IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

I don't have the time to go search for it now. Maybe I'll get to it in the next few days, although one would think that you, being such a staunch opponent of immigration, would keep facts and figures at you finger tips.



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Racism, like so many other terms, has broadened in meaning and includes hate of any group of different people, not necessarily just those with different skin colour.

But, okay, I'll play ball - is bigotry or chauvinism more to your liking?

Registration takes time, and it will be done eventually (a huge number has already been registered when they entered Serbia, it was Greece that didn't register almost anyone so they wouldn't appear as the first country refugees entered because then the rest of EU could theoretically just dump them all back to Greece) but it would be inhumane to keep refugees outside for weeks/months while they wait for registration, in Europe in November.

At least inform yourselves about basic facts before you start hating. But, if you did that, most of the problem would be solved.

I see. Maybe it just isn't there

[HopAlongBunny]

Canada is stepping up to the plate.
Recently elected Liberal gov't pledges to take in 25,000 refugees before the end of the year.
Rather serious questions remain about whether it is feasible in the time allotted.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...oups-1.3291959

[Fragony]

That's nice of them but it isn't going to really make a difference

[Viking]

Which is funny because it says: "A. War refugees"

Which implies that in order to become a war refugee, war in itself isn't adequate. As the document goes on:

165. However, foreign invasion or occupation of all or part of a country can result – and occasionally has resulted – in persecution for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the 1951 Convention. In such cases, refugee status will depend upon whether the applicant is able to show that he has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” in the occupied territory and, in addition, upon whether or not he is able to avail himself of the protection of his government, or of a protecting power whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of his country during the armed conflict, and whether such protection can be considered to be effective.

[Gilrandir]

You, on the other hand, demanded numbers for a statement of mine. It was an article which said that a university in Lvov was closed during Maidan. You asked me to provide numbers which didn't exist, how many students were home, how many went to Kiev. It wasn't important because it was a significant number, otherwise university wouldn't cancel its lectures.

You didn't have a clue then and apparently, you still don't.

Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is accommodating Islamists though. Hardliners rely on “covert infiltration” and the only way to deal with them is to respond in kind. It’s a cancer and it’s not inherent in the war you’re fighting.

We are a liberal state - to an extent we are required to accommodate unsavoury opinions or our entire social edifice will crumble. We have already taken steps to censor divergent opinions, which is anathema to traditional British values.

If you have no interest in getting more reasonable Muslim teachings to win the hearts and minds of your Muslim population than it’s no surprise that most of them turn to a life of even more struggle (jihadism). Counter-productive to the nation and stalls growth of a distinct European Islam loyal to European countries.

The Muslim community, ultimately, has to sort itself out - you can't have a Christian/Secular/Atheist telling people what beliefs are an aren't allowed - that is not acceptable.

What tools are lacking to help exactly?

In has been realised, over the last ten years, that the non-Muslims in the country have very little understanding of Islam. Once upon a time the "Muslim Council of Great Britain" was seen as quite Liberal by non-Muslims in Britain but it is now understood that the MCGB is, in fact, quite right wing and has elements which may have been involved in subverting our secular education system to turn state schools in Muslim areas into Sharia schools.

Overall I have to say I've never encountered a group of "Left-Wing" Muslims in the UK, even in a university context,

[Husar]

Overall I have to say I've never encountered a group of "Left-Wing" Muslims in the UK, even in a university context,

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.

By contrast you'll see that even apparently Westernised Muslims want their own schools, won't allow their children to mix freely - want to see women segregated.

I've certainly met more liberal Muslims, but as individuals only. Back when we were talking about the Hijab etc. there was a BBC program on the subject and what you saw there was that the majority of Muslim women wear some form of face covering BUT the women coming in to talk to them about how to deal with anti-Muslim abuse generally didn't.

A lot of the covered Muslim women talked about the need to be "demure" and how they were singled out for abuse because people knew - as Muslim women - that they wouldn't fight back.

[Husar]

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.

None of them true believers according to the book.

[HopAlongBunny]

Obviously the Pope should declare a combined Crusade/Inquisition to wipe out the heresy.

[Husar]

My assumption is merely that the level of mass-religion is somewhat anti-proportional to the economic development of a country with a time delay as decadence and consumerism tend to let people forget their religious obligations. Of course exceptions prove the rule, as usual. Christians were religious for decades after the industrial revolution and most of our Muslims have only been here for a few decades at most. The rich leaders of countries have long been said to merely use religion as a tool, why would that be if their status and possibilities had not turned them into at least less strict believers? A true believer would not want to use his religion as a tool for manipulation, no?

[AE Bravo]

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.

Acceptance of Islamism as it becomes mainstream in Europe defeats any incentive an immigrant might have to fully integrate. Treating places of worship and schools as foreign networks that you can’t touch leads to a further drift apart from the host. There’s no interest in engaging this culture, just alienating it. So apparently no commitment to the “integration” everyone’s crying about either.

Unlike most Muslims, they gave up on most of their religion. Tolerating things that go against your beliefs is not the same as embracing them. Every Christian I’ve met is Christian in name only.

By contrast you'll see that even apparently Westernised Muslims want their own schools, won't allow their children to mix freely - want to see women segregated.

I doubt it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Acceptance of Islamism as it becomes mainstream in Europe defeats any incentive an immigrant might have to fully integrate. Treating places of worship and schools as foreign networks that you can’t touch leads to a further drift apart from the host. There’s no interest in engaging this culture, just alienating it. So apparently no commitment to the “integration” everyone’s crying about either.

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.

It's called Freedom of Religion.

It's a really big thing here - especially in the UK after our religious wars.

Unlike most Muslims, they gave up on most of their religion. Tolerating things that go against your beliefs is not the same as embracing them. Every Christian I’ve met is Christian in name only.

You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.

For a given value of "true" of course because, in fact, there are several ways to interpret each religion, every religion, and writing off all Christians are false shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is about and what is actually written in the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel says you can spend your whole life apart from God so long as, when you die, you are with God.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.

I doubt it.

Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.

[Fragony]

Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

I never demanded any numbers I have no idea what he's talking about. Never heard of Maidan I don't know what Maidan is

You are probably mistaking me with someone else Sarmatrian

edit, sorry I see it wasn't directed at me

[Sarmatian]

Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

Go pester someone else. If you didn't understand it during my two previous attempt to explain, you either dumb or a troll.

[Fragony]

Surprise, the Merkel completily changes her point, the Sweden does as well. Yes it are many. No it's your problem.

[Pannonian]

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.

It's called Freedom of Religion.

It's a really big thing here - especially in the UK after our religious wars.



You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.

For a given value of "true" of course because, in fact, there are several ways to interpret each religion, every religion, and writing off all Christians are false shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is about and what is actually written in the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel says you can spend your whole life apart from God so long as, when you die, you are with God.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.



Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.

And in any case, even "true Christians" aren't particularly welcome in the UK if they try to impose their views on others. The UK is overwhelmingly secular.

[Pannonian]

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

And yet the British left can trace itself back to Christian causes. The anti-slavery movement is the best known. But other reformist movements also have their roots in "Christian" arguments (or so they were formulated). The late Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, was a fervent liberal and socialist who lent his weight to various such movements. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the CofE is the acceptance of what used to be dangerously revolutionary reformist arguments as the taken for granted mainstream.

[Gilrandir]

a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor.

OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.

Go pester someone else. If you didn't understand it during my two previous attempt to explain, you either dumb or a troll.

Calling names is the last (and symptomatic) resort when you find yourself beaten with your own weapon. Way to go!

[AE Bravo]

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.

They're not funded by organizations affiliated with enemies of the state. Preachers in churches and synagogues don't regularly practice sedition either. This is a unique case, freedom of religion is being subverted by those who run places of worship.

You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.

Drinking isn't a big offense, it is not prohibited in the Qur'an. Wasn’t banned until the eleventh century. I have no interest in converting anyone and I'm pretty Islam doesn't require me to.

The things you described as true to Christianity apply to all religions. The Bible is a bit more Old Testament is what I’m saying. It's clear that most Christians don't take their religion seriously and veneration/worship is becoming less important for them. Faith in its traditional form in Christianity has been on the decline.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.

Of course I do, Syria not too long ago and Egypt. By left I don't mean do everything to make the religion less relevant.

Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.

That's only one incident, hardly enough to make the bold statement that westernized Muslims want their own separate sharia schools.

I bet there are a ****load of interfaith marriages, gay Muslims, and born Muslims that relate more to EU stuff but they're just a "minority" so they don't matter, because Islamists are just louder so they must be "mainstream" as well.

[Husar]

And yet the British left can trace itself back to Christian causes. The anti-slavery movement is the best known. But other reformist movements also have their roots in "Christian" arguments (or so they were formulated). The late Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, was a fervent liberal and socialist who lent his weight to various such movements. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the CofE is the acceptance of what used to be dangerously revolutionary reformist arguments as the taken for granted mainstream.

So multiculturalism, gay rights, human rights and occupying banks have been staples of the British mainstream since Jesus' times?
And the British right nowadays wants to reinstate slavery because anti-slavery is only a leftist idea in modern Britain?
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying and how it would make my statement wrong.

OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.

Yes, remember what Jesus said about rich men going to heaven and then look at all the riches the pope has...
And the bible also says many will claim to follow him but really won't, no?

[CrossLOPER]

Calling names is the last (and symptomatic) resort when you find yourself beaten with your own weapon. Way to go!

There was a guy around here back in about 2007 who refused to download Adobe Reader to read official documents to understand an argument. I suspect the frustration is similar to that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.

Not whilst they were killing, no.

They're not funded by organizations affiliated with enemies of the state. Preachers in churches and synagogues don't regularly practice sedition either. This is a unique case, freedom of religion is being subverted by those who run places of worship.

And where preachers are shown to be funded by terrorists, or are stirring up hatred or inciting violence that can be dealt with.

What you're essentially saying is that the Imans in this country signed Faustian pacts with the Muslim Brotherhood etc. and now the Mosques have been taken over by radicals and hardliners. This view is reductive, it assumes that the majority of Muslims are extremely stupid and with believe whatever in Imax says AND it ignores the simple fact that moderate Islam in the UK is largely not listend to anymore.



Drinking isn't a big offense, it is not prohibited in the Qur'an. Wasn’t banned until the eleventh century. I have no interest in converting anyone and I'm pretty Islam doesn't require me to.

The things you described as true to Christianity apply to all religions. The Bible is a bit more Old Testament is what I’m saying. It's clear that most Christians don't take their religion seriously and veneration/worship is becoming less important for them. Faith in its traditional form in Christianity has been on the decline.

It is true that the established Churches are in decline, or were, but a lot of this can be seem as a reaction against two World Wars. My parents' generation believed that everybody would become atheists but most of my friends are Christian or agnostic. However, because of the big dip in the popularity of religion among the previous generation the established Church lost it's broad base of adherents and hence its influence.

So, today, Christians in my generation come to Christianity by reading the Bible rather than going to Church - then they often go find a Church they like. This means they're often relatively ignorant of the Church Fathers and later writers, and that they come to the religion with their own viewpoint and then ajust that to a group they feel comfortable with, rather than being part of a group and then interpreting the Creed in their own way.

Or, to put it another way, orthodoxy is mostly dead here and we have a lot of heretics.

As far as all religions believing that you should do no harm to others - that's a long way from being true. The Jewish God El in his original form was vengeful and wrathful and his harsh judgement reached down through the generations. He repeatedly ordered the massacre of entire peoples. Allah sent the Prophet on a mission to, essentially, conquer the world - something which assumes that killing for God in battle if righteous. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that in some instances the Prophet ordered entire populations massacred when they refused to convert and special consideration was only given to Christians and Jews.

Those are the better religions - most other religions have death-cults and endorse human sacrifice of either loved ones or enemies. Woden takes only warriors who have killed and died in battle to Valhalla, the Allfather has no use for peacemakers or farmers he needs only warriors for the Last Battle.

Christianity is a pacifistic religion, for all that Christians have rarely been pacifists. It is also a religion for servants and slaves, for all that Christians have tried to rule the world.

Of course I do, Syria not too long ago and Egypt. By left I don't mean do everything to make the religion less relevant.

What is "Left Wing" Islam though? Equal rights for women? Disregarding of headcoverings for the same? What about homosexuals? What's the stance on corporal punishement for children? Principles of government?

That's only one incident, hardly enough to make the bold statement that westernized Muslims want their own separate sharia schools.

14 schools, in one area. I suspect it was not isolated, but that the government has been trying to quietly identify other offenders. Also, I said "apparently Westernised" Muslims, not that all Westernised Muslims want Sharia schools - but that many who appear well integrated aren't, really.

I bet there are a ****load of interfaith marriages, gay Muslims, and born Muslims that relate more to EU stuff but they're just a "minority" so they don't matter, because Islamists are just louder so they must be "mainstream" as well.

I have no idea what "EU stuff" is - unless you mean fishing quotas - but yes there are of course interfaith marriages and gay Muslims. There was a documentary about Gay Muslims recently called "Muslim Drag Queens" and it was mostly about how they're ostracised and receive death threats.

Fact is, there are widespread problems with abuse of women and homosexuals, honour killings, forced marriages and female genital mutilations. We have special police task forces for the latter. Now, do I think that the majority of Muslims do these things? No, but I do think the majority are more in sympathy with the perpetrators than with me.

[Pannonian]

So multiculturalism, gay rights, human rights and occupying banks have been staples of the British mainstream since Jesus' times?
And the British right nowadays wants to reinstate slavery because anti-slavery is only a leftist idea in modern Britain?
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying and how it would make my statement wrong.

It's easy to get confused when you set out to be confused in order to win an argument.

1. PVC said that the devout Islamists, long championed by liberals as the opposite of the conservative Christians, actually has more in common with the far right than with the left.
2. AFAICS you then argued that it's no surprise that religions that stretch back before the existence of a left should be distinctly rightist.
3. I then pointed out that the British left has its roots in the CofE, which both stretches back before the existence of a left, yet has been distinctly leftist in the past couple of hundred years (when the left did exist).

Are you still confused? Do you want me to further break down these bullet points?

[AE Bravo]

And where preachers are shown to be funded by terrorists, or are stirring up hatred or inciting violence that can be dealt with.

Really? Because I see them on TV interviews and walking freely across the UK with their hate speech. IS sympathizers too.

What you're essentially saying is that the Imans in this country signed Faustian pacts with the Muslim Brotherhood etc. and now the Mosques have been taken over by radicals and hardliners. This view is reductive, it assumes that the majority of Muslims are extremely stupid and with believe whatever in Imax says AND it ignores the simple fact that moderate Islam in the UK is largely not listend to anymore.

Nope, it's how the system works. Saudi Arabia and the MB are two competing Salafi ideologies, the mosques in Europe are part of a racket and flow of money goes to the angriest beards. I mentioned earlier that basically all your student associations are funded by the brotherhood.

It's not "Faustian." It's business, and Saudi business is booming. I think saying that this must be because all Muslims are stupid is reductive, because these are the mosques they have access to and somewhere down the line they get turned for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

As far as all religions believing that you should do no harm to others - that's a long way from being true. The Jewish God El in his original form was vengeful and wrathful and his harsh judgement reached down through the generations. He repeatedly ordered the massacre of entire peoples. Allah sent the Prophet on a mission to, essentially, conquer the world - something which assumes that killing for God in battle if righteous. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that in some instances the Prophet ordered entire populations massacred when they refused to convert and special consideration was only given to Christians and Jews.

I can't argue with Old Testament god being vengeful and wrathful. However, the prophet was not sent down to conquer the world and he did not order entire populations massacred when they refused to convert.

This means they're often relatively ignorant of the Church Fathers and later writers, and that they come to the religion with their own viewpoint and then ajust that to a group they feel comfortable with, rather than being part of a group and then interpreting the Creed in their own way.

That's perfectly okay. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity has reached a point where its adherents feel free to shape it the way they want, no matter how radical the change is.

What is "Left Wing" Islam though? Equal rights for women? Disregarding of headcoverings for the same? What about homosexuals? What's the stance on corporal punishement for children? Principles of government?

All of those things. In order for any of that to happen or for Islamism to be fully extinguished, left leaning Islam would be to refrain from criticizing the earliest Muslims and all the prophets including Jesus and Mohammed. They were all human and had their flaws, there’s nothing wrong with saying that and I do say it to a fellow Muslim every time it’s brought up. The second step would be to accept that the stories in scripture did not actually happen the way they were written. Finally, no illusions of Sharia and a restrained society because this is not even close to how the first Muslim community lived, and wouldn’t be good either way. Islamic governance is anything that is for the people, like it was initially.

We've seen in the middle east that when all these thoughts are accepted we get secular societies that are closer to how Muslims in Medina lived than current Islamist states like Saudi and Iran.

Fact is, there are widespread problems with abuse of women and homosexuals, honour killings, forced marriages and female genital mutilations. We have special police task forces for the latter. Now, do I think that the majority of Muslims do these things? No, but I do think the majority are more in sympathy with the perpetrators than with me.

I suspect that has more to do with their xenophobia towards the west than religion, leading them to tighten grip on their women/families, which is validated by how the keepers of the two holy sites govern their country. Besides looking down on homosexuality, these are not credible Islamic practices.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Because I see them on TV interviews and walking freely across the UK with their hate speech. IS sympathizers too.

As I said, we have a long-standing belief in the right to offend. Offensive opinions have to be aired to be tested and refuted.

Actual hate-speech is banned but that doesn't mean that every offensive viewpoint is, if it were we would be Iran - we tried that, didn't like it.

Nope, it's how the system works. Saudi Arabia and the MB are two competing Salafi ideologies, the mosques in Europe are part of a racket and flow of money goes to the angriest beards. I mentioned earlier that basically all your student associations are funded by the brotherhood.

It's not "Faustian." It's business, and Saudi business is booming. I think saying that this must be because all Muslims are stupid is reductive, because these are the mosques they have access to and somewhere down the line they get turned for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

This is where, at some point, greed and a pact with the Devil must have come in. Other religious congregations survive via donations from their congregations - I think there are a few Evangelical Churches that may recieve money from the US but that is uncommon and a large number of British Christians consider American Mega-Churches to be at best distasteful - so it's not an association most would cultivate. Now, I know that Muslims are supposed to tithe 10% of their wealth every year and it occurs to me that they should be able to give some of this to their Mosque to keep the Mosque going.

So - why the Saudi's and the MB? The most likely answer, it seems to me is a combination of already sharing those ideologies and wanting to have bigger and more magnificent Mosques.

I can't argue with Old Testament god being vengeful and wrathful. However, the prophet was not sent down to conquer the world and he did not order entire populations massacred when they refused to convert.

It seems to me that the Muslims under the Prophet expanded by war and did battle, and they killed all the men of the Banu Qurayza, who were Jews, for poorly understood reasons.

That's perfectly okay. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity has reached a point where its adherents feel free to shape it the way they want, no matter how radical the change is.

This is not new though, what is new is that we no longer torture or kill people for it.

All of those things. In order for any of that to happen or for Islamism to be fully extinguished, left leaning Islam would be to refrain from criticizing the earliest Muslims and all the prophets including Jesus and Mohammed. They were all human and had their flaws, there’s nothing wrong with saying that and I do say it to a fellow Muslim every time it’s brought up. The second step would be to accept that the stories in scripture did not actually happen the way they were written. Finally, no illusions of Sharia and a restrained society because this is not even close to how the first Muslim community lived, and wouldn’t be good either way. Islamic governance is anything that is for the people, like it was initially.

Hasn't the Koran always been a scared and inviolable text dictated to Muhammed by God, though? More to the point wasn't it all compiled by a single generation within the Prophet's lifetime?

That's much harder to argue against that Christian or Jewish scripture which has always been a poorly defined collection of individual books from different time periods and in different languages.

I suspect that has more to do with their xenophobia towards the west than religion, leading them to tighten grip on their women/families, which is validated by how the keepers of the two holy sites govern their country. Besides looking down on homosexuality, these are not credible Islamic practices.

You are probably right but theses are (almost) exclusively Muslim problems. I would identify 9/11 as the crucial event, prior to that there was no real interest in Islam in Europe. I learned about Yusaf Islam's conversion and the Five Pillars in school and a little about Muslim history but nothing about contemporary Muslim theology beyond the idea that they believed in the same God as Christians and Jews. In the late 90's up to 9/11 the educational practice was to emphasise the similarities from a Christian/secular perspective and to ignore differences.

Oh - I remember we did something on the Hijab, as well.

Anyway, I didn't come into contact with Islamic thought, really, until I got to university.

[AE Bravo]

Actual hate-speech is banned but that doesn't mean that every offensive viewpoint is, if it were we would be Iran - we tried that, didn't like it.

I'm not entirely sure that hate speech is banned. It seems like a haven for Islamists to present their politicized fundamentalist teachings. They're basically using freedom of speech to preach the opposite.

So - why the Saudi's and the MB? The most likely answer, it seems to me is a combination of already sharing those ideologies and wanting to have bigger and more magnificent Mosques.

MB is an organization that is filled with contradictions and ambiguities, operation Trojan Horse is a summary of their entire ideology. However "moderate" they may be, they still seek to draw a line between Muslims and the hosts that were kind enough to welcome them as citizens. Simply put, MB will present their ideology whatever way a potential beneficiary might like. Why wouldn't you take the money anyway? Pledging your loyalty to a political party is a small price to pay, especially in a country that gives little incentive for you not to.

MB is stealing citizens, while Wahhabis raise generations of terrorists. It's more adopting those ideologies than sharing them.

It seems to me that the Muslims under the Prophet expanded by war and did battle, and they killed all the men of the Banu Qurayza, who were Jews, for poorly understood reasons.

I would criticize the decision to exile the main Jewish tribes for breaking the constitution of Medina, but this no. Banu Qurayza collaborated with the enemies of their Muslim allies in the middle of an ongoing war, so they had it coming. They were intimidated by Mecca and saw Islam as a threat to Judaism, unlike other Jewish tribes.

It was in the middle of a war that Muslims didn't start, nuff said. The prophet was never the aggressor in his lifetime, always a realist defending his people. Also, Medina was a multireligious city and the tribe violated this creed and sought to oppress a popular movement.

This is not new though, what is new is that we no longer torture or kill people for it.

That doesn't change the fact that Christians have discarded the things that made their religion unique to begin with. I remember reading about Jesus destroying decorations at a Jewish temple for its vanity and corruption, yet this sort of thing flourished under the Catholic church. The difference is that as Christianity becomes more progressive, it becomes less true to its original commandments while as Islam becomes more progressive it reverts back to its pre-Caliphate pacifist tenets. Isn't there a verse on killing your neighbor if you see him working on Sundays...? I think there's more Old Testament to be found in The Bible than there is in Qur'an. It makes it impossible to take literally and that's why it's taken less seriously by its followers.

How does a Christian embody spirit of Jesus? Do most Christians try to live by his lifestyle? Or have they brushed aside what made the religion unique for the most part?

Hasn't the Koran always been a scared and inviolable text dictated to Muhammed by God, though? More to the point wasn't it all compiled by a single generation within the Prophet's lifetime?

I don't see how my statement challenges that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not entirely sure that hate speech is banned. It seems like a haven for Islamists to present their politicized fundamentalist teachings. They're basically using freedom of speech to preach the opposite.

Hate speach is banned, but due process of law makes that sort of thing difficult to enforce. Due process of law is, here, much more important than banning a specific preacher.

MB is an organization that is filled with contradictions and ambiguities, operation Trojan Horse is a summary of their entire ideology. However "moderate" they may be, they still seek to draw a line between Muslims and the hosts that were kind enough to welcome them as citizens. Simply put, MB will present their ideology whatever way a potential beneficiary might like. Why wouldn't you take the money anyway? Pledging your loyalty to a political party is a small price to pay, especially in a country that gives little incentive for you not to.

For me this sums up the difference between Muslim thinking and British thinking - here no Church would be allowed to take money from a political party to breach their particular version of Christianity. That's true even of the Church of England which has Bishops sat in the Legislature and recieves some government money - said Bishops are almost always a hindrance to the Government of the Day that has a hand in not only funding but also appointing them.

MB is stealing citizens, while Wahhabis raise generations of terrorists. It's more adopting those ideologies than sharing them.

I don't disagree with this. I would argue that the Saudi government likes to export these people from the ME so that there are fewer of them at home.

I would criticize the decision to exile the main Jewish tribes for breaking the constitution of Medina, but this no. Banu Qurayza collaborated with the enemies of their Muslim allies in the middle of an ongoing war, so they had it coming. They were intimidated by Mecca and saw Islam as a threat to Judaism, unlike other Jewish tribes.

It was in the middle of a war that Muslims didn't start, nuff said. The prophet was never the aggressor in his lifetime, always a realist defending his people. Also, Medina was a multireligious city and the tribe violated this creed and sought to oppress a popular movement.

It was still genocide, kill all the men, take all the women and children as slaves. The women presumably became wives and the children were either left as slaves or would have had to convert to Islam for any chance of freedom.

It's not excusable - there are other ways to deal with enemies, genocide is always carried out as a vindictive punishment and a warning to others.

That doesn't change the fact that Christians have discarded the things that made their religion unique to begin with. I remember reading about Jesus destroying decorations at a Jewish temple for its vanity and corruption, yet this sort of thing flourished under the Catholic church.

Firstly, the version you heard was wrong. Jesus went into THE Temple, his Father's House, with a whip and overturned the market stools and the tables of the money changers. What was happening was that people were buying goats and chickens to sacrifice in the temple rather than bringing their own and they were changing their Roman money in Shekels to donate to the Temple. So the sacrifices were not valid because they had no meaning to the individual and the money lender were taking a cut when changing the money and so profiting from others' supposed piety.

At a more basic level it's exactly like you walking into your father's house and finding a bunch of shysters holding a market, you'd kick them out.

This has nothing to do with the decoration of the Temple and indeed Jesus never said anything, so far as I can recall, about the extravagant decorations of the Second Temple - there's nothing in the Gospel to suggest he didn't approve.

As to the Roman Catholic Church, I can tell you with some authority that for as long as there has been corruption in the Church the Church has made efforts to stamp it out, the practice of selling benifices (Church posts) and of pluralism (holding multiple benifices) was a problem throughout the Middle Ages, there were bad Popes who encouraged it and Good Popes who tried to ban it put this never had anything to do with the decoration of churches.

The difference is that as Christianity becomes more progressive, it becomes less true to its original commandments while as Islam becomes more progressive it reverts back to its pre-Caliphate pacifist tenets. Isn't there a verse on killing your neighbor if you see him working on Sundays...? I think there's more Old Testament to be found in The Bible than there is in Qur'an.

First off, early Islam is not Pacifistic - the Prophet made war. As to killing someone on a Sunday, that certainly isn't in the Gospels or Acts for two reasons. Firstly, the Sabbath in the Gospels is a Saturday as in Islam and Judaism and this remains technically true for Christians - but Christians worship on a Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Secondly, Jesus says quite a lot about working on the Sabbath (Saturday) and what he says is that it's fine. He gives the example of lamb that has fallen into a water troth as I recall, and makes the point that you have to pull it our or let it die.

I just looked this up though - apparently there's a few things in Exodus 35, but the Law does not apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the Law and thereby negated it.

Christians believe in the veracity of Exodus and teach from it but are not bound by it because it was not written by Christian Disciples or Evangelists.

How does a Christian embody Jesus? Do most Christians try to live by his lifestyle? Or have they brushed aside what made the religion unique for the most part?

Excellent question.

The answer to "how does a Christian embody Jesus" or, more properly, follow Jesus is usually "badly" but Jesus said that's OK so long as we love God and each other.

I don't see how my statement challenges that.

Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl (yes I know he didn't sleep with her on the first night) and had the heads of every man in a Jewish tribe cut off an enslaved all their women and children.

I'm sorry but this guy can't be repackaged as a Pacifist or a liberal thinker - he was a warlord and a diplomat, and a very successful one, but he wasn't Jesus or the Buddha or even Ghandi.

[Husar]

It's easy to get confused when you set out to be confused in order to win an argument.

1. PVC said that the devout Islamists, long championed by liberals as the opposite of the conservative Christians, actually has more in common with the far right than with the left.
2. AFAICS you then argued that it's no surprise that religions that stretch back before the existence of a left should be distinctly rightist.
3. I then pointed out that the British left has its roots in the CofE, which both stretches back before the existence of a left, yet has been distinctly leftist in the past couple of hundred years (when the left did exist).

Are you still confused? Do you want me to further break down these bullet points?

No, thank you, I really did not understand what exactly you were saying, maybe I was just too tired.

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no? Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?
Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc. The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

[Pannonian]

No, thank you, I really did not understand what exactly you were saying, maybe I was just too tired.

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no? Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?
Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc. The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

What it shows is that religion, even that which pre-dates the existence of the left, does not necessarily preclude a left wing as modern Islam seems to. I am not a Christian, and I would not tolerate anyone trying to convert me to Christianity, but I hugely respect what the CofE has done for what nowadays would be called human rights, social justice, and the rest of the leftist package. And looking at what the CofE has done, I am disgusted with Islamism, which is the polar opposite.