Printable View
indeed, to the letter. I'd rather learn about it from people that know what they are talking about by the way, like arabist prof. dr. J.J.G. Jansen or Afshin Ellian. All versions include the jihad, and yes jihad is actually war against the infidels, despite all the wooliness about personal growth and other nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
edit, interesting article for your enjoyment
http://www.humanistischverbond.nl/op...ezing2006.html
Imho relevant for this thread.
The Koran says kill the infidel. Now, tell me how else can this be interpreted other than: Kill all the people who are not Muslims. Hardly a nice tolerant and peaceful religion eh?
Oh, and I fear that you can't battle the Islamic minorities. In France, there are 6 million Muslims; approximately 10% of the population. When you consider the havoc, chaos, and destruction that one million Muslim youths did in over 200 French cities, I think you can hardly ignore them.
The fact is, they are out-growing the non-Muslims by immigration. The birth rate in Scotland is 1.1%. Now tell me how that can compete with all these foreign immigrants.
I really hate how Western cultures are losing their identity. Where will the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Norman culture be in 50 years time? Where will the French culture be? We will all be islamised and Arabised before we know it.
You scare me. That's just racist, xenophobic nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Ah I see , so he wouldn't talk about different wings of Islam , especially those who will focus their interpretations of small details that fit their particular religeo/politco ideology instead of following the broader tradition of interpretation of their scripture .Quote:
indeed, to the letter. I'd rather learn about it from people that know what they are talking about by the way, like arabist prof. dr. J.J.G. Jansen
So you were saying something Frag were you , or is it the sound of silence echoing through the void .Quote:
J. Jansen - I follow more or less the Fundamentalism Project in Chicago. It accepted the term to indicate those wings of Islamic movements that are ready to use force to reach their aims. Not all terrorists are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are terrorists. As a rule, fundamentalists have selected a small number of points from their much broader tradition.
You really must try harder , posting links in Dutch will not make it harder to rip your claims apart , you should know that by now :whip:
And the bible says kill them all without mercy , so your point is completely invalid .Quote:
The Koran says kill the infidel. Now, tell me how else can this be interpreted other than: Kill all the people who are not Muslims. Hardly a nice tolerant and peaceful religion eh?
So ignoramus (very apt) since the Qur'an says respect and be friends with those peoples who rightously follow the Torah or Bible then where is your out of context assumption ?
Dangling in the wind I believe is an appropriate term .
You have managed to do exactly what the fundamentalist nutters do , take a passage with no referance to the context or other passages on the subject and say "this is the truth to the letter" .:no:
Rather silly of you .:thumbsdown:
Hmmm, usually a lot of noise before the inevitable silence when I post links, have yet to see you rip any of my points apart, ever, I just see the excessive smiley-usage that goes so well with whiskey. This article isn't relevant for any claim I made but it does contribute to the topic, and since you understand dutch it would be cruel to deny you a different point of view when it's so easily provided, just a click away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ah I see .Quote:
Hmmm, usually a lot of noise before the inevitable silence when I post links, have yet to see you rip any of my points apart, ever, I just see the excessive smiley-usage that goes so well with whiskey.
So when you name someone who is an expert on the subject and whose views you believe back up your thoughts .
Then that expert is quoted not backing up your views you strangely do not consider it a demonstration that you are clearly shown to be talking rubbish .
Interesting concept you have there Frag .
Have you invented a new name for that concept ?
Bollox might be an appropriate name for it :yes:
That one was sadly allready taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
oh and,
Seems obvious enough to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion, like all religions some of the holy text can be interpeted, or in the case of the Koran even give conflicting messages (as does the bible)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
basically what BDC said, the riots in france were not entirely caused by muslims, and it certainly wasnt only muslim youths who did the damage (although i know very little about all that) The bit abaout Scotland is crazy, especially as the as there is a very small muslim group in Scotland who are incredibly peaceful etc...Quote:
Oh, and I fear that you can't battle the Islamic minorities. In France, there are 6 million Muslims; approximately 10% of the population. When you consider the havoc, chaos, and destruction that one million Muslim youths did in over 200 French cities, I think you can hardly ignore them.
The fact is, they are out-growing the non-Muslims by immigration. The birth rate in Scotland is 1.1%. Now tell me how that can compete with all these foreign immigrants.
whats so important about culture? "losing identity" --> if that counts as the colour of your skin and the religious practice you follow, or even the food you eat, then surely having more different types of food to eat, having more openess and understanding of other religions is a good thing.Quote:
I really hate how Western cultures are losing their identity. Where will the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Norman culture be in 50 years time? Where will the French culture be? We will all be islamised and Arabised before we know it.
I also don't belive we will become Arabised.. the process works both ways, and the majority of muslims who migrate become slightly westernised, its a compromise..
so you can have moderate christians, but not moderate christianity? :2thumbsup:Quote:
Moderate muslims yes, moderate islam no. A moderate muslim is someone who doesn't follow islam to the letter no?
You're joking, right ? I think you need to think about that one a bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
This I dissagree with Islam is not a peaceful religion, it is a practical one. The basic message is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Try to get along but if you can't and you're going to fight a war then don't do it by halves.
Which seems perfectly reasonable, really, the same applies to the Tirah.
Homosexuality is right out as far as the Bible is concerned. If the Bible defines Christianity then your statement is correct.Quote:
so you can have moderate christians, but not moderate christianity? :2thumbsup:
Wow, it's an interesting phenemenon that whenever something that has anything to do with Islam is brought up some chap comes over and sort of calls out for the "elimination of all infidels". And also I happen to find Navaros's statements to be less disturbing (actually a lot less disturbing) than the neo-crusaders who use much the same thinking as the participants of the German crusade: "Why should we travel thousands of miles to fight the infidels in the holy land when there already are infidels (jews) a few miles from where they lived" Then they went out and killed, converted and drove many infidels from their homes.
I have to agree with many others here (Banquo, English Assassin, Tribesman and others) that the number of Muslims in Western countries who are accessible to these... preachers probably is very small, well at least concerning those I have met, who don't seem to harbor any such thoughts and except having darker skin and hair are not very different from us (for better or for worse). Which also reminds me that during christmas we had an "Advent calendar" (we basically buy a bunch of stuff and put it and a box and then we have a lottery each day to see who gets something) and one of the guys who were in charge of this was a muslim, how you wish to interpret that I don't know, but it seems he was not bothered by doing something associated with Christianity.
I believe you there, and I've seen it at work, as many others of you probably have, for an example hearing immigrants use Norwegian (or English or Dutch, depending on where they live of couse) expressions ("faen altså") when speaking Turkish (or Arabic or Urdu, whatever)Quote:
I also don't belive we will become Arabised.. the process works both ways, and the majority of muslims who migrate become slightly westernised, its a compromise..
Anyway, I think that what should be a top priority is to find some sort of way to make Immigrants and ... "natives" (? don't know what to call it as a general terms) get along. Which could be through rather subtle things like the teaching of history or other things, making the history taught at school more international for an example. And not use the religion subject to basically work our way through the bible as we did some times, which is a reason for me knowing the basics of it even though I am not a Christian nor having ever read it, the other were not dealt with nearly as much. Though this may be different in many schools and countries and vary with your teacher.
One wonders if there was the same rhetoric about the clash of civilisations regarding the Chinese around the time of the Boxer rebellion. If that episode is any guide, there will always be reaction against imperialism, and that reaction will often take on the garb of traditionalism, as opposed to the modernity that sees their country exploited by the west. Step back a little, give them time and space to adjust, free of obvious western intrusions, and they will find their own way to the modern world as China has. That's why neoconservatism is so idiotic, aiming to do all the wrong things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
At home, on a fundamental level we should demand that non-natives (the term describing everyone who do not themselves feel fully British) should respect the traditional host-guest relationship. The guest is accorded certain benefits, such as the ability (not right) to be themselves, and respect as individuals and as a group from the host, but the host has the ultimate say on what is acceptable. If the guest argues with this last point, they can go and find themselves another country to live in. That should be the overall drive of policy.
On a lower level, we should allow these lunatic preachers to remain, but keep tabs on their audiences. In the current climate, there may be troublemakers whatever we do, so these clerics help to concentrate them and let us know where we can find them. That's if they can find an audience. If not, they'll be alienating the majority of Muslims while we conspicuously keep our hands clean. We win either way, and if we need to, existing laws will allow us to deport them on charges of inciting violence (which there'll be plenty of evidence for, thanks to our surveillance). There is no need to take radical action right now, which will most likely be counter-productive.
Very interesting phrase. If I, as an immigrant, or descended from immigrants don't feel fully British, whose fault is that? Is it mine for not wanting to integrate, or has this feeling grown because I have faced abuse, discrimination and intolerance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The "cricket test" is a good measure of how at ease a society is with recent arrivals and how happy they are, but its main flaw is that it seeks to apportion blame. If new arrivals and their descendants don't support the host nation in sport, it might indicate problems and tensions but it won't tell you why those problems have arisen.
btw I am only a non-native according to Pannonian's definition in that I don't feel fully British. 15 out of 16 of my Great Grandparents were born in the UK, but I still don't feel myself to be fully British.
It's a two way street and I'm not saying we shouldn't be sensetive to immigrants. Ultimately though we were here first and we still ofrm the majoriety. As such we should have a far greater in what goes on.
For example, if a Muslim comes into my house I won't show him the soles of my shoes out of respect, on the other hand if that Muslim wants to smoke, something far more acceptable outside the West, he'll have to go outside just like anyone else.
What does bother me a little is that apparently ethnic minorieies now make up over 9% of the total population, whereas at the last census they made up less than 8%. Britain cannot sustain that level of immigration without serious consequences.
At this point I would be in favour of closing borders completely for four years until we can get a grip on the current situation, clear the backlog and deport those who need deporting.
If you want to know, I am even less qualified to be British than you are, and thus am even more aware of the host-guest relationship. If the host has discharged his duties adequately, which Britain has, mostly, the guest should not abuse the host's generosity and patience. Britain doesn't make many demands of its immigrant population, mainly that they should observe its laws and pay their taxes. If even this is too much for them, then the guests are unwelcome here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Immigrants are not treated as well as you think. They are subject to abuse and discrimination. They are treated as a group and accused of taking jobs, houses and healthcare and other services. Is it, then, any wonder that they don't some don't "integrate" but harbour resentment against the host nation. The surprising thing is how well the majority fit in and do far more to be a part of society than just obey the law and pay their taxes.
Good Duke , very good .Quote:
Immigrants are not treated as well as you think. They are subject to abuse and discrimination. They are treated as a group and accused of taking jobs, houses and healthcare and other services. Is it, then, any wonder that they don't some don't "integrate" but harbour resentment against the host nation. The surprising thing is how well the majority fit in and do far more to be a part of society than just obey the law and pay their taxes.
Now would you like to extend that further to take in the problems relating to this documentary regarding some of the 2nd/3rd or even 4th generation of immigrant descendants who even though they are born there and their parents did all the right things to fit in can sometimes develop the attitude that they are still "damn immigrants taking jobs and benefits off of the good ol natives" and respond as such .
Sounds absolutily terrible, poor guys, no wonder they want to kill Brits. Now can we please stop making up excuses we would never allow for ourselves? Wasn't the BNP a party for the socalled lower classes, feel free to excuse them with the same enthousiasm.
You'll probably find that this kind of attitude is most common in the areas where there is least everyday contact with actual immigrants. In the metropolitan areas, WASPs often identify more with brown people from the same city than with fellow WASPs from another part of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I am not sure I can. This is partly because I was not talking about the programme, rather the idea that immigrants and their descendants should fit in, and if they don't it is their fault. Another problem is that I can't understand what you are saying. Is it the 2nd/3rd generation who think the are "damn immigrants .... " or do they perceive that attitude from others? If I had seen the programme I might know precisely what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
My "excuse" was for not fitting in. There is, of course, no excuse for sectarian murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not my experience in Bradford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But Bradford is a special case. It's not so much multi-cultural as bi-cultural.
The different populations tend to, by and large, stick to their own ethnic/religious groups.
That being said, I do a lot of business with various ethnicities, Sikh, Hindu, Jews and Moslems and I only know which religion they are if I ask (which I don't) or if they tell me (which they sometimes do).
I've had some belting (homemade) curries from several of my suppliers. :2thumbsup:
I think we need to admit that immigrants do take jobs, simply because they will work for less. Plumbing is a lot less profitable now than it was before Poland joined the EU. Ultimately the problem is with the employers who depand lower prices, but maybe also the immigrants for undercutting the locals when they could actually charge more and get away with it quite happily.
Rather misleading, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
The UK has a minimum wage. Immigrants can't "work for less" unless they are being exploited by employers. This is illegal and should be treated as such. It isn't the immigrants' fault.
In a fair choice between applicants for low paid jobs, responsible employers often do choose immigrants over residents - why? - because the immigrants are invariably harder-working and better qualified. Are you arguing that employers should employ the feckless and illiterate just because they are local?
Plumbing is less profitable because supply has caught up with demand. Back in the day when plumbers were scarce, they could command high prices, and often delivered shoddy work. Ever try and get a plumber in the late 90's?
Now the country has lots of well-qualified, courteous, hard-working plumbers who charge a reasonable amount and are likely to be available right now when the central heating needs fixing, not some time in late August. Competition has benefitted everyone.
Undercutting competitors is a perfectly normal business practice. The consumer wants lower prices and better quality. This is called a market. It has invariably been seen as a good thing in comparison to a command economy where the state tells you what you must pay and to whom.
OK lets try an example .Quote:
Another problem is that I can't understand what you are saying. Is it the 2nd/3rd generation who think the are "damn immigrants .... " or do they perceive that attitude from others? If I had seen the programme I might know precisely what you mean.
There is this woman that drinks down my local , she is often in there on a Friday after work with her kids while I am in there with mine .
On the walk up to the bus after the pub sometimes she and her kids get verbal racial abuse .
On most occasions a good verbal ******* in their native tongue(which strangly enough most of the racist idiots cannot even speak themselves) shuts them up , occasionally it is neccasary to introduce their heads to the pavement .
Now then , do you think that that her kids (3rd generation Irish of part Indian descent) will develop some sort of resentment towards a society when gobshites shout "**** off home you Paki (the idiots cannot even get that right) ******** " at them in the street ?
To expand it further I wonder if her father got the same treatment when he was working in India , or for a really funny one I wonder where the idiots tell her brother who emigrated to London to bugger off back to when he encounters them over there ?
The point is that racial hatred and discrimination can breed resentment , that resentment can breed hatred .
That hatred can be harvested by exremists . Those extremists attract more racial hatred which in turn breeds more resentment ........
A seemingly unending cycle .
Its about time them human being thingies actually try using their brains for once to attempt to break the cycle .
Good job at introducing their heads to the pavement then. I dunno, maybe there just is a lot more racism in Brittain. I have never seen or heard anything like that. Still problems with immigrants though.
I find it hardly to believe that Islam is a religion of peace when ten years after the death of its founder, it had already conquered Suryia, Palestine, Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia and Armenia, and after which it would make some of the most aggressive expansions in human history, reaching as far as Tours in 732 and the Indus in 750.
Some like to say that Jihad is not so much a concept of expansion against infidel countries, but a more defensive approach. As this is formulated by more modern Muslims, I believe this is more an attempt to soften this particular aspect of Islam, and besides, this has not been the definition for the past 1400 years.
I think you are making the same point I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
But Bradford is a special case. It's not so much multi-cultural as bi-cultural.
The different populations tend to, by and large, stick to their own ethnic/religious groups.
Different from what Panonnian is used to perhaps, but not unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
But as has been repeated ad nauseam, this political activity is not any more of a characteristic of Islam the religion than the same brutal expansionism is a characteristic of Christianity. Heck, even Buddhists have been known to go empire building with fire and the sword.
You might just as well claim that all Christians are bloodthirsty warmongers because of the actions of the Crusades through to George W Bush. It's nonsense, and you know it.
~:rolleyes:
oh, I dunno......:juggle2:Quote:
You might just as well claim that all Christians are bloodthirsty warmongers because of the actions of the Crusades through to George W Bush. It's nonsense, and you know it.
However, for the first centuries of Christianity, it was a presecuted and underground religion and still followed the original teachings of Christ. It was only much later that it undertook campaigns to ectend its realm, such as with Charlemagne's conquest of pagan Saxony. However, with Islam, this expansionism was seen a mere ten years after the death of its founder, when is contempory followers were still alive.