Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Overseas yes. But Against Who?....
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Overseas yes. But Against Who?....
I am sure that works out for you in the pub, but here we need a tiny bit more. So, you claim that the quran does not have a to-do list? And that the bible does? Or both don't, both do? And there are perhaps many interpetations of islam, but those, we do not have those here, we get the hardline variety, just because, well we allowed it to settle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Without even checking, I know that isn't true. The fundamental part of the gospel is Jesus as the son of God. Muslims don't believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You are aware that Christians considered Muslims as heretics for centuries right? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
They usually don't do that with people that doesn't belive in the Bible you know, only those that have misinterpreted it.
I was referring to his actions and what he said, not whether he is a prophet or "son of a god".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The Times article claims to be based on a police report but fails to mention what sort of report. That's sloppy. The hacks obviously didn't do their own math on the mosques, the Deobandis and related radicals.
Anyway, the apparent popularity of the Deobandis among 2nd and 3rd generation migrants has been noted before in various publications and it is disconcerting. These guys despise western values like freedom of expression, womens' rights, respect for literature, music and various other arts. In short they are trash. The underlying problem is the lack of democratic tradiotion and independent thinking in muslim countries and expartriate communities. It is becoming increasingly urgent to enable western muslims to separate themselves from these idiots, both physically and spiritually, through real education and opportunities on the one hand and real police intervention in those areas where 'spiritual leaders' terrorize their 'believers' on the other hand.
Both do , as does Jewish scripture , and there are many similarities .Quote:
So, you claim that the quran does not have a to-do list? And that the bible does? Or both don't, both do?
So for you to claim only one set of scriptures has them really is going out of your way to show that you don't know much about it .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
And there are perhaps many interpetations of islam, but those, we do not have those here, we get the hardline variety, just because, well we allowed it to settle.
Yes you only have the hardline variety over there .....because you only have the hardline variety....or is it that you have many varieties over there but only look for and hear about the nuttier ones ?
What you mean, is that "moderate" (i.e. true) Muslims don't have a voice. They aren't given it by dictatorship governments, extremists, Middle Eastern fascists and, yes, the Western media negativity obsession as well. All the Muslims I know are some of the wisest and most good people I've ever met. And you would claim tripe like this? Get lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Fragony probably doesn't get out anymore because believes his own scare-stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I dunno about that one mate. In the last 25 years the moslims in the city I live in have become very aggressive. They wern't a generation ago but they are now. This is prior to 11/9 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I agree most are fine, it's the younger ones that worry me.
AllMost of the Muslims I know are some of the wisest and most good people I've ever met.
There fixed it for you. :sweatdrop:
Well think on it a little .......Quote:
I dunno about that one mate.
......if most are fine then they cannot all be the hardline variety can they . it would be more of a loud minority sort of thing .Quote:
I agree most are fine
That is because you are getting old .~;)Quote:
it's the younger ones that worry me.
We have been here before, you and me and Frag and all the rest. I think we can agree that muslim radicalism in western cities is a bigger problem for moderate muslims and particularly free-spirited women than it is for non-muslims. The former are not going to benefit at all if the latter cry foul at every muslim face they see. I wish more people would understand this dynamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
replace "bigger" with "no less of a" and I would have to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I think the people who need to get to grips with the dynamic are other Muslims.
I'd stick with bigger. Consider that regular Muslims who wish to practise their faith properly have to share mosques with extremists, and that a large amount of social (and in some cases, other) pressure is exerted to keep them with the 'true' way of believing. There's a whole side to this that is barely visible to non-muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
They sure do, but it is much harder to do so whilst you are being spat on by the likes of Fragony who maintain that backwardness is part and parcel of your genetic make-up, your culture or your religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So, yours and Fragonys' aims are the same, however, you just disagree about the tactics? :inquisitive:
Not at all, InsaneApache. I fail to see how you could construe that. I wish my fellow citizens of the muslim persuasion all the best, and I say this without irony. They are not a problem. They have a problem though, the problem of religious radicalisation, and it must be dealt with by them, using all the help they can get. Frag apparently wishes all of them away. Whether he wants to expel them, convert them by force, put them in reservations or whatever, I wouldn't know. I'll leave that to him to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Has the rot spread too deeply?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Catholicism has been radicalized at a number of points in its history, but only the period known as the Crusades was truly multi-generational. It is possible for a faith group to move past such a status.
Is this likely?
The problem with people like Fragony and Geert Wilders and Le Pen and those fools in Switzerland and Austria is exactly the same as with inner city Muslim kids: radicalization. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with religion or ideology. It has everything to do with being human.
Newsflash: whole peoples were oppressed, enslaved, or outright murdered by Europeans because they weren't white and weren't Christian, and thusly savages -- or not even human (as the Spaniards initially viewed the Nahuatl) at all! We're talking a period lasting from almost three hundred years after the Crusades to, arguably, just fifty years ago. Yes, it's passed. But it wasn't some episode of "Medieval barbarism" or other such fairy tales either.Quote:
Catholicism has been radicalized at a number of points in its history, but only the period known as the Crusades was truly multi-generational. It is possible for a faith group to move past such a status.
Certainly a good deal of the Spanish domination in the New World can be ascribed to religious radicalism. However, I would argue that religious radicalism had little to do with most of the displacement of the native Amerinds -- which I would ascribe to Imperalism/simple greed -- and which appears to have been a fairly broad effort by all of the colonial powers regardless of creed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First off I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of these non-Christians were sacrificing babies, worshipping God-Kings and fighting their own religious wars. Thugee in India was a cult erradicated by the British. Why? Mainly because their method of worship was the ritual murder of travelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Compared to a lot the native religions Christianity was Hippie flower power.
At the same time religions had less to do with it than culture, and the fact that the Europeans won. The world today is a place created by Christian Europeans.
Are you seriously comparing the Crusades, a martial conflict which began with the desire to retake the Holy land sparked murder of pilgrims by Muslims and the general closing of said land to European Christians with Muslim Suicide bombers?Quote:
Originally Posted by HSeamus Fermanagh
Some dreadful things were done then in the name of God but after the First Crusade it was fundamentally a terretorial war between Christian Outremer and her Muslim neighbours.
Can you expand on that Wigferth ?Quote:
the general closing of said land to European Christians with Muslim Suicide bombers?
There might be a slight link there but what is it ?
Human sacrifice? In the Aztec world, true, but that doesn't warrant the murder and subjugation of an entire people (which was only one part of a larger Mexica civilization which did not practice human sacrifice on such a widespread basis as the Aztecs did), wouldn't you agree? On a side note, what Europeans interpreted in Africa as the same phenomenon was actually capital punishment in action. So much for savagery...Quote:
First off I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of these non-Christians were sacrificing babies, worshipping God-Kings and fighting their own religious wars. Thugee in India was a cult erradicated by the British. Why? Mainly because their method of worship was the ritual murder of travelers.
God-kings? Absolutism, anyone? One step down from being Pharaoh.
Don't get me wrong here -- these are things of the past, and Christianity has done far more good than anti-theists and the like give it credit for (just like Islam and other religions, I might add). But it isn't like religious violence (such as Crusaders, boasting that they didn't walk into Jerusalem, but waded into it, up to their heels in the blood of the infidel) in Christendom was merely a thing of nine hundred years ago, either.
My point was that a significant component of the church was motivated by Christian radicalism during that era. The Knights Templar, the Beggars and Children's Crusades, any number of other events all suggest a level of fanaticism which parallels the modern Islamist fanaticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That said, the Crusades were conducted according to rules of warfare that were fairly standard for that savage era. The sack of Jerusalem would be paralleled by the treatment of Caen after it and any number of other events. You could therefore make an argument that the Crusades were largely conducted by the accepted "rules" of the time -- in contrast to modern Islamist terrorism -- but even so the specifically religious motivation for the conflict signifies a more radicalized era for the church.
“That said, the Crusades were conducted according to rules of warfare that were fairly standard for that savage era.”
Not only, if you remember what did happen to the French Knights taken prisoners at Agincourt (1415!!!!) and how the Germans newly Protestants did crush the Peasants’ revolt (1525)… The Napoleonic Wars don’t show a great respect for what we call today the rules of engagement, slaughters of civilians, torching of towns and mistreatment of prisoners were common practice, even if efforts were tried…
In fact, the respect of Civilian Populations is quite new in warfare…
“Christianity has done far more good than anti-theists and the like”: That can be discussed…:inquisitive:
It's worth pointing out that in Palastine especially there was still a majoriety Jewish/Christian population. This was more than just "retake the Holy City for the glory of God". As I said, after the first Crusade you are talking about a Christian state with Christian subjects under attack from Muslims Caliphs, most notably Saladin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You seem to be under some missaprehension about the Knightly orders as well. The Knights of St. John and Knights Templar routinely protected Jews and Muslims from Christian lynch mobs.
The Crusades were really no different to any other war. The same language of God and heaven was employed in England's wars with France.
Baba, My point was two fold. Firstly the colonials, be they Spanish, English or French etc. encountered relatively primative civilisations with incomprehensible customs. Secondly, many of these customs would be considered barbaric today in our much more tollerant society. In that climate it's not surprising that a "convert or kill" attitude was adopted. After all, any society that throws a wife onto a funeral pire live after her dead husband is obviously steeped in Satan, right?
Tribes, at the very least it can be said that the Crusades were military campaigns conducted openly and aimed at predominately military targets. That's very different to strapping on a semtex vest and pulling the ripcord on a school bus.
It was aimed at towns and cities full of people wasn't it ?Quote:
Tribes, at the very least it can be said that the Crusades were military campaigns conducted openly and aimed at predominately military targets.
However you mentioned stopping European Christian pilgrims with suicide bombs , how does that work ?
No, that cannot be said, as towns full of people were put to the sword and a lot of massacres occured. Though that was pretty standard in the middle ages. Actually, it's STILL a standard tactic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I think you'll find that towns that resisted were put to the sword. That is certainly a standard tactic, particually if the town refused to capitulate after a siege and forced the army to assault it's walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Tribes, frankly I would have thought such petty sophistry was beneath you. Perhaps I should have written to instead of with.:inquisitive: