Org Mobile Site
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.
Thank you kindly
Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.
Thank you kindly
Originally Posted by :
Just 3 examples, out of many.
And for each example there are a dozen examples of non muslims doing the same so your "its the muslims" thing doesn't work .Just 3 examples, out of many.
BTW it would help your arguement if your links didn't contain lots of examples on the same page that prove my point
Originally Posted by :
Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.
Well for the topic , since the fundamentalist interpretations are in history terms a fairly modern happening how about exploring how they came about , what gave rise to them ?Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Well for the topic , since the fundamentalist interpretations are in history terms a fairly modern happening how about exploring how they came about , what gave rise to them ?
They came about because of a reformation just like in Christianity. I can't believe I did that big write up in the other thread only for it to get locked. Well for the topic , since the fundamentalist interpretations are in history terms a fairly modern happening how about exploring how they came about , what gave rise to them ?
Would it be relevant to repost it here for this discussion, since it seems to be related to Tribesman's point?
BTW it would help your arguement if your links didn't contain lots of examples on the same page that prove my point
Point being?
The perception of Islam as a monolith was favoured by the so-called clash of civilisations.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.
Of course, you have the immediate distinction between Sunnites and Shiites.
Each streams being divided in few branches.
The Islamist faith goes from Sufism (humanism and spirituality) to the Political Islamism (or Islamofacism) which referred to Jihad and martyrdom.
Al Qaeda belongs to the last one but is not the owner of the brand.
The Saudi branch is a legalist branch of the Political Islamism thanks to the Wahhabism, union of the sword and the book wanted by 2 men in 1774, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Mohammed ibn Sa'ud.
It is important to know that this branch took the Holly Place of Islam by force (1924, Abd el-Aziz conquered the Mecca, in 1932, he took Medina).
The original guardians of the Faith were the Hashemite…
You have as well more “western” approach of religion, where the Doctor of the Faith have historical approach to the faith and have a more intellectual analyse of the texts (Hijtihab).
Now, the problem is the Reformation of the Muslim religion is in the fact most of the Muslim considered the words of the books as the words of Good, given to Mohamed by Gabriel so it can't be changed.
If you compare with the New Testament, all Christians know it was written by Paul, John or others. In fact, none of the texts was written by Jesus himself. That gave to the Christian place for adaptation, especially when the knowledge, the Revelations are in fact translation of translation of text written at least 30 years after the events…
The infallibility of Koran supposed “words of God” poses the crucial problem of the absolute authority of the holly text, so what about of the totalitarian aspects when certain verses of the Koran are in total contradiction with the Human rights?
To succeed in adapting the Muslim Faith, a reformation, you have to convince illiterate Mullah who barely knows 5 lines of the text that they have to stop to think the Koran but to study it.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.
Of course, you have the immediate distinction between Sunnites and Shiites.
Each streams being divided in few branches.
The Islamist faith goes from Sufism (humanism and spirituality) to the Political Islamism (or Islamofacism) which referred to Jihad and martyrdom.
Al Qaeda belongs to the last one but is not the owner of the brand.
The Saudi branch is a legalist branch of the Political Islamism thanks to the Wahhabism, union of the sword and the book wanted by 2 men in 1774, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Mohammed ibn Sa'ud.
It is important to know that this branch took the Holly Place of Islam by force (1924, Abd el-Aziz conquered the Mecca, in 1932, he took Medina).
The original guardians of the Faith were the Hashemite…
You have as well more “western” approach of religion, where the Doctor of the Faith have historical approach to the faith and have a more intellectual analyse of the texts (Hijtihab).
Now, the problem is the Reformation of the Muslim religion is in the fact most of the Muslim considered the words of the books as the words of Good, given to Mohamed by Gabriel so it can't be changed.
If you compare with the New Testament, all Christians know it was written by Paul, John or others. In fact, none of the texts was written by Jesus himself. That gave to the Christian place for adaptation, especially when the knowledge, the Revelations are in fact translation of translation of text written at least 30 years after the events…
The infallibility of Koran supposed “words of God” poses the crucial problem of the absolute authority of the holly text, so what about of the totalitarian aspects when certain verses of the Koran are in total contradiction with the Human rights?
To succeed in adapting the Muslim Faith, a reformation, you have to convince illiterate Mullah who barely knows 5 lines of the text that they have to stop to think the Koran but to study it.
Originally Posted by :
Point being?
Point being?
The point being if you want to go "its the muslims" and someone comes back with "no its just people all sorts of idiots do the same thing all over the world" don't post links as examples to make your case which contain other footage of all sorts of people all over the world doing what you claim is a "muslim thing" as that is a real case of shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the West Ham one , thats funny , so is the Belgium nationalist one and the anarcho leftist hippy atheist muslims one
ditching the hadith may be a good start, there was an article i read to that effect recently, may have been the other thread.
Originally Posted by :
One Linky
One Linky
one PCSO
wow after he screwed up the police have said they are going to train him
Get rid of them PCSO muppets .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
one PCSO
wow after he screwed up the police have said they are going to train him
Get rid of them PCSO muppets .
That is entirely not the point and you know that very well. I hope.one PCSO
wow after he screwed up the police have said they are going to train him
Get rid of them PCSO muppets .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
The point being if you want to go "its the muslims" and someone comes back with "no its just people all sorts of idiots do the same thing all over the world" don't post links as examples to make your case which contain other footage of all sorts of people all over the world doing what you claim is a "muslim thing" as that is a real case of shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the West Ham one , thats funny , so is the Belgium nationalist one and the anarcho leftist hippy atheist muslims one
And incident is an incident, a series of incidents is something structural. You had to go for links from the USA Poland to Israel, all I need is a single neighbourhood.The point being if you want to go "its the muslims" and someone comes back with "no its just people all sorts of idiots do the same thing all over the world" don't post links as examples to make your case which contain other footage of all sorts of people all over the world doing what you claim is a "muslim thing" as that is a real case of shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the West Ham one , thats funny , so is the Belgium nationalist one and the anarcho leftist hippy atheist muslims one
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
They came about because of a reformation just like in Christianity. I can't believe I did that big write up in the other thread only for it to get locked.
Would it be relevant to repost it here for this discussion, since it seems to be related to Tribesman's point?
Yes, it was an excellent contribution and would sit well in this discussion too.They came about because of a reformation just like in Christianity. I can't believe I did that big write up in the other thread only for it to get locked.
Would it be relevant to repost it here for this discussion, since it seems to be related to Tribesman's point?
Originally Posted by :
And incident is an incident, a series of incidents is something structural. You had to go for links from the USA Poland to Israel, all I need is a single neighbourhood.
And incident is an incident, a series of incidents is something structural. You had to go for links from the USA Poland to Israel, all I need is a single neighbourhood.
Yes thats because you have his thing about Islam , but your structural thing is a house of cards that falls down very easily .
Anti-semitism is a global thing , so is violence in crappy urban areas , as is local problems with immigrant communities ...which makes your structure of "its a muslim" thing come tumbling down .
For your structural thing to stand you have to show that the issue you have is just something Muslims do and not something that is commonplace through varied communities worldwide.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Yes thats because you have his thing about Islam , but your structural thing is a house of cards that falls down very easily .
So you say, yet you don't.Yes thats because you have his thing about Islam , but your structural thing is a house of cards that falls down very easily .
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
ditching the hadith may be a good start, there was an article i read to that effect recently, may have been the other thread.
ditching the hadith may be a good start, there was an article i read to that effect recently, may have been the other thread.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
The perception of Islam as a monolith was favoured by the so-called clash of civilisations.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.
As far as I know, the Hadith, while an important text is not supposed to be infallible. The Qu'ran is supposed to be infallible as it is God's revelation to Muhammad, whereas the Hadith a traditional version of his life and acts.The perception of Islam as a monolith was favoured by the so-called clash of civilisations.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.
Huntingdon's view of the clash of civilisations is fundamentally flawed. What is civilisation? How do we classify it? Surely this means viewing certain peoples as barbarians, or at the very least uncivilised...
In essence the classification Islam as a monolithic threat to Western culture is unfair. Muslims, like Christians, secularists and other religions, indeed any gathering of more than one person , will have their differences. Indeed there are many undesirable parts of 'western culture' that are much more threatening to most people's view of civilised behaviour.
Uncontrolled immigration, or heavily restricted immigration is not the answer. A balance must be struck between the two. Similarly the idea that any 'different' immigrants to a country must adapt or leave is backward and oppressive. Tolerance and plurality must be exercised within Europe and the other 'western nations' in order to allow Islam, and other cultures to work within a non-despotic model.
I'd write more but I'm a little rushed for time... I'll try and dig up the essay I wrote on Islam in Europe last semester, I'm going off the top of my head atm...
Do not suppose the statements of the prophets to be true! They are all fabrications. Men lived comfortably till they came and spoiled life. The sacred books are only such a set of idle tales as any age could have and indeed did actually produce.
The Hajj is nothing but a heathen’s journey. The ritualistic kissing of the black stone at Mecca the superstitious nonsense of a religion that has only resulted in fanatical and sectarian bigotry and bloodshed.
Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.
For Islam, either reformed or unreformed, I do not care.
The Hajj is nothing but a heathen’s journey. The ritualistic kissing of the black stone at Mecca the superstitious nonsense of a religion that has only resulted in fanatical and sectarian bigotry and bloodshed.
Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.
For Islam, either reformed or unreformed, I do not care.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.
As he appears in effect to be an atheist, is it not correct to say that he is Arab but incorrect to say that he is part of the Islam just as it is incorrect to say that Hitchens is a Christian?Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO