What it means, submissionQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Created new thread for this topic. - Beskar
Printable View
What it means, submissionQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Created new thread for this topic. - Beskar
From the official statement by ISIS on the Brussels attacks:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"First we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissiable to spill is not him fighting the Muslims, rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing. So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight Islamand muslims)? the answer is a big YES."
In other words, nothing that we do or don't do will affect whether or not we will be targeted. Even if we do nothing whatsoever to upset Muslims and the middle eastern countries, the fact that we are "other" means we are legitimate targets for killing.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/offici...h-translation/
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nope, literally means it. I am glad most muslims are really nice but islam itself is sick, and as welcome as the inquisitionQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Isn't it one of those words with multiple meanings? I think it means peace as well as a bunch of other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'm sure you feel that way, but that's not what it literally means. Nobody would be thinking this if it wasn't for Van Gogh films, Geert Wilders, or other anti-Islam stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Or even the official statement from the group claiming responsibility for the attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Where does it say that Islam means submission?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I couldn't care less about what they say, but it probably doesn't say that.
I remember coming across as Islam as being "Submission before God/Allah", meant in a similar manner that a Christian is theologically submissive to God/Jesus.
A quick google search confirmed this. even one aptly named "Submission.org" which describes it as the following:
So Fragony is correct that "Islam" means "Submission" in this context However, the key word is Context. It does not mean that the role or goal of islam is to go out and make everyone submit (becoming Muslim) as what is being implied, but it named after the religious stance that the followers of Islam submit to the will of God/Allah.Quote:
Submission or Islam in the Arabic language is a meaning or a description rather than a name or a title. It describes the state of mind of anyone who recognizes God’s absolute authority, and reaches a conviction that God alone possesses all power; no other entity possesses any power or control independent of Him. The logical consequence of such a realization is to devote one’s life and one’s worship absolutely to God alone.
So, Submission (or Islam in Arabic language) is a spiritual state of mind and not a title of a religion that belongs to a specific group of people. ANYONE who submits and worships one God without idolizing other entities is a Submitter by definition (Muslim in Arabic language).
This state of mind basically conforms with God’s one and only message He delivered to man-kind through all of His messengers since Noah; worship God alone and avoid idolatry. Based on that, one can safely conclude that the message of Islam or Submission has been in existence way before the time of prophet Muhammad and way before Quran. All God’s messengers, since Noah, devoted their lives and worship to God alone and were Submitters to Him alone.
As for the Peace, a Q&A website makes note of the following:
Quote:
The Arabic word salaam (سلام) ("Peace") has the same root as the word Islam. One Islamic interpretation is that individual personal peace is attained by utterly submitting to Allah.
As in other Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc.), peace is a basic concept in Islamic thought.
The greeting "Salaam alaykum", favoured by Muslims, has the literal meaning "Peace be upon you". Muhammad is reported to have said once: "Not one of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." (Great Muslim scholars have said that the words ‘his brother’ mean any person irrespective of faith.)
It says that the relations with the kufar begin with the default position of it being permissible, nay necessary, to kill us, not for what we've done, but for what we are. There may be various modifiers to this, but if in doubt, kill. And perhaps it would be a good idea to pay attention to what they say, since they're the ones acting and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
It means that, sorry I can't change that. Being anti-islam is just sane imho, but I will admit that Wilders and van Gogh are/were sometimes needlesly offensiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
So, your big revelation is that a terrorist organization won't forbid its members from targeting civilians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
STOP THE PRESSES!
Not forbidding and demanding, bit of a difference
A group that claims all Muslims as part of its nation, which a fair number of our residents agree with, says that kufar should be killed by virtue of our being kufar. There is no political goal in terms of defining a location in which we're unfairly intervening, resulting in violence aiming to remove us from our interference in these matters. By their own words, by simply existing, we are already deserving to be killed. I'm not sure why you're looking to downplay this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Wrong.
You could convert.
:laugh4:
Sorry, I had to.
It's the way you presented it. You made it out to imply the forced submission of others when it actually means submitting yourself to higher power, which is exactly the opposite of telling people what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If we're going to have this discussion we should bring out the big guns early.
http://youtu.be/TpcbfxtdoI8
And by big guns i mean informative and or propagandistic videos!
Submission to Divine Will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Next?
Or, as the Caliphate defines it, and as it's been defined in practice, the divide is between those who are of their group, who deserve to live, and everyone else, who deserve to die. I can say that I will never be part of the first group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
By "caliphate" standards me and every Muslim I know is a heretic. I would be beheaded before you are for being a fake Muslim.
Most of you are a bunch of haters anyway, just forget what I said. Get a life too, and try fixing your problems instead of drumming them up.
And the Chinese emperors claimed to be the rulers of the entire world for the last 2500 thousand years. Didn't affect your or mine ancestors all that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A grand total of a few hundred. If I were a betting man, I'd bet more of your residents believe Stonehenge was built by the aliens.Quote:
which a fair number of our residents agree with,
If that was the case, they'd be trying to kill Bolivians and Mongols as well.Quote:
says that kufar should be killed by virtue of our being kufar. There is no political goal in terms of defining a location in which we're unfairly intervening, resulting in violence aiming to remove us from our interference in these matters. By their own words, by simply existing, we are already deserving to be killed.
Because I refuse to hold 1.2 billion people responsible for the actions of the few? Because I'd hate if someone held me responsible if a member of my race/religion/nationality did something despicable? Why aren't you equating me with Mladic? He executed unarmed prisoners. I'm a Serb, a Christian, just like him.Quote:
I'm not sure why you're looking to downplay this.
Because I've seen what fear can do to people? Maybe it is because I would take my family away from the war and I wouldn't want someone to tell my I'm not allowed because of my name or religion. Or it could be that my best friend, who is a Muslim (culturally, in reality he's an atheist) had to give his son a Christian name so that he would actually be allowed on a plane. Because of the very vivid stories of how cruel can people be in the name of their faith or nation? Because I was raised in a very culturally diverse region and seen it work, even under pressure? Just a few days ago, a Hungarian fascist party Jobik tried to open up offices in northern Serbia (or Southern Hungary, just temporarily lost, as they like to refer to it). And who told them to **** off? Local Hungarians. Ah, it was beautiful to watch.
I don't know, really. Probably all of those reasons, and some that didn't come to mind instantly.
Funny, I think you're the third Muslim in a year to tell us all that - we're all haters of Muslims, regardless of what else divides us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Anyway.
Islam means literally "submission" and in this context it means "submission to God".
This has a couple of implications - firstly it allows Muslims to expand their definition of "Islam" to include those who do not consider themselves Muslim but are monotheists. Historically this has meant Christians and Jews initially, followed by Zorastrians. HOWEVER, the long term goal it not only to bring everyone to a state of Submission, it is also to bring them into a "correct" form of Submission - i.e. to make them Muslims.
Muhammed did this by war - he destroyed idles (as IS has) and he forced people to submit to his interpretation of God's Law (as IS does).
The major difference between IS and the traditional depiction of those first Muslims Conquests is the level of brutality and the fact that monotheists are included among the Kafir.
"Submission to Divine Will" Not according some French Muslim scholars. I could try to put a link but it is in French, so would be lost. Roughly, the linguist explains that Islam as the same roots that "shalom" or "Salaam".
The "submission to Divine" explanation is favoured by the ones like Tarik Ramadan, grand son of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, but nothing comes to back-up his claim.
How can I present it otherwise than it's litteral meaning. What you think you read is up to you, not meQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Jobik didn't know its way about such things. They should have started with propaganda among the locals on how oppressed they are culturally and linguistically and how free and much better off economically they would be if they join the Greater Hungary. They should refer to Russia's experience as the most recent paragon of such policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Read the post above you. The meaning is contested depending on whether you're moderate, brotherhood, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Personally, I haven't met anyone who is comfortable saying his religion literally means "submission."
But it does really mean that, submission isn't the same thing as submitting if that is what you could feel uncomfortable withQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Well, acknowleding a Creator Deity as your master ("submitting") is a central tenet of all the Abrahamic religions, and presumably some unrelated religions as well.
Making a point of that Islam has decided to use this concept as the name of the religion seems pretty....odd. If this thread is to have any meaning at all it had better move beyond semantics.
I've never heard it suggested that "Islam" does not literally mean "submission", but I have heard different interpretations of the implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
So today's Muslims are uncomfortable proclaiming their submission to God. That almost makes me feel sorry for Muhammed.
It could mean one or the other or both, I don't know because I didn't invent Islam. What I do know is that you can't use it in a sentence to mean submission or peace, because the word is its own thing. So saying it literally means this one thing to prove a point is a fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's a different word from salaam and istislam.
"I've never heard it suggested that "Islam" does not literally mean "submission", but I have heard different interpretations of the implications." I find it. The guys said if Islam means submission, why the word Islam is not use in other sentences (i.e, submission to the law or to a principal)?
https://youtu.be/wOQjLCEA5-4. @ 37 mn. "Islam" can be translated (needs periphrases) as "put yourself in confidence and peace in"
As with any translation you ultimately come out with a paraphrase - what striking about the word "Islam" is that it forms part of "istislam" which looks like a compound with "Islam".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The word "Submission" in English can have a number of meanings, the most current today is probably sexual, followed by the military context. However, the concept of "Submitting to God" carries neither of those connotations. If you're trying to nuance it make it sound like Islam is all about "Submitting to Allah" in a context of religious conflict then that's not the point, although it's equally dishonest to gloss over the religious motivation behind the early Muslim conquests.
"If you're trying to nuance it make it sound like Islam is all about "Submitting to Allah" in a context of religious conflict then that's not the point, although it's equally dishonest to gloss over the religious motivation behind the early Muslim conquests." No. I try to be intellectually honest. A you know, I am an atheist and I am not the last to tell that Islam (the Book) is the bed for fanatic Islamic murderers, as nothing they do is actually forbidden (if not prized) but the Holly Scriptures.
It is a debate I have with good friends, some being Muslim and believers.
As mentioned earlier, the submission to the Will of a deity is something inherent to all religion: a Christian will pray and tell to God "Your will be done".
So, even is Islam means "Submission", well, so be it and so what?
However, what the ones who want absolutely this is the idea that Islam can't be changed as it is Submission. Of course it is wrong historically as Islam had the same process than Christianity, and even has a process called annulment, adopted when the Koran was gathered and put on a written form, from the longest to the shortest Surat, proof if you need one that it was not written when God was given instructions to the new prophet, but this is another debate. Safalism is a reactionary movement to modernisation of Islam, created in order to come back to the "roots". meaning by definition Islam was moving (and still).
Ah, so you are an authority figure? Do you have credentials? Several PhDs in Arabic, Islamic studies and whatnot? Perhaps some peer-reviewed literature? I mean you wouldn't claim to know something just because you heard something from some bloke, right? That would be dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Few courses to harvest points, I only got degrees in psycholigy history and politoligy, convenient mix because of overlapsingQuote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
edit LOL I spelled politoici wrong, I must have been taking it very seriously, did it again just for fun
Showtime and CrossLoper haven't submitted anything of value to this thread and judging by Showtimes post history never will. Showtime cant swallow the Truth, CrossLoper is a fool I dont have to be Chef to Cook great food and i certainly dont have to say the shahada to comment on Islam. CrossLoper is a hypocrit I've read some of the quran and it has more to say about Kuffars and unbelievers, people like me than anything else over 56 percent i believe, had to put it down and you can guess whyQuote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Please dont submit to their idiocy like they probs have to Islam.
Islam means Submission end of story.
Islam means peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrP63lbp8Wk
I see nothing of value in this post either, honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
Gotta say you're weird, pic and name says it all. You "probs" have to get it together, son.
He is not wierd, he is simply the arbiter of our beloved forum. He has judged you not worthy, and thus we must banish you to the lands beyond our borders. What is wierd about that? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Ever considered that 'islam is peace' really means 'submit or don't have it'.
Intellectually dishonest - even more so than saying it means "submission".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Is that a question or a statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
From an expert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09PsIC-l19w
...he posted a video of a bunch of college age dweebs saying islam means peace... and you guys think he's being serious?
Husar can't be adequately engaged on these issues, because he is a communist who values the idea of the nation state very little.
So, in fact, it does not mean "peace".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I said it meant "Submission to Divine Will", perhaps I should have sait "Concordance with Divine Will" os something like that.
I stand by what I said, Islam means neither "peace" not "submission" in the mundane context - so cleave to one definition implies pacifism, the other militarism, and neither are correct.
The nation state of Islam that we are talking about I certainly value very little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I wasn't saying you're wrong, just that "Islam means Submission end of story." is probably a bit too simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The original question was also merely meant to have Fragony define Islam because he often uses it in a way 99% of the world's people do not use the word. Which means that he only agrees with ISIS and disagrees with the >90% of muslims who I assume do not want to kill us, telling them that they should if they want to be faithful. Either way, someone confused "define" with "translate" and here we are. ~;)
My mouth isn't big enougn to fit so many words
Wait...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Are we agreeing?
That makes no sense!
We must BOTH be wrong.
It depends what you mean by "true Islam".. As an Atheist, I believe only historians would guess what exactly happened at 6th century. Probably Mohammad was a wise guy who learnt a lot about Buddhist Mythology, and decided to create a philosophy.. And he wanted to keep it stronger by settling it as a religion instead. Or he actually created a philosophy, but it became a religion after he died. Or I don't know, he just wanted to rule a clan and made all these up just to have fun in Harem... Probably it's a mixture of all of these.
So just like all religions, it's rules are brutal for today's world. In Christianity, you must kill homosexuals, in Judaism you must cut the head of a virgin girl to prove yourself as a man, and in Islam, you can cut the head of an entire population, and take their wives.
And also like all religions, it become modernized. So the modern version of Islam is acceptable, but still a book of 6th century still affects some of the behaviors.
Hard part is it is a social and psychological argument, instead of logical. Moslems can live a modern life, just like Christians and Jews, because we are capable of showing illogical behaviors.
In christianity you must KILL HOMOSEXUALS, Judaism must cut off the head off a Virgin,. I dont think i want to wade through let alone step in your Bullshit.
Um, I don't understand your negative reaction, those are completely acceptable behaviors of their time. I am not judging anything by the ethic rules of today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
They're not accurate representations of the religions in question, nor are they actual prescripts of said religions. Perhaps you're re confusing a "Virgin's Head" and "Maidenhead".Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
Go take an anatomy class, in that case.
The only one you got right was the one about Islam with killing an entire tribe's men and taking all the women and children hostage - but that wasn't a directive so much as something we are told happened.
This is the natural end result of a war. All efforts to make war less than this are well-intentioned but at least partially futile. History is replete with examples of such a result being the de facto norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It's called sacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
All religions are Memes. So, the ultimate aim is to create more of oneself. Different religions do this by a mix of different vectors. For example, in early Christianity, there are other sects that were nowhere near a successful as Catholicism was since they restricted membership to Jews only. The Cathars were doomed by being pacifists and didn't stand a chance faced with violent Catholics.
Judaism is laced with examples of where the Jews slaughtered their way through other tribes. If not they might have gone the way of all the other extinct religions down the ages.
So with Islam there are many different strains competing with each other for hosts. Those that become too attenuated tend to loose out to the more aggressive ones.
I imagine the meaning of a religion varies almost by as many followers of the religion there are. We have (openly) gay Catholics now so people's ability to be flexible in their interpretation of the inflexible is great.
~:smoking:
Um, all of them are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
In fact there was an activist group who reads passages from Bible on the streets of Amsterdam, and claims they are from Quran. Most people commented as "It's horrendously violent book and it must be banished." Then they reveal that these are actually from Bible.
So as I said, you must kill homosexuals to follow the true Christianity. But you will just follow the modern version of it. Just don't read Bible, it might mess your head.
Explain why because I don't think that is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
Europeans are considerably more passionate about their football than about their bible, and even there there are universally acknowledged limits and niceties. There are probably more supporters of any of the big clubs in England than there are regular churchgoers in the whole of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
It's demonstrably false - he's taking passage from Leviticus and trying to apply it to Christianity whilst ignoring the fact that "true" Christianity places an absolute ban on violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Memes are just a theory, or more accurately a belief because there's no way to test Dawkins' theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Bibile is full of violence done in the name of God. If the Old Testament is not a part of Bible and not to be revered any longer, let the Church officially repudiate it and exempt it from the holy texts. Unless it is done, such charges as Yesugey's will always have ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
That's like saying we should burn all history books or else violence and slavery will always be part of our culture. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
History is full of violence yet no historian proclaims such stories holy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It is stupid for apologists of Christianity to proclaim it religion of peace and fraternal love (unlike other religions) and keep violence-related messages in its core book. Either get rid of them (as a part of HOLY TEXTS) or stop pretending your religion is better than others.
I'm not a Christian, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and I support a football club, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and the club I support is notoriously meek and family-friendly. Does that count? Do I get to despise the barbarism of Islamists with a clean conscience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I think it depends on if you are white or not. White people don't have the privilege of criticising the actions of people who are not white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I sure hope that is sarcasm Mr. SwedeQuote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
Have the black helicopters not taken you away yet Mr. Escapee from an insane asylum? Or did the police arrest you after you broke into 10 Downing Street?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
No because some other Englishmen who doesn't like football as much as barbarism probably prevented them from enjoying their own clubs like you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
They are as much a belief as money is a belief. To describe ideas in such terms is just to quantify something that is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
~:smoking:
The stories are there because some of the messages are still relevant while others are outdated. If you rip out the outdated parts, the relevant ones lack context. Your point makes little sense because the book clearly says the violent messages are not to be followed anymore, so please explain why it is supposedly okay then to claim that Christianity demands violence against certain people when it clearly doesn't? I can also look for the violence in buddhist "holy texts again" after you claimed that it's all peaceful. According to your argument now that must clearly make it a violent religion then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What do the holy texts of your club say about violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Dunno, but they blare music whenever we score a goal, which isn't very often, and we're generally respected among other smaller clubs for capturing a sizeable young fanbase, through concessions, chaperoned package away trips, etc. Away fans (barring the obvious) praise the friendly atmosphere, which can be seen as something of a barbed compliment. Never mind violence, even a hostile atmosphere is barely conceivable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Note that, unlike religion (and Islam generally has a greater number of fanatical followers than other religions), the above is the language that the average Brit (and probably average European) speaks. Not defending this text or that that justifies violence, but looking for enjoyable places to go to to pass one's leisure time. Pointing to this paragraph or that of the Old Testament to defend the right of Islamists to behave the way they do misses the point. Scarcely any believe in religious texts to guide their behaviour in life. Free healthcare at the point of service probably has more fanatical supporters than the Old Testament as directed by christians.
This does not parse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
The Lord said that he has fulfilled the Law, he does not require us to kill, he requires us not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Can we close this thread now
I'm afraid you can't evaluate ideological/religious tenets piecemeal. Rip out of Lenin's extension of Marxism parts on the neccessity of Red Terror and destroying bourgeoisie as a class and it will seem the best ideology to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The same with Christianity. It reveres Bible AS A WHOLE because it is a collection of holy messages which was purported to be given by God unto humans. How God could have given messages which could ever become outdated? Aren't they universal truths to be followed once you are on the path of God? Or should each of us choose which of the messages are outdated and which are still relevant? And what if my choice turns out to be different from yours and I decide that the violent parts of Bible have become relevant again? Too many unpleasant questions.
I have a cursory awareness of Buddhism. But as Rev. Brenus taught us, Buddhism is not a religion and it doesn't have holy texts. So if you manage to find some and prove your claim, I will consider your arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So he informed us about what terrible things he had allowed in the past to show that we can't do them any longer? He has changed his mind on the issue of violence? If he did, he indirectly admitted he had made a mistake? Can God make mistakes? What if he made other mistakes? What those mistakes could be? Left handers? Homosexuals? Centepedes? Nazis? If those were not mistakes, than God has created them on some purpose? What was the purpose of creating nazis? To unleash more violence? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Just to say....I don't think anybody is referring to Old Testament stories and sayings in order to defend the rights of "Islamists"* to "behave the way they do". It is to show that all religious books, of all religions, have within them violence. The idea that Islam is somehow different and inherently despicable is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
*Islamists? Is that like Christianites? The vast majority of Muslims (ie they who identify themselves as being followers of Islam) do not justify violence in the name of Islam and are as opposed to those fundamentalist terror groups as the vast majority of Christians (ie self-avowed followers of Christianity).
This is what alwayc happens when people debate the Quran some will deflect and point to Christianity. NO Islam and Christianity are two separate Religions we are debating what Islam means not Christianity. The only way Christianity links in with Quran is Christians must pay the Jizya tax and must know they are second class citizens otherwise known as Dhimmis the Angel Gabriel and the recognition of Isah/Jesus. Close the thread and open a new one discussing Christianity then.
Islamists are people who reject the existing secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Islamic teachings. Within Europe, I can't think of any countries that reject the secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Christian teachings. Among the west, the closest I can think of is the US, but even there the constitution is regarded as more holy than the Bible. Among Muslim countries, even in the most rigorously secularised of them all (Turkey), there has been a move towards Islamism. Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia. If you don't want to call these homegrowns Islamists, that's fine by me. Traitors would be equally accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
So "Islamist" is an invented term, used to describe a subset of Muslims who believe in the implementation of Sharia law? Ok.....so that doesnt address the point I was making; that you seem to believe that the Old Testament references are being used to defend the rights of these notional "Islamists", but are being used to show how ridiculous it is to try and paint Islam as, of itself, more violent than another religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
but...as usual with semantic sleight of hand, you then go on to define Islam more generally by the terms of the notion of "Islamist" so that, actually, your alleged subset is now creeping toward a synonymous usage as with "Muslim".
For example you make the (weasel) statement that "Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia." I say weasel because...what does "quite a few" mean? You have issued forth a statement that suggests a value without ever offering one. What is "quite a few"? 15? 2000? Maybe percentages would be more useful.
Weasel words, you say. If you want evidence, perhaps one way of putting it would be that there are enough to mount large scale attacks in Europe. One this year in Belgium, two last year in France, at least a couple in 2005 in the UK, one in Spain in 2004, etc. And that's not counting 9/11 in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
As for painting Islam as more violent than another religion, I have no intention of doing so. Not believing in any religion at all, they're all the same to me. However, Muslims have a greater tendency to want to replace secular state with religious state. Since I don't believe in any intrinsic values of any particular religion, what a religion is to me is painted by their believers. And as such, to me Islam is defined by Muslims, who in turn derive their views from their religious text. I'd see any western leader who looks to Christianity for guidance in government as equally loony, but then I've not seen any here. Barring the US, so-called Christian western countries are nothing of the sort when it comes to actual government. Looking to Islam for guidance in government is practically mainstream in Muslim countries.