Danger of Islam!

[Brugmansia]

Our anarchy has been sold out.

Bush, Wilders, Imams will find any corner they need.

 

[zezt]

I didn't read whole this thread, but there are the same types of thread (about the "danger" of the islam) in many forums i visit...

I think that is an evidence that Bushes so called "war on terror" has worked... He turned many many people into islam-haters.

I do see a threat in those radical imams. The radical imams & moslimfundamentalists are not better or wose than Wilders or Bush, all they do is making people hate another culture... That's NOT the way to global peace. If you act radical, i can ensure you, that others will act radical to you. action and reaction, that's how simple it is...

Well said.

lol, and that just says it all. See Forkbender, try and understand. This is a debate, and I am saying Islam is a danger. THAt is specifically why I chose to title this thread that. That surely is a freedom to do this....right?

YOU and a few others dont agree.

Hence any ABUSE shown by others that break rules of the forum you turn blind eye to and talk nonesense justifying it, and blame the blamer BECAUSE..............you do not agree. Hence you will choose to ingnore abuse done to the 'heretic'. And others will want thread stopped etc. Its a form of censorship

It is like..............OK, in the brutal Shariah law of Islam, as was explored by Theo Van Gogh, a woman might complain about ABUSE from husband, male familiy members, or general males . And this abuse will be turned against HER, and SHE will suffer for the abuse done to HER!
Do you see a pattern...

go and meditate on that

 

[restin]

As I've already explained, the Quran asserts its own authority till the end of time for being the very word of God himself. That's what makes it, and scriptures like it, dangerous. Normal books may wreak temporary havoc, but they are eventually replaced by better books. The word of God however is irreplaceable.

Good point. But I still want to underline that there is a difference between the claim and the reaction the people have on it. Just take the Bible - not only were hundreds of different interpretations created, different streams but there are also varying means of belief amongst the different believers. Most of the people I know that are believers do not like the statements of the pope. And no, such different interpretations were not created because of the Enlightenment Era but already in the beginning of Christianity. I take the Christian example because I really know a lot more about it but taking into account the huge similarities between these two, I am convinced that this is quite the same.

Art is always in flux, changing as cultures change. Holy books, however, are passed on from generation to generation unchanged.

Thats both true and untrue. The text changes indeed but at the same time, take the Eucharist. Only this passage is already extremely discussed and not agreed on. People like Luther, Calvin etc. show that holy books indeed change. There are also many people that now believe in evolution and God. It is not a contradiction.

I've already pointed out in this thread that I'm not blaming anyone or anything, but am trying to get the big picture as to what caused and is currently fueling the problem. I don't see zezt blaming anyone in particular either

wrong vocab/word ;)

My view on the matter: a) a muslim that lives for the shariah law can be dangerous, because to actually appreciate the shariah law means one must be brainwashed and cruel; b) the shariah law (and hadiths) are valid for the muslim, but apply to their conduct towards nonmuslims too, and some of those injunctions pose a danger to our liberties, such as being free to make jokes and be openly critical of religious dogmas; c) because it's supported by a religion which asserts a divine source it is even more dangerous than other types of law, I've already discussed this; d) an ideology or system that does not reject shariah law is indeed dangerous to our world:

I don't understand why you don't understand why a muslem (not everyone) is insulted if you attack e.g. mohammed. First of all, the drawing that was talked about showed mohammed with a bomb as his hat. This can have two meanings - the danger of mohammed being the pretendent reason for war (his image is taken to excuse a war) and the danger/thread of islam as a religion. Both interpretations are equally valid.

On the other hand it seems as if muslems just have a different relation to God than others do. We all have our frontiers - If I insulted your mother you probably would be angry as well and if I posted the image of your naked mother in the newspaper you'd get really really angry I think. If a muslem feels insulted and offended by this carricature I think we should appreciate this. If we are so open minded why not accept the frontiers of others?

"Sharia (Arabic: '?????? transliteration: Šar??ah) is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues."

Here we already clearly see the controversy of it. I already pointed out the metaphorical language. Shariah means "way" or "path to the water source". I don't know what water source has as a meaning in their culture but it clearly indicates a moral philosophy and a spiritual way. I also think that it is wrong to split religious dogma with politics etc. but if we see it as a path of morals - e.g. "don't steal" it clearly must influence the whole aspect of life. I read parts of the shariah law and you see it far too black and white. It is absolutely clear that the topic of shariah is very deep and complex and if it is talked about it must be talked about separately.

Direct threats are not always the issue.

Then what?

It's dangerous when he starts preaching to his own children.

How? If he gives them certain values and does not force them he is certainly not. Why don't I steal if I see an apple lying? because I was taught so. Teaching always includes forcing - in a direct or psychological way.

You mean the songs, the prayers, the incense, the allegories and all that? Yes, that part can be beautiful and spiritual, but also deceptive.

nonono. I know you don't like religions so you may misunderstand my rather free use of religion. For my definition, religion is a spiritual experience. Jesus didn't get himself killed to prove a point but because he was spiritually touched.

Only insofar as they are free from misconceptions and falsehoods.

How to differ? Is not stealing a misconception? Who is right? Who takes the right to be right?

That's a superficial comparison. The sharia provides many more details, and recommends severe punishments, including very cruel corporal punishments.

There are enough examples in the bible as well.

I agree that there is an oppressive ideology coming our way. I also think it's mostly barbarian, though I don't claim it's the only barbarian force in the world today. We can all give examples.

I don't hope that you mean the definition of barbarian as "blah blah" :lol: " A derogatory term for someone from a developing country or backward culture." Lévis-Strausse said that everyone calling someone else a barbarian is a barbarian himself...Who defines progress?

Why don't you say anything about the metaphorical part?

 

[GOD]

"We can all give examples."

zest is the best example .

 

[Shamanita]

I didn't read whole this thread, but there are the same types of thread (about the "danger" of the islam) in many forums i visit...

I think that is an evidence that Bushes so called "war on terror" has worked... He turned many many people into islam-haters.

I do see a threat in those radical imams. The radical imams & moslimfundamentalists are not better or wose than Wilders or Bush, all they do is making people hate another culture... That's NOT the way to global peace. If you act radical, i can ensure you, that others will act radical to you. action and reaction, that's how simple it is...

Well said.

lol, and that just says it all. See Forkbender, try and understand. This is a debate, and I am saying Islam is a danger. THAt is specifically why I chose to title this thread that. That surely is a freedom to do this....right?

YOU and a few others dont agree.

Hence any ABUSE shown by others that break rules of the forum you turn blind eye to and talk nonesense justifying it, and blame the blamer BECAUSE..............you do not agree. Hence you will choose to ingnore abuse done to the 'heretic'. And others will want thread stopped etc. Its a form of censorship

It is like..............OK, in the brutal Shariah law of Islam, as was explored by Theo Van Gogh, a woman might complain about ABUSE from husband, male familiy members, or general males . And this abuse will be turned against HER, and SHE will suffer for the abuse done to HER!
Do you see a pattern...

go and meditate on that

The thing is that you don't have to point at just one single culture. Christianity, in the way the pope wants it, is not better as islam. also radical jews or hindus surpress their women.

And not every muslim likes the Sharia law's. Not every muslim is a terrorist, not every muslim believes you have to kill homosexuals, and so on.... It's sad that some radical fundamentalist, who take the Koran too literally, fuck it up for all of them...


If you called this thread "The danger of most Religions" than i would fully agree. But dont just point at one culture. That's how WWII started, you know.


edit: I remembre few weeks ago, the pope said that get loss of homosexuality is as important as saving the rainforrest... think about that

edit 2: I watched Fitna too btw, but it didn't work for me. Cause he just takes 4 lines of the whole Koran (which is thousands of pages) out of the context... In that way you can make every culture look barbarian.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

People like Luther, Calvin etc. show that holy books indeed change. There are also many people that now believe in evolution and God. It is not a contradiction.

It could happen within Islam, but so far it didn't. I agree we should try to remain optimistic and patient however.

First of all, the drawing that was talked about showed mohammed with a bomb as his hat.

I thought the fuzz was about any drawing of Mohammed or Allah, not just that one. And that the bomb drawing was one out of twelve.

If a muslem feels insulted and offended by this carricature I think we should appreciate this.

Yes, agreed, we should. But if we cannot make any cartoon of Mohammed anymore, I don't think this has anything to do with feeling offended or insulted.

but it clearly indicates a moral philosophy and a spiritual way.

And most likely it started out like that, but what the sharia eventually became is something quite different.

Then what?

Our liberties and democracy being compromised, as in refusing one of our politicians entry to the House of Lords because fear of a riot, as promised by Lord Ahmed.

If he gives them certain values and does not force them he is certainly not.

That's conveying wisdom and imparting common sense, not preaching.

There are enough examples in the bible as well.

Do you know any modern Christian who's of the opinion that these examples should be implemented in today's world?

I don't hope that you mean the definition of barbarian as "blah blah" :lol: " A derogatory term for someone from a developing country or backward culture."

Neither, I meant "Relating to people, countries or customs perceived as uncivilized." Because there are more civilized ways of dealing with theft, infidelity, sodomy etc.

Lévis-Strausse said that everyone calling someone else a barbarian is a barbarian himself...Who defines progress?

But we're calling Islam and specifically the Sharia is barbaric, we're not saying someone in particular is barbarian.

Why don't you say anything about the metaphorical part?

I don't know. What part?

 

[restin]

It could happen within Islam, but so far it didn't. I agree we should try to remain optimistic and patient however.

indeed. I believe that the more the fundamentals try to suppress progress/change the more it will happen. You showed enough sources that try to bring islam to the next level - there are already attempts to do so.

I thought the fuzz was about any drawing of Mohammed or Allah, not just that one. And that the bomb drawing was one out of twelve.

I once saw a documentary about the fuzz and they were mainly talking about a specific one - probably the most controversial. I saw it and it is indeed controversial (as I said)

Yes, agreed, we should. But if we cannot make any cartoon of Mohammed anymore, I don't think this has anything to do with feeling offended or insulted.

I can easily get over not making and publishing any caricatures of mohammed in the future. You can argue that "well what comes next, that the muslem will overtake our law" but that's the same argument as "if marijuana gets legal than heroin will get legal as well". There is and will be no European or other government that will let Islam overtake our law,liberty and culture. If there is a rise of muslems in a country this phenomenon is local (e.g. pakistani in Norway) and mostly concerns asylum politics in general (which then includes Albanians, Africans,...)

And most likely it started out like that, but what the sharia eventually became is something quite different.

Yes. I won't disagree that there is a problem in misinterpretation and probably active misleading/lying of certain people.

Our liberties and democracy being compromised, as in refusing one of our politicians entry to the House of Lords because fear of a riot, as promised by Lord Ahmed.

I don't see any reason why this fitna should be showed and talked about in an official building of politics. We should rather show loose change in the white house and expect some answers.

That's conveying wisdom and imparting common sense, not preaching.

Hmmm. It's not easy to draw the line. It's case sensitive.

Do you know any modern Christian who's of the opinion that these examples should be implemented in today's world?

Throughout the threat you didn't allow moderate muslems as being valid for argumentation as they were "no real muslems" - why should moderate christians then be valid?

Neither, I meant "Relating to people, countries or customs perceived as uncivilized." Because there are more civilized ways of dealing with theft, infidelity, sodomy etc.

If civilised = less violent. It seems to be much more severe to steal in muslem countries than here...

But we're calling Islam and the Sharia in particular barbaric, we're not saying someone in particular is barbarian.

The original text also refers to other cultures.

I don't know. What part?

I wrote about the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran and shariah..

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

We should rather show loose change in the white house and expect some answers.

Good idea!

Throughout the threat you didn't allow moderate muslems as being valid for argumentation as they were "no real muslems" - why should moderate christians then be valid?

Well, you're right, the term Christian has lost much of its original meaning(s). It can now refer to any type of faith, though all related to Jesus and the Bible. And none of those modern branches are interested in implementing the old laws and customs.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Books at this time and earlier were all very bloody, strong in metaphores, I mean reaaaaally bloody and pervert, read some Catullus so in our time and translation it is easy to misread a strong metaphor.

Yes, Hindu books are also filled with bloody, gruesome stories. Still, Hinduism doesn't really pose a threat to modern values. It seems there's more to it than the bloody metaphors themselves. We must not forget, for example, that it's considered a pious achievement to have learned the entire Quran by heart (to recite the entire text from memory). That means repeating the 'metaphors' over and over again until they become ingrained.

 

[Forkbender]

Hence any ABUSE shown by others that break rules of the forum you turn blind eye to and talk nonesense justifying it, and blame the blamer BECAUSE..............you do not agree. Hence you will choose to ingnore abuse done to the 'heretic'. And others will want thread stopped etc. Its a form of censorship

I thought about it and I am well aware that this might be the case, that's why I gave you ample opportunity to point out what you find abuse and why. You then compare me to someone who justifies violence against women in your version of 'Islam'. I never did that and I never will. The whole point is that the burden of proof is on you. I haven't censored anyone, not you, not GOD, not CM.

 

[GOD]

"Hence any ABUSE shown by others that break rules of the forum you turn blind eye to and talk nonesense justifying it, and blame the blamer BECAUSE..............you do not agree. Hence you will choose to ingnore abuse done to the 'heretic'. And others will want thread stopped etc. Its a form of censorship"

Personaly i think that you saying that is unfair . As far as i`m concerned thats paranoid and typical for the sort of tactics you use .

 

[zezt]

"One picture shows a praying Muslims being anally raped by a dog, another shows Mohammed with pig's ears and snout and the third is labeled "The pedophile 'prophet' Mohammed". I have no idea where Danish Islamic Society have found these pictures - they were certainly never published in any newspaper - therefore I must assume the pictures belong to Danish Islamic Society, and I have added a copyright notice. By reproducing these primitive pictures and spreading them all over the Middle East, the Danish Islamic Society have ensured that this pictures - which they supposedly hate - are now immortalized.

This explains most of the anger. The three blasphemous pictures are linked together with the 12 innocent drawings in Jyllands-Posten, which (or so the Muslims in the Middle East are told) is owned by the Danish government.

Of course there is more to the story than this. Why would people in Pakistan and Egypt react so violently - just because a Danish newspaper in a far-away country has broken an Islamic tradition? After all there's nothing in the al-Quran forbidding making drawings of Mohammed.

Muslims butcher cows, even if cows are sacred to the Hindus. Muslims step on bugs and ants, even if Hara Krishnas hold all life sacred. Muslims denigrate pork, even though the Nordic Gods have wonderful pigs like Særimner and Gallinbursti. So why do (some) Muslims take it so personally when non-Muslims break a Muslim tradition?

The sad (and scary) explanation is that non-Muslims are simply not allowed to break Muslim laws. In certain Muslims' minds, Islamic rule must be introduced world-wide and all who do not convert are treated as unclean "Kufr" and "Dhimmi" (a Dhimmi (or Zimmi) is a non-Muslim who must pay a special tax for protection ("jizya") and suffer humiliation). There is no room for compromise, since there is only one god and one Prophet. This explains why the Danish Islamic Society took such extreme steps to "punish" not only Jyllands-Posten, but Denmark as well.

Seen in this light the whole story turns out to be not about freedom of speech and not even about freedom of religion. It's all about freedom from religion."

In other words some unknown forces were stirring up the trouble even more?
This is why it is wise to spot danger quickly before the fire gets takes hold and it cannot be put out.

Someone said why didn't I title the thread 'the danger of all religions'-------hmmmm, well THIS one's already 39 pages, how long do you think that one would go to?!

Let ME ask: who would be as upset if I'd titled it 'The Danger of Zionism'

'The Danger of Christianity.......of the Jesuits......of the Satanists......of the Presbytarians'......etc?

Another said what about the Pope and him claiming people who are gay were as dangerous as disappearing rainforests. Well I already wrote and published an online article all about that before Christmas! And I wasn't complimentary and included Popey's email address for people to send their Christmas messages to

But read the above article in full (link in one of CMs latest posts). there we have intelligent Danish people rightly concerned by this absurd yet very oppressive attack on freedoms

People here seem to be suggesting we allow freedom for oppression. That is a contradiction

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

This is too much: again I went upstairs to give myself a break from this discussion and watch some television. And guess what started this time? A South Park episode (Cartoon Wars Part 2) about Mohammed appearing in Family Guy. Too much!! :lol:

I see now there was also another episode actually featuring Mohammed, but it didn't spark an outcry. Why? Shakeel Ali, the head of the Glasgow branch of Young Muslims UK, said the lack of outrage over the South Park episode was probably due to the fact that most Muslims were not aware of it. "Muslims see any depiction of the prophets as demeaning and this episode would cause hurt to Muslims wherever it was shown," he said.

 

[GOD]

If you go to your firts post in this thread you can change the title . It would be better if you changed the exclamtion sign to a question mark .

Your question about threads critisising other religeons is not a question its an acusation . If anyone started a thread about anything and was as rasist , unfair , biased as you have been or wrote posts on any subject that were as full of hate and hysteria as you have done i would say something .

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

Here, racist is spelt with a c, not being a dick i totally agree with what your saying but its just been bugging me to no end.

:wink:

 

[Pariah]

" there was also another episode actually featuring Mohammed, but it didn't spark an outcry. Why?"

Super best friends aired the summer of 2001...

To say muslims wouldn't be aware of southpark in 2001 is difficult to believe - it was still somewhat of a schoolyard phenomenon at the time, and you could hardly escape it... although I admit those that are easily offended do a good job of sheltering themselves and their children in some cases.

Cartoon wars 2 aired summer 2006

a "certain event" occured inbetween those two episodes, which I think is much more significant at pointing towards the cause....

I also think politically correct adults outside the supposedly offended party are responsible for creating a lot of controversy - by catapulting an issue into the public arena which was only meant as underground satire or parody, opinions get formed by people not in a position to make a reasonable judgement - those that have never watched the material, or have done so looking for something to feel offended about.

I'd guess everybody: muslims and non-muslims are much more sensitive now than they were the summer of 2001 about religious issues.


A western example of sensitivity after sept.11 would be the issue of censorship of art in the USA ; I was at a presentation by a university lecturer on "censorship in the bush era"- many works of art were removed which showed greiving, planes, falling or tumbling people, rubble or burning buildings - some of which were made before the attacks.

The art that did involve greiving or melancholic material made after the attacks was often made by artists who knew people who died in the attacks, or were hit hard by a close miss - the top floors of the World Trade Center were let cheaply as artist studios, with obvious results.

Some displays were actually confiscated, and artists who produced the material were struck off of art symposium guest and speaker lists, others were pressured into not showing work - being "reminded" of funding and employment re-evaluation, and the steps that "might" be taken if they show work that was "unpatriotic".

 

[restin]

gain I went upstairs to give myself a break from this discussion and watch some television.

don't get too hot about the discussion ;)

Well, you're right, the term Christian has lost much of its original meaning(s). It can now refer to any type of faith, though all related to Jesus and the Bible. And none of those modern branches are interested in implementing the old laws and customs.

the pope and his pedophile friends do...

Yes, Hindu books are also filled with bloody, gruesome stories. Still, Hinduism doesn't really pose a threat to modern values. It seems there's more to it than the bloody metaphors themselves. We must not forget, for example, that it's considered a pious achievement to have learned the entire Quran by heart (to recite the entire text from memory). That means repeating the 'metaphors' over and over again until they become ingrained.

about the first part: I just think that there is no modern collapse between hinduism and "christian"/western culture. Arab countries are much nearer and there is a) Israel b) Iraq c) Afganistan where the Westeners are side on side with the arabs. By the way, the US foreign department stated that in the world there are fewer human rights - except in Iraq and Afganistan...Yeaaaaaaah....suuuuure....what a coincidence.
To the second part of your post: Yes, reciting and learning by heart is indeed dangerous.

 

[zezt]

This young Dutch dude has some sense!

Geert Wilders Persecuted for critics on Islam (freedom of speech dies today)

 

[GOD]

People are you dumb ? WAKE UP . You seem to think that you can have a rational argument with a mentaly ill person and convince him that hes got some things wrong . You cant and in end effect your just encourageing him to carry on spreading poison . By takeing him and his mental confusion seriously you are helping him spread it , you are justifying him . You are recognising him as a conversation partner allthough he doesnt want a conversation and just wants to cause trouble . Just stop . Ignore the fucker and he will get more hysterical and eventualy leave us . Vultures need victims , where there are no victims there are no vultures . 40 pages of nazi propoganda is enough .

 

[Shamanita]

People are you dumb ? WAKE UP . You seem to think that you can have a rational argument with a mentaly ill person and convince him that hes got some things wrong . You cant and in end effect your just encourageing him to carry on spreading poison . By takeing him and his mental confusion seriously you are helping him spread it , you are justifying him . You are recognising him as a conversation partner allthough he doesnt want a conversation and just wants to cause trouble . Just stop . Ignore the fucker and he will get more hysterical and eventualy leave us . Vultures need victims , where there are no victims there are no vultures . 40 pages of nazi propoganda is enough .

:) indeed, he wont change his perspective on it, he's already convinced that the islam will conquer the world

So let's hijack this thread by posting pictures of real BELGIAN fries (not f*cking 'french' ones)

8)