Fatwa on terror, what the hell.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Child abuse is illegal as hell.

I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).

The Holy Father's immediate predecessor made such a statement.

The Church is, however, a church founded upon the idea of redemption. The only one-way ticket is one you sell to yourself be rejecting repentance.

I do admit that I am personally in favor of priests who abuse others this way being ordered to a life of monastic asceticism and prayer -- redemption is best, but it can only atone for and not obviate a crime of this kind.

[Hax]

You can't rule the muslims through the Islam and that's what they are trying to do.

Fragony, please. "The Islam" doesn't exist. Let's face it; there's no global Muslim conspiracy waiting to send in groups after groups of bearded and angry-looking men together with their veiled women and their nine children whose pleasures in life consist out of little more than turning the life of autochtonous westerlings into a state of pure misery.

Who were natural allies during the First Crusade? Right, the Fatimids (Shi'ites) and the Byzantine Empire, vs the Seljuks (Sunnites). Like they really cared what kind of denomination you followed, hell, they hardly cared whether you were a Muslim yourself (explaining the expanse of the Coptic Christians who actually fared better under Fatimid rule than they did under Byzantine rule). It's only since about...thirty/fourty years that Islamic fundamentalism has been stirring, and this largely being supported by an amount of western nations (Al-Qaeda vs Russians? Mohammed Mossadeq, 1953, CIA?) in the first place.

Islam is a word that is thrown around, like somehow, the spirit of Muhammed lives still in every single Muslim alive; it doesn't. Actually, it stopped doing so almost immediately after he died: need I remind you of the fact that Ali and Imam Husayn were killed? Need I remind you of the numerous Caliphates? Need I tell you about how the Ummayad family was slaughtered and how Abd al-Rahman fled to Al-Andalus?

Muslims and Islam are as impervious (or perhaps even more impervious) to political, social and economical change as other people. To suggest that there is some sort of hivemind that is shared by Sunnites, Shi'ites, Wahabbis, Alevi, Sufis and all the denomininations is factually incorrect and a good way of scapegoating an enormous amount of people.

The suggestion that "the Islam" exists has no factual basis, whatsoever.

It makes you think whether people have stopped taking an active interest in history.

[Fragony]

I am not talking about muslims when I say 'they', my beef is isn't with the muslims but with the multicutural left.

[Furunculus]

Muslims and Islam are as impervious (or perhaps even more impervious) to political, social and economical change as other people.

i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9C7...layer_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNq6...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_g...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWIv...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0262...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7_m...eature=related

Pretty good documentary.

[Hax]

i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......

The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention. And how would you call Turkey then? The existence of religious political parties (such as in almost all the Maghribi countries) does not constitute for a lack of seperation of church and state. Otherwise, most western countries would not know seperation of church and state. Look at the United States for an obvious example.

[Fragony]

The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention.

So are antibiotics what's your point

[Hax]

My point being that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in criticising other people when it comes to things like these, especially when it's definitely not true or overgeneralised. You criticise "the multicultural left", but if there is something that "the right" is more prone to doing, it's generalising.

[Furunculus]

The whole "seperation of church and state" thing is a pretty recent invention. And how would you call Turkey then? The existence of religious political parties (such as in almost all the Maghribi countries) does not constitute for a lack of seperation of church and state. Otherwise, most western countries would not know seperation of church and state. Look at the United States for an obvious example.

turkeys separation of church from state was enforced by the generals to held a coup every time politically islamic politicians got too close to power, hardly a good example for you to counter my point with............ :)

[Fragony]

My point being that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in criticising other people when it comes to things like these, especially when it's definitely not true or overgeneralised. You criticise "the multicultural left", but if there is something that "the right" is more prone to doing, it's generalising.

The right is very diverse, but if there is one thing that is a given for all leftist party's is that you aren't allowed to have doubts about unlimited immigration and multiculture. The sectarian nature of this unquestionable fact and the paralysing social control within the leftist church is a disaster for our country's.

SP used to be an exception by the way, but they don't like to be reminded of that.

[HoreTore]

The Holy Father's immediate predecessor made such a statement.

The Church is, however, a church founded upon the idea of redemption. The only one-way ticket is one you sell to yourself be rejecting repentance.

I do admit that I am personally in favor of priests who abuse others this way being ordered to a life of monastic asceticism and prayer -- redemption is best, but it can only atone for and not obviate a crime of this kind.

I know he did - and I'm very happy that he did it. It may be seen as unnecessary(child abuse already being illegal) or whatever, but I honestly don't care, it's still a very good thing, and I'd say it's something that had to be said.

But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time? I'll tell you why; because things like these are not a problem, they are good things - the only problem is that Wilders hates Islam, and in his mind everything about Islam is bad. That's how he can be silent when something is done in Christianity, and whine when the exact same thing is done in Islam. Some people call that hypocritical. I call it pathetic.

as for the one-way ticket, well, that was the reason why I added "or something along those lines", as I know very well that a "one way ticket to hell" is impossible in christianity, it was more a figure of speech than a proposed punishment....

The right is very diverse, but if there is one thing that is a given for all leftist party's is that you aren't allowed to have doubts about unlimited immigration and multiculture. The sectarian nature of this unquestionable fact and the paralysing social control within the leftist church is a disaster for our country's.

That's just nonsense, Frags.

The Norwegian labour party, allied with other parties of course, have been responsible for the following:

- Sending Russian POW's back to Stalin following WW2, as their "Slavic race" was "found incompatible with the Norwegian race and culture".
- Sending Czech refugees back to the Czechoslovakian dictatorship after the soviet invasion, due to the same.
- Forcing christianity and "Norwegian culture" upon the Roma and Suomi peoples, including things like forced adoption, sterilization and forced labour.
- Ending legal immigration in the 80's.

And I'm quite sure similar stuff has gone on in other countries.

[Fragony]

But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time?

Enough outrage without me, where are you when a leading muslim cleric says something sick, the first thing you bring up sick things within the christian religion, there is the difference. All religions can go screw themselves, but for lefties some religions some more then others, when it are muslims they will try to relativate, a courtesy only reserved for them. And that is because leftism itself is a religion, muslims believe in Allah, lefties in multiculture, to be able to keep believing in multi-culture they will have to keep making compromises as religious nutjobs don't, and that is why the left will implement sharia law they will never accept that multi-culture isn't perfection and keep compromising. You can see it everywhere, always compromise, never a finger in the face and ridicule. But I guess I am the islamphobe because they can go to hell just as well as everybody else.

[al Roumi]

Louis and Fragony, you both have a peculiar perspective on this.

It is Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam (the Qu'ran & Sura) which legitimises their war. This Fatwa undermines Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam by providing a theological counter-argument. Whether it has any weight or reach is another matter.

The tactics Al-Qaida uses: terrorism, are the same any small group uses in an asymetric war -or in trying to provoke one. They do not have the resources for conventional warfare, but would more than likely escalate to it if they did have such resources. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not members or supporters of Al-Qaida, if they were the west would be at war with them all -yet we are not. Despite this, for some reason Frag's has a hard time seeing a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist.

Islam means surrender. A believing Muslim is meant to surrender himself to his religion and live by its precepts and rules, otherwise he is not a Muslim (believer). I know regrettably little about Christianity beyond that gleaned from an upbringing in a broadly christian society (UK), but western society certainly isn't governed or ruled by religious guidance -this is a central pilar of the enlightenment and our current western societies (as Frag's and Louis point out). I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...

The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:

It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.

To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.

Fragony/Louis, surely you are aware that terrorism, in any form, is not something a government can simply stop or mitigate by passing a law? Laws don't actually stop people murdering, drink driving, stealing or even dropping litter!

I struggle to see how anyone bar a Muslim could embrace this Fatwa Louis. In the context of your post, to think one actually has a say over one's life or death is amusing to say the least. If terrorism is about an individual's beliefs and his justification for killing civilians, to be blind to the personal motivations which lead him to or away from terrorism, be they theological or other, is also rather disengenious, to say the least.

[al Roumi]

i would say that statement is debatable given the lack of separation between church and state.......

That's a bit of a sweeping statement too!

I'd argue that most Muslim states, with a few notable exceptions, are ruled by secular leaders through secular structures. The "Mosque" though is undeniably important in Muslim society, comparatively mores so than in the west so yes Church and state are closer, but that again does not neccesarily mean Hax is wrong.

[HoreTore]

I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...

It does. The way christianity was spread here(in the north) wasn't through evangelizing or something like that; it was by converting the ruler who then changed his pagan system of laws to the christian system of laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It does. The way christianity was spread here(in the north) wasn't through evangelizing or something like that; it was by converting the ruler who then changed his pagan system of laws to the christian system of laws.

Actually, Cnut used Christian missionaries from England in the early 11th Century to convert Danes and Norwegians. The "Christian Law" you refer to was mostly Roman Law, or some locally adapted version thereof. Evangelising began with the ruler because the missionaries needed protection, especially in the North where they were often killed without pause. This was in fact so endemic that the English made a point of boasting that they did not kill the first missionaries sent to them; and claimed this as a unique acolade.

Of course, what the Monks and Clerics brought with them in addition to Christianity was writing, which offered a ruler the ability to much more efficiently order, control and tax his lands. Writing also offered immortality through written history, something very popular amongst the Norse in particular, I believe.

[HoreTore]

Actually, Cnut used Christian missionaries from England in the early 11th Century to convert Danes and Norwegians. The "Christian Law" you refer to was mostly Roman Law, or some locally adapted version thereof. Evangelising began with the ruler because the missionaries needed protection, especially in the North where they were often killed without pause. This was in fact so endemic that the English made a point of boasting that they did not kill the first missionaries sent to them; and claimed this as a unique acolade.

Of course, what the Monks and Clerics brought with them in addition to Christianity was writing, which offered a ruler the ability to much more efficiently order, control and tax his lands. Writing also offered immortality through written history, something very popular amongst the Norse in particular, I believe.

If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If idag.no's search function wasn't so horribly bad, I'd have a counter for that....

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

[HoreTore]

There are plenty of counters, but it doesn't change the fact that your ancestors converted more or less voluntarily.

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now that be rather untrue. When wars are fought and torture is used to convert people it can't be called "voluntarily".

And that has absolutely zero to do with whether Christianity offers a system of government or not.

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

[HoreTore]

Cnut was King of Norway, he sent English missionaries. If he had tortured the Norsemen to the extreme he would not have remained King, especially as he spent so much time in sunny England.

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm.... What? Why would he be deposed because he tortured people? If anything, it would make him more able to retain power.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Cnut was a Dane, not the one who christened Norway and he eventually lost the crown of Norway, due to rebellions...

Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.

[HoreTore]

Did the Jarls like brutes as Kings then? Odd, the Earls didn't.

Which one of them wasn't a brute?

[al Roumi]

As interesting a topic as the spread of Christianity among the Norse is, does it actually shed any further light on whether Christianity, and it's texts, prescribes an actual legal system (or dispute resolution mechanism) on its adherents?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which one of them wasn't a brute?

Godwin and Godwin's sons were not so terrible (Tostig accepted), Bishop Wulfstan of York (contemporary with Cnut) was considered to be just, fair, intelligent, and is credited with avoiding a divisive and costly war after Cnut took the crown. Perhaps you equate "brute" with "violent", which I do not.

Alh_p, it does shed some light because it helps to explain why people converted. Catholicism was not the only show in town, but it plugged you into the Roman network and gave you access to all manner of advantages in trade and administration. However, the Law was not strictly theocratic. Church courts existyed and dealt with moral matters, mainly burrial, infidelity, etc. but they were hardly the only law in the land.

[HoreTore]

But where was Wilders or Fragony when the Pope gave that statement? Why didn't they cry out that time?

Enough outrage without me, where are you when a leading muslim cleric says something sick, the first thing you bring up sick things within the christian religion, there is the difference. All religions can go screw themselves, but for lefties some religions some more then others, when it are muslims they will try to relativate, a courtesy only reserved for them. And that is because leftism itself is a religion, muslims believe in Allah, lefties in multiculture, to be able to keep believing in multi-culture they will have to keep making compromises as religious nutjobs don't, and that is why the left will implement sharia law they will never accept that multi-culture isn't perfection and keep compromising. You can see it everywhere, always compromise, never a finger in the face and ridicule. But I guess I am the islamphobe because they can go to hell just as well as everybody else.

Right...

Please show me where I was outraged when the pope made his statement about child abuse. No, I believed it was a good thing, as you did too. But you believe that this thing, which is basically the exact same thing, is bad, and the reason is because it's coming from the muslims. And that my friend, is a clear example of blind fanaticism.

[Fragony]

What you don't get is that I don't care about the Islam, it's about the multicultural left. They are like that annoying salesman that comes to your door every day to offer you what you don't want. If they like it so much they should move there instead of printing folders of how wonderful everything is. Many cheap houses there.

day of this, day of that, this and that foundation festival they should piss off. Tax money isn't meant for their multicultural religion.

[HoreTore]

What you don't get is that I don't care about the Islam, it's about the multicultural left. They are like that annoying salesman that comes to your door every day to offer you what you don't want. If they like it so much they should move there instead of printing folders of how wonderful everything is. Many cheap houses there.

day of this, day of that, this and that foundation festival they should piss off. Tax money isn't meant for their multicultural religion.

So.... Could you again please explain just what makes a muslim guy doing the fatwa is bad, while the pope bashing child fondling is good...?

Where does the "multicultural left" fit into that?

[Fragony]

So.... Could you again please explain just what makes a muslim guy doing the fatwa is bad, while the pope bashing child fondling is good...?

Where does the "multicultural left" fit into that?

Can you explain to me how defending the backward expects of another religion makes any sense.

[Subotan]

How is a fatwa, which is basically a statement by a cleric on a topic, backward?