View Full Version : Drop the Bible and step away slowly
Because, you see, it might go off.
No, really. The sight of a Bible in Saudi might ignite a revolution of tolerance and acceptance that could throw a gangful of pointy-headed fundamentalists off their gold-plated poopy seats.
Or maybe a deadly riot?
A second airline is embroiled in a religious row after a stewardess decided to take bmi to an employment tribunal because it refused to allow her to carry a Bible on flights to Saudi Arabia.
The stewardess, who has not been named, claims that she has been subject to discrimination because of her faith.
But bmi, which is the only British scheduled carrier to fly to the country after British Airways pulled out of the route, insisted that it was only following Foreign Office advice.
A spokesman for bmi said the airline was complying with Saudi law and added that the stewardess had been offered the opportunity to switch to working on its short-haul routes. It could not, however, alter its long-haul rosters to accommodate her.
The Foreign Office website informs travellers to Saudi Arabia: "The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Koran, and artefacts are forbidden."
A spokesman said last night that the Saudi authorities would automatically confiscate a Bible from anybody trying to bring one into the country and it would not be returned.
A spokesman for Christian Solidarity Worldwide said: "It is worrying that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom."
"The Saudi government prohibits the public practice of other religions and the possession of non-Islamic religious objects has often led to arrests."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/20/nbible20.xml
No way? Really? But islam is a religion of peace! I'm sure of it. Everyone keeps saying so.
I'm sure the Christians, though, having heard of it, will riot. Embassies will burn.
Any day now.
Yep.
Anytime.
Baron Max
12-20-06, 08:55 PM
I'm sure the Christians, though, having heard of it, will riot. Embassies will burn.
Yep, we do that all the time, don't we? On a regular basis. And we do suicide attacks all the time, too, killing women and children. :D
Is there an embassy in Dallas that I can go burn tomorrow???? :D
Baron Max
Redefine91
12-22-06, 02:25 AM
Let's go burn some saudi flags too while we're at it!
Sadly though this will never reach mainstream media. switch the religions and it's be splashed across every front page.
Odin'Izm
12-22-06, 05:09 AM
As a religion from a perspective, Islam has stayed virtually unchanged over the years, unlike christianity which conforms to changes in the political and scientific structure of the world. So from a faith point of view, islam is closer to the word of god, as god is obsolete and does not change his/her/it's opinion to conform to its creations, if he is to be assumed as all-powerful. From a rational point of view they are both bullshit, as we can all agree that Christianity has had it's fare share of violence, and the OLD TESTAMENT is full of violence.
FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW Christianity has better adopted to give people more freedom, ofcourse no one takes it seriously anymore.
Nickelodeon
12-22-06, 05:10 AM
FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW Christianity has better adopted to give people more freedom, ofcourse no one takes it seriously anymore.
When Christianity ruled the World it was called the Dark Ages.
Nickelodeon
12-22-06, 05:12 AM
And we do suicide attacks all the time, too, killing women and children. :D
Not suicide attacks, but from 20,000 feet.
Odin'Izm
12-22-06, 05:13 AM
Ye I mentioned that. I was talking about the modern world, If we asume that religion is a code of laws to be followed by people too stupid to know between right and wrong... Christianity has changed to stay as a code of laws which would be popular...In the process it has lost all credability as being an actual will of god.
Sock puppet path
12-22-06, 05:20 AM
When Christianity ruled the World it was called the Dark Ages.
Christianity ruled the world in the dark ages:confused:
Because, you see, it might go off.
No, really. The sight of a Bible in Saudi might ignite a revolution of tolerance and acceptance that could throw a gangful of pointy-headed fundamentalists off their gold-plated poopy seats.
Or maybe a deadly riot?
Their laws state you cannot bring in any religious book that is not Islamic in nature. The airline has to respect the laws of the country it is contracted to land in and therefore banned the stewardess from taking her bible with her to SA. It is after all their country and they have their laws which must be respected. She had been offered shorter routes because of this issue, but it seems she may have refused it, so maybe it's a bit of a grab at the limelight or a compensation grab.
Had bmi allowed her to do as she wanted, they could have lost their right to land there as well as their contract and she could have ended up being arrested for bringing an illegal object into the country. They have made it quite clear what they allow and do not allow into their country and she should respect their right over their lands and laws.
If you disagree with their laws and customs, don't visit or go there. Simple really. No one forced her. She had been offered alternate routes and it seems she's still kicking up a fuss. But when entering a country, you need to respect that coutry's laws and customs and it seems she refused to do that.
Odin'Izm
12-22-06, 05:27 AM
To Sockpuppet path.
Yes it did..hence witch hunts...no medicine or anything else as all scientists got lynched... what else... spanish inquisition..which FYI was aimed primarily at the jews, as the jews took alot of spains money...so the monks decided it would be funny to lynch them for heracy to get the money back, never got the money back but atleast sent a clear message. Religion is bloodyfunny its like a very time consuming sitcom, with brilliant characters, jokes, and situations.
Odin'Izm
12-22-06, 05:31 AM
I just realised why Saudi Arabia has the laws... they dont want any mormon missionaries visiting them and telling them how wonderfull life is.
Their laws state you cannot bring in any religious book that is not Islamic in nature. The airline has to respect the laws of the country it is contracted to land in and therefore banned the stewardess from taking her bible with her to SA. It is after all their country and they have their laws which must be respected. She had been offered shorter routes because of this issue, but it seems she may have refused it, so maybe it's a bit of a grab at the limelight or a compensation grab.
Had bmi allowed her to do as she wanted, they could have lost their right to land there as well as their contract and she could have ended up being arrested for bringing an illegal object into the country. They have made it quite clear what they allow and do not allow into their country and she should respect their right over their lands and laws.
If you disagree with their laws and customs, don't visit or go there. Simple really. No one forced her. She had been offered alternate routes and it seems she's still kicking up a fuss. But when entering a country, you need to respect that coutry's laws and customs and it seems she refused to do that.
But it's the country's laws that are the issue. Oppressing minority religions - indeed, islamic supremacism specifically - is a wrong thing. It does us no credit to ascribe it up to a difference of national legal opinion. The same goes for all the ummah, though in smaller measure.
Odin'Izm
12-22-06, 06:23 AM
Geoffp is right in many ways, but Its not Islam which is at fault,it's a handful of people in thbe top somwhere, this is what happens when religion is allowed into politics...we would have the same here in the UK if the catholic church could be in government as it was up to the end of the 19th century.
I agree though...freedom of religion is important, the government has to comply with the international comunity. I would appreciate if it were that churches were banned, or public worship of christianity... but taking ones bible when they are there for two days is crazy..atleast let them worship in private.
I need to mention a general fact however... Islam considers both Jesus and Moses to be prophets... It however considers Mohamed to be the most relevant to the muslim people as he was sent to them in perticular to solve THEIR problems. I don't see the same decency from jews of christians who don't recognise anything other than either moses or jesus.
I'm an atheist to be honest..so don't think of this as pro islamic propoganda..I just find this idea to be very interesting.
Well, you have to ask yourself what kind of Christian or Jew you'd be if you recognized Mohammed and Jesus, respectively. The Christians consider Jesus the last prophet, so it would be a bit strange to say that Mohammed was one too. As for the Jews, they don't accept either since they don't consider the Messiah to have come yet. This is integral to their belief system, so I don't think it's a question of decency. Moreover, while Mohammed accepted Jesus and Moses to be prophets, it considers extant Jews as being deviant from "true" religion, and rates belief in Jesus as God (the so-called "putting partners with God" described in the Shahada - called "one half" to "one third" of islam - and several Sura) as a sin so mortal that it is almost unforgivable. I don't consider that as being any more tolerant than anyone else.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 06:50 AM
To Christians, Jesus is God.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 06:52 AM
People weren't allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages, just like now in much of the Middle East.
yuri_sakazaki
12-22-06, 10:18 AM
Were they really not allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages? I thought it was considered basically the only thing you were allowed to read--that is, if you were able to read. Charlemagne, probably the greatest (or at least most famous) ruler of that time period, couldn't do more than write his own name, I think. However, if you were ABLE to read the Bible, I'm pretty sure it was condoned (that is, if you could find one. Seeing as there weren't printing presses, it took a REALLY long time to copy the whole Bible.) Oh, and then there's the issue that I'm not sure they spoke the language all the Bibles were in at the time. But I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to.
But I think most everyone here agrees that the woman didn't have the right to violate their laws, but they don't have the right to make those laws (don't get me wrong--they're entitled to because they're in power of the legislation, but they don't have the RIGHT to dictate belief systems to people). She should shut up, though (although I'm kind of glad she didn't because it's an interesting story.)
I have to agree with GeoffP, in that Muslims recognize Jesus and Moses, but they consider Christians and Jews as "infidels," whereas not that many modern Christians and Jews consider Muslims "heathens." Of course, not a whole lot of Muslims living in Western society consider other people infidels, and for all religions, that's probably just a function of the culture. But it still stands that Muslims aren't all that accepting just because they consider Jesus and Moses lesser prophets.
Ophiolite
12-22-06, 10:26 AM
If you disagree with their laws and customs, don't visit or go there.Which is why Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries I won't visit.
But when entering a country, you need to respect that coutry's laws and customs and it seems she refused to do that.No you don't. It is wise to follow the laws, or to break them surreptitously, but there is absolutely not need to respect them. In many cases a thorough going contempt is most appropriate.
Were they really not allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages?The Bible was in Latin. Only the educated, and there were few of them, could read Latin. Moreover the educational resources pretty much existed within the Church. Thus there was a de facto prohibition on reading it.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 10:38 AM
Way to go Oph.
Walter L. Wagner
12-22-06, 12:13 PM
I know of many Catholics who have said that, even in recent times, only the 'priests' were allowed to read the Bible, and that they would interpret it for the 'laity', who weren't ready for it.
Sock puppet path
12-22-06, 12:31 PM
To Sockpuppet path.
Yes it did..hence witch hunts...no medicine or anything else as all scientists got lynched... what else... spanish inquisition..which FYI was aimed primarily at the jews, as the jews took alot of spains money...so the monks decided it would be funny to lynch them for heracy to get the money back, never got the money back but atleast sent a clear message. Religion is bloodyfunny its like a very time consuming sitcom, with brilliant characters, jokes, and situations.
Read again
The World in the "dark ages"
Not europe in the "dark ages"
I need to mention a general fact however... Islam considers both Jesus and Moses to be prophets... It however considers Mohamed to be the most relevant to the muslim people as he was sent to them in perticular to solve THEIR problems. I don't see the same decency from jews of christians who don't recognise anything other than either moses or jesus.
I think you'll find that it's a direct result of the order in which the religions developed (basically, Judaism first (although Zoroastrianism was before it, it wasn't the same kind of monotheism); Christianity as a branch off Judaism and Islam as a branch of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic base - of course all three have absorbed bits from other religions and cultural practices depending on where they spread.)
And you left out what is probably the most recent religion of this family tree: Bahai'ism, which recognises Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as prophets but adds Bahá'u'lláh. It even says that there will be other prophets in future.
The Islamic leaders in Iran don't agree and Bahai's have been heavily persecuted there.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 12:45 PM
Christian leaders don't agree with Bahai's, but they don't persecute them.
Problem is religon its stupid because thats most common subject or thing wars are created over, if we had no religon at all we would hardly have any wars in the world, dont you think?.
6. Gratuitous comments and images
Obscene, sexually-oriented, violent and graphic material will, in most cases, be removed. If you wish to post an image or information that may be found offensive please post only a link and warning of what it contains.
Redefine91
12-22-06, 04:12 PM
To Christians, Jesus is God.
http://xb9.xanga.com/df8040232153396896330/t14546200.jpg
Brilliant!
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 04:20 PM
You know, he's always right!
Let's go burn some saudi flags too while we're at it!
Sadly though this will never reach mainstream media. switch the religions and it's be splashed across every front page.Americans wouldn't know a Saudi flag if their lives depended on it.
Redefine91
12-22-06, 04:28 PM
Probably because the Saudi Flag doesn't mean as much to as many people as the american flag does.
Probably because the Saudi Flag doesn't mean as much to as many people as the american flag does.Try remembering that at the gas pump. It's because Americans know little of the rest of the world we use as our personal convenience store, until we have to sacrifice our young somewhere, then 20% of the population knows Iraq is in Asia.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 04:37 PM
Probably because they don't learn geography in the public schools.
[QUOTE=IceAgeCivilizations;1242368]Probably because they don't learn geography in the public schools.[/QUOTE US kids don't learn geography anywhere. Including in the denim jumpsuit, pigtails wearin taught homeschools. US youth are at the bottom when it comes to geopolitics and geography.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 04:44 PM
I bet you're referring to polls of public school students.
Redefine91
12-22-06, 04:45 PM
Homeschool kids are lightyears ahead of public school kids.
I bet you're referring to polls of public school students.I was a public school student and those subjects are my best. As much as you seem to yearn for a derail into bashing public schools this thread is about self percieved xian persecution and victimhood. Not public education.
Homeschool kids are lightyears ahead of public school kids.:p According to?? I know some myself and they are waaaay behind. Lightyears! :p That's a good one!
Redefine91
12-22-06, 04:49 PM
:p According to??
Me.
My little brother is homeschooled. And I can remember what I learned back when I was his age. He is lightyears ahead.
Me.
My little brother is homeschooled. And I can remember what I learned back when I was his age. He is lightyears ahead.Compared to all your public school friends, right? Heard that one many times before. Anyway, back to the thread! xian persecution & victimhood!!!
IceAgeCivilizations
12-22-06, 04:53 PM
Wow, Genji, that public school discussion is a real sore spot for you, ouch, back to victimhood!
Redefine91
12-22-06, 04:54 PM
Compared to all your public school friends, right?
I think reading at a 6th grade level and being a 3rd grader counts as Lightyears ahead, regardless of who you compare it too.
Yes, back to the thread! More unreported incidents of Non-Muslim persecution in the Middle East!
Odin'Izm
12-24-06, 08:28 AM
Read again
The World in the "dark ages"
Not europe in the "dark ages"
Europe was the world in the dark ages hunny.
Odin'Izm
12-24-06, 08:37 AM
I think you'll find that it's a direct result of the order in which the religions developed (basically, Judaism first (although Zoroastrianism was before it, it wasn't the same kind of monotheism); Christianity as a branch off Judaism and Islam as a branch of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic base - of course all three have absorbed bits from other religions and cultural practices depending on where they spread.)
And you left out what is probably the most recent religion of this family tree: Bahai'ism, which recognises Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as prophets but adds Bahá'u'lláh. It even says that there will be other prophets in future.
The Islamic leaders in Iran don't agree and Bahai's have been heavily persecuted there.
Ye I agree with you there, I have already been corrected by others on my post, it was slightly underhanded.
Although all religions have the same polytheistic roots, and christianity which changed with the new testement has not changed it's specific point of view to other religions.
As I said I don't particularly care for theology.
Sock puppet path
12-24-06, 08:57 AM
Europe was the world in the dark ages hunny.
Perhaps the rest of the world needs to be informed sweetums.
Odin'Izm
12-24-06, 09:04 AM
Perhaps the rest of the world needs to be informed sweetums.
They already know...it's nothing to be proud of the dark ages sucked for everyone...being the centre of the mess generally puts you to the bottom. Muslims had hygene when europeans were choaking on rat piss...hence they are not in the list. so yes Europe was the world in the dark ages.
Ayodhya
12-24-06, 10:41 AM
They already know...it's nothing to be proud of the dark ages sucked for everyone...being the centre of the mess generally puts you to the bottom. Muslims had hygene when europeans were choaking on rat piss...hence they are not in the list. so yes Europe was the world in the dark ages.
The only reason India was in the Dark Ages was because the Muslims decided they were going to conquer the country and torture every non-Muslim on the sub-continent. Great! A religion of peace indeed!
The only reason India was in the Dark Ages was because the Muslims decided they were going to conquer the country and torture every non-Muslim on the sub-continent. Great! A religion of peace indeed!
I don't think India is considered to be in the Dark Ages at the same time as Europe.
Ayodhya
12-24-06, 11:56 AM
I don't think India is considered to be in the Dark Ages at the same time as Europe.
What is considered to be the Dark Ages then?
What is considered to be the Dark Ages then?
It generally refers to the period after the fall of Rome (from around 500 to 1000) and the subsequent upheavels that led to the 300 odd states in Europe transforming to the 30 odd states we see today. It includes all the invasions, crusades and economic decline in Europe during this period.
Sock puppet path
12-24-06, 05:26 PM
They already know...it's nothing to be proud of the dark ages sucked for everyone...being the centre of the mess generally puts you to the bottom. Muslims had hygene when europeans were choaking on rat piss...hence they are not in the list. so yes Europe was the world in the dark ages.
Wow I must have completely missed this in school...what date did dark age european armies conquer china for example or Africa etc?.....Wait muslims had hygiene yet (as you claim) europeans ruled muslims and still didn't have hygiene? Did they bring thier own rat piss or did they raid local stocks?
Sock puppet path
12-24-06, 05:28 PM
I don't think India is considered to be in the Dark Ages at the same time as Europe.
Muslim armies began thier invasion and occupation of India around 750 AD which coincides with europes "dark ages".
Muslim armies began thier invasion and occupation of India around 750 AD which coincides with europes "dark ages".
Maybe but it wasn't the Dark Ages in India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India
The births of Mahavira and Buddha in the 6th century BC mark the beginning of well-recorded Indian history. For the next 1,500 years, India produced its classical civilization, and is estimated by some historians to have had the largest[2] economy of the ancient world between the 1st and 15th centuries AD, controlling between one third and one quarter[3] of the world's wealth up to the time of the Mughals, from whence it rapidly declined during British rule.[4]
Sock puppet path
12-24-06, 05:38 PM
Maybe but it wasn't the Dark Ages in India.
Sam the brits were pussys compared to what islam did to india, you'll get citations aplenty tomorrow, off to bed now. In the meantime do a search for "100,000 hindus in a day"
I've read a lot of ancient Indian history written by Indian scholars.
Also, I've read Indian history written by European scholars (and evangelists) who did not even visit India so as to maintain their "objectivity" (especially Mills, who is most quoted).
I've also read Indian history written by Hindutva (hindu fundamentalist) revisionists.
Guess which ones I trust the most.
Sam the brits were pussys compared to what islam did to india, you'll get citations aplenty tomorrow, off to bed now. In the meantime do a search for "100,000 hindus in a day"
If you mean Timur, you might be interested to know he was not an evangelist. Additionally the concept of Hinduism as a religion did not exist until the British coined it, so its more like 100,000 Indians in the North West, the Sindhus (as they were called by the Mughals) or Hindus is a geographical indicator not a religious one.
Timur's legacy is a mixed one, for while Central Asia blossomed, some say even peaked, under his reign, other places such as Baghdad, Damascus, Delhi and other Arab, Persian, Indian and Turkic cities were sacked and destroyed, and many thousands of people were slaughtered. Thus, while Timur remains a hero of sorts in Central Asia, he is vilified by many in Arab, Persian and Indian societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur
Plus the fact that most Muslims in India today come from areas with no Mughal Empire (South, West and East) and the country was always majority Hindu inspite of 800 years of Muslim rule and was rich enough to attract the attention of the British, Dutch and Portuguese...
Odin'Izm
12-25-06, 05:51 AM
The only reason India was in the Dark Ages was because the Muslims decided they were going to conquer the country and torture every non-Muslim on the sub-continent. Great! A religion of peace indeed!
who said they were a religion of peace? I said they had public baths..and were not hit by the plague as badly due to this...
mind you civilization prospered everywhere but europe...so we were the world in the dark ages...
Odin'Izm
12-25-06, 05:54 AM
Wow I must have completely missed this in school...what date did dark age european armies conquer china for example or Africa etc?.....Wait muslims had hygiene yet (as you claim) europeans ruled muslims and still didn't have hygiene? Did they bring thier own rat piss or did they raid local stocks?
dude your in total misunderstanding of my random logic. Europe was the world in the dark ages in the eyes of historians...they did'nt own anything...they were separated into minute regions for god's sake...they were the worst off out of all the other places in the world...hence europe represents the dark ages...as when most people think back to this time period they think torture plague...catholics.
understand now?
Sock puppet:
The "100,000 hindus in a day" is based on the work of K S Lal.
He is controversial because he is viewed by his critics as the of spokesman for the RSS.[5] In the midst of a Hindu-Muslim antagonism he is allegedly oft-cited and patronized by various right-wing proponent groups of hindutva, such as the Sangh Parivar as their favorite historian.[5] He was both placed by the RSS (as part of the NDA 2005 government of India), and fleetingly made the chairman of the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) and also placed on the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Committee to draft the model school syllabus on Indian History.[5] The controversy surrounding these events is reflected in the theme of the discourses of his books which allegedly describe Muslims as foreigners, destructive barbarians and immoral degenerates,[5] thereby placing him among a controversial group of authors[citation needed] charged with the "saffronized" (i.e., make lessons consonant with the Hindu world view)[6] re-writing of history,[5] with a negative portrayal of other religions and a pro-Hindu bent[6].
The (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Criticism) RSS (http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/fascism/rss_what_is_it.htm)
Targeting history (http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090880.htm).
Rewriting history with a Hindu message (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/AJ30Df02.html).
Did you know that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his inspiration from Hinduism? That a Hindu named Samundragupta built the Qutb Minar, originally known as Vishnu Sthambha? That the Taj Mahal was really a Hindu Temple known as Tejo-Mahalaya (Shiva's Palace)? That the Red Fort in Delhi was a Brahmin palace? Or that the largest Holocaust in history was perpetrated by Muslims against Hindus in India?
Safronisation of Indian History Elicits Deafening Silence (http://iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0301-1828).
Compare for example: Emperor Akbar, the most well known of the Mughal Emperors.
In wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar) and by the Hindutva (http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html) group
Sock puppet path
12-26-06, 04:43 PM
OK maybe it was only 80,000 hindus in a day (http://www.factmonster.com/spot/topdespots1.html)
A starter
How credible are the sources?
The History of India as Told by its Own Historians is a book with eight volumes written by H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The book was published in 1867-1877 in London. It is a well-known and reputed reference work for the history of medieval India. Despite being over 100 years old, it is still used by historians. The book contains translations of medieval Muslim chronicles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_India_as_told_by_its_own_Historians )
How much written material was available to the authors?
The Hindus of medieval India have not left many accounts of the numerous wars which they were forced to fight with Muslim invaders over a period of several hundred years. All we have from the medieval Hindus are some settled sentiments expressed by them in contemporary literature regarding the nature of the Muslim menace. The Hindus advance the following seven accusations against the Muslims:
1. They kill the Brahmins and the cows;
2. They violate the chastity of Hindu women;
3. They demolish temples, and desecrate the idols;
4. They cut the tuft of hair on the head (šikhã) and break the sacred thread (sûtra);
5. They circumcise people and make them eat beef, that is, convert people by force;
6. They capture people, particularly women and children, and sell them into concubinage and slavery.
7. They plunder people’s properties, and set fire to whatever they cannot carry away.
General view of muslims as opposed to other invaders
The Hindu records about pre-Islamic foreign invasions present a striking contrast. The Greeks, the Scythians, the Kushans, and the Hunas are accused by them of savagery and lust for plunder. But they are never accused of making Hindu Dharma or its outer symbols the specific targets of their attacks. We have also the accounts of these alien invaders becoming good Shaivites, and Vaishnavas, and Buddhists after their first fury was spent, and they settled down in India.
Read the rest (http://voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch4.htm),interesting stuff really.
Regarding the 3 year old newspaper article you linked the saffronization of india bfrom the article
The Hindutva scholars are joined by foreign scholars such as Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. Elsts's work Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam and Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History is part of the growing literature attacking Indian history textbooks. Their version of history portrays Muslims as having contributed nothing to India other than death, destruction and subjugation.
What exactly did the muslim invaders bring to india?
Infrastructure?
Legal system?
education system?
governance system?¨
What benefit did Hindu India recieve from 800 years of war against the muslims?
And why in the hell were the armies of the "religion of peace" bashing down Indias doors? Were they just defending themselves again?
OK maybe it was only 80,000 hindus in a day (http://www.factmonster.com/spot/topdespots1.html)
A starter
How credible are the sources?
The History of India as Told by its Own Historians is a book with eight volumes written by H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The book was published in 1867-1877 in London. It is a well-known and reputed reference work for the history of medieval India. Despite being over 100 years old, it is still used by historians. The book contains translations of medieval Muslim chronicles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_India_as_told_by_its_own_Historians )
How much written material was available to the authors?
General view of muslims as opposed to other invaders
Read the rest (http://voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch4.htm),interesting stuff really.
Regarding the 3 year old newspaper article you linked the saffronization of india bfrom the article
What exactly did the muslim invaders bring to india?
Infrastructure?
Legal system?
education system?
governance system?¨
What benefit did Hindu India recieve from 800 years of war against the muslims?
And why in the hell were the armies of the "religion of peace" bashing down Indias doors? Were they just defending themselves again?
1. Hinduism as a religion was coined and implemented by the British, so all "data" regarding Hindus in pre-census times is geographical and not religious in nature.
Plus
The disputers of the "Conversion by the Sword Theory" point to the presence of the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Western Burma, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent as refutation to the Conversion by Sword Theory. The legacy of Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today. Different population estimates by economic historian Angus Maddison[16] and by Jean-Noël Biraben[17] also show that India's population did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but in fact increased by about 35 million during that time
2. Indologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indology#Criticisms_of_Indology_and_South_Asian_St udies) from the British period were prone to presenting India as subject to Jewish and Christian bias.
3. Credibility. Mills is considered even more of a "credible" source on Indian history and he did not even set foot on the place.
4. Kings like Timur did not specifically target Hindus. The Turks and Mongols of South East Asia marched all the way to Arabia in their imperialist drive, so their wars were not related to religion. Many of the wars which invaders fought were with local Muslim kings.
5.Effect of 800 years of "war" with the Mughals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Impact_ of_Islam_and_Muslims_in_India
Islam's impact was the most notable in the expansion of trade. A significant aspect of the Muslim period in world history was the emergence of Islamic Sharia courts capable of imposing a common commercial and legal system that extended from Morocco in the West to Mongolia in the North East and Indonesia in the South East. While southern India was already in trade with Arabs/Muslims, northern India found new opportunities.Islam created a compact under which political power, law and religion became fused in a manner so as to safeguard the interests of the mercantile class. This led world trade to expand to the maximum extent possible in the medieval world. Sher Shah Suri took initiatives in improvement of trade by abolishing all taxes which hindered progress of free trade. He built large networks of roads and constructed Grand Trunk Road (1540-1544), which connected Calcutta to Kabul, of which parts of it are still in use today.
With the growth of international trade also came the spread of manufacturing technology and an urban culture. Local inventions and regional technologies became easily globalized[citation needed]. This was of profound importance to those parts of the world that had lagged in terms of technological development. On the other hand, for a nation like India which had had a rich intellectual tradition of its own, and was already a relatively advanced civilization, this may have been of lesser import. Although there is considerable debate amongst historians as to how much technology was actually brought into India by Muslim invaders, there is one (albeit controversial) school of thought that argues that inventions like the water-wheel for irrigation were imported during the Muslim period. In some other cases, the evidence is much clearer. The use of ceramic tiles in construction was inspired by architectural traditions prevalent in Iraq, Iran, and in Central Asia. Rajasthan's blue pottery was an adaptation of Chinese pottery which was imported in large quantities by the Mughal rulers[citation needed]. There is also the example of Sultan Abidin (1420-70) sending Kashmiri artisans to Samarqand to learn book-binding and paper making.
The divide and rule policies, two-nation theory, and subsequent partition of India in the wake of Independence from the British Empire has polarized the sub-continental psyche, making objective assessment hard in comparison to the other settled agricultural societies of India from the North West. Muslim rule differed from these others in the level of assimilation and syncretism that occurred. They retained their identity and introduced legal and administrative systems that superseded existing systems of social conduct and ethics. While this was a source of friction it resulted in a unique experience the legacy of which is a Muslim community strongly Islamic in character while at the same time distinctive and unique among its peers.
The impact of Islam on Indian culture has been inestimable. It permanently influenced the development of all areas of human endeavour - language, dress, cuisine, all the art forms, architecture and urban design, and social customs and values. Conversely, the languages of the Muslim invaders were modified by contact with local languages, to Urdu, which uses the Arabic script. This language was also known as Hindustani, an umbrella term used for the vernacular terminology of Urdu as well as Hindi, both major languages in the Indian subcontinent today.
Khurja and Siwan became renowned for pottery, Moradabad for brass ware, Mirzapur for carpets, Firozabad for glass wares, Farrukhabad for printing, Sahranpur and Nagina for wood-carving, Bidar and Lucknow for bidriware, Srinagar for papier-mache, Benaras for jewelry and textiles, and so on. On the flip-side encouraging such growth also resulted in higher taxes on the peasantry.
Numerous Indian scientific and mathematical advances and the Hindu numerals were spread to the rest of the world [1] and much of the scholarly work and advances in the sciences of the age under Muslim nations across the globe were imported by the liberal patronage of Arts and Sciences by the rulers. The languages brought by Islam were modified by contact with local languages leading to the creation of several new languages, such as Urdu, which uses the modified Arabic script, but with more Persian words. The influences of these languages exist in several dialects in India today.
Islamic and Mughal architecture and art is widely noticeable in India, examples being the Taj Mahal and Jama Masjid.
Also:
Mughal Rule in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire)
According to the document available in the State Library of Bhopal, Babur left the following will to Humayun:
"My son take note of the following: Do not harbour religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people's religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.
Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the shias and sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons."
What does religion have to do with imperialist ambitions?
One might as well say Britain was a Christian force attempting to subjugate non-Christian countries. The Mughals (who were the Mongols) went all the way to Arabia and also fought and ruled over the Arabs who were Muslims.
Not to say there weren't kings who weren't prejudiced or xenophobic against the local populace. But to claim conversion by the sword in an area of India that has always been majority Hindu and continued to be after 800 years of Muslim Rule overlooks the fact that the same Mongols also ruled over Arabia, which was mostly Muslim.
hypewaders
12-27-06, 09:19 PM
I think the notable tolerance that Saudi leadership has allowed expatriate Christians in the Kingdom has been largely overlooked here. While euphemisms and adjustments are necessary for the arrangement with the "Guardians of Islam", hundreds of Westerners do hold Christian services in Saudi Arabia. My father was the "Special Teacher" (Pastor) of the Dhahran Protestant Fellowship for many years. Their activities include large services and social gatherings in the hundreds. The primary restriction is that Christians not proselytize among Muslims there. Other than that, services and activities are equivalent to those of Churches in the USA. While this is not to be confused with complete religious freedoms, it's a long way from the picture of abject intolerance and repression that GeoffP and others seek to paint here. Many people choose not to look further than the most radical of speech and speakers from the Islamic world, but this is not an accurate perspective on reality.
But it's the country's laws that are the issue. Oppressing minority religions - indeed, islamic supremacism specifically - is a wrong thing. It does us no credit to ascribe it up to a difference of national legal opinion. The same goes for all the ummah, though in smaller measure.
So you wish to oppress their religion in the West, but you don't think they, as a sovereign nation, have a right to govern and create laws as they so choose?
If you do not agree with their laws, don't go there. Complain about it as much as you want, but if you know that's the law of the land, why seek to break it and then claim its discrimination? You'd complain if a Saudi for example came into your country and broke a fundamental law, no? You'd be upset and angry if they decreed that your law was wrong and therefore they should not have to follow it? I know I sure as hell would be. I expect people who come to my country to respect and obey the laws, why should it be different when I or others visit other countries? They do have a right to govern as to what enters their country.
It's akin to when people enter Indonesia, as one example, with drugs strapped to their body, with the full knowledge that drug trafficking in that country is a capital offence, and then complaining that their laws are fundamentally wrong after they have gotten caught.
So you wish to oppress their religion in the West
I do? Why, how thoughtless of me! And you, for misrepresenting me.
Does the islamic religion then consist only of its negative points? Much to the consternation of your very gauche retro-20th century guilt complex, my points are exceedingly straightforward: islamic theology, everwhere, is on the march and prosetylizing. Non-muslims in islamic nations are, at best, second class citizens and, at worst, in constant mortal peril, to say nothing of apostates. Women's rights are severely curtailed. Homosexuals and adulterers may be punished with death. This is not an exaggeration. This is fact. And it occurs in every single islamic country that there is. This, I submit, is a bad standard to allow to unfold in our own nations, and yet, there are ample individuals in the islamic community who not only see no difficulty with dhimmitude and jizya and jihad and the punishment for apostates and muta'a and all the rest, but actively demand it. There is a strain of support in islam - unregenerated, unReformed - for violence, and force and intolerance. I am, thus, highly intolerant of such views. There are moderates - i.e Sam, Zak - but few, and weak. It is up to islam to change - and now - but I do not see that it can.
but you don't think they, as a sovereign nation, have a right to govern and create laws as they so choose?
It rather depends what those laws are - as any humanist or socialist or communist (or even a multifariously foul capitalist) would be able to tell you. I am, as all rational people should be, grossly unconcerned with the 'legal rationale' of islamic law, fiqh and fatwa both. If minority religions are already oppressed in the ummah, it is rather too late to play ]tu tuoque with my presumed totalitarianis, Bells: the oppression is already there, in the ummah without our having to ban a single mosque loudspeaker. Are you somehow, roundaboutly implying ad Carterium that suppressing islamic extremism - and yes, beyond that of mere terrorism, but also of the viewpoints that foster it - would somehow be the start of this civilizational conflict? Heavens, no, Bells, unless you think dear 'Jimmah' can explain away the last 1400 years of fine islamic jurisprudence regarding the naij infidel, the kufr, that individual to be "made to feel oppressed and pay the tax", whilst selfsame Jimmah flees madly from Dershowitz, his hands over his bufoonish ears and his pockets filled with redistributed petrodollars?
If you do not agree with their laws, don't go there.
Ah, how excellent. Can we apply the same above rule to our own civilization, or is this tolerance only supposed to run West-East and never the reverse? Can we then say: "if you don't agree with our laws, don't come here"? No, never that, of course: our civilization must bend and ultimately fall in the name of our own good graces. How wise: how deep! Our ancestors - you remember them, they who sacrificed and were silenced with ingratitude - would be happy to think on their wasted efforts: women's rights, civil rights for homosexuals, freedom of religion (inarguably the first thing to go in the good ol' ummah). Just think how happy we all would be, squelched down under the same hand, all oppressed in the same big, miserable, weeping boat! Imagine Orwell's phrase about a jackboot forever crushing a human face, and then place an imaginary god in the boot.
Complain about it as much as you want, but if you know that's the law of the land, why seek to break it and then claim its discrimination?
And there is no such thing as a wrong law, then? All right: how about Roe vs. Wade? Was it wrong for the ban on abortion to be overturned? I mean, after all: if you know that's the law of the land, why seek to break it and then claim it's discrimination?
You'd complain if a Saudi for example came into your country and broke a fundamental law, no? You'd be upset and angry if they decreed that your law was wrong and therefore they should not have to follow it?
It sort of depends on whether the law is just. I believe treating workers as slaves and throwing domestic servants down stairs is wrong, but then again it is California after all, and people think so strangely out there. If they parked illegally once in a while, I'm sure I could overlook it, unless they were in my space.
why should it be different when I or others visit other countries? They do have a right to govern as to what enters their country.
Because not all laws are good, Bells. Not all societies are just. Nazi society was wrong, period: it is entirely unimportant whether or not the persecution of Jews was the law or not. How far shall we go in our scramble to be the one to occupy that much-coveted position of least offense to anyone? Even that very absolute end of judgementality in the Western world, Wicca, says: "Do as ye will, so long as ye harm none." What harm in a Bible in Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? What harm Christians and Jews and Hindus in Iraq, or Egypt, or Morocco, or Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Afghanistan, or Iran? What harm "sharp-tongued sixteen year-olds" in Iran, Bells? Who shall they slay, Bells, with their tongues so sharp? A man? A child? Or an idea, its time turned round at last, slouching into the desert to expire? (Or reform. :D Sammiekins.) Is it intolerance we defend with tolerance? And why?
It's akin to when people enter Indonesia, as one example, with drugs strapped to their body, with the full knowledge that drug trafficking in that country is a capital offence, and then complaining that their laws are fundamentally wrong after they have gotten caught.
Not in the slightest. Drugs are - the heavy ones, anyway - bad. People on them get addicted, take sick, and sometimes die. They often end up ruined. Lives thrown away. Are you honestly comparing drug trafficking with religious freedom?
"Dude, this passage from Genesis is the bomb! You gotta try this stuff."
"No way, man, I'm still coming off Revelation. When's Stevie coming back with the Bhaghavad Gida he was supposed to score?"
Bells, look around. It is not required of any belief, or any civilization, no matter how humanitarian, that they be deliberately foolish, save by those with no stake or no interest in the rights and freedoms they enjoy.
************************************************** ********
:m:
The primary restriction is that Christians not proselytize among Muslims there.
No, far more than that when Bibles and the like are confiscated at the airport. Hype, I regret to say that, given your past capacity in responding to my particular points wherein you resorted to reductio mesopotamiam, I do not particularly believe in your "Special Teacher", or his congregation, when the arrest of mere handfuls for their private religious expression has been documented. Was his congregation then locals or foreigners? Again: non-muslim citizens of muslim nations are subject to the laws of dhimmitude. There is a certain blind eye turned towards non-citizens, but the persistence of same depends on the relevant authority.
Many people choose not to look further than the most radical of speech and speakers from the Islamic world, but this is not an accurate perspective on reality.
"Of reality".
Oh? "Radical speakers" such as government officials? Ayatollahs? Presidents and other heads of state? The president of Al-Ahzar University? Foreign ministers? Government newspapers? Television stations, including government-sponsored ones? The police? The army? Islamic courts? Judges? Those kind of radicals?
What a huge collection of "radicals". Throw in the fire department, and I suppose the coverage of the civil service would be complete.
Of course, I would have thought that any legal capacity for the persecution of minorities, either mandatory or at will, would be unacceptable to thinking people. Perhaps this is my own naivete, of course. Perhaps, in our day, it is easier to demand one pluck out a speck in one's own eye, rather than the plank in another's.
1. Hinduism as a religion was coined and implemented by the British, so all "data" regarding Hindus in pre-census times is geographical and not religious in nature.
Sam, this strikes me as evasive.
2. Indologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indology#Criticisms_of_Indology_and_South_Asian_St udies) from the British period were prone to presenting India as subject to Jewish and Christian bias.
I examined your link, and did not find any evidence of specifically "Christian" or "Jewish" bias. This does not appear to be supported.
3. Credibility. Mills is considered even more of a "credible" source on Indian history and he did not even set foot on the place.
He did not set foot on Indian history? Neither did Indian historians. ;)
4. Kings like Timur did not specifically target Hindus. The Turks and Mongols of South East Asia marched all the way to Arabia in their imperialist drive, so their wars were not related to religion. Many of the wars which invaders fought were with local Muslim kings.
But forced conversion occurred in India. It would be rather difficult for the Turks to force Arabians to convert to islam, when they already are islamic.
5.Effect of 800 years of "war" with the Mughals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Impact_ of_Islam_and_Muslims_in_India[/quote]
I think you missed this in your article:
The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.
What does religion have to do with imperialist ambitions?
Sometimes everything.
One might as well say Britain was a Christian force attempting to subjugate non-Christian countries. The Mughals (who were the Mongols) went all the way to Arabia and also fought and ruled over the Arabs who were Muslims.
Actually, I think the problem group were the Sufis. And who is justifying Britain's imperial ambitions? And just how effective were they, since most of India is still today Hindu?
Not to say there weren't kings who weren't prejudiced or xenophobic against the local populace. But to claim conversion by the sword in an area of India that has always been majority Hindu and continued to be after 800 years of Muslim Rule overlooks the fact that the same Mongols also ruled over Arabia, which was mostly Muslim.
I expect the answer might be found in zakaat and jizya, the one being optional, and the other mandatory. What good would it be to destroy one's tax base?
I add this:
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence. [11][12] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." [13] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari. [14], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
I encourage in particular the section "Hindu-Muslim Conflict".
On Indology:
I'll have to hunt up articles, I'm too lazy now.
And Geoff-
Zakat is not optional, its heavier than jiziya, its just not all available to the government.
And there may have been isolated incidents of forced conversions just as today there are Hindu fundamentalists who forcibly prevent Dalits from converting to Islam because they believe it would lead to an increase in the percentage of Muslims.
And the difference between the Mughals and British was, the Mughals made the country richer while the British only introduced those developments that benefited them and destroyed as much as they could through their divide and rule policy, the secular fabric of the nation and the rich economy of India.
I add this:
I encourage in particular the section "Hindu-Muslim Conflict".
Please refer to my earlier post on K S Lal. He's pretty well known in India and not in a good way:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1244575&postcount=55
Well, Lal refutes thems as don't like him. Watcha sez about that?
Zakaat was indeed optional in much of the Medieval period.
Citing similar laziness, I depart.
A good reference for Indian history and Muslim influences (among others)
http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/0374105839
Well, Lal refutes thems as don't like him. Watcha sez about that?
Zakaat was indeed optional in much of the Medieval period.
Citing similar laziness, I depart.
Zakat cannot be optional Geoff, its a compulsory pillar of Islam. Sadaka is optional, the declaration of zakat is optional (i.e. how much you are giving as zakat, since it reflects your income and wealth, it is optional to disclose it)
And Lal is spokesman for the militant RSS group that have Jesus wandering in the Himalayas for inspiration.
Geoff
Here in lies the issue.
Don't you think it is up to them to initiate the change? How patronising of us to demand they change when we ourselves aren't so much better. Moderate Muslims have been screaming for the world to butt out and allow them to initiate the change in their own way and time. Yet we act as though we cannot respect them or expect them to do it fast enough. You complain about the victimisation of women in Islam? Start looking first at the victimisation of women in the West. We like to think women have equal rights, but in reality we don't really. It makes a nice moral front though. As for homosexuality? You're going to tell me that the West is so welcoming of homosexuals? Have you seen how a politician who happens to come out is basically torn to shreds now days? If we are so tolerant and accepting, homosexuals would be granted the right to marry. But, they aren't. In fact, homosexual couples have to fight tooth and nail to be recognised as couples in many Western countries. We try to say how open we are to all religions, but have one priest come out and say he/she is homosexual and watch them get nailed to the proverbial cross.
We condone domestic violence. Sure it might be illegal, but it has this stigma attached to it that demands it be kept in the private realm and laws are only now starting to cater more for women who are abused in their own homes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can't change and maintain good policies in our own turf, but we demand they change and be just like us? At present, that's akin to demanding they step out of the pan and directly into the fire.
I understand where you are coming from and as a woman, rabid human rights believer and somewhat a feminist, I too would love to see change, but you and many others are demanding immediate change. Now this change would not only affect their laws, but also their culture, societal identity, politics, etc. Now I don't know about you, but don't you think we should allow them to make the changes as they see fit? Who are we to demand something when we ourselves aren't aren't always getting it right?
Our demands for change is only making the work of moderate Muslims who are trying to implement change that much harder. Our interference is only ensuring that fundamentalists push forth their message that we are trying to take over and that they must fight against what they perceive as being 'Western interference' and a take over. Instead of supporting the moderate Muslims who are trying to change the system, we are making their position tenious and putting them in danger and pushing back their cause even further. That's my personal opinion anyway.
hypewaders
12-28-06, 05:47 AM
Bells: "Our demands for change is only making the work of moderate Muslims who are trying to implement change that much harder. Our interference is only ensuring that fundamentalists push forth their message that we are trying to take over and that they must fight against what they perceive as being 'Western interference' and a take over. Instead of supporting the moderate Muslims who are trying to change the system, we are making their position tenious and putting them in danger and pushing back their cause even further."
That's important. GeoffP's muckraking is an example of contemporary incitement of culture-war that is resulting in so much death, grief, and obsession with revenge. This will continue until majorities everywhere cease grooving to this inane, belligerent drumbeat. Like people everywhere, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other creeds and cultures. The sooner culture-combattants such as GeoffP are discredited on all sides, the sooner calm, reforms and coexistence will advance. Alternatively, should this kind of enmity and cultural supremacism be allowed to take greater hold, things will get much worse. GeoffP is picking a fight with his extremist counterparts that nobody can win.
He's so obsessed with this fight as to respond to examples of reality (like any radical) with denial:
GeoffP: "I do not particularly believe in your "Special Teacher", or his congregation, when the arrest of mere handfuls for their private religious expression has been documented."
Because this information does not fit in with his world-view, GeoffP will dismiss it, in favor of his simplistic view that Islamism is the great bogeyman we must all confront lest it overtake us. In other words, GeoffP is sold on a warmed-over Red Scare with a new facade.
Enterprise-D
12-28-06, 06:49 AM
Now I don't know about you, but don't you think we should allow them to make the changes as they see fit? Who are we to demand something when we ourselves aren't aren't always getting it right?
Our demands for change is only making the work of moderate Muslims who are trying to implement change that much harder. Our interference is only ensuring that fundamentalists push forth their message that we are trying to take over and that they must fight against what they perceive as being 'Western interference' and a take over...
Bells, this is the first time I disagree with you. (pause for dramatic piano strike :p ). Dawkins and Harris put it best with one of their tenets that mollycoddling moderate religions is actually the doorway that fundamentalists are using. Us more logical thinking folks are afraid or unwilling to take on the behemoth of religion whether moderate or not simply because it's large and powerful.
Realise that moderates continuously demand reverent respect and are shocked and even strongly vocal when you seek to challenge them. By the same token, fundies are afforded the same "protection", simply because they're called the same thing "muslims" "catholics" etc. Therefore when the more evolved of humanity calls for criminalization of fundamentalism, the cry is discrimination and hatred.
My opinion? So what? Fundies (of any religious sect) behave in a criminal manner - generally speaking - why shouldn't a more evolved society respond in kind? To expound, NO we should not wait for them to "make changes as they see fit". World laws, not to mention human ethics and morals, are clearly violated by fundamentalist religion, therefore the offending religion should be forced to ratify, with alacrity and gusto.
Bells, this is the first time I disagree with you. (pause for dramatic piano strike :p ).
*Gasp*
*Wipes tears dripping from eyes.. smearing the mascara down my cheeks*
:p
Dawkins and Harris put it best with one of their tenets that mollycoddling moderate religions is actually the doorway that fundamentalists are using. Us more logical thinking folks are afraid or unwilling to take on the behemoth of religion whether moderate or not simply because it's large and powerful.
I agree with Dawkins up to a point. I do not believe in "mollycoddling" them, nor do I believe in using force to make them bend to our whim. Either way and they will be in danger of being overrun by the fundamentalists. Going after them with a huge mallet and attempting to stamp them out will only ensure that more people, out of nationalistic and religious pride, turn to the fundamental aspects of the religion.
We as the logical folks can see the inherent dangers of religion, but we must also respect that some will still believe in God and be religious and will not want atheistic Westerners telling them how to live their lives. After all, I don't want them to tell me how to live mine, why should it be any different for them?
What I do believe in is letting them make the decision to change. We can't force them to. Doing so will only make the big bear angrier.
Realise that moderates continuously demand reverent respect and are shocked and even strongly vocal when you seek to challenge them. By the same token, fundies are afforded the same "protection", simply because they're called the same thing "muslims" "catholics" etc. Therefore when the more evolved of humanity calls for criminalization of fundamentalism, the cry is discrimination and hatred.
I think what it comes down to is that they (the religious folk) don't want or appreciate us (the so called logical atheist folk) to butt into their affairs. And I have to agree. Belief, or lack of, is a personal thing.
We aren't just calling for the criminalisation of fundamentalism however, we are also screaming out for their whole religion to change and/or to cease to exist. The West, and the Christian West in particular demand that they say their religion is wrong and bad. Of course they are going to scream discrimination and hatred. They feel victimised. And each time one member makes a stupid statement, we tend to blame the whole instead of the individual. Actions like this only make them stick closer together to fight off what they see us as being, the overpowering West.
I will say now and I think I have said in the past, I detest fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist ones. I have a couple of cousins who have for some stupid reason become fundamentalists Christians and it has virtually torn my family apart. We were once close and loving and we have now become isolated pockets, like family refugees.
My opinion? So what? Fundies (of any religious sect) behave in a criminal manner - generally speaking - why shouldn't a more evolved society respond in kind? To expound, NO we should not wait for them to "make changes as they see fit". World laws, not to mention human ethics and morals, are clearly violated by fundamentalist religion, therefore the offending religion should be forced to ratify, with alacrity and gusto.
But are "we" a more evolved society though? I don't think we are. Religion, and Christianity in general has such a foothold in our culture that when we attempt to take the step to respond in kind, they (the Muslim fundamentalists) view it as Christianity and the fundamentalists Christian West attempting to stamp out their religion, and the result is that they then get more members joining their ranks and any moderates calling for calm and attempting to adopt a peaceful means are either killed or removed from power. Fear is a telling factor. We are as afraid of them as they are of us. When you have a president telling his country that God told him to invade another country, can you blame them for being afraid and for more people turning towards fundamental ideals and values against what they perceive to be the invading enemy? Hell I was scared when he came out with that comment and I think most sane individuals were as well.
We cannot play the ethical or moral card, because in the last few years, we too have failed dismally in upholding those attitudes. We expect them to distinguish between their religion and their political beliefs, but we cannot do the same in the West. And our continued attempts to interfere with their politics will only result in the fundamentalists fighting back against the more accepting moderates, and the fundamentalists pointing the finger at our failures and the hypocrisy of our demands, again putting the attempts of the moderates back and also placing them in danger.
Billy T
12-28-06, 07:31 AM
As this thread has been near top for some time, I finally opened it and read a few posts. An inadequate sample, but seems to indicate strong a Christian vs. Muslim discussion.
I will make my 2 cents POV and probably not return.
Raised as a Christian, I recall Christ said "Let him who is without sin, throw the first stone."
I note that a few weeks ago the Catholic Church in Chile gave full religious funeral honors to Pinochet, indirect killer of at least 30,000 and torturer of 120,000; but
The Italian man, who after a decade of suffering, finally won the right to have his life support system turned off, was denied a Catholic burial as he has taken a life (his own) against Church policy.
So yes, I agree with the thread's title (and did so years ago). I never was much of a supporter of hypocrites.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-28-06, 11:18 AM
They are not Jesus, however.
Enterprise-D
12-28-06, 12:11 PM
I agree with Dawkins up to a point. I do not believe in "mollycoddling" them, nor do I believe in using force to make them bend to our whim. Either way and they will be in danger of being overrun by the fundamentalists. Going after them with a huge mallet and attempting to stamp them out will only ensure that more people, out of nationalistic and religious pride, turn to the fundamental aspects of the religion.
Not stamp them out. It must become embarassing to admit to being a theist first. Where I approve the mallet approach is where fundies break world law and humanitarian ethics...like flying a plane into a major building, or wantonly murdering opposing theists or wiping out gay youth. Were I the emperor of Earth, these perpetrators would be vaporized without a trial.
We as the logical folks can see the inherent dangers of religion, but we must also respect that some will still believe in God and be religious and will not want atheistic Westerners telling them how to live their lives. After all, I don't want them to tell me how to live mine, why should it be any different for them?
Simple. Because their raison d'etre is to spread their message. The only way they'll shut up is to fight fire with fire. Challenge their tenets.
What I do believe in is letting them make the decision to change. We can't force them to. Doing so will only make the big bear angrier.
Fundies and moderates will NOT change unless we initiate change.
I think what it comes down to is that they (the religious folk) don't want or appreciate us (the so called logical atheist folk) to butt into their affairs. And I have to agree. Belief, or lack of, is a personal thing.
But they butt into our affairs. Why should theists tell us that we're doomed to hell and we should keep quiet because their tenets are protected by society.
We aren't just calling for the criminalisation of fundamentalism however, we are also screaming out for their whole religion to change and/or to cease to exist. The West, and the Christian West in particular demand that they say their religion is wrong and bad. Of course they are going to scream discrimination and hatred. They feel victimised. And each time one member makes a stupid statement, we tend to blame the whole instead of the individual. Actions like this only make them stick closer together to fight off what they see us as being, the overpowering West.
Correction. Dubya (et al.) is calling for an opposing religion to cease to exist in favour of his own. More evolved humans will simply agree that NO religion is necessary. Dubya is the Christian West that is causing strife.
I will say now and I think I have said in the past, I detest fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist ones. I have a couple of cousins who have for some stupid reason become fundamentalists Christians and it has virtually torn my family apart. We were once close and loving and we have now become isolated pockets, like family refugees.
I have YET to find anyone in my family who is not some degree of theist. None seem to be fundamentalist, however they all figure that "gawwwd is the way, the truth and the life".
But are "we" a more evolved society though? I don't think we are. Religion, and Christianity in general has such a foothold in our culture that when we attempt to take the step to respond in kind, they (the Muslim fundamentalists) view it as Christianity and the fundamentalists Christian West attempting to stamp out their religion, and the result is that they then get more members joining their ranks and any moderates calling for calm and attempting to adopt a peaceful means are either killed or removed from power. Fear is a telling factor. We are as afraid of them as they are of us. When you have a president telling his country that God told him to invade another country, can you blame them for being afraid and for more people turning towards fundamental ideals and values against what they perceive to be the invading enemy? Hell I was scared when he came out with that comment and I think most sane individuals were as well.
Evolved society is in the same situation as your family, we exist in pockets. Without political cohesion or even geographical proximity, a battle against fundies is close to unwinnable.
Fear is the one of two factors that religion is successful with. It is the better of the two actually (the other is brainwashing). This is why evolved individuals are afraid of it. Religion as an entity is a heart-stoppingly powerful force. We've got that problem here, where our president claims equalities, but does crap like institute a "sin tax" on alcohol (his gawwwd probably told him to).
We cannot play the ethical or moral card, because in the last few years, we too have failed dismally in upholding those attitudes. We expect them to distinguish between their religion and their political beliefs, but we cannot do the same in the West. And our continued attempts to interfere with their politics will only result in the fundamentalists fighting back against the more accepting moderates, and the fundamentalists pointing the finger at our failures and the hypocrisy of our demands, again putting the attempts of the moderates back and also placing them in danger.
I will have to agree with you on this, but that's the US population's fault. Who told them to vote Dubya into power? TWICE?
Besides this, there comes a time where good sense requires interference.
What I'm also saying is that moderates are fighting battles on two fronts...the attempt to reign their violent compatriots, while preventing secularism from eradication religion altogether. This is one of their greatest weaknesses. Moderate theists need to focus first on helping to paralyze their violent cohorts, then worry about whether logic and science will clear out the cobwebs.
IceAgeCivilizations
12-28-06, 12:13 PM
You gotta admit Gore and then Kerry were pretty weak.
Geoff
Here in lies the issue.
Don't you think it is up to them to initiate the change?
It is only for the host society to admit change is necessary? What historical model validates this position? What moral justification does it have?
Moderate Muslims have been screaming for the world to butt out and allow them to initiate the change in their own way and time.
Well, the change has not occurred in 1400 years, and as a society we are running rapidly out of time. I am not content to stand by and wait.
You complain about the victimisation of women in Islam? Start looking first at the victimisation of women in the West. We like to think women have equal rights, but in reality we don't really.
Do you really wish to compare gender wage gaps and inadequate day care with regarding women as chattel? Driving restrictions? Restrictions on association, and travel? The permission of spousal abuse? Really?
As for homosexuality? You're going to tell me that the West is so welcoming of homosexuals?
It is not as welcoming, but then again, homosexuality is also not punishable by death; nor, in fact, is it even illegal.
We try to say how open we are to all religions, but have one priest come out and say he/she is homosexual and watch them get nailed to the proverbial cross.
Indeed. But not a literal one. As reprehensible as the former is, it beats the latter by leaps and bounds.
We condone domestic violence. Sure it might be illegal
We certainly do not condone domestic violence. Simply put, and to use your own admission: it is illegal. Period. It is not legal in a certain timeframe, or legal between certain hours, or legal under such-and-such circumstances. Some cases slip the evidentiary gap, but at the same time that is what legal proof and a legal system is all about. Execution for apostacy is legal in the ummah. The beating of women is legal - not everywhere, but many places indeed. Do you prefer having to produce two witnesses, or some modicum of evidence to prove sexual/domestic assault - or would you rather four male witnesses? If you think such assault is condoned here, try Iran. Or Pakistan. Or Saudi Arabia. Or, simply, fill in the blank with almost any islamic country you could name.
At present, that's akin to demanding they step out of the pan and directly into the fire.
In what way?
I understand where you are coming from and as a woman, rabid human rights believer and somewhat a feminist, I too would love to see change, but you and many others are demanding immediate change. Now this change would not only affect their laws, but also their culture, societal identity, politics, etc. Now I don't know about you, but don't you think we should allow them to make the changes as they see fit?
I don't know: is the judicial murder of conscience something we can accept? When a society illustrates no freedom of religion - and none, I might point out, of choice - who are we to turn a blind eye? Who then shall we damn when the horror continues unabated, and to what end?
Who are we to demand something when we ourselves aren't aren't always getting it right?
So long as we get it more right than wrong, we may well indeed demand. From another angle, though: why is tu tuoque an acceptable response here?
Our demands for change is only making the work of moderate Muslims who are trying to implement change that much harder. Our interference is only ensuring that fundamentalists push forth their message that we are trying to take over and that they must fight against what they perceive as being 'Western interference' and a take over.
I'm sorry, Bells, but this is ludicrous. Fundamentalists have been preaching hatred of the West far, far longer and with more effect than 'Western influence' has been at them - about 1400 years or so, at count. When will the moderates become effective? (And, with all this talk about 'Western influence', what then should we say of 'Eastern influence'? Should we decry it? Should the transfer of knowledge from East to West be applauded, and not the other way? If so, why?) Even if you wanted to take up the detestable position that all fundamentalist roads lead to Qutb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb), it would still mean that such hatred has been mainlined much prior to the present period. Moderates and moderation are a mist: insubstantial. When will they congeal and rain on the jihad parade? Who knows? Should we wait and find out? Should I dredge up several handy examples pointing out the folly of waiting? If we have the capacity to act - politically, societally, legally - why should we not do so?
GeoffP's muckraking is an example of contemporary incitement of culture-war that is resulting in so much death, grief, and obsession with revenge.
Oh, absolutely. For it is I that support terrorism to such an alarming percentage, even in the hospitable paradise of Western nations, no matter what liberties in religio-political expression I might have. It is I that demand increasing recognition of my socio-religious idiosnycrasies, and with them their attendantly underlying restrictions and damnations. Of course! Hype - using the same cunning blind-eye skills that allow him to think the World Trade Centre strikes were the work of BusHitlerMcChimpy's cabal of willing Arabian lizards - believes that I, alarmed at the trends in the world, and the religious impression of such trends, am the culprit.
Hype strikes me as a "kill the messenger" type of fellow. I need not point out the inanity of such individuals, beyond drawing attention to their words.
This will continue until majorities everywhere cease grooving to this inane, belligerent drumbeat.
Or how about no drumbeat, but quiet, contemplative suspicion, supported by careful security apparati, and the high walls that make good neighbours - a position, I do not doubt, that Hype's neighbours also share.
Like people everywhere, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other creeds and cultures.
Well, yes, to a point. That point seems to be the public expression of such cultures, or the apostacy of other muslims - a point, I reiterate that not one single individual here who so readily takes up the lance with me has ever even attempted to contradict in any way, not Hype, nor Bells, nor Ghost, nor Muslim, nor "Zyclon B" mountainhare nor even the illustrious Foley (for is not iron pyrite illustrious, in its way?). So there is tolerance - and watchful eyes with honed blades, waiting for the slightest misstep, be it raking leaves against the side of a mosque, or insulting a muslim's beard, or speaking to a muslim woman, or converting as in the recent Pakistani case, or purportedly defaming the Quran, or failing to sufficiently damn Israel, or anything else deemed insufficiently dhimmi or insufficiently islamic. A trend of thought, I note, that recurs in all my islamic acquaintances, save perhaps Sam.
So, aside from all that, hype is assuredly dead-on.
The sooner culture-combattants such as GeoffP are discredited on all sides, the sooner calm, reforms and coexistence will advance.
Of course! For it is I that hangs sixteen-year old girls for their "sharp tongues" - so sharp they can cut right through a deceptive ream of hypocrisy, buy not before Iran runs out - and I that accuses Israelis of killing Palestinian children to harvest their eyes (which, furthermore, is a shocking display of failure to completely utilize a carcass) and I who emit governmentally sanctioned damnations of Jews and Christians and all those not of my faith. I am an imam, I am an Ayatollah, I am a President, I am a Prophet. But of course.
He's so obsessed with this fight as to respond to examples of reality (like any radical) with denial:
Denial is a river in Egypt: my position is more chortling doubt.
Hype, I have seen the depth of your argumentation, and it is a wading pool. You pose and postulate, but present nothing of substance. You seem highly alarmed at my quite natural and reasonable positions, and so I am forced by nature and reasonability to wonder at your accusations.
I have no evidence that you were ever in any of the nations you claim, or that your father was ever a teacher there, although it is exceedingly likely that you had one. I also pointed out - making the assumption that your father was indeed as professed - your implication of tolerance fell down, and rather badly, a point you have not chosen to address either. So I am uncertain at this point as to whether you are deliberately avoiding the response out of a sense of honesty, or trying to direct the argument away from an area you cannot seem to win.
GeoffP: "I do not particularly believe in your "Special Teacher", or his congregation, when the arrest of mere handfuls for their private religious expression has been documented."
Because this information does not fit in with his world-view, GeoffP will dismiss it
Or, rather, because it does not fit in with actually documented evidence of things that actually happened to real people. In some minds, the documentable and undocumentable hold equal water. Not here. Specify, or withdraw.
Oh, and a note about my "muckraking": by all means, Hype. Evidence is such a bother, don't you agree? Things appear so much warmer and cosier, with one's head buried in the sand.
Or somewhere else, even.
Sock puppet path
12-29-06, 01:40 PM
1. Hinduism as a religion was coined and implemented by the British, so all "data" regarding Hindus in pre-census times is geographical and not religious in nature.
Jains, buddhists, hindus whatever you wish to call the people living in the indian subcontinent before the arrival of the armies of muslims. The existing culture was one of the oldest and wealthiest in the world at the time.
2. Indologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indology#Criticisms_of_Indology_and_South_Asian_St udies) from the British period were prone to presenting India as subject to Jewish and Christian bias.
Baloney they used the source material available which was mostly from muslim sources
3. Credibility. Mills is considered even more of a "credible" source on Indian history and he did not even set foot on the place.
What? obfuscate
4. Kings like Timur did not specifically target Hindus.
Ok let's just say he killed more of those particular people in that particular place than anyone else (hardly that which constitutes any golden age for those particular people at that particular time).
The Turks and Mongols of South East Asia marched all the way to Arabia in their imperialist drive, so their wars were not related to religion.
Attemtp to divert :p I haven't accused your religion of anything I simply brought up the historic fact that muslims invaded india
Many of the wars which invaders fought were with local Muslim kings.
Bully for them.
5.Effect of 800 years of "war" with the Mughals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Impact_ of_Islam_and_Muslims_in_India
So the Mughals conquered india appropriated its' wealth and then made good business of it :rolleyes:
Edit: going to drop this as it diverges from the topic
hypewaders
12-29-06, 10:12 PM
GeoffP: Evidence is such a bother, don't you agree?" Do your own research if you're sincere. Google "Dhahran Protestant Fellowship". I haven't time to overcome your prejudices for you. There are Catholic and Anglican groups active in Arabia that you can learn about also.
You tossed in some other drivel insinuating that I believe that the Bush Administration was complicit in 9-11. I've posted enough on the topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590) for you to know my opinion, so please don't go distorting it.
Do my own research to support your claims...yes, that makes sense.
Hype, "bring your truths if ye are truthful".
As for this ridiculous comment:
You tossed in some other drivel insinuating that I believe that the Bush Administration was complicit in 9-11.
I point out that the first thing I noticed from the very first post of your thread was:
I very strongly suspect that what I am accusing is common knowledge above certain levels of the military, all the way to the Pentagon and White House, and that there is a considerable chance of a credible leak exposing a paper trail.
Good god. How was I "distorting" your views, tiny, tiny brain? Are you really that much of a dullard that you think other people won't notice your dullardy?
GeoffP: Evidence is such a bother, don't you agree?"
Lo! and behold! I found some evidence of Hype's little charter group. So they do exist - which I in fact did expect, though I do apologize for pulling his chain quite so hard about its existence. For, you see, it would rather appear that they exist pretty much as I expected: Dhahran, you see, is a foreigner's preserve. Lo! and note:
The population of Dhahran contains many expatriates from Asian countries, such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesian, Pakistan and the Philippines, as well as Westerners from the United States, Europe, South Africa and Australia. There are also many non-Saudi Arab nationals living in Dhahran, such as Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians. According to a 2004 census the total population of the Dhahran municipality is 97,446.
Note too:
Many companies that employ relatively large numbers of expats have built fenced-in compounds where most expats live, such as the Saudi Aramco Residential Camp in Dhahran, ROC, CCC, Al-Nada, Oasis, and many others. Within these compounds, residents may be required to wear the abaya (the black cloak women in Saudi Arabia are required to wear) and live in restricted freedom side by side with Saudi nationals, and several compounds have pools and recreation areas that are shared by the residents. There are also several neighborhoods, or suburbs, such as Hay Al-Doha (حي الدوحه) and Hay Al-Dana (حي الدانة), whose residents include Saudi nationals as well as expats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhahran
So, in other words: an isolated compound of extranationals. Did Daddy go outside the fence to preach? My bet is: nope. Did Mummy wear an abaya whilst little Hype was at school? My bet is: yep. So: as expected. Hype, your posts kind of smack more as a high school kid's experience of Saudi while Mum and Dad were out "preaching to the choir", as it were. So save your bollocky theories, and your nonsensical attempts to slide these Christian groups under the radar by saying they're "active" in Saudi: the truth is that those groups are illegal there, and that if caught, they face penalties. So in short: your dog doesn't hunt.
Oh, and let me add: the tolerance of missionaries in Saudi is extraordinarily unlikely, given the penalties inherent in conversion even in moderate Turkey:
Protestant missionaries face nine years for insult to Islam
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2482831,00.html
We now return you to your regularly scheduled browbeat, entitled Reductio ad Mesopotamiam: Hype's Mystical Journey.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 01:11 PM
"Good god. How was I "distorting" your views, tiny, tiny brain?"
Maybe you do it without realizing it, by reading and quoting me out of context. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of complicity. Maybe your interest in argumentation exceeds your interest in understanding. I'm not sure.
"Hype's little charter group" has been in existence for decades, and holds meetings in the hundreds.
"Did Daddy go outside the fence to preach?"
He traveled around the kingdom for Fellowship events, although "preaching" doesn't really describe it. For the most part, activities were confined to ARAMCO and military compounds. Regardless, these activities do take place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
"Did Mummy wear an abaya whilst little Hype was at school?"
Never.
Since your bets and expectations are so far off, GeoffP, perhaps you will consider more honestly whether you know what you're talking about.
"Hype's Mystical Journey" has been more tangible than yours. I've lived there. You have not. This simply means that I have considerably more experience regarding religious tolerance in Arabia than you.
While you persist in trying to cast things in extremes, I have been offering you the chance to reconsider your sweeping assumptions. Among these assumptions is your tendency to consider those who raise contradictions to your opinions to hold views completely opposite to yours. I have not tried to defend the Saudi regime as some model of tolerance. Instead, I have tried to direct you to information you seem unaware of. Things are not as black-and-white as you like to assume.
"Good god. How was I "distorting" your views, tiny, tiny brain?"
Maybe you do it without realizing it, by reading and quoting me out of context. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of complicity. Maybe your interest in argumentation exceeds your interest in understanding. I'm not sure.
Let's leave it at your last statement, unless you can illustrate otherwise. First you implicate the White House in 9/11, then you don't.
"Hype's little charter group" has been in existence for decades, and holds meetings in the hundreds.
Again: of expat Christians, not Saudi citizens. As the next statement illustrates:
"Did Daddy go outside the fence to preach?"
He traveled around the kingdom for Fellowship events, although "preaching" doesn't really describe it. For the most part, activities were confined to ARAMCO and military compounds. Regardless, these activities do take place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Regardless, they [i]don't[/quote] take place with actual Saudi citizens. Ergo, my original point stands: other religions are not tolerated in Saudi Arabia. They're allowed in the ARAMCO clique because the Saudis need them for business, and that's it. Ordinary Saudis are not permitted apostacy. They are killed for it. That's pretty damned bad. Taking the opinion that "notable tolerance" by the Saudis for allowing expat Christians to breathe and pray in their Kingdom "has been largely overlooked" is akin to losing a leg to gangrene and then opining that, all in all, the gangrene wasn't so bad, really. It's laughable.
I will say this, however: in my innate zeal I was perhaps too hard on Hype, who did indeed specify that they were all Westerners. Now, my instinct is usually to go for the jugular, and perhaps that was uncalled-for here. But to opine that the Saudis are really "ok guys" because they allow expat services strikes me as ludicrous and deceptive.
While you persist in trying to cast things in extremes, I have been offering you the chance to reconsider your sweeping assumptions.
How is death for apostacy not extreme? Pointing out Westerners - under the ARAMCO umbrella - being allowed to have private services is not evidence of tolerance, but of intolerance temporarily restrained.
Among these assumptions is your tendency to consider those who raise contradictions to your opinions to hold views completely opposite to yours.
No, but I do argue hard against points I don't believe in. I don't consider Bells or Sam or Redarmy or several others as being in complete opposition to me. We merely feel differently about the same phenomena.
I have not tried to defend the Saudi regime as some model of tolerance.
Good! Then we agree it needs changing; in future, don't base your counter-argument on an obvious - and recognized - technicality just because you don't like me. You call me "prejudiced" because I recognize the same thing as you but happen to be more irate about it.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 01:57 PM
I missed this pronouncement of GeoffP's on the first pass:
"the truth is that those groups are illegal there, and that if caught, they face penalties. So in short: your dog doesn't hunt."
Fellowship meetings are not clandestine. They are part of an arrangement for the well-being of expatriates in the Kingdom. The deal requires a considerable amount of tact on the part of Christians in Saudi Arabia, because embarrassing Saudi leadership would have political consequences. The perpetuity of the arrangement allowing these organizations also requires international tact, because the Saudi government is under intense pressure and scrutiny from domestic fundamentalists.
If foreigners are perceived to be acting in such a way as to attempt the conversion of Muslims to another religion, then there would be repercussions. On the other hand, there are Saudi leaders who conform with the Quranic directives to allow other religions a certain latitude. I've brought these things up to inform you that there are moderate forces at work in the Mideast, and not only radical ones. With more sensitivity to such nuances, and with more patience, there is greater chance for positive reform in places like Arabia.
However, if the "West" and Westerners persist in being pushy on this subject, then a reactionary cycle will cause a hardening of feelings and policies. As Iraq is illustrating all too well, too much force with even the best of intentions can be extremely counterproductive in the present situation. We are living in an era when an Islamic radical minority resonates a paranoia not unlike that of Islamophobes in the West. Solutions will require a lot of time, and even more understanding for the sensitivities of other cultures and creeds.
It's important to recognize the moderates across the Mideast without provoking the radicals. It's important not to overgeneralize. Just as with trying personal relationships, this sort of sensitivity and patience represents a strength -not a weakness- of personal or national or cultural character.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 02:01 PM
"First you implicate the White House in 9/11, then you don't. "
If you will go back to the thread that you quoted from, you will discover that I suspect that suppressed records are available as to the identities and training of the 9-11 pilots. This is a far cry from complicity in the attacks. To put it more simply for you, some people that the US government assisted in training may have turned around to bite us. This does not mean that any element of the US Govt wished to participate in perpetrating the attacks. If you would like to explore this further, please do so in that thread.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 02:13 PM
"to opine that the Saudis are really "ok guys" because they allow expat services strikes me as ludicrous and deceptive."
Even so, it is an example of tolerance, if limited.
"How is death for apostacy not extreme?"
Please cite a reference to a death penalty imposed on an individual in Saudi Arabia for apostacy. As Sam and others have also discussed with you here, punishments for apostacy are controversial in Arabia and throughout the Muslim world.
"Good! Then we agree [the Saud regime] needs changing"
But we disagree significantly on how that change can come. By exaggerating the pervasiveness of the most radical interpretations of Islam, and by consistently pointing out only the worst, you contribute to the perpetuation of the worst. There will not come a liberalization of Islamic cultures through Western criticism and Western force. On the contrary, such provocation is proven to result in fundamentalist blowback. There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies, and within the human nature we all share- But it can't gain influence under conditions of the culture war that you are actively promoting.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 02:43 PM
I went back to review the thread from the top, and another impression struck me, relating to overgeneralizations, and to the sort of tact I'm appealing for:
I saw no shortage of Bibles among the Christian expats in Arabia. They come and go from the country routinely with only a little respectful tact. Yet the thread began with the story of a Flight Attendant making an embarrassing fuss before even setting out for Saudi Arabia.
Let's drop the exaggerations and step away smarter.
"to opine that the Saudis are really "ok guys" because they allow expat services strikes me as ludicrous and deceptive."
Even so, it is an example of tolerance, if limited.
Too limited to be called only tolerance. "Enforced tolerance" might be appropriate.
"How is death for apostacy not extreme?"
Please cite a reference to a death penalty imposed on an individual in Saudi Arabia for apostacy. As Sam and others have also discussed with you here, punishments for apostacy are controversial in Arabia and throughout the Muslim world.
Ah - a little deception there. There haven't been any, recently, but the punishment is indeed death:
Under Shari’a conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant. There were no executions for apostasy during the period covered by this report, and there have been no reports of such executions for the past several years.
The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in overt religious activity that attracts official attention. The Government has stated publicly, including before the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship privately; however, it does not provide explicit guidelines--such as the number of persons permitted to attend and acceptable locations--for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear. Such lack of clarity, as well as instances of arbitrary enforcement by the authorities, force most non-Muslims to worship in such a manner as to avoid discovery by the Government or others. Those detained for non-Muslim worship almost always are deported by authorities after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest during investigation. In some cases, they also are sentenced to receive lashes prior to deportation.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm
"Good! Then we agree [the Saud regime] needs changing"
But we disagree significantly on how that change can come. By exaggerating the pervasiveness of the most radical interpretations of Islam, and by consistently pointing out only the worst, you contribute to the perpetuation of the worst.
The old "focus on radicalism makes more radicals" argument. It does not wash. If decrying radicalism makes more radicals, then the only room you leave is to wait, accept sharia and increasing dhimmitude in the hope - the hope, mind you - that islam will change. Was that true of the Soviet Bloc? Would they have simply calmed themselves down out of their aggressive stance by disarmament? And how are the 1 billion muslims in their own nations a "minority"? Why is islam so vicious where it is dominant?
There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies
Illustrate where, and how. Describe what will occur, and in what timeframe. Name me five islamic "progressives" and their accomplishments. And under how many feet of earth are they buried?
and within the human nature we all share- But it can't gain influence under conditions of the culture war that you are actively promoting.
Again, it is not I promoting it. It is I reacting to it, for it predates me and you and this entire century - a point, I note, you have wisely chosen not to address. Your argument is akin to telling me the other guy will stop hitting me if I only put my hands down.
I went back to review the thread from the top, and another impression struck me, relating to overgeneralizations, and to the sort of tact I'm appealing for:
I saw no shortage of Bibles among the Christian expats in Arabia. They come and go from the country routinely with only a little respectful tact. Yet the thread began with the story of a Flight Attendant making an embarrassing fuss before even setting out for Saudi Arabia.
Let's drop the exaggerations and step away smarter.
Indeed. The basic fact is this: there is almost no religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia, and little in the rest of the ummah. Why, and from where does this intolerance come?
hypewaders
12-31-06, 02:58 PM
From the same place whence came Christian intolerance. Had some Islamic superpower persisted in assailing "Christendom", we might still be stuck in the Dark Ages.
Which same place is this? I'm most curious to hear.
hypewaders
12-31-06, 05:45 PM
"Which same place is this? I'm most curious to hear."
It's the solar plexus of humanity, where insult leads to injury.
(self quote)"There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies."
GeoffP: "Illustrate where, and how. Describe what will occur, and in what timeframe."
Consider Iran, where the United States have nearly exhausted our leverage. Nevertheless, since the Islamic Revolution there, moderate voices have been steadily gaining ground. Ahmadinejad is one exception now falling from democratic favor (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/21/world/main2287421.shtml). Mohammad Khatami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami) is widely considered a progressive leader. In the popular-collective American psyche a myth often surfaces that it was the Ameriphile Shah who made Iran progressive and world-savvy, and that since his immaculate reign the barbarians have taken over. I often encounter the misconception that there's no hunger for rapprochement with the West among (mostly Muslim) Iranians today- which is utter bullshit. Iranians are a manifestly progressive and outward-looking people (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-28-iran-pink_x.htm).
Compared with the apathy and herdism of the contemporary post-9-11 American public majority, today's Iranians are heroic democrats such as haven't held sway in the USA since our own revolutionary days. Being no prophet, I can offer you no future time-frame in Iran's evolution. But clearly, Iran is on a popularly-powered path toward greater openness in government and international relations, and they are raising up leaders that express this popular ambition. Iran is a smart, young country that is noticeably tiring of the Qur'an-thumpers. All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone.
As for the rest of the Muslim World, the US could make historic strides by simply putting Israel on a shorter leash. It would not be necessary to undermine the existence of Israel, but only to demand and immediate halt to new illegal zionist settlements, and to demand an end to Israeli apartheid. Such actions would speak much louder than words, and would greatly empower moderates throughout the region.
"Name me five islamic "progressives" and their accomplishments."
Must you put the concept of progressives in quotes in association with any Muslim? That's very sad. I suspect you could benefit from some broader exposure to the world. Here in no particular order are a few examples of Muslim progressives for your attentive consideration:
Louay M. Safi (http://lsinsight.org/curriculum.html)
Nadia Yassine (http://nadiayassine.net/en/service/whoisshe.htm)
Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim (http://www.eicds.org/)
Tariq Ramadan (http://www.tariqramadan.com/welcome.php3)
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi (http://www.amislam.com/pagan.htm)
Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani (http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/media_center/911attacks/silent_majority10-11-01.htm)
Kamal Nawash (http://www.freemuslims.org/about/nawash.php)
Khaled Abu Fadl (http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?voir%5B%5D=848&voir%5B%5D=1360)
Abu Mazen (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Abbas.html)
Faezeh Hashemi (http://www.iranian.com/Features/2000/October/Faezeh/index.html)
Ahmed Rahim (http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-08/2005-08-16-voa2.cfm)
Farzana Hassan-Shahid (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_forward_looking_ijtihad_in_the_modern_era/)
Salam Al-Marayati (http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/9143.htm)
Salah Choudhury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Choudhury)
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/members.php?id=8)
hypewaders
12-31-06, 08:45 PM
"Again, it is not I promoting [culture war]. It is I reacting to it, for it predates me and you and this entire century - a point, I note, you have wisely chosen not to address."
You don't have to be the genesis of a culture war in order to contribute.
"Your argument is akin to telling me the other guy will stop hitting me if I only put my hands down."
How can you be so certain that de-escalation has no reward?
"Which same place is this? I'm most curious to hear."
It's the solar plexus of humanity, where insult leads to injury.
There is ample force for progressiveness and justice within Islamic and Arab traditions and societies.
You know, this gets said over and over, without any justification: and yet, there seems really to have been no sweeping reforms in over 1400 years. When will the grandiose effect occur? Will it be before or after "true" communism is attained?
GeoffP: "Illustrate where, and how. Describe what will occur, and in what timeframe."
Consider Iran, where the United States have nearly exhausted our leverage... Since the Islamic Revolution there, moderate voices have been steadily Being no prophet, I can offer you no time frame. But clearly, Iran is on a popularly-powered path toward greater openness in government and international relations, and they are raising up leaders that express this popular ambition. Iran is a smart, young country that is noticeably tiring of the Qur'an-thumpers.
Oh, possibly: because, of course, they recognize the strains of Arabic supremacism in islam, and don't much appreciate them, being Persian. There is even a small Zoroastrian movement there. But the Ayatollah is still the Ayatollah, and there is still sharia. You may postulate changes; give me a call when they amount to anything.
All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone.
Well, this is odd: are we to keep our noses out and let them sort things out, or not? You seem to be switching sides now. Perversely, I seem to be less invasive than you, because I'm not necessarily arguing fulmination of revolution, but merely separation.
As for the rest of the Muslim World, the US could make historic strides by simply putting Israel on a shorter leash.
Ah, euphemisms.
It would not be necessary to undermine the existence of Israel, but only to demand and immediate halt to new illegal zionist settlements, and to demand an end to Israeli apartheid.
Define "Israeli apartheid".
Such actions would speak much louder than words, and would greatly empower moderates throughout the region.
Well, the oddest thing is that as Israel engages in rapprochement, a great many islamic terrorists see it as weakness. Tell me: what kind of moderate upsurge is possible when the stated aim of Hamas and the rest is to drive the Jews into the sea?
"Name me five islamic "progressives" and their accomplishments."
Are you seriously so misinformed and prejudiced as to think that this is difficult? Do you really believe you must put the progressive in quotes in association with any Muslim?
Straw man, ad hominem.
There have been numerous "progressives" held up over the years as evidence of the goodwill and honourable doing of political islam - Tariq Ramadan is one, the MCB and MPACUK others, the English convert who was going to give a "muslim Christmas address" in the UK still another, and, of course, Cat Stevens - and numerous of them (i.e. the forementioned) fail the test of reasonability. This has, of course, not prevented them from being institutionalized as symbols of peace even to today. So my consideration of new "moderates" is frequently quite skeptical. I will indeed observe them, but you must forgive me if I examine them, as a rational person might do, with a skeptical eye, and if I accidentally - what is the phrase? "Fast boat" them? - you must forgive that too, as I forgive your oblique Fisking. For my democratic rights are in skepticism, and healthy investigation. Similarly, Fisk as you will.
I might add: for every moderate you present, I seemingly have a hundred immoderates. Here's one:
Part One: The Fundamental Myth
The most fundamental myth of the infidels (the kuffar) - and a mark, a sign, of their prejudice and arrogance - is that they believe and accept that their values, the values of the West, are "universal values"; that is, that these kaffir values are right, objective, and can and should be imposed upon everyone, everywhere.
Let us be quite clear, at the outset, that the values, the perspective, of Islam - of Deen Al-Islam - are not those of the West. They are fundamentally different. We do not share a set of "common values" with the kuffar, with the West, just as our perspective, our view of the world, is not that of the kuffar, of the West. In addition, Deen Al-Islam is not compatible in any way whatsoever with the ways of the West, with the perspective of the West, with the "life-style" of the kuffar.
We regard the values of the kuffar as subjective - as manufactured by them, and thus as fallible, whereas we regard our Muslim values, given to us by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala as perfect, and right. The kuffar have fashioned their values themselves, according to some fallible ideas, or some manufactured criteria, or according to some theory, past, present or "trendy".
The kuffar, in their arrogance and in their prejudice, have invaded the lands of the Muslims in their attempt to impose these kaffir values - their own kaffir way of life - upon Muslims. Indeed, one of the leaders of this attempt, Blair, recently (Rajab 1427) said that the war was about "modernization within Islam" by which he meant Muslims accepting the "global values" of the West. That is, one of the aims of the West is to change Islam - to "modernize it" - by imposing the values of the West upon Muslims, and if Muslims do not accept this Western manufactured so-called "Islam" then these Muslims who reject it are, according to people like Bush and Blair, "terrorists, extremists, and full of intolerance and hate".
In order to understand the arrogance, the prejudice, the ignorance, of the kuffar we need to understand the errors on which they base their subjective values and how they subjectively select certain values, claiming them for the West, while ignoring the other values which the West has manufactured but which do not show the West in a good light.
And here are a few of those things he rejects, incidentally:
1) democracy
2) human rights (or "individual rights")
3) the rule of law
4) the use of reason
5) peace
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=1928
Have a good day.
"Again, it is not I promoting [culture war]. It is I reacting to it, for it predates me and you and this entire century - a point, I note, you have wisely chosen not to address."
You don't have to be the genesis of a culture war in order to contribute.
No, but in order to survive, one must resist. Or so I keep hearing. Maybe it's that some resistance is obstinacy, and other resistance not. Is that the kind of glass through which we ought to view things?
Frankly, too, the islamic faith itself tells me - as the moderate interpretation of Sura 9 goes - that I am quite justified in defending myself if attacked, and forcibly changing muslims from their religion or demanding that they pay an exorbitant tax if they surrender. What could be better than judging another faith by their own rules. Surely you could not object to such a position? It is the very height of cultural imperialism to suggest that we should treat other cultures by our own rules, no? ;)
"Your argument is akin to telling me the other guy will stop hitting me if I only put my hands down."
How can you be so certain that de-escalation has no reward?
:rolleyes: Historical precedent. You might cite Ghandi; but Ghandi faced down an empire with a self-lauded humanitarianism. Where has de-escalation worked in the face of islamic expansionism, precisely?
I add this, too, from aforementioned site. Of course, the merest fact that one can find dozens and dozens of these sites, and none of the 'other' kind that Hype searches for with a hopeful eye, means nothing, I'm sure. Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred.
2) Human Rights:
What the kuffar call "human rights" are a manifestation of their Ignorance and their arrogance, for the basis for this concept, this idea, is the belief that human beings have these "rights", by their very nature, and that manufactured laws, governments, agencies and organizations - or "our leaders" - can "give" us these rights, or embody them, or protect them. In addition, this kaffir concept implies that we, as individuals, have or should have a "duty" to "obey" such laws, such governments, organizations, and such leaders since they embody or protect these "rights". However, according to Deen Al-Islam, this amounts to kufr: to insolence, to overstepping the bounds which Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has set for us. It is a denial of our Muslim nature and a denial of the truth of Tawheed.
For Islam, "human rights" - individual "rights" - do not exist. For Muslims, there is only obedience, or disobedience. Muslims know that we, as individuals, only have duties and responsibilities - toward Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala; toward those who are the representatives of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala on Earth (such as a Khalifah); toward our brothers and sisters; toward upholding Adab Al-Islam in our relations with non-Muslims.
hypewaders
01-01-07, 08:42 AM
"When will the grandiose effect [reform] occur?"
As you know, it's a gradual process and not a rapture. You're apparently introducing such nonsense, and cold-war baggage, to distract. Strawman, ad hom. yourself.
"are we to keep our noses out and let them sort things out, or not?"
Keep our noses out.
"Define "Israeli apartheid""
Israel- a country in the Western Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west.
Apartheid- A policy or practice of separating or segregating ethnic groups.
"what kind of moderate upsurge is possible when the stated aim of Hamas and the rest is to drive the Jews into the sea? "
Again, you are assigning extremist rhetoric much too broadly.
"and numerous of them (i.e. the forementioned) fail the test of reasonability. "
Please describe this test.
"Fisking"
Please define.
"for every moderate you present, I seemingly have a hundred immoderates."
Seemingly.
"When will the grandiose effect [reform] occur?"
As you know, it's a gradual process and not a rapture. You're apparently introducing such nonsense, and cold-war baggage, to distract. Strawman, ad hom. yourself.
Illustrate this straw man. Where is the ad hominem in the last post?
"are we to keep our noses out and let them sort things out, or not?"
Keep our noses out.
But you just said we should subvert them! Which is your final choice?
"Define "Israeli apartheid""
Israel- a country in the Western Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west.
Apartheid- A policy or practice of separating or segregating ethnic groups.
And the latter is, in all cases, wrong then? Borders separate ethnic groups. Are these also examples of apartheid? And in which sense: good or bad? Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism, that employs suicide bombers and random rocket attacks on your civilian population, or that terms all your citizens above the age of 18 "legitimate war targets"? And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century by the Arab natives: was this also apartheid? How about dhimmitude via sharia: does this also represent a form of apartheid, since it restricts the rights of non-muslims?
"what kind of moderate upsurge is possible when the stated aim of Hamas and the rest is to drive the Jews into the sea? "
Again, you are assigning extremist rhetoric much too broadly for intelligent discussion.
And here I thought Hamas had won an election or something, seeming almost to "represent" Palestine.
I agree however that intelligent discussion with you is unlikely.
"and numerous of them (i.e. the forementioned) fail the test of reasonability. "
Please describe this test.
I think that the "test" would be reasonably obvious to the reasonable. It sort of consists of common sense and a modicum of investigation, which some are loathe to do about any subject.
For example, one might investigate a notable islamic "moderate", such as Tariq Ramadan, and find out that he has a connection to Yassir Arafat, or that he and his equally idiotic brother gave lukewarm support for "lapidation", which is to say stoning to death for adultery - or at least for its "temporary ban" while "appropriate authorities investigate". Or how about CAIR, whose upper echelons (to say nothing of the founders) is rife with terrorism supporters and supremacism speech.
Hype, I suggest you take a moment to educate yourself by investigating a woman named "Ayaan Hirsi Ali". She is a convert from islam, having to flee the Netherlands under death sentence from the same tiny minority of extremists that killed Theo van Gogh, and she, too, was in Saudi Arabia, although her experience of that country does not appear to conform to your own, since she was an actual cohabitant with the general population rather than an overglorified tourist.
"Fisking"
Please define.
Buh. Look it up yourself.
"for every moderate you present, I seemingly have a hundred immoderates."
Seemingly.
Well, perhaps you can find a way to sugar-coat their baser nature. I imagine they would appreciate that. And yet you previously were of the opinion that there were indeed moderates and, indeed, immoderates, who could be discerned, seemingly.
Seemingly.
hypewaders
01-01-07, 09:10 AM
"What could be better than judging another faith by their own rules. Surely you could not object to such a position?"
I do object because that's ridiculous. Law (even Islamic law) exists in order to establish common standards, but it's a matter of agreeing on interpretations. Search out Judaic law, pull directives from Leviticus if you like, but this has nothing to do with how disparate cultures can coexist.
"It is the very height of cultural imperialism to suggest that we should treat other cultures by our own rules"
But it is not cultural imperialism to agree upon common rules for the purpose of governing inter-cultural matters.
"Ghandi faced down an empire with a self-lauded humanitarianism."
Ghandi also faced down Muslim radicals, by appealing to their common values, and they backed down.
"I believe in the fundamental Truth of all great religions of the world. And I believe that if only we could, all of us, read the scriptures of the different Faiths from the stand-point of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom, all one and were all helpful to one another."
"Where has de-escalation worked in the face of islamic expansionism, precisely?"
Where devout Muslims live satisfied and meaningful lives within multicultural societies, they are the living repudiation of whacko notions of an Islamic world Khalifa, or the politicization of their faith. So by welcoming and recognizing the majority of Muslims who live lawful lives in compatibility with people of other faiths and people lacking faith, "Islamic expansionism" in the political sense has no footing. If you are agonizing over the human potential to voluntarily accept Islam irrespective of politics, then that's your problem. I'm not afraid of Muslims, and I suspect it's because I've had the privilege of personally knowing more of them than you.
"Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred."
Exactly whom are you accusing me of hating?
hypewaders
01-01-07, 09:49 AM
GeoffP:"Illustrate this straw man."
I was referring to the point at which you threw in Cold War issues in the context of this discussion, as if I had been espousing some sort of Communist rhetoric:
GeoffP:
When will the grandiose effect occur? Will it be before or after "true" communism is attained?
"Where is the ad hominem in the last post?"
GeoffP:
Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred.
"But you just said we should subvert them!"
You lost me... I doubt if I have stated that we should subvert Muslims. I am all for disrupting all forms of terrorism by means of legitimate international law-enforcement. Maybe you could clarify by quoting me with a little context in this "gotcha".
"Borders separate ethnic groups."
Not in any normal modern society.
"Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism"
Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged.
"And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century"
Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics.
"How about dhimmitude via sharia: does this also represent a form of apartheid, since it restricts the rights of non-muslims?"
Yes. As I have been repeatedly suggesting, doing wrong can provoke more wrongs. But this doesn't bring us to what is right, until we break the cycle. In modern times, Zionist separatism have been the greater provocation, and one that can be most easily moderated by Israel's American protectors. US foreign policy is flailing around with all sorts of deadly experimentation, yet will not curb Israel.
Put another way, There are a multitude of overlapping conflicts raging in the mideast, but the Arab-Israeli one inflames them all. There is little leverage for collectively influencing all the various Arab fundie whackos, dictatorships. and mafias, each with their own agendas. Israeli apartheid is the one common element, the abolishment of which would promote stability like nothing else. The longer Washington avoids calling this dog to heal, the more obvious it is that this is what must be done.
"Look ["Fisking"] up yourself."
(Wikipedia) - detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.
I don't mean to wear you down. I've been trying to share with you some things I've learned about Muslims from close observation. It seems that I have had better opportunities to encounter Muslims than you. If you would talk with more Muslims and read from the links I have provided for you, I can assure you that your assumptions about a high proportion of fanaticism and fundamentalism within the Islamic world will be challenged. I don't mean to infer that you are stupid, but instead that the politicization of religion is creating common illusions. These are illusions that can be dispelled.
"you previously were of the opinion that there were indeed moderates and, indeed, immoderates, who could be discerned, seemingly."
And I still am of that opinion. I have not wavered from that opinion. Fisker.
GeoffP:"Illustrate this straw man."
I was referring to the point at which you threw in Cold War issues in the context of this discussion, as if I had been espousing some sort of Communist rhetoric:
GeoffP:When will the grandiose effect occur? Will it be before or after "true" communism is attained?
No. No, no, no, no, no, hypewaders. No. For heaven's sake, if you don't understand an analogy, hypewaders, by all means ask. I promise not to bite your head off about it.
Now: I was referring to the semi-mythical process whereby "true" communism would be attained, eventually, hopefully, within some timeframe, at sometime in the forseeable future. Yet it never was, in practice. I, myself, am a communist; and yet I was never really fooled by the rhetoric from my "brothers" in Moscow, nor Peking, nor anywhere else. That was the comparison being made. Has true communism been attained? No, it has not. The point, then, is hardly a straw man. It has nothing to do with "Cold War issues" or whatever nonsense, and I was not accusing you of introducing communist rhetoric. It was an analogy illustrating baseless hope: islam will not change because it has a vested interest in being what it is. The communist regimes of the East...well, might have changed, but being their structure what it was, were innately predisposed to tyranny, and not the supposed tyranny of the proliteriat, as was sometimes discussed.
"Where is the ad hominem in the last post?"
GeoffP: Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred.
Oh, for nonspecific-deities' sake: NO. NO. Again, ask. I was referring to Tariq Ramadan and ilk (i.e. CAIR), including the presenter of the site. Frankly, Hype, I am not entirely convinced that your objection is genuine in motivation, but be that as it may I was not accusing you of hatred. My convictions against the use of ad hominem should have been manifest from by post, you pathetic twerp.
;)
"But you just said we should subvert them!"
You lost me... I doubt if I have stated that we should subvert Muslims. I am all for disrupting all forms of terrorism by means of legitimate international law-enforcement. Maybe you could clarify by quoting me with a little context in this "gotcha".
Nowhere did I say you opined we should "subvert Muslims".
But of course. I also point out the inherent contradictions in the verysame sentence of your synthesis:
All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone.
So is it change we want, or not? How can one "encourage" without "encouraging"?
"Borders separate ethnic groups."
Not in any normal modern society.
Oh? France and Germany seem not to be normal societies. Nor, say, Greece and Turkey. The USA and Canada. Poland and Russia. None of these strikes you as "normal societies"? Iran and Syria? All borders are by definition invalid?
"Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism"
Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged.
But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia"). So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst. Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that.
"And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century"
Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics.
Now was that a prediction or what? Sometimes I even surprise myself. :D
So: first, the Palestinians are 'responding' to Israeli aggression, even though it was the Jews who were fighting dhimmitude and oppression in Palestine (deriving from over 1400 years of such tradition, termed "dhimmitude" today), and then, as if by magic, you turn around and say that "tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything". Amazing. Just amazing.
Well, hype, my dear opponent: are you now saying that the Palestinian actions are then "unethical" - since in your opinion the Israelis are the ones that started things ("reaction to apartheid") and the Palestinians are now engaging in "tit for tat"?
My own position on the issue is that the Israeli response has been forced all along, by the ongoing militancy of their neighbours, some of which are using the Palestinians as pawns against their hated enemy, the Jews they would like to drive into the sea. I don't support all Israel's actions, but I do support their right to exist as a separate nation, since genocide appears likely otherwise; or dhimmitude at the very least.
"How about dhimmitude via sharia: does this also represent a form of apartheid, since it restricts the rights of non-muslims?"
Yes. As I have been repeatedly suggesting, doing wrong can provoke more wrongs. But this doesn't bring us to what is right, until we break the cycle. In modern times, Zionist separatism have been the greater provocation, and one that can be most easily moderated by Israel's American protectors.
Hype, three invasions in fifty years is frankly the "greater provocation". This is not really open to question. Israel has been responding half-heartedly to attack after attack - in fact, their response has been scaled throughout.
Israeli apartheid is the one common element, the abolishment of which would promote stability like nothing else.
No. Israeli breathing and the existence of Israel itself is the common element. As for breaking up Israeli "apartheid"; first dhimmitude and sharia would have to go, unquestionably. The Jews of the world are not - and this is quite reasonable - likely to place themselves at the will of a majority of people conditioned to utterly hate them.
I don't mean to wear you down. I've been trying to share with you some things I've learned about Muslims from close observation. It seems that I have had better opportunities to encounter Muslims than you. If you would talk with more Muslims and read from the links I have provided for you, I can assure you that your assumptions about a high proportion of fanaticism and fundamentalism within the Islamic world will be challenged. I don't mean to infer that you are stupid, but instead that the politicization of religion is creating common illusions. These are illusions that can be dispelled.
Well, you aren't wearing me down in the slightest. Regrettably, these views are supported, time and again, by the evidence. They are not illusions.
"you previously were of the opinion that there were indeed moderates and, indeed, immoderates, who could be discerned, seemingly."
And I still am of that opinion. I have not wavered from that opinion. Fisker.
Well then, are there moderates or not? You seem to imply that there are all these terrible, distinct "radicals" one post, and then in another you imply there are no "radicals". Make up your mind.
As for knowing muslims - I have known several; some of which I encouraged to leave islam. Some did. I have observed attitudes underlying their personalities which did not fill me with much hope.
Despite your impression of 'Zionist separatism', it seems no more an intrinsic property of Zionism than discriminatory Sharia is of Islam. There has been Israeli support for a one state solution:
http://www.onestateplan.com/
Despite this, opposition to binationalism was not absolute. Some of those on the Israel right associated with the settler movement were willing to contemplate a binational state as long as it was established on Zionist terms. Members of Menachem Begin's Likud government in the late 1970s were willing to support the idea if it would ensure formal Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. Begin's chief of staff, Eliahu Ben-Elissar, told the Washington Post in November 1979 that "we can live with them and they can live with us. I would prefer they were Israeli citizens, but I am not afraid of a binational state. In any case, it will always be a Jewish state with a large Arab minority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution
Settlers brewing one-state solution:
The leading plan at this point, formulated by members of the Yesha Council, calls for Israeli sovereignty over all land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, while making provisions that will allow the Palestinian Arabs to "live well."
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/06/israeli-settlers-brewing-one-state-solution/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jnewswire.com%2Farticle%2F10 85&frame=true
While it's true the idea of a one-state solution isn't currently supported by the Israeli government, it doesn't seem to be supported by the current Palestinian government (whether that means Hamas or Fatah) either. It seems historically the PLO supported a one state solution only on condition that most of the state's inhabitants be disenfranchised:
The false implication that the one state scenario means the physical destruction of Israel rests upon the old P.L.O. one state position, which demanded one state, but also excluded the Zionists (not Jews, Palestinian Jews were always recognized as Palestinian by the PLO even at the height of its militancy) from citizenship. This, of course, meant the destruction of Israel and the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of Israeli Jews. Thus, before the P.L.O. adopted a two-state separatist position, the demand for "one state" did indeed mean the physical destruction of Israel as such as well as the displacement of most Israeli Jews. Thus the charge that one state advocates are calling for the "destruction" of Israel.
However, as should be quite clear, the modern progressive one state position rejects the idea that Israeli Jews should be disenfranchised or displaced. Our view is that Israeli Jews and Palestinians can co-exist within the same state. Therefore our call for one state is quite different than the old P.L.O. position, but the Zionist defense has remained the same.
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/eccmei/newsletter/advocacytips/0804a.html
While there is indeed a political leader in Israel who wishes to achieve ethnic separation, that idea isn't widely supported either:
The Lieberman Plan is named after Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Israeli political party Yisrael Beytenu. The plan is known in Israel as the "Populated-Land Exchange Plan" and suggests an exchange of populated territories. This is sometimes confused with population exchange which imply the forcible removal of populations from their homes. This is not advocated under the Lieberman Plan which merely suggests drawing new borders between Arab and Jewish communities.
...The Lieberman Plan, also known as the "Population Exchange Plan", has drawn sharp criticism from both Left and Right of Israeli politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieberman_Plan
Lieberman's solution is simple: land swap. In the future settlement with the Arabs, areas in Israel heavily populated with Arabs will be handed over to the Palestinian state in return for some large Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which will be annexed to Israel.
Sounds good, except that Lieberman never bothered to ask the Israeli Arabs if they were willing to give up their Israeli citizenship and become citizens of a Palestinian state.
Sammy Smooha of Haifa University, who published the Index of Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel in 2004, did ask them, and they answered with a resounding No. Despite all the rhetoric about being Palestinians first, hardly a single Israeli Arab would trade Israeli citizenship for a Palestinian one.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/opinion/eddromi.php
hypewaders
01-01-07, 01:53 PM
Zephyr, when Israel reforms to the point of the abolishment of segregation, then internal and external coexistence of Jews with Arabs will follow. In such a context, one-state solutions could certainly take hold. But first, Mideastern society, including all ethnicities must re-integrate.
This relates to GeoffP's concept of borders being ethnic and cultural barriers. In ages past they were that to a greater extent, but in the modern context this is not only implausible but a certain recipe for repression and conflict.
To continue an exchange on the subject:
GP: "Borders separate ethnic groups."
HW: "Not in any normal modern society."
GP: "Oh? France and Germany seem not to be normal societies. Nor, say, Greece and Turkey. The USA and Canada. Poland and Russia. None of these strikes you as "normal societies"? Iran and Syria? All borders are by definition invalid?"
To which I must answer that ethnic Germans are not to be precluded from the same opportunities in modern France as ethnic Frenchmen enjoy on the basis of ancestry or traditions. The same holds true for his other examples- Ethnic segregation is neither the purpose of modern nations, nor is ethnic segregation healthy for modern states. Modern segregationists with respect to Israel are no different in their backwardness than segregationists of the old American or African Souths. Once segregation is challenged, it can only persist in conflict with the now more progressive world around it. Put another way, segregationism is both obsolete and dangerous in the modern world.
This is not to say that discreet cultures cannot be preserved, only that when national borders are set up as cultural barriers, conflict results.
In Israel's case, as with other apartheid states of recent history, an intrinsic impasse to security can only be alleviated by integration and by the establishment of equal human rights regardless of ancestry or creed. With equal rights in place, there are any number of viable options for the future of the Holy Land. Without equal rights for all, there no viable options for stability. This is precisely where I think US policy on Israel has failed. Before introducing complex peace plans, the United States should insist on the reform of human rights in each of the nations concerned. In the case of Israel, the United States enjoy unique leverage in being Israel's generous armourer, protector, and financial supporter. Once Israel becomes a guarantor of the fair and equal treatment of all resident ethnicities including Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the troubles can be worked out with relative speed and ease.
Certain ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union may claim German citizenship under the Right of Return law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law
Once Israel becomes a model for the fair and equal treatment of Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the troubles will be worked out much more easily.
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship do have equal rights. Those without probably have as many rights in Israel as Mexicans do in America.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm
hypewaders
01-01-07, 02:24 PM
"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration"
Surely you don't consider that a statement of equal rights, spanning local ethnicities. You know that displaced Palestinian Arabs are not allowed to return.
"Palestinians with Israeli citizenship do have equal rights."
And surely you don't consider your statement of equal rights to be in practice in Israel.
But if you do, maybe we can move such a discussion to a thread on the topic.
hypewaders
01-01-07, 04:41 PM
In response to GeoffP:
I've learned a lot from you about Fisking, this splitting of hairs. It makes progress in this conversation difficult, but I'll try and get through it.
You began your last post here with three denials of the straw man distraction, ad hominem attack, and then denial of a statement. None of these are vey important here:
GeoffP's original statement: "When will the grandiose effect occur [reform in Islamic societies]? Will it be before of after "true" communism is attained?"
Qualifier: "I was referring to the semi-mythical process whereby "true" communism would be attained, within some timeframe, at sometime in the foreseeable future."
I apologize. I did not recognize that communism was part of the issue in this thread. Your Communism is accepted.
Original statement: "Of course, the merest fact that one can find dozens and dozens of these sites, and none of the 'other' kind that Hype searches for with a hopeful eye, means nothing, I'm sure. Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred."
Qualifier: "I was referring to Tariq Ramadan and ilk (i.e. CAIR), including the presenter of the site. "
Alright then, now that that's cleared up, could you give an example of Ramadan's hatred?
I'll stop this post here for clarity...
Zephyr, when Israel reforms to the point of the abolishment of segregation, then internal and external coexistence of Jews with Arabs will follow. In such a context, one-state solutions could certainly take hold. But first, Mideastern society, including all ethnicities must re-integrate.
Under sharia or dhimmitude? Not likely.
This relates to GeoffP's concept of borders being ethnic and cultural barriers. In ages past they were that to a greater extent, but in the modern context this is not only implausible but a certain recipe for repression and conflict.
Why implausible? Do not most Germans speak only German? Russians Russian? Americans American? ;)
To which I must answer that ethnic Germans are not to be precluded from the same opportunities in modern France as ethnic Frenchmen enjoy on the basis of ancestry or traditions.
Why not? There is a linguistic barrier, for one thing: the German has likewise never paid French taxes, for another (leaving aside the EU concept).
Ethnic segregation is neither the purpose of modern nations
We are discussing existing ethnic constructions of nations, not discrimination within them. Please stick to the topic.
Modern segregationists with respect to Israel are no different in their backwardness than segregationists of the old American or African Souths. Once segregation is challenged, it can only persist in conflict with the now more progressive world around it. Put another way, segregationism is both obsolete and dangerous in the modern world.
Israel is not maintaining segregation, but rather driving towards two separate nation-states. Your applying racist labels to it is disingenuous.
This is not to say that discreet cultures cannot be preserved, only that when national borders are set up as cultural barriers, conflict results.
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, political islam - which is to say, everywhere with an islamic majority - is not a "discreet culture". It is one of repression and demonstration and incendiary politics. So your case also fails on this proviso.
In Israel's case, as with other apartheid states of recent history, an intrinsic impasse to security can only be alleviated by integration and by the establishment of equal human rights regardless of ancestry or creed.
Demonstrate such denial of human rights. Why is Israel pilloried, and say Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or Afghanistan not pilloried? If Israel is an apartheid state, then why are the latter not? Or why are all nation-states not, since all exclude foreigners to some degree.
With equal rights in place, there are any number of viable options for the future of the Holy Land. Without equal rights for all, there no viable options for stability.
Regrettably for your case, it was the denial of human rights for non-muslims that led to the formation of Israel in the first place. The racist, apartheid systems of sharia and dhimmitude must be abolished before meaningful discussion on harmonization can be implemented. Anything else is merely a deliberate attempt to plant a poisoned tree.
Once Israel becomes a guarantor of the fair and equal treatment of all resident ethnicities including Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the troubles can be worked out with relative speed and ease.
Regrettably, history and present politics disagrees with you on this.
In response to GeoffP:
I've learned a lot from you about Fisking, this splitting of hairs. It makes progress in this conversation difficult, but I'll try and get through it.
I'm sorry you find conversation and argument so difficult. I would recommend an introduction to the "logical fallacies". These are freely available.
You began your last post here with three denials of the straw man distraction, ad hominem attack, and then denial of a statement. None of these are vey important here:
You seem to have spent a lot of time discussing them then.
I apologize. I did not recognize that communism was part of the issue in this thread. Your Communism is accepted.
I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this, since I can see you really don't get the point. It might be best if you let this issue drop, since you cannot make head nor tail of it. I might advise you that it's not really about communism. ;) Research the word "analogy".
Alright then, now that that's cleared up, could you give an example of Ramadan's hatred?
I'll stop this post here for clarity...
Best thing you could have done, really.
First off, he slides around issues. For example, when recently quizzed by the readers of the "Globe and Mail" (Canadian paper) in a bizarre version of "Meet the mad scholar", he responds to this question:
Alexander Baillie from Munster, Canada writes: Citizens in the West generally take a live-and-let-live approach to other religions and cultures, including Islam. Westerners also discriminate between ordinary Muslims and their extremist co-religionists. But too many Muslim acts -- such as fatwas against authors, riots and murders in response to cartoons and other intimidating behaviors that threaten freedom of expression -- reinforce the impression that Islam cannot and will not accept criticism. Is Islam compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does Islam accept a division between mosque and state? (Or is Turkey fighting a losing battle?) Does Islam attach negative attributes to "infidels" or require any negative response to them -- as opposed to tolerating others' religious freedom?
Bold questions, properly stated. Tariq responds with this:
Tariq Ramadan: Many questions in one. You are right on your first assessment -- it is as if the Muslims are always overreacting. Nevertheless, I think that the images from abroad should not mislead us. In Canada, as well as in the US or in Europe, Muslims were reacting very often in a reasonable way and this is a good sign. Millions of Muslims are already showing you that they accept life in secular societies, that they respect the laws and are loyal to their Western countries: Do not be misled by the few who are making noise and shouting.
The first thing Muslism should do is to translate the Arabic words in the right way: kafir does not mean "infidel" or "disbeliever" but "someone who does not recognise the last message as the truth." It is a statement, not an insult. Lots of work to do in the field of education….
Never once does he really answer the big questions: Charter of Rights, division of mosque and state.
Jeff Kelly from Kitchener writes: I have read that the tenets of Islam call for the creation of an Islamic state; that a "secular government" as seperate from Islam is a Western idea that is incompatible with true Islam. Is this true? Does true Islam require its followers to work towards a state following the ideals/beliefs of Islam?
Tariq Ramadan: This is the problem we have with some Islamic trends and groups. They are confusing the historical models with the eternal principals. For them to remain faithful to the Islamic principles you have to duplicate what the Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions did in a specific time. They want to imitate the model and think that there is something like an "Islamic model" to be distinguished from the "Western model." This is a clear reduction based on a deep misunderstanding. The Islamic principles (such as rule of law, equality, accountability, majority decision process, etc.) are universal, and the Muslims should find new models according to their new environment and the new era. I tried to show that in my last book by trying to draw spiritual and contemporary lessons for our time from the prophetic experience in the 7th Century. It is important to repeat that principles are universal, and models historical -- they must evolve and change.
Again, no real answer: is a "new model" then an islamic one? Well, it would appear so.
Back with more postings about Dear Tariq later.
hypewaders
01-01-07, 05:34 PM
...and continue here.
GeoffP:"Nowhere did I say you opined we should "subvert Muslims".
Your Post (#99, 3rd sentence from the top):
"But you just said we should subvert them! Which is your final choice?"
Your accusations of contradiction are as contradictory as accusatory. But let's muddle on through, because I think I can glimpse the hair you are attempting to split here.
Hypewaders: "All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone."
GeoffP: "So is it change we want, or not? How can one "encourage" without "encouraging"?"
I was attempting to convey the concept of passive encouragement, as opposed to active provocation. Maybe I'm just not being clear, but it seems as if you are mostly endeavoring to muddy the water here.
Let's press on. I'll skip the borders-are-ethnic-barriers bit, since I touched on it in responding to Zephyr.
"Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism?"
Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged.
"But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia")."
I say again, it doesn't matter who started it. That's a debate as endless as it is fruitless.
"So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst."
And the US invasion of Iraq was a reaction to Arab aggression on 9-11-01. That doesn't mean it was thereby justified.
"Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that."
It might be something like I have already written here previously, had you been paying attention. "Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics."
"Now was that a prediction or what? Sometimes I even surprise myself."
What's it like to be self-titillating?
"Well, hype, my dear opponent: are you now saying that the Palestinian actions are then "unethical" - since in your opinion the Israelis are the ones that started things ("reaction to apartheid") and the Palestinians are now engaging in "tit for tat"?
In this instance you are twisting our conversation into an auto-argument with yourself, taking up both sides of the exchange with obvious self-satisfaction.
Let's just return to the basic ethics of what we are discussing: You have been wronged. This does not relieve you accountability for your actions. The same principle applies to Israel; to any and all nations. Turn it around, switch protagonists for antagonists and I'll tell you the same. Got it?
"I don't support all Israel's actions, but I do support their right to exist as a separate nation, since genocide appears likely otherwise; or dhimmitude at the very least." (italics added)
Now we're getting down to it. You slide the phrase "separate nation" by with the insinuation of separatist nation. Which is to say apartheid nation. So in precisely the same way as many Americans a generation ago espoused segregating blacks from whites, you are promoting the concept of separating Jews from Muslims. In the very same way as some White South Africans advocated separating themselves from Blacks, you are advocating apartheid. Even as you tangle it all up in twisted conversation and justifications, you are still revealed as a segregationist not unlike any other segregationist.
"Hype, three invasions in fifty years is frankly the "greater provocation". This is not really open to question."
How many invasions has Israel launched in the same period? This is your best justification for apartheid? I know you can do better than that.
"Israel has been responding half-heartedly to attack after attack - in fact, their response has been scaled throughout."
So the latest invasion, officially a response to Hezb'ullah's capture of 3 IDF soldiers in Lebanon was scaled in killing thousands of uninvolved Lebanese, and busting that recovering nation back down to the brink of anarchy? What kind of sick scale are you holding up?
"Well then, are there moderates or not? You seem to imply that there are all these terrible, distinct "radicals" one post, and then in another you imply there are no "radicals". Make up your mind."
No, you need to get your own muddled head together. You are having rhetorical conversations with yourself here, and confusing my words with the ones you have been substituting. Wake up. I have been consistently pointing out that radicals of the sort who would impose Dhimmitude on the rest of the world are a minority within modern Islam. I have been pointing out that terrorists are a minority within Islam.
"As for knowing muslims - I have known several; some of which I encouraged to leave islam. Some did. I have observed attitudes underlying their personalities which did not fill me with much hope."
I don't understand how an attitude underlies a personality. What I have learned to understand is that personalities are unique, and that all the best of human qualities can be found in equal proportion among Muslims as among Jews, as among any ethnicity I've encountered. I've also learned that bigotry comes from ignorance, be it bigotry over color, nationality, or creed.
hypewaders
01-01-07, 05:59 PM
GeoffP: "We are discussing existing ethnic constructions of nations, not discrimination within them. Please stick to the topic."
Nonsense. This thread is all about ethnic descrimination. I have been taking you to task from the outset for slanderously overgeneralizing about Muslims.
"Israel is not maintaining segregation, but rather driving towards two separate nation-states."
Israel has consistently demolished any hope for a moderate and viable Palestinian state- Through patently segregationist policy.
"Demonstrate such denial of human rights. Why is Israel pilloried, and say Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or Afghanistan not pilloried? If Israel is an apartheid state, then why are the latter not? Or why are all nation-states not, since all exclude foreigners to some degree."
Not to the same degree. Where in modern history has an Arab nation forcibly expelled Jews in numbers approaching those of Palestinian refugees? Every major Arab city I've visited has a Jewish quarter -largely emptied out- but not by decree. The entire Mideast has been robbed of mush diversity as a direct result of the hard feelings and successive wars that washed over the region in the wake of the "triumph" of segregationist Zionism.
"Regrettably for your case, it was the denial of human rights for non-muslims that led to the formation of Israel in the first place."
No, it was the Holocaust. Get a clue.
"Back with more postings about Dear Tariq later."
Good. So far you've offered nothing incendiary on his part. No incitement of terrorism, no proclamation of support for an Earthly Caliphate. So get back to your digging.
Medicine*Woman
01-01-07, 06:02 PM
People weren't allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages, just like now in much of the Middle East.
*************
M*W: But people didn't have access to the bible in the dark ages before the printing press, so no, they didn't read it. In fact, only a minute percentage of the population could even read -- scholars and such. The masses were peasants in the field.
Charlemagne promoted the education of the masses, but then again, Charlemagne was associated with the Church. The Church became the teacher of the masses (as well as the policemen of them). So it wasn't as if they weren't "allowed" to read the bible, they didn't have access to written scripture then.
That is a lie. Only Ignorant so called "christians" worship Jesus Chrsit as God.
A true christians is not ignorant and knows better. If you really want to get into it. It is impossible to truly be a christian and believe that Christ is GOD.
Because you cannot believe that God raised christ from the dead. (sorry)
Or are you going to tell me that he raised himself from the dead?
In which case he was NOT really dead.
Believing Christ is God is the greatest lie ever told and the highest form of Idolatry there is.
If you really believe Christ is God not only are you deathly ignorant,
and have a serious spiritual problem ( often which is almost impossible to cure), but you CANNOT be "born again".
If Christ is God MAN is NOT redeemed and yet in his sins!
If you worship Jesus Christ as God you are literally secretly worshiping the devil.
Jesus Christ is NOT GOD!!! (sorry devil worshipers!)
hypewaders
01-01-07, 09:02 PM
The Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), including the divinity of Christ, is an article of Christian faith, as central to Christianity as the Pillars of Islam. You can debate over conceptions of reality in the Philosophy/Religion forum if you like, but the basic tenets of Christianity's beliefs have been long established, rrram2. You're in the wrong forum and thread, unless you'd like to discuss Muslim tolerance/intolerance of other beliefs (which I welcome you to do).
GeoffP: "So is it change we want, or not? How can one "encourage" without "encouraging"?"
I was attempting to convey the concept of passive encouragement, as opposed to active provocation. Maybe I'm just not being clear, but it seems as if you are mostly endeavoring to muddy the water here.
Said the kettle. Either you encourage, or you adopt an attitude of laissez-faire. I cannot in honesty tell what you intend, since you apparently don't know either.
Let's press on. I'll skip the borders-are-ethnic-barriers bit, since I touched on it in responding to Zephyr.
Yes. Badly. Your argument, frankly, makes no sense since you seem to flip the focus back and forth to feed your own agenda.
"But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia")."
I say again, it doesn't matter who started it. That's a debate as endless as it is fruitless.
And, again, you contradict yourself: first extremism is more likely from the defending party, and then you seem to feel it doesn't matter, so that you can continue slandering Israel. Which one did you prefer?
"So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst."
And the US invasion of Iraq was a reaction to Arab aggression on 9-11-01. That doesn't mean it was thereby justified.
You are again comparing oranges and bricks. Israeli response was to overt Arabic aggression from their neighbours. There is no doubt of this fact. Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Talk about muddying waters. :rolleyes:
"Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that."
It might be something like I have already written here previously, had you been paying attention. "Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics."[/quote]
Except when it isn't, apparently. Excuses, excuses: eh hype?
"Now was that a prediction or what? Sometimes I even surprise myself."
What's it like to be self-titillating?
You mean self-prophetic; and very gratifying is how I would describe it. I found this last bit of avoidance similar fodder:
In this instance you are twisting our conversation into an auto-argument with yourself, taking up both sides of the exchange with obvious self-satisfaction.
Let's just return to the basic ethics of what we are discussing: You have been wronged. This does not relieve you accountability for your actions. The same principle applies to Israel; to any and all nations. Turn it around, switch protagonists for antagonists and I'll tell you the same. Got it?
Well...no. You see, you said that extremist reaction - which you clearly meant in the Palestinians - sprung from "apartheid", which you have already applied to the Israelis. Here, I'll quote what you wrote so you can understand:
GeoffP: "Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism"
Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged. ”
So here you're opining that the Palestinian reaction is, you know, the fault of the Israelis, who moved first.
To which my response was:
But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia"). So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst. Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that.
Then I mentioned this as another precursor to this supposed Israeli "apartheid":
"And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century"
Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics.
So in the first case it's - y'know, aw shucks - understandable. And in the second, well tit for tat is quite wrong, which is very basic ethics.
Tell me, Hype: do you know much about very basic ethics? Because, it's wrong to bring up contrary positions for the sake of winning an argument.
"I don't support all Israel's actions, but I do support their right to exist as a separate nation, since genocide appears likely otherwise; or dhimmitude at the very least." (italics added)
Now we're getting down to it. You slide the phrase "separate nation" by with the insinuation of separatist nation. Which is to say apartheid nation.
No. I mean "separate" nation, in the same way that the USA is not Canada, nor Zimbabwe Ghana. Nor Belgium the Netherlands. Your insinuation falls flat on its face and can't get up. Maybe you could get it a clapper, so people would pay more attention to it.
And again you evade the dhimmitude and sharia issue. Why? Why not simply address with honesty for a change?
"Hype, three invasions in fifty years is frankly the "greater provocation". This is not really open to question."
How many invasions has Israel launched in the same period?
?? How many wars has Israel launched with her neighbours? Well, none. Did you miss this kind of thing in history class? You don't consider three major attacks as being reason enough to adopt separation? You seem to be trying to paint Israel with the same brush as South Africa for some reason, while completely avoiding the political issues, or the absolutist doctrine of sharia. Why? Hype, please be honest in your debating style.
"Israel has been responding half-heartedly to attack after attack - in fact, their response has been scaled throughout."
So the latest invasion, officially a response to Hezb'ullah's capture of 3 IDF soldiers in Lebanon was scaled in killing thousands of uninvolved Lebanese, and busting that recovering nation back down to the brink of anarchy? What kind of sick scale are you holding up?
The kind that you don't like: fairness. Why did Hezbollah not simply return the soldiers? Don't they have any love for their countrymen? Or is the hate of Israelis more important? Where are those soldiers now? Why is Israeli targetting of Hezbollah immoral, and the indiscriminate targetting of Israeli civilians moral in your eyes?
"Well then, are there moderates or not? You seem to imply that there are all these terrible, distinct "radicals" one post, and then in another you imply there are no "radicals". Make up your mind."
No, you need to get your own muddled head together. You are having rhetorical conversations with yourself here, and confusing my words with the ones you have been substituting. Wake up. I have been consistently pointing out that radicals of the sort who would impose Dhimmitude on the rest of the world are a minority within modern Islam. I have been pointing out that terrorists are a minority within Islam.
And then you allude to the extremists not being extremists with your use of quotes around "extremist". Why?
"As for knowing muslims - I have known several; some of which I encouraged to leave islam. Some did. I have observed attitudes underlying their personalities which did not fill me with much hope."
I don't understand how an attitude underlies a personality. What I have learned to understand is that personalities are unique, and that all the best of human qualities can be found in equal proportion among Muslims as among Jews, as among any ethnicity I've encountered. I've also learned that bigotry comes from ignorance, be it bigotry over color, nationality, or creed.
As have I. Regrettably, the commonality of views of Jews in the Middle East is negative. One fellow even remarked to me that he thought Jews were "perverse". He didn't clarify, of course, as I yelled at him a little. Several posters on another on a website 'accused' me of being Jewish, as if it were a crime. What motivates such attitudes, hype? The Quran? It seems to be something in common.
That is a lie. Only Ignorant so called "christians" worship Jesus Chrsit as God...Jesus Christ is NOT GOD!!! (sorry devil worshipers!)
Ah: the islamofascist posse arrives to help you, hype. :D Don't scare them off - you need them.
As for rrram2 - while Jesus may or may not have been God, there is little doubt Mohammed was his own special little devil.
;)
GeoffP: "We are discussing existing ethnic constructions of nations, not discrimination within them. Please stick to the topic."
Nonsense. This thread is all about ethnic descrimination. I have been taking you to task from the outset for slanderously overgeneralizing about Muslims.
Is it slanderous overgeneralization to talk about prevalent attitudes to non-muslims in the ummah? Is there any doubt of public opinion there? :confused: Please don't wander the topic off into irrelevance. And my points concern islam, rather than muslims per se.
"Israel is not maintaining segregation, but rather driving towards two separate nation-states."
Israel has consistently demolished any hope for a moderate and viable Palestinian state- Through patently segregationist policy.
Well, the one state solution was tried up to about 1948. It failed, since Arab society was not in a position to contemplate equality for non-muslims. Even today such discrimination goes on (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574). A single state is, of course, unreasonable. A two-state solution has been offered - and rejected by Arafat, whose representation of the Palestinians was criminal to say the least.
"Demonstrate such denial of human rights. Why is Israel pilloried, and say Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or Afghanistan not pilloried? If Israel is an apartheid state, then why are the latter not? Or why are all nation-states not, since all exclude foreigners to some degree."
Not to the same degree. Where in modern history has an Arab nation forcibly expelled Jews in numbers approaching those of Palestinian refugees? Every major Arab city I've visited has a Jewish quarter -largely emptied out- but not by decree.
I would blame inefficiency rather than a lack of hatred - and Jews and Christians are indeed under attack in the islamic world, so lost time is being made up for. And why would the two things be similar anyway? What have native Christians and Jews done to their islamic "hosts"? What terrorism do they engage in? Are foreign armies of Christians coming in to attack their islamic host countries? No. Dhimmitude and sharia are also ongoing there. So, again, you are comparing oranges and bricks.
The entire Mideast has been robbed of mush diversity as a direct result of the hard feelings and successive wars that washed over the region in the wake of the "triumph" of segregationist Zionism.
Hard feelings? So second-class citizenship is evidence of "soft feelings", then?
"Regrettably for your case, it was the denial of human rights for non-muslims that led to the formation of Israel in the first place."
No, it was the Holocaust. Get a clue.
No, there was a single state until the war in 1948, when the situation became intolerable and the Jews had enough numbers to fight. Get a clue.
"Back with more postings about Dear Tariq later."
Good. So far you've offered nothing incendiary on his part. No incitement of terrorism, no proclamation of support for an Earthly Caliphate. So get back to your digging.
Well, as you ignored previously, Tariq is only in favour of a temporary moratorium on lapidation - stoning to death for adultery - rather than a complete ban. His cousin, too, is or was Raid al-Banna, the guy who blew up 132 people in Iraq.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15206http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005536.php
Not to forget his equally stupid brother:
A controversial Muslim scholar who was fired from his teaching job after publicly defending death by stoning has won a second victory in a Geneva court.
However, the cantonal authorities responded by saying Hani Ramadan, who is also director of Geneva's Islamic Centre, would not be reinstated.
It was the second time the courts have ruled in Ramadan's favour, saying that his dismissal was unfair and demanding that the cantonal government recognise Ramadan's status as a public servant and resume paying his salary.
He was dismissed by the cantonal authorities in 2003 a few months after making his remarks in the French newspaper Le Monde.
In the article, the imam defended death by stoning for adultery as set out in Islamic Sharia law. Ramadan also said that believers were protected from being infected with Aids.
Last year, the appeals board had already said that Ramadan was still a public servant, but the government refused to budge and went one step further a few months later by cutting off his salary...
An investigation into the affair commissioned by the Geneva authorities found that his role as a religious representative was incompatible with his status as a teacher in a state school...
"The government's attitude has been to not negotiate until now," [Ramadan's lawyer] said. "And so far we have had no indication there will be a change of heart."
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htmlsiteSect=107&sid=5801735&cKey=1116578456000
There's little doubt that Tariq is basically as his brother is: a wolf in sheep's clothing. A particularly stupid sheep, anyway.
Sock puppet path
01-02-07, 01:54 PM
From here (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71431.htm)
The country is a monarchy with a legal system based on its interpretation of Islamic law (Shari'a). Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. The public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited. As a matter of policy, the Government confirmed that it guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious practice; however, this right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law......
Ghost_007
01-02-07, 04:03 PM
But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia"). So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst. Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that.
Still at it? Don’t you get bored saying the same thing over and over? generalisations and rhetoric, same old GeoffP.
Get this, Israel came into existence in 1948, at that time Palestine ceased to exist, Arabs were thrown out of their own homes. The Arabs that resisted and fought back were secular and had nothing to do with religion, not that there’s anything wrong with a religious resistance, they had every right to fight back. Bringing in all the usual 1400 years ago, Islam, Shariah nonsense doesn’t wash. You take things at face value GeoffP, that’s you’re problem.
No. Israeli breathing and the existence of Israel itself is the common element. As for breaking up Israeli "apartheid"; first dhimmitude and sharia would have to go, unquestionably. The Jews of the world are not - and this is quite reasonable - likely to place themselves at the will of a majority of people conditioned to utterly hate them.
Nothing but propaganda.
Still at it? Don’t you get bored saying the same thing over and over? generalisations and rhetoric, same old GeoffP.
Same old islam. ;) Also, same old misunderstanding by Ghost.
Get this, Israel came into existence in 1948, at that time Palestine ceased to exist, Arabs were thrown out of their own homes.
Rather, they left on basis of a rumour that they were going to be massacred - as they had done to Jewish communities there - which turned out ultimately to be false.
The Arabs that resisted and fought back were secular and had nothing to do with religion, not that there’s anything wrong with a religious resistance, they had every right to fight back.
Did they have "every right" to make non-muslims second-class citizens in the first place? That's what dhimmitude is.
Bringing in all the usual 1400 years ago, Islam, Shariah nonsense doesn’t wash. You take things at face value GeoffP, that’s you’re problem.
Grammar would seem to be your problem. Sorry, but sharia and dhimmitude themselves don't wash. My bringing it up is because they don't. I know you either don't understand this, or just prefer to ignore it, but neither one of those two options makes a bit of difference to reality, since those same opinions exist today. For example: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574.
Sorry, Ghost. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Nothing but propaganda.
What, you mean the anti-semitism taught in Palestinian and Saudi schools? I agree completely - it's propaganda, pure and simple.
Did they have "every right" to make non-muslims second-class citizens in the first place? That's what dhimmitude is.
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/188/1799/400/LeunigDispossession.jpg
Sorry, Ghost. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/188/1799/400/LeunigCleanKillings.jpg
Well, Sam, those are fine cartoons, but there was violence against Jews in the ME long before bombers, and before the 1948 war. Are there any cartoons for that?
I expect they'd run something like:
Angry Arab: "Those frigging infidels! How dare they treat us as subhuman? We, muslims, are people too!"
Occidental Jew: "How about us?"
Angry Arab: [smack] "Shut up, frigging infidel!"
Wait, I've got one. Let's see if it works. Never had much luck with images.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.12.28.WhisperPeace-X.gif
Well, Sam, those are fine cartoons, but there was violence against Jews in the ME long before bombers, and before the 1948 war. Are there any cartoons for that?
I expect they'd run something like:
Angry Arab: "Those frigging infidels! How dare they treat us as subhuman? We, muslims, are people too!"
Occidental Jew: "How about us?"
Angry Arab: [smack] "Shut up, frigging infidel!"
Is that like the Hezbollah sending katyushas into Israel because of prior Israeli occupation of Lebanon? Is they did it first the argument we are using here? Does US intervention justify Al-Qaeda? Shall we declare all terrorists as freedom fighters?
Wait, I've got one. Let's see if it works. Never had much luck with images.
How about this? :D
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Mideast0203/Mideast0307GIFS/bishlj.jpg
Is that like the Hezbollah sending katyushas into Israel because of prior Israeli occupation of Lebanon? Is they did it first the argument we are using here?
Well, it seems to be the basis Hype and I are agreed on.
Hype says "Israel bad", I say "Israel responding; what else Israel do?", Hype says "tit for tat, stink like rat", Geoff say "you not say that before!" and then Gronk hit both parties with club. Gronk ask "why not see that endless attack and response no good? both parties must live in peace! Gronk then declare all terrorists freedom fighters?"
Geoff say: no, but before can talk about peace, must dump dhimmitude and enact separation of mosque and state. Political islam no good; fundamental discrepancy in human rights no good for peace-building. Make mammoths unhappy too.
Ooh! Ooh! I got one!
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.10.26.NoFare-X.gif
:D
My turn.:p
http://www.vtjp.org/images/Blind-Spot.gif
6 million? Fighting over land isn't the same as genocide, you know.
OK, you asked for it:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.24.PeaceLoveGeno-X.gif
I apologize for the affrontery of it; unsubtle is a word I would use but I didn't have time to look for more.
heheh fortunately I'm on vacation. ;)
http://www.middleeast.org/cartoons/3.gif
Me too! I just didn't have any time right then.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.12.17.GenocidalLogic-X.gif
Good one.:p
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/09/wbTOONleunig1008_gallery__470x350,0.jpg
Funny.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.12.10.SaudiZakat-X.gif
Out fer a bit; the field is Sam's for the moment. ;)
To which I add: go analyse some poo.
Out fer a bit; the field is Sam's for the moment. ;)
Thankee kindlee.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/18/wbCARTOONleunig_gallery__550x389,0.jpg
infoterror
01-04-07, 12:11 AM
I see nothing wrong in banning that crazy religion from one's country. Hell, I would.
hypewaders
01-04-07, 06:36 PM
You're from hell? I don't think Muslims want to go there anyway.
But anyplace where religions get selectively banned, I would expect hellishness to follow. How would like to you enforce your ban on Islam, infoterror?
IceAgeCivilizations
01-04-07, 06:51 PM
Islam will go the way of the dodo bird when people realize it seeks only domination and suppression.
Baron Max
01-04-07, 06:55 PM
Islam will go the way of the dodo bird when people realize it seeks only domination and suppression.
I agree. But what havoc will it wreck upon the world before it finally succumbs? I don't think we should stand around and wait and watch while that happens, do you?
Baron Max
IceAgeCivilizations
01-04-07, 07:06 PM
We're not, and I hope the Euros (and Americans) get it together enough before it's too late, the conversion rate to Islam is quite low I think, most of the new ones are children of Muslims, or those forced to convert by the sword in Third World countries. I hope Christianity can hold up in South and Central America, 'cause they do love to hate America down there, so they could be ripe for the Islamic overtures.
Islam in the U.S. is pretty much known for what it is, a religion of destruction and suppression.
Ayodhya
01-04-07, 07:21 PM
I can only hope that if Islam leaves, Christianity will follows shortly.
Islam will not leave in our lifetimes and neither will Christianity, expecting either is fruitless.
Plus, what damage have Muslims in this country done (and I'm not talking about what Muslims have done to the country a la 9/11)? (Remember to cite sources!)
IceAgeCivilizations
01-04-07, 07:28 PM
The damage they have done is that we have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't go wild.
Baron Max
01-04-07, 07:33 PM
Plus, what damage have Muslims in this country done ...
Divisiveness on a grand scale!
You can also check the 'Net for the happenings in Detroit, MI where the greatest concentration of Muslims is in this great nation. You'll find many examples of "civil unrest" going on ....dividing the communities and keeping everyone tense and nervous and hateful.
Baron Max
Baron Max
01-04-07, 07:35 PM
The damage they have done is that we have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't go wild.
The young Muslims already are going wild in some places. Check some of the happenings in Detroit, Michigan, for example. Another one is Los Angeles. It's not so much the older Muslims immigrants, it's the younger ones who are beginning to turn violent in many areas of the country (and Europe, too, I think, right?).
Baron Max
Ayodhya
01-04-07, 07:35 PM
Divisiveness on a grand scale!
You can also check the 'Net for the happenings in Detroit, MI where the greatest concentration of Muslims is in this great nation. You'll find many examples of "civil unrest" going on ....dividing the communities and keeping everyone tense and nervous and hateful.
Baron Max
Have you ever personally experienced any backlash from Muslims?
Many of the Muslims I know are moderates and have assimilated nicely into society. If you care to relate the two, I live in a small conservative town and they haven't done anything! Normally you'd think a minority would do something "divisive" if they lived in such conditions!
Baron Max
01-04-07, 07:43 PM
Many of the Muslims I know are moderates and have assimilated nicely into society.
And many of them have not assimilated ....and that's the problem! A Muslim friend of mine says basically the same thing ...that unless Muslims, and indeed any other groups of immigrants, assimmilate quickly into the culture, there will be nothing but trouble and problems and conflicts.
By the way, personal experiences have little or nothing to do with the overall discussion. Just because you have a couple of friends who are Muslim means nothing whatsoever to the overall concept of assimmilation or acceptance.
Baron Max
IceAgeCivilizations
01-04-07, 07:46 PM
If they tried something in a small conservative American town, it would not be pretty for them.
Ayodhya
01-04-07, 08:30 PM
Baron -
It may be true, that many of them have not, but how do we know that for sure? Are there numbers for the number of culturally assimilated Muslims? Probably not.
Could you please cite evidence for the happenings in Detroit and Los Angeles? Thanks in advance.
Also, you are correct about the European instability. The one that comes to mind most clearly were the riots that took place in France two years ago (?). Of course, the French couldn't handle a couple Muslims with stones so America sent in the big guns (otherwise known as two marines) to stop the violence. :D
Out of curiosity, and for future reference. What would you consider as assimilated into American culture? Does it mean completely stripping yourself of your ethnic culture? Can I still participate in Indian cultural events and be "assimilated" into American culture?
IceAgeCivilizations
01-04-07, 08:32 PM
About as much as I wear wooden shoes and hop around sweeping brick streets.
Baron Max
01-05-07, 06:51 AM
Baron - It may be true, that many of them have not, but how do we know that for sure? Are there numbers for the number of culturally assimilated Muslims? Probably not.
Drive around Detroit and count the number of people who are wearing bedsheets for clothing ...it shouldn't be too hard to do. Those are some of the ones who have not assimmilated into our culture.
Could you please cite evidence for the happenings in Detroit and Los Angeles? Thanks in advance.
Sorry, I'm not so astute with computer searches as most people here are. My guess is you can find many, many examples if you just try. Sorry, I'm too old to learn that new-fangle Internet thingie. All I ever get is porno sites!
Out of curiosity, and for future reference. What would you consider as assimilated into American culture? Does it mean completely stripping yourself of your ethnic culture? Can I still participate in Indian cultural events and be "assimilated" into American culture?
I can only say that people who aren't assimmilated into a culture are the ones who stand out strongly against the basic background of the people with whom they're trying to assimmilate. And I think wearing a bedsheet is probably what most would take as "standing out".
Sure one can participate in cultural and religious events ...people do it all the time in the US - even here in Texas, we permit such activities. But when the event is over, they should take off their bedsheets and try to wear clothing and appear to be like those around them inasmuch as possible. When in Rome,.....
Baron Max
A minor gift for Hype, regarding religious tolerance for minority religions in that vastly improving nation - Iran.
Tehran, 4 Jan. (AKI) - The Iranian Evangelical Church has denounced a crackdown by authorities on its members. Under a new government measure, pastors with the official churches will have to provide a list of names of all those who take part in functions to the intelligence ministry. Pastors will also need an authorisation from security forces to celebrate mass. Christians are less than 1 percent of Iran's population of over 68 million.
However, unofficial data shows that the number of converts from Islam to the Evangelical Church is on the rise. Contrary to Catholics and Gregorian Orthodox Christians who discourage conversions for fear of reprisals on their members, Evangelical Christians are in fact extremely active in Iranian society and their number is believed to be growing.
In Iran, Evangelical Christians are often not authorised by authorities to practice their religion and most of their churches are clandestine. The faithful are often forced to celebrate mass in private homes, which is illegal in Iran.
Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in June 2005 there has been a significant crackdown on Christians and in particular on members of the Evangelical Church. At least 50 members of the church have been jailed since then and are still being detained without trial.
The last reported crackdown on Evangelical Church members occurred before a conference questioning the existence of the Holocaust on 11-12 December. At the time leaders of the congregation denounced the arrest of members in Tehran and in the north of the country.
Authorities provided no official reason for the arrests of the members of the Protestant Church, who had all converted from Islam, but fellow congregation members suspected the reason was their criticism of the government-sponsored conference which questioned the extermination of six million Jews during World War II.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.373232697&par=0
Frankly, the old shahada thing is what I suspect: "you shall not put partners with God" etc etc.
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/mideast/mideastgifs/cole1010.gif
hypewaders
01-05-07, 09:23 PM
"A minor gift for Hype"
Thanks, Geoff. More evidence you have yet to understand me. You made sweeping and uninformed statements about religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia and I corrected you. Ever since, you have been casting our discussion as some sort of a contest between two alternate realities: Muslim societies are intrinsically intolerant (your opinion), and Muslim societies always deserve the benefit of the doubt (your projection of my opinion).
You are of course entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to misrepresenting mine. It seems to me that the political angle of the AKI story you linked equally supports my position- that at the very source of the conflicts and abuses you confuse as having genesis in Islam, there instead lies Realpolitik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik). Please note that I have been repeatedly trying to introduce you to the notion that repressive regimes require foreign threats for their survival. Thanks again.
Ayodhya
01-05-07, 09:34 PM
Drive around Detroit and count the number of people who are wearing bedsheets for clothing ...it shouldn't be too hard to do. Those are some of the ones who have not assimmilated into our culture.
Baron
Bedsheets? What do you mean? Like poor people?
Or are you talking about turbans?
If you are - give me a break.
People wear different styles of clothing - so why is a turban any different? Your opinion obviously doesn't stem from a question of assimilation, but your innate dislike for Middle Easterners in general.
Muslims aren't the only ones who wear turbans.
Sikhs wear them too, and they belong to a different religion entirely and are Indian, not from the Middle East.
And you permit such activities? - who died and made you king of the Nile?
I have to say I have been confused by your racism (and mostly attributed it to your age) for some time now, but it's all clear now. You're from Texas.
hypewaders
01-05-07, 09:42 PM
Texas: Where "real men" wear big hats and high heels. Could this be the source of a social disease?
Baron Max
01-06-07, 07:26 AM
People wear different styles of clothing - ...
Those who wish to assimmilate, don't wear clothing that makes them stand out as "different" from the local population. When in Rome, .....?
Gang members also wear clothing which makes them stand out from the norm, thus promoting their ideals of hatred and disregard of the local population and society. Is that what the immigrants are wanting to portray??
I have to say I have been confused by your racism (and mostly attributed it to your age) for some time now, but it's all clear now. You're from Texas.
One can say or write books about world issues without adhering to any one of the ideals or beliefs. One can talk about issues of racism and immigrant assimmilation without being one themselves.
Yes, you should be confused by my posts ...but don't confuse the words that you read with philosophy or personal character of the person who wrote them.
Baron Max
Billy T
01-06-07, 07:45 AM
with regard to posts 159 & 157 and that of BM it is replying to on style of dress, see last paragraph and footnote of :
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1255750&postcount=28
"A minor gift for Hype"
Thanks, Geoff.
Not at all.
More evidence you have yet to understand me. You made sweeping and uninformed statements about religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia and I corrected you.
Not at all. You claimed there was freedom to practice other religions there. I pointed out that there isn't; your interpretation of religious freedom is based on a narrow tolerance of foreigners, "uncitizens" who are, when their contracts are up, going to go home. How much tolerance would be extended the open practice of their religion if they were a) Saudi citizens or b) not there for pumping out the oil? Answer: a) none, and b) none.
Ever since, you have been casting our discussion as some sort of a contest between two alternate realities: Muslim societies are intrinsically intolerant (your opinion), and Muslim societies always deserve the benefit of the doubt (your projection of my opinion).
Not at all: it isn't my opinion, but rather fact. There is discrimination against religious minorities the length and breadth of islam. I'm sorry if you can't accept this, but there it is. Try www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch. And be sure to remember: if you don't like the news, then contact the news organizations reporting it, instead of attacking the site's viewpoint. Who knows? You might succeed in getting the newsies to stop reporting the news itself. Then, everything would be great, and all islamic governments everywhere would extend full rights to their religious minorities.
Not so?
Please note that I have been repeatedly trying to introduce you to the notion that repressive regimes require foreign threats for their survival. Thanks again.
I am quite familiar with your position, yes. But what you fail to understand - a little willfully, it seems - is that these systems have been in place far longer than there has been an Israel, or a United States, or evil capitalists on whose doorstep all troubles can be laid.
Ghost_007
01-06-07, 10:53 AM
Try www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch. And be sure to remember: if you don't like the news, then contact the news organizations reporting it, instead of attacking the site's viewpoint.
You can't leave that website alone, huh GeoffP? :D
The news their is misrepresented, it is blatant propaganda and hate towards anyone that practises the Islamic faith. Robert Spencer is a fraud, he is an opportunist making the most out of the current World situation. That blog site is like all the other right-wing, Neo-Con anti-Muslim hell holes, there is no humanity is such people.
comments from Jihadwatch.
Yes Mr. Ellison, schizhophrenia is the result of Islam.
Muhammed gave his followers no reason to think, work and enjoy life.
He only gave them a reason to die, or to kill others.
That reason is called Islam. And he "stipulated" that everything Islamic is the best and everything non-Islamic is the worst.
Well, this behaviour is only to be expected. If you don't think peace for others, you cannot have peace with yourself. This holds true for communities as well.
When Islam urges Muslims to kill the kafirs, then it is likely (most likely) to be used by Muslims against their community. Call somebody kafir, then shoot him, that is all.
This is another reason to not allow muslims into any western nation and to outlaw islam and reclassify it as a hostile, political cult determined to overthrow ALL non-islamic nations on the planet.
ALL MUSLIMS LIVE ONLY TO KILL!!
KEEP MUSLIMS IN THEIR COUNTRIES!
They produce nothing but murders, bombings, fill the prisons, theft, kidnappings, rape, and dealing drugs.
Ayodhya
01-06-07, 11:09 AM
Those who wish to assimmilate, don't wear clothing that makes them stand out as "different" from the local population. When in Rome, .....?
Gang members also wear clothing which makes them stand out from the norm, thus promoting their ideals of hatred and disregard of the local population and society. Is that what the immigrants are wanting to portray??
You're comparing gang members to moderate Muslims who wish to wear certain types of clothing? So all you Texans wearing dirty overalls are not assimilated either? All those guys with long hair are not assimilated? All the people who wear all black with many piercings are not assimilated? By the way - all such people are white.
One can say or write books about world issues without adhering to any one of the ideals or beliefs. One can talk about issues of racism and immigrant assimmilation without being one themselves.
Yes, you should be confused by my posts ...but don't confuse the words that you read with philosophy or personal character of the person who wrote them.
No, I shouldn't be confused by your posts.
If your posts don't reflect you as a person then what do they represent? You specifically said that you don't want Middle Easterners, Blacks, or Hispanics anywhere near you! So do those ideas represent some other Baron or Baron Max?
hypewaders
01-06-07, 11:17 AM
GeoffP: "But what you fail to understand - a little willfully, it seems - is that these systems have been in place far longer than there has been an Israel, or a United States, or evil capitalists on whose doorstep all troubles can be laid."
That's just one more example of your consistent distortion of my side of our conversations. I have expressed no opinion blaming "evil capitalists" for anything whatsoever. The Cold War era must have made a nearly inescapable impression upon your mind, because you can't seem to resist reverting to an anachronistic confusion of issues that seems like a re-run of shallow, bygone Cold-War paranoia.
I do acknowledge "systems in place", but they are very different than the systems you seem to perceive, such as a Muslim agenda for a global theocratic empire. An over-arching system that I can see in place has operated for as long as groups of apes have thumped their chests at encroaching group of other apes. But as increasingly intelligent beings, we have the capacity to surpass such cultural crudeness, by gaining a wider understanding of our behaviors, and learning to modify them.
A good place to start is by examining our great Boogeymen: Neither Communists of the last century nor Muslims of the present can be rationally considered as effective global dominators, primarily because their millions of fanatical followers have never really existed.
Simplistic, exaggerated, and virulent threats about barbarians at (or within) our gates don't arise from objective analysis. These arise instead from those more primitive instincts- Fear the outsiders; Trust your leaders. Thump-thump-thump-thump-thump.
An instilled fear of Muslim hordes is real to you, but it's a distortion. You may find it difficult but disillusioning to consider the actual behavior of the more than one billion Muslims who are sharing your world. An overwhelming majority of these Muslims do not exhibit hostile intent toward secularism, toward democracy, freedom, human rights, progress, technology, or any other such "Western" ideal you care to name. How can you be sure of this? If Islam were in truth the wellspring of terrorism and repression, one billion Muslims would have made a stronger impression on us all by now.
But in fact 1,000,000,000 (and rising) Muslims aren't after your destruction, your beliefs, or your freedoms. 1 billion Muslims are not disposed to destroying your way of life.
In fact one billion Muslims like most of the things you like, and dislike most of the things you dislike. They aren't disposed to the forced conversion of the world to Islam. They aren't disposed to theocracy. They aren't disposed to terrorism. They aren't disposed to attacking Israel. They aren't disposed to crusading for a global Caliphate mandating Sharia and Dhimmitude on humanity.
At the same time, there are fanatics on all sides who preach bigotry. Indeed there are today a larger proportion of more overt, raving fanatics in the bully-pulpits of the Arab and Muslim worlds, than we find in similar positions of power in Europe and America. This is because hate speech and irratonality abound where there is conflict and injury. Imagine present-day America in the immediate wake of events equivalent to those of modern Mideast history.
What we fundamentally disagree upon is the source of contemporary conflict and repression. You think it's Islam, and I think it's just politics. You think Islam makes Muslims and Arabs misbehave, while I think that insult and powerlessness enable a radical minority to wrap themselves up in religion in order to grasp at political power. I would like to participate in solutions, and not the compounding of our problems. To me, those like you who choose sides in this unnecessary culture war are not just part of the problem- You are the crux of the problem.
Baron Max
01-06-07, 12:50 PM
You're comparing gang members to moderate Muslims who wish to wear certain types of clothing?
No, I'm making no such comparison. What's the matter, Ayodhya, can't you read? Or is it just that you can't comprehend WHAT you read? Try reading it again, okay?
So all you Texans wearing dirty overalls are not assimilated either?
But since they're all wearing dirty overalls, then they've assimmilated quite well, huh?
All those guys with long hair are not assimilated?
But since the fad began in the 60s, most everyone has long hair ....and thus they've assimmilated quite well, huh?
All the people who wear all black with many piercings are not assimilated?
There are some freaks in most any society ....is that how we should view the Muslims who continue to wear bedsheets and rags on their heads? Is that how Muslims wish to be viewed in their new, adopted society?
Or are they attempting to force their own ideals and beliefs onto the adopted society? And if so, why didn't they just stay where they were if they love it so much?
If your posts don't reflect you as a person then what do they represent?
Words on a computer monitor? Does murder fiction represent the writer as a vicious murderer?
You specifically said that you don't want Middle Easterners, Blacks, or Hispanics anywhere near you! So do those ideas represent some other Baron or Baron Max?
Oh, that little tidbit does represent me, personally, yes. But then I also don't want or like ANYONE living anywhere near me, so it ain't like I'm discriminating or any horrid, terrible, illegal, immoral, unethical thing like that!
If people want to assimmilate, then they should do so. If I should go to live in Iran, would you suggest that I wear my dirty, ol' overalls and my sloppy, dirty, ragged straw cowboy hat?
Baron Max
Baron Max
01-06-07, 12:59 PM
... You think it's Islam, and I think it's just politics. You think Islam makes Muslims and Arabs misbehave, while I think that insult and powerlessness enable a radical minority to wrap themselves up in religion in order to grasp at political power. I would like to participate in solutions, and not the compounding of our problems.
And I think you're already strongly suggesting just such a solution, Hype ...aren't you strongly in favor of surrendering Iraq to the violent, extremist, Muslim radicals at this very moment?
And I believe you also think that the US should surrender any influence in the entire Middle East, leaving Israel to fight for their lives without any assistance or sympathy.
Surrendering and lie down before you enemy is, indeed, one of the many tactics that's been done throughout history by the weak and gutless.
Baron Max
You can't leave that website alone, huh GeoffP?
Well, not since you recommended it to me, Ghostie. ;)
The news their is misrepresented
Oh? You should talk to them then.
You know: the LA Times, the Herald, Spectator, Independent, the NYT, Sun, etc etc etc, ad infinitum. Let me know how clamping down anyone with a negative view of political islam goes; or maybe you could update me on that brilliant rearguard you're fighting against the tiny minority of islam that misunderstands your faith so well.
Robert Spencer is a fraud
How? Specify. Will you rebut his arguments, or merely engage in...well, never mind. I kind of already have my answer.
That blog site is like all the other right-wing, Neo-Con anti-Muslim hell holes, there is no humanity is such people.
Actually leftists post there too. Even gay people, it would seem. My my. What does this mean for your synthesis.
comments from Jihadwatch.
Unmoderated. Did you miss that one again? :D
All the best,
Geoff
Athelwulf
01-06-07, 01:28 PM
Let's go burn some saudi flags too while we're at it!
So you're for flag burning?
Sadly though this will never reach mainstream media. switch the religions and it's be splashed across every front page.
What makes you say that? :confused:
People weren't allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages, just like now in much of the Middle East.
I shouldn't respond to trolls... but did people even know how to read in the Dark Ages?
Problem is religon its stupid because thats most common subject or thing wars are created over, if we had no religon at all we would hardly have any wars in the world, dont you think?.
True, religion is the start of a lot of wars, and it is pretty stupid. But you know humans: Soon they'll find some other reason to kill each other.
Europe was the world in the dark ages hunny.
Uh? What about China? And Africa, and the Americas?
hypewaders
01-06-07, 02:54 PM
Baron Max: "Hype ...aren't you strongly in favor of surrendering Iraq to the violent, extremist, Muslim radicals at this very moment?"
Another off-topic pot-shot. Islamophobia seems an article of faith for the unfortunate people under the War-on-Terror spell. So rather than confront their delusions, islamophobes must impugn the patriotism or resolve of those uninfected with the "Muslims are gonna get us" meme. But it would be weak and gutless for me to ignore these accusations, however shallow and evasive.
No, Baron- as I have been consistently telling you here for some years now, arrogant interventions such as the invasion of Iraq empower, and do not deter Muslim radicals. Likewise any troop "surges" or protracted occupation under the present circumstances, likewise support for Israeli apartheid and for Arab monarchies, mafias, and thugs. The damage that is done is done, and there now remains no American military solution, even as the repercussions will continue throughout and beyond the corpse of Iraq (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938).
"I believe you also think that the US should surrender any influence in the entire Middle East, leaving Israel to fight for their lives without any assistance or sympathy."
You believe wrongly. If Israel is to be any kind of example of better American ideals, then the United States must compel Israel to desegregate. For as long as Israeli apartheid continues under American protection, there will be more troubles.
I do not resent American influence. I resent apartheid masquerading as the expression of the American Way. I am ashamed of our association with zionist segregationists, just as I am equally ashamed of our partnerships with thugs like Saddam Hussein and the Sa'ud mafia. Until we clean up our associations, and clean up our act, our soldiers and victims of terrorist reprisals will continue to pay the horrible price for our leadership's bad company and bad policies.
"Surrendering and lie down before you enemy is, indeed, one of the many tactics that's been done throughout history by the weak and gutless."
We have no threats in the USA comparable to those faced by lesser nations. There is no authority in Iraq for surrendering to even if we wished to make such a ridiculous gesture. But when we accede to the erosion of our democratic values out of irrational fear, we bow down to the most insidious of enemies. There is no surrender in the reform of clearly ineffective and misguided foreign policy that squanders lives and money while damaging American interests.
Already, the American people do not stand behind obviously impossible American-branded nation-building in Iraq. The necessary and inevitable capitulation ahead will not be an American surrender. We are awaiting the capitulation of the deceivers who precipitated the present debacle in Iraq.
Our bloodied troops are going to come home without installing an American-friendly or Israel-friendly regime. There will be decades of damage-control necessary in dealing with the aftermath of this invasion. Reforms, including those involving religious freedom) in places like Arabia are now going to take much longer as a direct result of recent American bungling.
Ayodhya
01-06-07, 04:13 PM
No, I'm making no such comparison. What's the matter, Ayodhya, can't you read? Or is it just that you can't comprehend WHAT you read? Try reading it again, okay?
Gang members where certain symbols to stand out from society and promote their beliefs of hate. Apparently, you have some conformity complex, because anyone who stands out from society is automatically promoting hatred.
Wearing a turban on your head does not promote hatred or violence. It's simply an article of clothing.
There are some freaks in most any society ....is that how we should view the Muslims who continue to wear bedsheets and rags on their heads? Is that how Muslims wish to be viewed in their new, adopted society?
I would not consider those "freaks" to be freaks, thus I do not consider turbans to be atrocious clothing, either. Muslims do not wish to be viewed as such in their new society, but it is not their clothing that must change, but their personality. Clothing is very superficial, wouldn't you say so?
Or are they attempting to force their own ideals and beliefs onto the adopted society? And if so, why didn't they just stay where they were if they love it so much?
Wearing a turban promotes nothing other than their pride in their own religion (not extremist viewpoints which a few may entertain). Wearing a turban does not force anything onto anyone, let alone ideals and beliefs. If you see someone wearing a turban, how does that translate to him shoving Islam down your throat? Or is it the voices in your head that you keep hearing?
Words on a computer monitor? Does murder fiction represent the writer as a vicious murderer?
That is a completely different situation. You are arguing with me over the assimilation of Muslims into our society, not writing fiction. Why would you pretend to stand for something else instead of writing out your own opinion?
Oh, that little tidbit does represent me, personally, yes. But then I also don't want or like ANYONE living anywhere near me, so it ain't like I'm discriminating or any horrid, terrible, illegal, immoral, unethical thing like that!
Indeed, your character comes to life with the few posts concerning your private life.
If people want to assimmilate, then they should do so. If I should go to live in Iran, would you suggest that I wear my dirty, ol' overalls and my sloppy, dirty, ragged straw cowboy hat?
Why not? Go ahead and wear your dirty overalls and straw hat.
Baron Max
01-06-07, 06:42 PM
Clothing is very superficial, wouldn't you say so?
Interesting that you say that, when almost immediately above it, you said, "Gang members where certain symbols to stand out from society and promote their beliefs of hate." So ...clothing is very superficial??? Wanna' think about that again some?
Wearing a turban does not force anything onto anyone, let alone ideals and beliefs.
Yet you claim that gang members who wear their colors are "...promoting their beliefs of hate." Which is it, Ayodhya, make up your mind.
If you see someone wearing a turban, how does that translate to him shoving Islam down your throat?
Oh, I'd guess that it might be something like waving a Nazi flag at a meeting of Jews, huh? Would you condone such acts?
... You are arguing with me over the assimilation of Muslims into our society, not writing fiction. Why would you pretend to stand for something else instead of writing out your own opinion?
Perhaps in order to fully understand the various sides of the issue? Perhaps to see how others might react to specific comments or questions? Perhaps just to sharpen my skills as a fiction writer?
Why not? Go ahead and wear your dirty overalls and straw hat.
So you think that the people of Iran would readily accept me dressed like that? And no one would say anything, no one would want to cut off my head, no one would sugget that I try to assimmilate more quickly? You seem to know a helluva lot about the Iranians ....the very ones who make promises to kill all infidels??? Hmmm?
Indeed, your character comes to life with the few posts concerning your private life.
Good. And thank you. A good screenwriter and fiction writer always enjoys hearing such compliments on his work.
Baron Max
Baron Max
01-06-07, 06:45 PM
But it would be weak and gutless for me to ignore these accusations, however shallow and evasive.
Yet you want and expect the entire nation of The United States of America to be that which you refuse to be ....weak and gutless. And worse, to leave the peaceful, innocent people of Iraq totally defenseless.
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-06-07, 07:30 PM
Baron, this line of discussion is completely off topic for this thread. I'll be happy to discuss this subject with you over here if you like, where I've already provided some background (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1256232#post1256232).
Ayodhya
01-07-07, 10:50 AM
Yet you claim that gang members who wear their colors are "...promoting their beliefs of hate." Which is it, Ayodhya, make up your mind.
Gang members want to hurt people; Muslims do not want to hurt people. You are not arguing properly. You have already arrived at the conclusion that Muslims are evil and are arguing backwards.
Oh, I'd guess that it might be something like waving a Nazi flag at a meeting of Jews, huh? Would you condone such acts?
No, I would not condone such acts.
No, wearing a turban is not the same as waving a Nazi flag at a meeting of Jews. If a person wears a turban, they do not purposefully come up to people, convert them, or harm them in anyway. They are just wearing a piece of clothing. It is your innate fear of them that causes you to be afraid of what they might do. I know they won't do anything and I don't have any prejudices, thus it does not bother me.
Perhaps in order to fully understand the various sides of the issue? Perhaps to see how others might react to specific comments or questions? Perhaps just to sharpen my skills as a fiction writer?
Makes sense, but I don't believe that you're not racist.
So you think that the people of Iran would readily accept me dressed like that? And no one would say anything, no one would want to cut off my head, no one would sugget that I try to assimmilate more quickly? You seem to know a helluva lot about the Iranians ....the very ones who make promises to kill all infidels??? Hmmm?
Well, perhaps Iran isn't the best place to live then. Why should America sink to that level? Do you want America to discredit all diversity, teach them White culture is the best, and that they should remove any hint of ethnicity to live in "The Greatest Country in the World". America is a country of different people and it does not tyrannize its minorities.
Baron Max
01-07-07, 12:36 PM
Gang members want to hurt people;
They do?? All of them? Hurt all people? Interesting ...I didn't know that.
Muslims do not want to hurt people.
They don't? You haven't been reading the news lately, have you.
Baron Max: "Oh, I'd guess that it might be something like waving a Nazi flag at a meeting of Jews, huh? Would you condone such acts?"
No, I would not condone such acts.
Why not? Why are you against that? It's just a flag, ain't it? Wearing or waving a flag can't possibly harm anyone, could it?
No, wearing a turban is not the same as waving a Nazi flag at a meeting of Jews.
To you, perhaps. But it might be quite similar to others ...or didn't you think about that any? Whatever YOU think is right or wrong, then that's it, huh? You don't worry or concern yourself with what others might feel or think!
They are just wearing a piece of clothing. It is your innate fear of them that causes you to be afraid of what they might do.
Like the gang members, you mean? Aren't they just wearing a piece of clothing? Isn't it people's innate fear of gangs that make them afraid?
Or if a person were to wear, say, a Nazi uniform around town, waving a Nazi flag? It's just clothing and a piece of cloth, ain't it?
I know they won't do anything ...
They already have! Both gangs, Naziis AND Muslims! Or haven't you been reading the news lately?
...and I don't have any prejudices, thus it does not bother me.
So ....since it doesn't bother YOU, then no one else should be bothered by such acts? YOU are the deciding authority on what bothers people or not? If you don't approve of what others feel, then you denigrate them?
Makes sense, but I don't believe that you're not racist.
People may believe whatever they want, it's your right to do so. Yet you won't allow others to have that same right ...why? If someone doesn't like gang members wearing their colors, or Muslims wearing their sheets and turbans, you won't allow them to have any beliefs about that?
America is a country of different people and it does not tyrannize its minorities.
Different people trying to assimmilate, trying to become Americans, trying to look and act like Americans ...to BE Americans. That's what it used to be!
Now people come here not to become Americans, but to bring their own culture with them! If they like their own fuckin' culture so much, why not stay in their own little shitholes and be happy about it?
You are not arguing properly.
Life sucks when people don't do exactly as you want, huh?
Baron Max
what the fuk is an american? Trying to be american? Who defines what is american? Do you think you should be the one to define what is american and nobody else?
You used "their own culture" and "shithole" basically in the same sentence. Do you know what a culture is? Do you think culture is simply technology? You don't think there could possibly be even positive or superior aspects of other cultures?
Remember america is supposed to be the land of the free, where all men are created equal and immigrants who believe that and want to come here for that reason. Thats the ideal america was supposed to be based on. Its not just about your irish pub fuking culture, its about everyone who comes here. You are not the only one who should be counted or that matters.
Paradoxically, it is the likes of YOU that is UNAMERICAN. Think about it, immigrants built this country. You don't like it, then maybe its you who should adapt or leave. What the hell makes you think america should soley revolve around you and your 'ideas' about what is american.
Baron Max
01-07-07, 12:49 PM
what the fuk is an american? Trying to be american? Who defines what is american? ...
If you don't know, then you have a problem! When in Rome, ....
Let me ask you ....If you moved to Saudi Arabia or Iran, would you wear western clothing if everyone around you was wearing sheets and turbans? And if those people didn't like you doing that, would you flaunt your independence and continue wear the clothes just to piss them off??
Baron Max
If you don't know, then you have a problem! When in Rome, ....
Let me ask you ....If you moved to Saudi Arabia or Iran, would you wear western clothing if everyone around you was wearing sheets and turbans? And if those people didn't like you doing that, would you flaunt your independence and continue wear the clothes just to piss them off??
Baron Max
Is the USA=KSA?
spuriousmonkey
01-07-07, 12:50 PM
If you don't know, then you have a problem! When in Rome, ....
Let me ask you ....If you moved to Saudi Arabia or Iran, would you wear western clothing if everyone around you was wearing sheets and turbans? And if those people didn't like you doing that, would you flaunt your independence and continue wear the clothes just to piss them off??
Baron Max
Yes, I kept wearing my European style clothes in the US.
Baron Max
01-07-07, 12:52 PM
Yes, I kept wearing my European style clothes in the US.
Many Americans wear European clothing.
Baron Max
Buffalo Roam
01-07-07, 12:53 PM
spuriousmonkey Really brave, aren't we?
hypewaders
01-07-07, 12:54 PM
iam:"what the fuk is an american? Trying to be american? Who defines what is american? Do you think you should be the one to define what is american and nobody else?"
To me, the most defining collective American value is respect for individual freedoms, as expressed in our founding documents. Among these freedoms is freedom of religion. Sometimes we forget, and sometimes we fall down, but these truths still define and empower us as Americans.
Many Americans wear European clothing.
Baron Max
Traitors.:mad:
Baron Max
01-07-07, 01:00 PM
To me, the most defining collective American value is respect for individual freedoms, as expressed in our founding documents. Among these freedoms is freedom of religion. Sometimes we forget, and sometimes we fall down, but these truths still define and empower us as Americans.
Hype, there are a great many nations in the world that espouse to those same principles and ideals ....and some of them, too, fail to reach the stated goals and aspirations. What makes them different to Americans?
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-07-07, 01:04 PM
We started this country for these ideals.
Baron Max
01-07-07, 01:05 PM
We started this country for this.
So only nations that began in that fashion are to be accepted in that way?
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-07-07, 01:06 PM
In what way?
Baron Max
01-07-07, 01:08 PM
In what way?
Ain't too good at following threads, huh, Hype? ...LOL!
Baron Max
Ain't too good at following threads, huh, Hype? ...LOL!
Baron Max
:rolleyes:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1254135&postcount=25
Nope, not light. Did you miss a comma or something, perhaps?
Wanna' try again using baby talk that I might understand?
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-07-07, 01:10 PM
Baron Max: "Ain't too good at following threads, huh, Hype? ...LOL!"
I'm trying my best. You asked me if only nations conceived in liberty are to be accepted for a categorization that you have not specified. That is why I don't understand your question. Please clarify:
So only nations that began in that fashion are to be accepted as __________.
spuriousmonkey
01-07-07, 01:14 PM
Many Americans wear European clothing.
Baron Max
Yes, but they can't get it right. Of course for a pensioner I don't expect you to be up to date with the latest fashion for 'younger' people in Europe (and it differs from country to country to be honest), but in no way is it similar to what americans wear. I stuck out like a sore thumb and all Europeans recognize each other by merely looking at the clothing. That is if they haven't been in the US for so long that all their European clothes are worn out.
Style is not the same as style.
It's also easy to pick out young and old americans in Finland for instance. At a glance they wear roughly the same shit (lots of jeans for instance) but when you have a closer look you will notice the differences.
Sorry to dissapoint you if you thought we were the same.
Baron Max
01-07-07, 01:17 PM
Hype, just go back a few posts, read them carefully, then you'll see ...maybe! Though I can tell that you're just using the same/similar tactics that Sam uses to dodge particular issues or questions.
And that's okay ....it's your right to dodge questions that you can't answer. But you should take some lessons from Sam, 'cause you ain't so good at it. In fact, your method make you look pretty damned stupid! :D
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-07-07, 01:35 PM
There's no trickery here, or dodges on my part. I don't feel like playing guessing-games with you right now.
Please just fill in the blank in your question, and I'll gladly answer it:
"So only nations that began in that fashion (in securing personal and religious freedoms) are to be accepted [as __________________]?"
Baron Max
01-07-07, 02:22 PM
There's no trickery here, or dodges on my part. I don't feel like playing guessing-games with you right now.
Read it all again, Hype. But I must warn you, you're lookin' pretty damned stupid by continuing this foolish line of 'reasoning'. You should quit while you're ahead ...if you are ahead.
You know exactly, precisely what was said and how it was said. Trying to duck out answering is what Sam does so well ....please take some lessons from her/him, and you, too, will be able to duck questions easily.
Baron Max
hypewaders
01-07-07, 02:29 PM
Who's being evasive? I only asked you (twice) to fill in a blank, to clear up the vagueness of your own question. Maybe if I restate my initial comment that triggered your question, you'll find your answer with your superior faculties. But often your questions seem to be intended to obscure and not enlighten, Baron. It's almost as if you are deliberately behaving as a troll. But I'll assume your intentions are good, and offer you this:
The founding of the United States was unique and innovative because it involved a deliberate and open framing process dedicated to the advancement of personal and religious freedoms, and involved firewalls against abuses of power. Americans can take pride and inspiration from this heritage. Lately, we have been learning hard lessons as a nation, as recent events have proven that that force, derision, and the concentration of power are extremely counterproductive to the cause of advancing of freedom at home or internationally. It's a fitting a time for Americans to worry less about what's driving others, and rediscover ourselves. If we will seriously take up again our legacy of tolerance and democracy, we will have nothing to fear as a nation from any radical minorities anywhere..
"I believe you also think that the US should surrender any influence in the entire Middle East, leaving Israel to fight for their lives without any assistance or sympathy."
You believe wrongly. If Israel is to be any kind of example of better American ideals, then the United States must compel Israel to desegregate. For as long as Israeli apartheid continues under American protection, there will be more troubles.
Regrets, but your post was completely deceptive. Violence against the Jewish inhabitants and immigrants into "Palestine" existed long before the creation of Israel in order to establish continguous borders for defense (which for some reason you refer to as "segregation", which is bizarre). Something like 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. Should Poland be considered a "segregated" society? After all, they share borders with Germany, but are not part thereof. How about: any nation on the face of the earth? Are we all horrible segregationists? Should India and Pakistan "desegregate"? How about Iraq and Iran? Why or why not?
Who's being evasive?
Well, you are for starters since you always avoid answering my questions.
If we will seriously take up again our legacy of tolerance and democracy, we will have nothing to fear as a nation from any radical minorities anywhere..
Tolerance and democracy, fine (though, being a communist, I wonder about the democracy part sometimes).
Stupidity and blindness: not fine.
hypewaders
01-07-07, 09:21 PM
GeoffP "continguous borders for defense (which for some reason you refer to as "segregation", which is bizarre)"
Segregation- the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
Israel has a policy of doing this with and within its borders. I can agree that this is a bizarre practice, also antiquated by world standards.
"Something like 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab." This is in no way representative of the Palestinian population of Israel's dominion. Not representative of the Palestinians remaining, and certainly not representative of the displaced Palestinian refugees.
"Should Poland be considered a "segregated" society?"
No. Poland is not practicing ethnic segregation like Israel. Likewise your other ridiculous comparisons.
"Are we all horrible segregationists?"
Those of you supporting Israeli apartheid are.
"you always avoid answering my questions. "
That's obviously untrue.
The Sign
01-11-07, 09:35 PM
the violent response, as demontrated after the cartoons, not only damages their religion's image, it is only counter - productive.
The Sign
01-11-07, 09:36 PM
Traitors.:mad:
no, traders.
GeoffP "continguous borders for defense (which for some reason you refer to as "segregation", which is bizarre)"
Segregation- the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
Border - a place delineating two states or nationalities, with separate educational facilities, enforced or voluntary residence and barriers to social intercourse.
Israel has a policy of doing this with and within its borders. I can agree that this is a bizarre practice, also antiquated by world standards.
Within? Do cite.
Yes, the act of having borders must seem entirely strange to some people. :rolleyes:
"Something like 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab." This is in no way representative of the Palestinian population of Israel's dominion. Not representative of the Palestinians remaining, and certainly not representative of the displaced Palestinian refugees.
Could you perhaps explain one or any of these comments?
"Should Poland be considered a "segregated" society?"
No. Poland is not practicing ethnic segregation like Israel.
They certainly are, man! Good god! They segregate Russians, and Germans, and Czechs and Slovaks all! And Ukranians! Good lord, man! We're all segregationists by your absurd standard.
"Are we all horrible segregationists?"
Those of you supporting Israeli apartheid are.
Just the teeniest bit selective there. ;)
"you always avoid answering my questions. "
That's obviously untrue.
Fisking and misdirection hardly constitute an answer. Come now, Hype: be honest for once in this debate. Tell me how the two-state solution is different from any other fact of national identity anywhere.
hypewaders
01-13-07, 11:05 AM
GeoffP: "[segregation] Within [Israel]? Do cite."
Jews from anywhere are encouraged to immigrate to Israel. Palestinians are not afforded their right to return. This is overt national ethnic segregation.
"Yes, the act of having borders must seem entirely strange to some people."
Israel's ethnic segregation through immigration policy is brazen. You're trying to confuse the issue again with nonsense, as if I am denying the legitimacy of all borders. Try and stay with me here, and please stop trying to confuse the issue: I am criticizing segregation, not the existence of legal national borders worldwide.
"Could you perhaps explain one or any of these comments?"
Israeli citizenship is not representative of Palestinians, because since its inception, the policy has been (as you well know) to forge a "homeland for the Jewish People" where had been an Arab majority. This deliberate segregationist policy resulted in a demographic reversal reducing Arab citizenry to a 20% minority. But this segregation has also resulted in a daunting demographic compounding-interest problem: From the original displacements of about 800,000 (1948) and 400,000 (1967) resident Arab Palestinians, the refugee population is now surpassing 4 million.
"[Poland] segregate[s] Russians, and Germans, and Czechs and Slovaks all! And Ukranians! Good lord, man! We're all segregationists by your absurd standard."
Not so. Poland's policies, especially Westward (EU) are hardly comparable with Israel's institutionalized ethnic segregation. But if you would really like to compare the two, start a thread on the subject and I'll further discuss it.
"Are we all horrible segregationists?"
Those of you supporting Israeli apartheid are.
"Just the teeniest bit selective there."
Not at all. Israel's segregationist policies are unique in modern times.
"Tell me how the two-state solution is different from any other fact of national identity anywhere."
There has been no two-state solution. Israel has demolished Palestine, and continues knocking it down to this day. Let's just compare Israel (one state) with the USA then, since you are absurdly insisting that Israel's ethnic restrictions are so equivalent to those of any country: What ethnicity is excluded from immigration in the USA? What refugees are excluded from returning to the USA?
Go down a list of all nations with this comparison, and you will find Israel within a lonely group of segregationist countries. Go and discuss this issue honestly with cosmopolitan groups of people, and you are sure to discover that segregationism is increasingly passé - so 18th-century. It's time for you, and for Israel to move forward.
We're all segregationists by your absurd standard.
So lets apply the standards of someone who should know what he's talking about:
I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html)
Baron Max
01-13-07, 12:50 PM
So lets apply the standards of someone who should know what he's talking about:
One person's opinion is nothing but one opinion ....and means nothing in the way of proof or evidence of anything.
Baron Max
One person's opinion is nothing but one opinion ....and means nothing in the way of proof or evidence of anything.
Baron Max
yes it does, when he ignores all advice to the contrary and has the power to send 20,000 people to their deaths.
Baron Max
01-13-07, 12:53 PM
yes it does, when he ignores all advice to the contrary and has the power to send 20,000 people to their deaths.
Not all advise, Sam. If you think everyone is against it, then you're obviously reading and seeing ONLY one side of the issue ....which is, of course, your usual tactic.
Baron Max
Not all advise, Sam. If you think everyone is against it, then you're obviously reading and seeing ONLY one side of the issue ....which is, of course, your usual tactic.
Baron Max
Thats an assumption based on what you think his opinion is reflective of. So its based on your opinion of him. Which, by your own measure is worth nothing.
Bishop Tutu on the other hand is a representative of his people, he has suffered apartheid and is sympathetic to both sides. So to me, his opinion that Israel practices apartheid is worth far more than your opinion of his opinion.
Baron Max
01-13-07, 01:26 PM
Thats an assumption based on what you think his opinion is reflective of. So its based on your opinion of him. Which, by your own measure is worth nothing.
Nope ...didn't say that, Sam, and you know it! What I did say is that it's just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of opinions on the issue. Until you've read and analyzed and thought about all of those opinions, then you've admittedly not given all of them the same degree of importance. I.e., you found one that most closely reflects your own opinion, then posted it as if it were real and true.
You're nothing more that a propagandist ...a good one, admittedly, but a propagandist nonetheless.
Baron Max
Nope ...didn't say that, Sam, and you know it! What I did say is that it's just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of opinions on the issue. Until you've read and analyzed and thought about all of those opinions, then you've admittedly not given all of them the same degree of importance. I.e., you found one that most closely reflects your own opinion, then posted it as if it were real and true.
You're nothing more that a propagandist ...a good one, admittedly, but a propagandist nonetheless.
Baron Max
There are opinions Max and there are opinions.
Everyone but you has one.
Now I for one would rather believe a black man (who happens to be a respected bishop) and who has experience of apartheid over an American who can only screech My country wrong or right, when he is listed the horrors of his country's role and complicity in torture and murder.
Baron Max
01-13-07, 02:05 PM
Now I for one would rather believe ...
Why do have to believe any of it? Why do you feel compelled to make any kind of decision about something that doesn't affect your or your life in India?
Why do you feel that it's any of your business? And isn't that exactly why you hate the USA ...for sticking their nose into other people's business? And yet you do it all the fuckin' time! Isn't that what we call "hypocritical"?
Baron Max
Buffalo Roam
01-13-07, 02:22 PM
Desmond Tutu, preaching to Israel about deplorable conditions, lets look at South Africa,
BBC NEWS | Africa | S African white farm to be seized
But he added that South Africa must speed up land reform or face chaos. Eighty per cent of agricultural land is owned by white South Africans, ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4273890.stm
BBC NEWS | World | Africa | SA 'to learn from' land seizures
South Africa recently said it would move to speed up land reform. ... thousands of government supporters forcibly occupied white-owned farms, ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4140990.stm
Land Occupation in South Africa
More widely used recently is the term land seizure (especially in the media) to ... In South Africa, LO is widely referred to as land invasion, an apartheid ...
http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=137
CNN.com - World - Zimbabwe to use army for land resettlement ...
South Africa to buy Airbus planes · Imperial rolls out $4.6B deal ... Zimbabwe government threatens to more than triple farm seizures July 31, 2000 ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/08/01/zimbabwe.02/
BBC News | South Africa elections | South Africa's crime crisis
A serious crime is committed every 17 seconds in South Africa, with unecessary loss of life every day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/south_africa_elections/353596.stm
Crime in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crime is a major problem in South Africa. According to a survey for the period ... One of the most visible results of South Africa's crime problem is the ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa
South Africa: crime, a suspicious epidemic, and some of the world ...
People are far more concerned about crime. Carjackings and house invasions are a real danger in South Africa, and there’s no real solution for them but to ...
http://www.escapeartist.com/international/0800_south_africa.html
hypewaders
01-13-07, 04:36 PM
What does any of that have to do with the validity of what Tutu said, BR?
"I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa."
Buffalo Roam
01-13-07, 06:20 PM
Definitely a case of the Kettle calling the Pot Black, it appears that since the blacks have taken over the South African Government that there is reveres Apartheid going on, with a massive crime increase, the government is condoning driving the Whites out of South Africa, and it is funny to watch that government slip back to full 4th world status.
Anyway, the simple fact or the matter is that the stewardess in question needs to respect the laws of the countries she visits. Even if said laws are a tad on the silly side.
mabugenjfoley
01-13-07, 06:44 PM
Definitely a case of the Kettle calling the Pot Black, it appears that since the blacks have taken over the South African Government that there is reveres Apartheid going on, with a massive crime increase, the government is condoning driving the Whites out of South Africa, and it is funny to watch that government slip back to full 4th world status.
it seems in this world upside down that apatrheid is against whites is ok.
hypewaders
01-13-07, 07:41 PM
"since the blacks have taken over the South African Government ... there is reveres Apartheid going on, with a massive crime increase..."
Please substantiate.
"since the blacks have taken over the South African Government ... the government is condoning driving the Whites out of South Africa"
Please substantiate.
I ask again: What does any of that have to do with the validity of what Tutu said, BR?
"the simple fact or the matter is that the stewardess in question needs to respect the laws of the countries she visits. Even if said laws are a tad on the silly side."
Well said, mabufo. Anyone desiring an international career needs to understand this basic principle.
"it seems in this world upside down that apatrheid is against whites is ok."
Are you also accusing South Africa of instituting apartheid against whites, mabuqenjfoley? Please substantiate, and keep in mind the general history of South African Apartheid.
GeoffP: "[segregation] Within [Israel]? Do cite."
Jews from anywhere are encouraged to immigrate to Israel. Palestinians are not afforded their right to return. This is overt national ethnic segregation.
Returning Jews are refugees from other nations. Surely you wouldn't object to refugees escaping constant persecution in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and othersuch?
"Yes, the act of having borders must seem entirely strange to some people."
Israel's ethnic segregation through immigration policy is brazen. You're trying to confuse the issue again with nonsense, as if I am denying the legitimacy of all borders.
Well, you did indeed seem to be for ages and ages. I was hoping you might get around to some kind of legitimate point.
Still, you seem to be implying that sovereign nations have no right to decide who and from where they receive immigrants and refugees. Is there any nation in the world that does not have some arbitrary refugee quota? I rather suspect that this "ethnic segregation" thing is more a Middle Eastern trend than a specifically Israeli one: ethnic Jewish and Christian minorities also experience travel restrictions in other ME nations. Sharia, furthermore, dictates that non-muslim inhabitants of islamic countries also have fewer rights than the muslim inhabitants. The Israelis of the early 20th century experienced this oppressive social system, which I suspect has tended to condition their response to the pressure for immigration by Palestinians. Once bitten, twice shy.
"Could you perhaps explain one or any of these comments?"
Israeli citizenship is not representative of Palestinians, because since its inception, the policy has been (as you well know) to forge a "homeland for the Jewish People" where had been an Arab majority.
Well, there are many Arabs who are Israeli citizens. How are they no longer Palestinian? Are they only Palestinian if they hate Israel?
This deliberate segregationist policy resulted in a demographic reversal reducing Arab citizenry to a 20% minority.
I think the war tended to colour their perspectives on immigration. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
"Are we all horrible segregationists?"
Those of you supporting Israeli apartheid are.
But its not apartheid. You really must learn to qualify your points. The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid. And if I'm a segregationist because I believe Israel has a right to decide who immigrates to its nation, does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours, whereupon there is no doubt that sharia and a pogrom or ten would be instituted?
"Just the teeniest bit selective there."
Not at all. Israel's segregationist policies are unique in modern times.
Not at all. All nations control both immigration and citizenship. Are non-muslims allowed to become citizens of Saudi Arabia?
"Tell me how the two-state solution is different from any other fact of national identity anywhere."
There has been no two-state solution. Israel has demolished Palestine, and continues knocking it down to this day.
I can see why your moniker is "hype". :D But your point is complete hogwash: a two-state solution was indeed endorsed by Israel, and not so long ago. It was rejected by dear old Yassir. What, then to do? It is hard to continue to legitimately blame Israel for the failure of the Oslo Accords, try as you might. What then?
Let's just compare Israel (one state) with the USA then, since you are absurdly insisting that Israel's ethnic restrictions are so equivalent to those of any country: What ethnicity is excluded from immigration in the USA? What refugees are excluded from returning to the USA?
What refugees have fled the USA, after attempting genocide against another, that it finds itself politely refused return so that the genocide can be started again, the fundamental articles of hatred and superiority never having been disavowed? What party of religious/ethnic hatred has such a minority endorsed, in "exile"? Are Serbs allowed to reimmigrate to Bosnian territory in the former Yugoslavia? (And, is the toleration of their continued presence marked by the destruction of their churches and cultural places?)
As you point out, Israel is indeed a special case, but your seemingly deliberate ignorance of history makes me wonder if you understand precisely how it is a special case. Should the Polish, having won the war, then admit overwhelming numbers of German immigrants, or be pilloried for failing to do so? Should the Mexicans, having fought a war against America, then smilingly have admit hundreds of thousands of American immigrants so that there might be renewed justification for another Spanish-American conflict? What precise historical example justifies your model for a modern, collective hara-kiri by the Israelis?
In another light: doth not even Mohammed himself (in the 'moderate' impression of Sura 9) rail against treaty-breakers, and sentence them to oppression, death or conversion? Is it not then the best example of the platinum rule that one should treat other cultures as they would act themselves?
Seriously, I think it is time that Palestine, and you, finally admitted to yourselves that without any real equality for non-muslims in the islamic world, and with indeed a key religious compulsion for same discrimination, the call for reintegration really stems from (pardon the pun) fundamental silliness and/or supremacism. It is indeed a very silly notion to think that demands for (as you put it) social equality should be couched by a society without any history of it and then taken prima facie.
hypewaders
01-14-07, 06:25 PM
GeoffP: "Surely you wouldn't object to refugees escaping constant persecution in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and othersuch?"
I'm not sure refugees you're talking about, or what the relevance is here. We are discussing the return (not flight) of refugees.
"ethnic Jewish and Christian minorities also experience travel restrictions in other ME nations."
We're talking here about segregationist policies involving the return of displaced persons, and ethnic selectivity for residency. I'm not aware of similar restrictions on immigration as instituted by Israel: That is, I don't believe that Christians and Jews are prohibited from Arab countries as categorically as Arabs are prohibited from entering Israel for residency. Take a particular country's case, and we can compare that policy with that of Israel.
"Sharia, furthermore, dictates that non-muslim inhabitants of islamic countries also have fewer rights than the muslim inhabitants."
There is no established standard of Sharia across the Mideast or Asia. Again, if you would like to take up a particular example, I'll discuss it with you.
"Once bitten, twice shy."
That's no excuse for apartheid.
"The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid."
Regarding immigration, it most certainly is: Jews are welcome. Goyim are not. That's ethnic separatism, plain and simple.
"I'm a segregationist because I believe Israel has a right to decide who immigrates to its nation"
Correct, because the official policy includes ethnic segregation.
"does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours"
No. Nowhere have I advocated genocide. I am here advocating that Arabs and Jews be encouraged to coexist, just as they were throughout the Mideast in the first half of the last century. I would like to see Jewish communities return and thrive across the region, through voluntary re-integration as the natural result of the reconciliation of the zionist disenfranchisement of Palestinians, and all the resultant animosity that has taken place from 1948 to the present.
"What refugees have fled the USA, after attempting genocide against another, that it finds itself politely refused return so that the genocide can be started again, the fundamental articles of hatred and superiority never having been disavowed? What party of religious/ethnic hatred has such a minority endorsed, in "exile"?
That's just too muddled make any sense of. Please rephrase the question.
"Are Serbs allowed to reimmigrate to Bosnian territory in the former Yugoslavia?
Yes. Refugee return and real property restitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina - lessons learned for the Palestinian case (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/ea1dd266c1352a4d85256cbc00509518)
"Should the Polish, having won the war, then admit overwhelming numbers of German immigrants, or be pilloried for failing to do so?"
Germans, or non-Slavs (to use an ethnic comparison) are not excluded from Poland. You may delve into the darker corners of the Potsdam Conference, or the years when monsters like Salomen Morel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel) were oppressing Germans (and ethnic Germans were fleeing) but there is no comparable segregation in Poland today. You can't compare the experience of Volkdeutsche and Auslandsdeutsche who may freely enter Poland today with that of any exiled Palestinians who might similarly make an attempt at entry into Israel. It's not the same experience at all. The borders between Germany and Poland, and the borders between Israel and Gaza, for example, are very, very different places. The immigration policies of today's Poland and Israel hold scant resemblance.
"Should the Mexicans, having fought a war against America, then smilingly have admit hundreds of thousands of American immigrants so that there might be renewed justification for another Spanish-American conflict?"
Americans are welcome in Mexico. Thousands retire there every year. I don't see what you're getting at here.
"What precise historical example justifies your model for a modern, collective hara-kiri by the Israelis?"
None. I am advocating the reconciliation and re-integration of all Semites, not the suicide of anyone. You're misrepresenting my statements again.
"doth not even Mohammed himself (in the 'moderate' impression of Sura 9) rail against treaty-breakers, and sentence them to oppression, death or conversion?"
I know not. Why dost thou speak with gamol tunge? What does this have to do with Israel's immigration policies?
"Is it not then the best example of the platinum rule that one should treat other cultures as they would act themselves? "
Whose established "platinum rule" is that, and how could any laws ever make any sense if they followed that almost unrecognisably-twisted version of the Golden one?
"without any real equality for non-muslims in the islamic world... the call for reintegration really stems from (pardon the pun) fundamental silliness and/or supremacism."
That's just infantile mockery masquerading as serious thought: "Nyah, nyah, I know you are, but what am I?" Grow up.
"It is indeed a very silly notion to think that demands for (as you put it) social equality should be couched by a society without any history of it and then taken prima facie."
That's your deliberately arcane way of making an out-of-hand dismissal- nothing more than a veiled and pompous expression of the following (if I may be allowed to translate): Arab society is too barbaric to dare speak to Israelis of progress. Very impressive discourse there, Geoff (not).
GeoffP: "Surely you wouldn't object to refugees escaping constant persecution in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and othersuch?"
I'm not sure refugees you're talking about, or what the relevance is here. We are discussing the return (not flight) of refugees.
Migration is migration, hypey. Movement is movement. Is it free or not? If not, why not?
"ethnic Jewish and Christian minorities also experience travel restrictions in other ME nations."
We're talking here about segregationist policies involving the return of displaced persons, and ethnic selectivity for residency. I'm not aware of similar restrictions on immigration as instituted by Israel: That is, I don't believe that Christians and Jews are prohibited from Arab countries as categorically as Arabs are prohibited from entering Israel for residency.
Saudi Arabia would tend to disagree, I think. And dhimmitude is utterly, utterly segregationist. Why then do you not rail against it? Why is your condemnation so...ethnically selective, shall we say?
"Sharia, furthermore, dictates that non-muslim inhabitants of islamic countries also have fewer rights than the muslim inhabitants."
There is no established standard of Sharia across the Mideast or Asia. Again, if you would like to take up a particular example, I'll discuss it with you.
This is ridiculous. Are you seriously implying that one ought not discuss the desert - because, of course, the exact nature of a desert varies across it's length - but instead should debate specific dunes, without ever realizing that it is the desert itself that is so hostile. Sharia is sharia, hype. It's bad for nonmuslims, to one degree or another, throughout its breadth and that makes it uniformly wrong, period.
"Once bitten, twice shy."
That's no excuse for apartheid.
:rolleyes: How about the biting? On what basis do you excuse that? Why precisely should it be ignored? What would happen if it were ignored?
"The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid."
Regarding immigration, it most certainly is: Jews are welcome. Goyim are not. That's ethnic separatism, plain and simple.
Well, then, why don't you post some specific examples of this goyistic refusal and we can debate them. :D
"And if I'm a segregationist because I believe Israel has a right to decide who immigrates to its nation, does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours, whereupon there is no doubt that sharia and a pogrom or ten would be instituted?"
Correct, because the official policy includes ethnic segregation.
I altered your quote of my post so that it was less deceptive - sorry.
"does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours"
No. Nowhere have I advocated genocide.
This is laughable. Islam cannot coexist in such numbers with any other religion. Illustrate your examples if you believe otherwise. Feigning ignorant innocence is ridiculous, hype: there would be no coexistence, and even you know it. Now, if you want to post your pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams, please qualify them as such and I will hesitate to object - although I may hold you up for ridicule.
In similar vein, I want world peace. Will it happen? No, however much I might wish it.
I am here advocating that Arabs and Jews be encouraged to coexist, just as they were throughout the Mideast in the first half of the last century.
This is laughable - there was no "coexistence". There was dhimmitude and implicit second-class citizen status. The Eid marches, both then and today, illustrate this fact amply. I am scarcely able to accept that you would honestly believe such idiocy.
I would like to see Jewish communities return and thrive across the region, through voluntary re-integration
Don't hold your breath. Reintegration would require an end to persecution and dhimmitude. So again: don't hold your breath. It's akin to calling the experience of black Americans in the early 19th century "coexistence".
as the natural result of the reconciliation of the zionist disenfranchisement of Palestinians, and all the resultant animosity that has taken place from 1948 to the present.
I laughed so hard I almost cried when I read this. You are perhaps unaware of sectarian violence by Arab muslims against Jews prior to 1948?
I suggest the following links. There are...several mentions of such aggression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936-1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
For your further education - a need sorely in evidence - look up the phrase "dhimmitude". Ask yourself what the Saudi authorities would have done to your beloved father had he dared try to convert Saudi nationals and the religious police got wind of it. Try and find out about the pact of Umar, or the Quran, or the hadiths, or al-Buhkari, or something related to something.
"What refugees have fled the USA, after attempting genocide against another, that it finds itself politely refused return so that the genocide can be started again, the fundamental articles of hatred and superiority never having been disavowed? What party of religious/ethnic hatred has such a minority endorsed, in "exile"?
That's just too muddled make any sense of. Please rephrase the question.
Rather, it makes too much sense for you to honestly respond to it. No worries: I shall add it to the pile of other things you can't answer about the roots of the conflict. It is a weighty mound, indeed. Why would Israel object to the return of millions of people with a socioreligious interest in oppressing Israelis? Who can say? A weighty question for those indisposed to weightiness.
"Are Serbs allowed to reimmigrate to Bosnian territory in the former Yugoslavia?
Yes. Refugee return and real property restitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina - lessons learned for the Palestinian case (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/ea1dd266c1352a4d85256cbc00509518)
Ah, nowhere in your document did I see the word "Serb" - as in, they who are alleged to have started the conflict.
I also noticed this in the text:
Due to ongoing military curfew and severe restrictions on freedom of movement
:eek: You should probably give them a stern talking to. They seem to think that military curfew and restrictions of movement are for some reason required to prevent violence. Silly them.
"Should the Polish, having won the war, then admit overwhelming numbers of German immigrants, or be pilloried for failing to do so?"
Germans, or non-Slavs (to use an ethnic comparison) are not excluded from Poland. You may delve into the darker corners of the Potsdam Conference, or the years when monsters like Salomen Morel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel) were oppressing Germans (and ethnic Germans were fleeing) but there is no comparable segregation in Poland today.
Oh, of course! And Poland has permitted all those ethnic Germans to return and reclaim their land: in Prussia, in the Sudetenla...what's that you say? The Poles told them to what? Well, that's just rude, and anatomically impossible, I might add. It also does not particularly prove your point, of course.
The borders between Germany and Poland, and the borders between Israel and Gaza, for example, are very, very different places. The immigration policies of today's Poland and Israel hold scant resemblance.
Well, that's surprising, in the face of the ongoing terrorist campaign by revanchionist Nazis to force the Poles out of - what's that you say? There's no such campaign?
A fine parallel.
"Should the Mexicans, having fought a war against America, then smilingly have admit hundreds of thousands of American immigrants so that there might be renewed justification for another Spanish-American conflict?"
Americans are welcome in Mexico. Thousands retire there every year. I don't see what you're getting at here.
You are perhaps unfamiliar with the method of acquisition of Texas and, I think, New Mexico and California by the US? Another history lesson you missed whilst dazing in the Kingdom. I'll short it for you: demographic conquest. Now say: "Thankyou for the history lesson, Geoff."
"What precise historical example justifies your model for a modern, collective hara-kiri by the Israelis?"
None. I am advocating the reconciliation and re-integration of all Semites, not the suicide of anyone. You're misrepresenting my statements again.
I'm sorry - you weren't advocating hara-kiri per se, just a blissfully ignorant romp in a minefield. My mistake. That your plan would, in fact, translate into such hara-kiri is of course not your fault, but those of your teachers.
"doth not even Mohammed himself (in the 'moderate' impression of Sura 9) rail against treaty-breakers, and sentence them to oppression, death or conversion?"
I know not. Why dost thou speak with gamol tunge? What does this have to do with Israel's immigration policies?
Rather, this has to do with the islamic treatment of non-muslims, and of treaty-breakers. In that sense, and unlike your posts, it is an actual analogy.
"Is it not then the best example of the platinum rule that one should treat other cultures as they would act themselves? "
Whose established "platinum rule" is that, and how could any laws ever make any sense if they followed that almost unrecognisably-twisted version of the Golden one?
Hype, don't blame me for advocating the rule. I didn't make it. I merely thought it would be appropriate to treat people as their own laws dictate they treat others. I agree that the laws of dhimmitude make no human sense, however. That really isn't in doubt. The point was that if one were to treat islamic societies by their own rules, then there would be no doubt whatever that what Israel did, and has done, is completely correct. "Fight the idolaters until they pay the tax, or all religion is for Judah" would be an appropriate paraphrase. This does not, of course, mean that I subscribe to the Platinum Rule, but merely that hoisting others by their own petards is a hobby of mine.
"without any real equality for non-muslims in the islamic world... the call for reintegration really stems from (pardon the pun) fundamental silliness and/or supremacism."
That's just infantile mockery masquerading as serious thought: "Nyah, nyah, I know you are, but what am I?" Grow up.
LOL - this from the man who has yet to admit there even is such a principle as dhimmitude. The scope of your inadmission to date is staggering.
I have presented my case very charitably to you: end dhimmitude, end the two-class citizen system present to one degree or another in every islamic state, and then we can discuss reintegration. Assuming, of course, that anyone still trusts that such oppression would ever be truly ended. My impression is that it would continue to smoulder, waiting for the right moment, in the pages of the Quran, and in the hadiths. (But let's pretend for a while to the case of zero recidivism.) First, renounce supremacism. Then, let's see. Why do you feel this is a problem?
"It is indeed a very silly notion to think that demands for (as you put it) social equality should be couched by a society without any history of it and then taken prima facie."
That's your deliberately arcane way of making an out-of-hand dismissal- nothing more than a veiled and pompous expression of the following (if I may be allowed to translate): Arab society is too barbaric to dare speak to Israelis of progress. Very impressive discourse there, Geoff (not).
I liked the "not". That was very mature. Not.
Sorry: 'Arab society' as you put - or more accurately, islamic society - is not my fault either. It exists, it is oppressive, it ensconces sharia. My position is not a dismissal, but rather specifies prerequisites, rather like demanding a bear get a declaw before it moves in. If you would rather live with a still quite dangerous bear, that is your affair, but that does not mean anyone else - the Israelis, for instance - has to, or should.
If you want return, first illustrate that the situation of Jews in Israel/Palestine prior to 1948 will not be repeated, and that the insurge of Palestinians will not immediately demand sharia. Simple. Should be easy for someone who knows so much of dhimmitude, and the ME, and everything else.
The only drawback is that the evidence is not really on your side.
Best,
Geoff
"The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid."
Regarding immigration, it most certainly is: Jews are welcome. Goyim are not. That's ethnic separatism, plain and simple.
Firstly, non-Jews can naturalise as citizens in Israel after a residence period, as is common in immigration law. (Does this hold in the UAE? Why are 80% of that country's residents non-citizens?) Secondly, have a look at Jordanian Nationality Law (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.html?tbl=RSDLEGAL&id=3ae6b4ea13):
Article 3
The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:
(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;
(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;
(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;
(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;
(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;
(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.
Is Jordan an Apartheid state?
What an interesting post, Zephyr. Sort of does cast light on things, doesn't it?
IceAgeCivilizations
01-15-07, 04:52 PM
I think Borat should play a role where he's a Jew who's trying to become a citizen of Iran, failing that, he goes to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, and finally, to France, where he's also turned down.
Sci-Phenomena
01-15-07, 06:02 PM
Ah-ha! Borat the actor should be hanged. He is a god-damned fool, if I saw the man in person I'd want to start some kind of unworthy American-political-correctness-type lawsuit. Fuck Borat.
On the Bible, I will first ask if you've seen Jesus, or if you've seen a magical mystical outcome from some "true" priesthood, or if you've ever seen the red sea split.... but the only thing that splits when you read the bible is your common sense.
Has anyone heard the song Opiate by Tool? Anyone? Going once, going twice....
IceAgeCivilizations
01-15-07, 06:29 PM
I had a rather unique experience when I was born again, thanks for asking.
The issue, Sci-Phe, is whether or not religious freedom is a good thing. I opine, far as I am from it, that it is.
jessiej920
01-16-07, 12:41 AM
On the Bible, I will first ask if you've seen Jesus, or if you've seen a magical mystical outcome from some "true" priesthood, or if you've ever seen the red sea split.... but the only thing that splits when you read the bible is your common sense.....
I might have to agree with you on that one...I'm told it's a good story. Notice the word "story".
vincent
01-16-07, 06:26 AM
Because, you see, it might go off.
No, really. The sight of a Bible in Saudi might ignite a revolution of tolerance and acceptance that could throw a gangful of pointy-headed fundamentalists off their gold-plated poopy seats.
Or maybe a deadly riot?
No way? Really? But islam is a religion of peace! I'm sure of it. Everyone keeps saying so.
I'm sure the Christians, though, having heard of it, will riot. Embassies will burn.
Any day now.
Yep.
Anytime.
I find it quite hilarious we are all supposed to be more tolerant of muslims, yet when it comes to them being tolerant of us it is non existant, i mean banning the bible or any other religous book other than koran, just what are they afraid off, it all stinks of some religous sect like the moonies total control.
Our foreign ofice say dont take the bible, how about our foreign office telling them not to take there koran to our country, but thats a big no no, we are all politically correct, where as they dont give a fuck about our religon or upsetting us.
IceAgeCivilizations
01-16-07, 07:29 AM
A really sad thing about Islam is that when one converts to Christianity from Islam, the Koran says that it's alright to kill that person, nice religion of peace.
vincent
01-16-07, 08:16 AM
A really sad thing about Islam is that when one converts to Christianity from Islam, the Koran says that it's alright to kill that person, nice religion of peace.
I did not know that, but nothing suprises me about islam, but it does make you wonder why our politicians are so quick to defend islam when such things are written in the koran, only a complete madman would write such crap, its all about oil, if there was no oil, i am sure our politicians would have told islam to piss off along time ago, but as long as we breast feed oil we will continue to cow tow to these absolute religous nuts.
As far as I know it was a political thing back in the days when religion = allegiance. Most Muslims don't subscribe to the whole beheading thing anymore.
Vince, have you ever been to Malaysia?
vincent
01-16-07, 11:39 AM
As far as I know it was a political thing back in the days when religion = allegiance. Most Muslims don't subscribe to the whole beheading thing anymore.
Vince, have you ever been to Malaysia?
I live in thailand & it borders malaysia, but no i have not been there all though i have been to laos & singapore many times, the reason i dont go to malaysia is simple, the thai muslim population live near the malaysia border, there have been over a 1000 bombs in the last year set off on the thai side this last year, there are also daily beheadings there too, only yesterday some thai buddist got beheaded & another 2 buddhists where shot with notes attacked to there bodies saying all buddists will be killed.
Hence my reluctance to go any where near the place, & i am fully aware of the madness going on in malaysia too, muslims being arrested for trying to change there religon, as well as state schools teaching hatred about the west, though they say they are stopping this, but i cant help but wonder why it was allowed to go on in the first place, teaching kids hatred is just beyound contempt.
Is that the source of your opinion on Muslims then?
It sounds like a bad situation that needs to change, but I've met some people from Malaysia online who were regular friendly people. I wouldn't want to judge the whole country based on their government's actions.
IceAgeCivilizations
01-16-07, 12:53 PM
Then why don't they change their government?
They are (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/express/techno/internet/malaysia.html), some of them. It's not an easy process, especially when there's little press freedom (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639).
As far as I know it was a political thing back in the days when religion = allegiance. Most Muslims don't subscribe to the whole beheading thing anymore.
Hell, I hope not. But of the muslims I've debated on line, there's always a lot of talk about "loyalty" and the "requirements of citizenship" and "fifth columns" and somesuch. So...there may not be subscription, but there are a lot of people out there that know where to find the magazine rack, and they seem to feel they have reasons for perusing it.
Because, you see, it might go off.
No, really. The sight of a Bible in Saudi might ignite a revolution of tolerance and acceptance that could throw a gangful of pointy-headed fundamentalists off their gold-plated poopy seats.
Or maybe a deadly riot?
No way? Really? But islam is a religion of peace! I'm sure of it. Everyone keeps saying so.
I'm sure the Christians, though, having heard of it, will riot. Embassies will burn.
Any day now.
Yep.
Anytime.
At first when I saw the title I thought this is about Athiests vs Christians.
A really sad thing about Islam is that when one converts to Christianity from Islam, the Koran says that it's alright to kill that person, nice religion of peace.
Actually it's reported in the hadiths of al-Buhkari, which are considered canonical. Also in al-Daoud, I think, and al-Muslim.
hypewaders
01-26-07, 07:10 PM
That's an admirably clear-headed and reasonable observation on your part, Geoff: Hate-speech such as deadly threats upon all infidels and apostates is hardly mainstream in contemporary Islam. Such provocative garbage spews instead from the fringes.
Er...did you miss the part where I mentioned that the hadiths of al-Buhkari are considered canonical? As in: core. Critical. Central. Reliable. The...repercussions of such hadiths on non-muslims and apostates are quite readily observable, as in the recent case of the apostate in Pakistan. Whose death sentence was handed down by the government, not some local council of slack-jawed boobs in the boonies. Sooo...not really "fringe". More, sort of "societal". "Legal". "Official".
Hypey, I'm all for relegating such theological drivel to the mainstream. The problem is that the extremists - that tiny, tiny majority - have what appears to be a quite authentic and unmitigated version of islam in their hands, the like of which is not reflected in a comprehensive moderate interpretation in the home of islam, the ummah; of course, I am certain that that vast majority of moderates will rise up every day and overthrow the nexus of a system that discriminates against religious minorities, homosexuals and humans with vaginas.
Yup.
Any day now.
Best,
Geoff
hypewaders
07-08-07, 06:04 PM
The fringe is easy to marginalize, except when idiots like you are supporting have the helm.
Hullo again. Which idiots am I supporting? I can never keep track, seemingly.
hypewaders
07-09-07, 03:08 AM
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, George W. Bush.
I do??!??
Oh my un-God. I never knew. All this time I thought I was kind of a Gore-environmental guy. Is this another of those nefarious Rovian plots? If I become a citizen and vote, will my hand inch uncontrollably to the box with the grinning monkey from Texas? Can I be trusted not to shoot my friends in the face whilst hunting? Are the Lizardoid legions watching me as we speak?
Well, I mean aside from the ones I command, of course.
So many questions. Only you can help me, seemingly.
hypewaders
07-09-07, 09:23 PM
Although you are loathe to admit it, you are quite right: As you know, a certain segment of America believes that God of the universe has chosen the tiny mountain town of Jerusalem as his eternal abode. He will someday rule the world from Jerusalem. Those believers in One Nation Under God have a need to be in touch with the ruling powers in Washington. The neocons had this evangelical right. They were supposed to go all the way. Israel is losing a lifeline to the Evangelical American. Right?
Although you are loathe to admit it, you are quite right: As you know, a certain segment of America believes that God of the universe has chosen the tiny mountain town of Jerusalem as his eternal abode. He will someday rule the world from Jerusalem.
Euh...and this is the reason I'm going to be voting for Karl Rove and Bush without even knowing I did? Wow. They're even sneakier than I thought.
The neocons had this evangelical right. They were supposed to go all the way. Israel is losing a lifeline to the Evangelical American. Right?
Israel is losing what to the who? Is it big trouble in Little Israel that they didn't pull off Armageddon this term? "Lifeline"? Should Israel "Phone a Friend"? Or let the audience decide?
hypewaders
07-10-07, 05:52 PM
There will never again be a friend to Israel, like the USA has been. It won't be the end of the world when America can't afford the Promised Land anymore. Sorry, and good luck getting along with all those inexplicably-grumpy, multiplying cousins of yours.
"inexplicably-grumpy, multiplying cousins"?
What? In Cheshire? Who is it who's multiplying again? Some days having a convo with you is the equivalent of an out-of-body experience, hype.
hypewaders
07-10-07, 06:22 PM
No no, Tribe Israel's cousins don't want to get along. What's to become of all these people getting in God's way in the Holy Land? The neocons were going to raise up Israel, with friendly pro-American neighbors. Like Urban Renewal but on a bigger, vastly more chaotic scale. New American Century this is not. As we can see, the business plan doesn't fit the market.
"Cousins"?
Personally, my perspective has always been that the Jews moved to Palestine and tried to live peacefully and build something, then were attacked by people unfortunately locked into the mindset of a 7th-century "business plan" towards ethnic tolerance - regular protection payments, no complaints department and no money back, ever. Like a revolving door that only goes one way.
Also, I thought American antisemitism - particularly among the types you mention, them neocon types, mmm-hmm - was pretty high back in the 1920s-1940s?
hypewaders
07-17-07, 10:40 PM
"I thought American antisemitism - particularly among the types you mention, them neocon types, mmm-hmm - was pretty high back in the 1920s-1940s?"
Actually, even though Anti-Semitism is disaccepted, all the similar hated traits that anti-Jewish-Semites could trot out against a personless institution are clearly not positive traits for a nation to display. Anti-zionism is growing by leaps and bounds. This trend will have consequences for that peculiar institution: You know, slavery's descendant: the institution of apartheid (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.