same with Islam! A few jack-wagons, but mostly good, well intentioned, reasonable people.
GC
-
Gregor
GC - Your comments are bovine excrement. I mean no offense to you personally.
-
AlphaMan
And, you know, although I didn't mean to post the crazy orthodox jews video, here indeed is another example of how nuts can practice a determined religion.
Let's see.....first on your way to the airport you stop and are harassed by Jehovah's Witnesses doing street work, then you are slowed down by Mormon missionaries on their bicycles, then harassed by Hare Krisnas at the airport, then you have to be screened and body searched because of Muslim terrorists, then you run into these religious nut ulta-orthodox Jews who can fly, but can't touch women.
-
barry
Could I suggest the reason for the problems there is in Islam is fundamentalism which different even from the christian fudies. The reason for this is because the Muslims have not had an Enlightenment as Europe and the United States . I quote
The age of enlightenment [or simply the enlightenment or age of reason] was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in the late 17th-century in western europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It spreadacross Europe and to the United States continuing to the end of the 18th century.
There we have it, Islam needs their own Enlightenment but the problems involved with the religious giving up much of their power base will create conflict. Hizb ut tahrir has made a video in Australia accusing the government of promoting a 'different alien type of Islam'. Hizb ut tahrir is a group that makes many excuses for terrorism and they are very carefull not to say they actually support it because of our laws against terrorism.
They also attract many well educated people to their cause and is present in the US and UK and it is outlawed in many muslim countries.Barry
-
-
Gustv Cintrn
Gregor,
"Bovine excrement". Wow, that sounds cool, refined, more like a compliment rather than an insult.
Yeap... I think I'll use it and the people won't even know I'm insulting them. Nice!
GC
-
BucketShopBill
Simon I wasted years talking with people who claimed to be Moderate with a forked-tongue, you must realize by now how easily prevarication comes. A tiny fraction of Blacks in the United States are raging about Slavery yet they never read any history books on how the Arab Slave Trade worked. Under which Caliph did their ancestors get sent to not only the Western World but other countries promoting slavery? Bernard Lewis wrote a amazing piece of history with detailed facts, at least seventy plus pages of documentented, irrefutable unless some Historical Revisionist Pseudo Academian is hired to down play the role they had in transporting 60,000,000 to 90,000,000 Slaves to various Countries. The Blood guilt upon this religion means nothing because it's a religion that originated by the Sword and the same people who are claiming Islam has nothing to do with the Sword would have been slaughtered by the True Muslim who knows, obeys and understands the culture and heritage.
While the UK was ready to abolish Slavery, the Muslim lands were freaking out!
In his book, Lewis describes how the Muslim world reacted when cries for abolition of slavery resounded around the world in the 17th to 19th centuries.
'The revulsion against slavery, which gave rise to a strong abolitionist movement in England, and later in other Western countries, began to affect the Islamic lands. What was involved was not, initially, the abolition of the institution of slavery but its alleviation, and in particular, the restriction and ultimately the elimination of the slave trade. Islamic law, in contrast to the ancient and colonial systems, accords the slave a certain legal status and assigns obligations as well as rights to the slave owner. The manumission of slaves, though recommended as a meritorious act, is not required, and the institution of slavery not only is recognized but is elaborately regulated by Sharia law. Perhaps for this very reason the position of the domestic slave in Muslim society was in most respects better than in either classical antiquity or the nineteenth-century Americas. While, however, the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor, the processes of acquisition and transportation often imposed appalling hardships. It was these which drew the main attention of European opponents of slavery, and it was to the elimination of this traffic, particularly in Africa, that their main efforts were directed. The abolition of slavery itself would hardly have been possible. From a Muslim point of view, to forbid what God permits is almost as great an offense as to permit what God forbids - and slavery was authorized and regulated by the holy law. More specifically, it formed part of the law of personal status, the central core of social usage, which remained intact and effective even when other sections of the holy law, dealing with civil, criminal, and similar matters, were tactically or even openly modified and replaced by modern codes. It was from conservative religious quarters and notably from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina that the strongest resistance to the proposed reform came. The emergence of the holy men and the holy places as the last ditch defenders of slavery against reform is only an apparent paradox. They were upholding an institution sanctified by scripture, law, and tradition and one which in their eyes was necessary to the maintenance of the social structure of Muslim life'."
Race and Slavery in the Middle East An Historical Enquiry, published in 1990 by Oxford University Press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_Slavery_in_the_Middle_East
You need to watch out my friend, remember what happend to these people, I was invited to join one of the forums and explain my position but the Mod would quickly silence you so they could slant the subject and make fun of anyone's views who did not follower theirs. They are not tolerant, why do you think Judge Rutherford had to keep the Bible Students in the 1920s-1940s quiet? They are the biggest forced-religon in the World, they don't have a choice and we and others on JWN know it's a fact. You posted a picture of Atheists having a beer, the radicals sitting back enjoying themselves. Do you know who wins when a Country is slowly invaded by religious zealots against passive atheists and secular thinking individuals? People standing up for Moderate Islam while attacking JWs and other religious people are mentally ill, make's you wonder if they are Muslims using the allowance of lying to infidels to promote their message?
Christians on PalTalk Chat Service Tracked by Radical Islamic Web Site
http://www.nysun.com/national/christians-on-paltalk-chat-service-tracked-by/8455/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/10/myth-moderate-muslim
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/
-
Frazzled UBM
The reason I didn't answer your question is that I reject your simplistic black and white approach. You create an either or dichomtomy and say there are only two choices and I must choose. Critical thinking involves avoiding creating false dichotomies. The battle is as much between moderate/mainstream/establishment Islam and the Fanatcis as it is between Radical Islam and the West as recent events in Egypt show. Of course I support the West and see Western values as being more liberal than the values of rthe Muslim World (I have made this clear on this thread - another reason for my anger -- but does the West have clean hands in all of this - no. I am not saying the West is to blame for fanaticism - the Muslim world is to blame for not doing more to resist extremism as a political movement (mind you the Egyptian military ruthlessly crushed the democratically elected Muslim Brotehrhood - while I support this, it is somewhat problematic from the poitn fo view fo establishing democracy in the Arab World - but the West has fanned the flames or created the preconditions for groups like ISIS to thrive through various miscalculations (partisan support for Israel, invsaion of Iraq, support for Syrian rebels, support for the Arab Spring movements) in recent times. I would characterise the current attacks on Islam from the Radical Right in the US as a simliar miscalculation or at least people not thinking through the consequences of their cactions - or more to the point not caring about the consequences of their actions. We are not as virtuous as we think we are. But if I criticise the West you label me an oikophobe (it is the fear of home surroundings - really? clutching at straws me thinks) -- is this the best you can do to deflect criticism that you are Islamophobes?
My anger was at the suggestion that because I defend Islam from unfair criticism based on tarring all of Islam with the brush of the fanatics, I am then forced to have to defend myself from a suggestion that I am a supporter of the Fanatics. This sort of makes my point really that you people are deliberately attributing everything the fanatics do to Islam itself - this has happened over and over again on this thread. And as I said, your command that I answer your question is exactly the sort of tactic that Joe McCarthy employed in crushing free speech through the Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s. You are with us or against us and if you try to show any nuance in your opinion then that means you are against us so we will string you up. Lynch mob mentality. I remember a similar reaction from a bunch of Americans I was aguing with in 2003 about why the US should not invade Iraq and why it would all end in tears.
-
Frazzled UBM
Another interesting phenomenon is that Simon has been saying: "Prove that Islam doesn't support the violent passages in the Quran!" - so I do that and then the response is well because of the muslim version of theocratic warfare you can't believe any moderate muslim statement. So there is no point in debating you because nothing I can say is going to change your view because you have decided that you and you alone really know what moderate muslims think and nothing I can tell you to the contrary will change that. So this pretense of a debate is a complete and utter waste of time.