Islam In Europe

[Atom]

Is he right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM

[Wisdom_Seeker]

No, he is utterly wrong

[Cris]

Yes. Brilliant speech.

[Crunchy Cat]

Is he right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM

He is right that appeasing people gives them power and that you don't want paranormal-believing lunatics to have power.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

By going against them, you are commiting a far worst crime than they are.

[MZ3Boy84]

I believe he is both right and wrong, But then again, what is right or wrong is based on personal opinions. I think that he may be culturaly ignorant when it comes to Islam, yet has the right frame of mind when applying religion to public life when he says that religion should stay personal.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I believe he is both right and wrong, But then again, what is right or wrong is based on personal opinions. I think that he may be culturaly ignorant when it comes to Islam, yet has the right frame of mind when applying religion to public life when he says that religion should stay personal.

Absolutely, religion cannot reach political power, that I agree with. But to condemn a whole religion because of some stupid fanatics is just as ignorant as those fanatics are.

[MZ3Boy84]

Absolutely, religion cannot reach political power, that I agree with. But to condemn a whole religion because of some stupid fanatics is just as ignorant as those fanatics are.

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Cat]

Absolutely, religion cannot reach political power, that I agree with. But to condemn a whole religion because of some stupid fanatics is just as ignorant as those fanatics are.

Human beings naturally judge other groups specifically based on what the average fanatic in those groups do. One specific question is asked... "are they mean?".

Those whom are judging really should be giving feedback to those judged instead of appeasing them. If the judged group wants to change their perception then its up to them after that.

[Cris]

Islam is a barbaric religion and it inspires many of its followers to be fanatics. Islam is the route cause of the majority of terrorism currently in the world.

Hmm, well almost. History shows that it is likely Christianity that is the route cause of the current level of terorrism. Had not the Christians tried to wipe out or convert the muslims during the Crusades then the small independent tribes of islamic peoples of those times would have been unlikely to have ever grouped into a large cooperative unit that we see today.

Appearntly it is on record that Bin Laden's fight is partly an attempt to seek revenge for that earlier Christian barbarism and he sees the USA as being at the forefront of similar Christian evangelism and hence his primary target.

Either way - religion is the center cause of the current state of world terrorism.

[John99]

I think Great Pakistan would be very nice or Frankenstan (France). i cant wait. I would think that Talidorf (Dusseldorf) would be a likely name change also.

[GeoffP]

Absolutely, religion cannot reach political power, that I agree with. But to condemn a whole religion because of some stupid fanatics is just as ignorant as those fanatics are.

Here's a thought:

Various nations oppose the US based on national interests or social justice; yet I'm sure they have nothing against individual Americans. A policy change by Washington would (or could, anyway) put the US back in good international graces again. The US is nothing more, at the core, than an organization. Similarly, "Islam" (or political islam in particular) is nothing more than another organization. If there is widespread tolerance for extremist sentiment in a given organization, or widespread intolerance, then is there any real reason not to condemn it, so long as one is not condemning the specific people that constitute it? I don't condemn muslims, but I'm very condeming of totalitarian memes that permeate islam. And, if islam were to simply change its outlook, I would have no objection to it as an organization or general meme. Who would care, really, if there were no reason not to be concerned?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Islam is a barbaric religion and it inspires many of its followers to be fanatics. Islam is the route cause of the majority of terrorism currently in the world.

Hmm, well almost. History shows that it is likely Christianity that is the route cause of the current level of terorrism. Had not the Christians tried to wipe out or convert the muslims during the Crusades then the small independent tribes of islamic peoples of those times would have been unlikely to have ever grouped into a large cooperative unit that we see today.

Appearntly it is on record that Bin Laden's fight is partly an attempt to seek revenge for that earlier Christian barbarism and he sees the USA as being at the forefront of similar Christian evangelism and hence his primary target.

Either way - religion is the center cause of the current state of world terrorism.

So, is Bush your God?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Here's a thought:

Various nations oppose the US based on national interests or social justice; yet I'm sure they have nothing against individual Americans. A policy change by Washington would (or could, anyway) put the US back in good international graces again. The US is nothing more, at the core, than an organization. Similarly, "Islam" (or political islam in particular) is nothing more than another organization. If there is widespread tolerance for extremist sentiment in a given organization, or widespread intolerance, then is there any real reason not to condemn it, so long as one is not condemning the specific people that constitute it? I don't condemn muslims, but I'm very condeming of totalitarian memes that permeate islam. And, if islam were to simply change its outlook, I would have no objection to it as an organization or general meme. Who would care, really, if there were no reason not to be concerned?

Emm, there are many ramifications of Islam, they are even fighting each other. But there are also peacefull Islamic people as well, and even Sufis are "Muslims"; word which, by the way, literally means "one who submits to God".
So, you cannot treat Islam as an organization like a country, but the religious practice of many different people.

[Nasor]

Absolutely, religion cannot reach political power, that I agree with. But to condemn a whole religion because of some stupid fanatics is just as ignorant as those fanatics are.
"Some stupid fanatics"? You seem to be under the impression that extremist muslims are just a small minority. Let me clue you in here:

There about 350 million muslims living in countries where they execute people for trying to leave the Islamic religion (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Pakistan). That's about 30% of the total muslim population in the world. When you consider all the countries like Egypt where they would almost certainly establish an extremist Islamic government if they were allowed to actually hold free elections, it's probably closer to 50% of all muslims. So it's not like we're talking about a few lone nuts here. This is a huge group of people who are trying to live in the dark ages instead of the 21st century, and they make up a large fraction of the total muslim population. How large of a fraction of a religion’s followers have to be nuts before we pass judgment on that religion? 60%? 80%? If the religion has a billion nut-job followers and there are three guys who follow the religion but aren’t nuts, are we still required to respect it because of those three?

It should be noted that according to Islam, their prophet Mohammad very explicitly stated that anyone who tried to leave the religion should be executed. I think that blows a pretty big hole in all these arguments that Islam is really a peaceful religion, doesn’t it?

[S.A.M.]

"Some stupid fanatics"? You seem to be under the impression that extremist muslims are just a small minority. Let me clue you in here:

There about 350 million muslims living in countries where they execute people for trying to leave the Islamic religion (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Pakistan). That's about 30% of the total muslim population in the world. When you consider all the countries like Egypt where they would almost certainly establish an extremist Islamic government if they were allowed to actually hold free elections, it's probably closer to 50% of all muslims. So it's not like we're talking about a few lone nuts here. This is a huge group of people who are trying to live in the dark ages instead of the 21st century, and they make up a large fraction of the total muslim population.

Does this also include the people trying to leave the religion? I assume there are massive executions, as all the 350 MILLION people voluntarily chop up their kids and friends and neighbors?:rolleyes:

[Wisdom_Seeker]

"Some stupid fanatics"? You seem to be under the impression that extremist muslims are just a small minority. Let me clue you in here:

There about 350 million muslims living in countries where they execute people for trying to leave the Islamic religion (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Pakistan). That's about 30% of the total muslim population in the world. When you consider all the countries like Egypt where they would almost certainly establish an extremist Islamic government if they were allowed to actually hold free elections, it's probably closer to 50% of all muslims. So it's not like we're talking about a few lone nuts here. This is a huge group of people who are trying to live in the dark ages instead of the 21st century, and they make up a large fraction of the total muslim population. How large of a fraction of a religion’s followers have to be nuts before we pass judgment on that religion? 60%? 80%? If the religion has a billion nut-job followers and there are three guys who follow the religion but aren’t nuts, are we still required to respect it because of those three?

It should be noted that according to Islam, their prophet Mohammad very explicitly stated that anyone who tried to leave the religion should be executed. I think that blows a pretty big hole in all these arguments that Islam is really a peaceful religion, doesn’t it?

I don´t think those number are accurate, not all of the 350 million people are fanatics, or not even Muslims, only a small portion of them. And Afganistan? c´mon man, the US is almost done with them, all that is left is goats and cammels.

[Nasor]

I don´t think those number are accurate, not all of the 350 million people are fanatics, only a small portion of them.
Are you kidding? Most of those countries have free elections, and the extremist Islamic leaders keep getting elected over and over. The governemnt in Saudi Arabia is facing a constant struggle because most of the population doesn't think that they're extreme enough in enforcing strict Islamic law.
And Afganistan? c´mon man, the US is almost done with them, all that is left is goats and cammels.
When the U.S. helped the Afghan rebels kick the Taliban out and the country finally held free elections, they voted in Hamid Karzai, an Islamic fundamentalist. I would say "extremist," but his views aren't really very extreme compared to the rest of the muslim population. There was never even a question of repealing the death penality for people who try to leave Islam.

[S.A.M.]

Are you kidding? Most of those countries have free elections, and the extremist Islamic leaders keep getting elected over and over. The governemnt in Saudi Arabia is facing a constant struggle because most of the population doesn't think that they're extreme enough in enforcing strict Islamic law.

When the U.S. helped the Afghan rebels kick the Taliban out and the country finally held free elections, they voted in Hamid Karzai, an Islamic fundamentalist. I would say "extremist," but his views aren't really very extreme compared to the rest of the muslim population. There was never even a question of repealing the death penality for people who try to leave Islam.

I think you need to expand your worldview. I spent 5 years in Saudi Arabia and I disagree with your view of the population.


I also think you need to spend some time wondering why western type governments are so unpopular in these peoples. And no "they hate our freedoms" is not it.

[Nasor]

I think you need to expand your worldview. I spent 5 years in Saudi Arabia and I disagree with your view of the population.
I have never been to Saudi Arabia, so I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But do you disagree that most of the population supports the execution of apostates under Islamic law? I also think you need to spend some time wondering why western type governments are so unpopular in these peoples. And no "they hate our freedoms" is not it.
I assume it's because they want to have an Islamic government.

[S.A.M.]

I have never been to Saudi Arabia, so I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But do you disagree that most of the population supports the execution of apostates under Islamic law?

Many Saudis don't even pray, and do not care to be compelled to follow religious practices. Strangely enough, like other people, they tend to have individual ideas on religion.

However, they have a low crime society, where children play on the streets without supervision and are left unattended in malls.

They believe their system works for them.


I assume it's because they want to have an Islamic government.
Mostly they prefer to live a way of life as different from the West as possible.

[S.A.M.]

Here, for example, is how Saudis treat wannabe terrorists
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

[Nasor]

I've spoken with many muslims from various countries at my university, and most of them - even though they seem like very nice, friendly, intelligent people - will cheerfully agree that they think apostates should be executed in accordance with the instructions of Mohammad.

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among muslims. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Islamic countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders.

[S.A.M.]

I've spoken with many muslims from various countries at my university, and most of them - even though they seem like very nice, friendly, intelligent people - will cheerfully agree that they think apostates should be executed in accordance with the instructions of Mohammad.

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among muslims. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Islamic countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders.

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Are you kidding? Most of those countries have free elections, and the extremist Islamic leaders keep getting elected over and over. The governemnt in Saudi Arabia is facing a constant struggle because most of the population doesn't think that they're extreme enough in enforcing strict Islamic law.

So, from your logic I can say that all US Americans are crazy for war, oil and money; as well as fake Christians and also corrupt people, because they elected Bush as president?
I don´t think so, but you are allowed to your opinion.

When the U.S. helped the Afghan rebels kick the Taliban out and the country finally held free elections, they voted in Hamid Karzai, an Islamic fundamentalist. I would say "extremist," but his views aren't really very extreme compared to the rest of the muslim population. There was never even a question of repealing the death penality for people who try to leave Islam.

Aww, just like in the US, death penalty is still in place, so much freedom huh?
I bet Afganistan is such a better place now, with half of the population then before the war they can´t be pretty hard to control can they?
Even after the US made an oil pipeline through Afganistan right after they bombed the shit out of them, never finding Osama because he wasn´t there in the first place; he was chilling with the Bush family in Saudi Arabia.
Aww, so much freedom...

[GeoffP]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

Strangely enough, most Afghanis think the war was justified too. :shrug:

Oddly enough, you keep posing imperialism as the "alternate choice". It isn't. Rejecting the madness of political islam doesn't make one a Rovian.

[Nasor]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.
Lol. Are you expecting me to disagree? I assume that if most of the population of the United States didn't want the U.S. invading other countries, destroying economies, propping up dictators, arming conflict-ridden countries etc., they would stop voting for the politicians who do it.

Wisdom_Seeker
So, from your logic I can say that all US Americans are crazy for war, oil and money; as well as fake Christians and also corrupt people, because they elected Bush as president?

Not "all" Americans, just "most". Again, if most of the population of the U.S. didn't want their government behaving that way, they could always simply stop voting for the politicians who do it, right? Or did they stop holding free elections in the U.S. and I didn't hear about it?

[John99]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.

First, you can always move back to India.

use food aid

Evil bastards, feeding people instead of letting the crows eat them.

[Sock puppet path]

Hmm, well almost. History shows that it is likely Christianity that is the route cause of the current level of terorrism. Had not the Christians tried to wipe out or convert the muslims during the Crusades then the small independent tribes of islamic peoples of those times would have been unlikely to have ever grouped into a large cooperative unit that we see today. .

Historically this doesn't hold water Cris. The armies of islam had organized enough to conquer the entire middle east (with the exception of a small bit of byzantium) all the way to and including parts of India, all of north africa, spain and southern france (before being turned back at Poitier) sicily, parts of southern italy and they even sacked and looted the vatican in the 9th century. All that before any crusader was seen, organization was not a problem ;)

[Sock puppet path]

Re: the video, changing your laws to suit immigrants is not a path to integration. Integration is the aim isn't it?

[Nasor]

On a side note, it’s a little disturbing that both S.A.M. and Wisdom_Seeker seemed to assume that I was in favor of the U.S. government (and indeed, seemed to think that I would see the “error of my ways” when they applied my reasoning of holding a population responsible for what their freely-elected leaders do) just because I’m vehimently against religions that teach their followers to kill people who try to leave.

[S.A.M.]

On a side note, it’s a little disturbing that both S.A.M. and Wisdom_Seeker seemed to assume that I was in favor of the U.S. government (and indeed, seemed to think that I would see the “error of my ways” when they applied my reasoning of holding a population responsible for what their freely-elected leaders do) just because I’m vehimently against religions that teach their followers to kill people who try to leave.

Why not? Didn't you assume the same thing about 350000 gazillion people?:mad:

[GeoffP]

Re: the video, changing your laws to suit immigrants is not a path to integration. Integration is the aim isn't it?

Not if the evil locals believe in horrid things like women's lib and not beating up Jewish people. Then they need regime change. Sometimes tolerance requires intolerance.

Emm, there are many ramifications of Islam, they are even fighting each other. But there are also peacefull Islamic people as well, and even Sufis are "Muslims"; word which, by the way, literally means "one who submits to God".
So, you cannot treat Islam as an organization like a country, but the religious practice of many different people.

But I certainly can treat it all islam as the same body where it applies to its treatment of non-muslims, which is uniformly more poorly than muslims. Non-muslims are treated as second-class citizens throughout the ummah; conversion away from islam is a felony throughout the entire range of dar-al-islam. Naturally I understand that there are many, many peaceful muslims (who seem quite quiet nonetheless) and that different brands of islam also hate and deride one another - the Sufis in particular - as "unislamic"...but that also reflects the initial problem of differentiation in the legal rights of believers and unbelievers.

Let me ask you this: is the Catholic Church not an organization?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

But I certainly can treat it all islam as the same body where it applies to its treatment of non-muslims, which is uniformly more poorly than muslims. Non-muslims are treated as second-class citizens throughout the ummah; conversion away from islam is a felony throughout the entire range of dar-al-islam. Naturally I understand that there are many, many peaceful muslims (who seem quite quiet nonetheless) and that different brands of islam also hate and deride one another - the Sufis in particular - as "unislamic"...but that also reflects the initial problem of differentiation in the legal rights of believers and unbelievers.

Well, the non-tolerance of people who have another faith as yours is always damaging; it doesn´t matter is you follow a religion or not. Even the Q`ran says so, that you have to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; but as in other religions such as Catholic they don´t even follow the religious texts they claim to follow.

Let me ask you this: is the Catholic Church not an organization?

The Catholic Church is certainly a lucrative organization, but Christianity is not. Christianity comprehends the Catholic Church and many other ramifications, just like Islam.

[Sock puppet path]

Not if the evil locals believe in horrid things like women's lib and not beating up Jewish people. Then they need regime change. Sometimes tolerance requires intolerance.


True, most of the muslim immigrants I know here and there are a few a good folks who are eager to be norweigan. It is, as with christians the more fundamentalist of the lot that are pushing for changes in law to suit themselves. This is actually a great disservice to the regular muslim immigrants I know. They have no desire to recreate the enviornment they fled from.

When we have muslim kids at my sons birthday partys or muslim guests we simply take that into account when preparing the meal, no need for a new law ;)

[Nasor]

Why not? Didn't you assume the same thing about 350000 gazillion people?:mad:

Whaaaa?

I assumed that since people in certain Islamic countries keep electing leaders who do things like impose the death penalty for the "crime" of not wanting to be a Muslim, most of the people in those countries must want the death penalty for people who try to leave Islam. Just like most of the U.S. population must like the way the current administration keeps invading other countries. Otherwise they would presumably not vote for the leaders who enact such laws. That seems like a perfectly logical connection to me. Of course there are bound to be many people who don't agree with that sort of policy, but apparently they are a minority.

So I stand by my statement that the Muslim extremists (and by "extremists" I mean people who think it's a good idea to kill anyone who decides they don't feel like being a Muslim any more) are not simply a tiny minority; rather, they are a huge group that comprises many millions of people, and are a significant fraction of the Muslims in the world. Have I made a mistake here somewhere? I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong about this. But the fact that there are many people in Islamic countries that don't take that view (which is what you seem to keep harping on) doesn't change the fact that there are apparently enough such people to keep getting the majority of votes.

[GeoffP]

Well, the non-tolerance of people who have another faith as yours is always damaging; it doesn´t matter is you follow a religion or not.

Yes - but we are not discussing just any religion here, but a specific one and its political-geographic ramifications.

Even the Q`ran says so, that you have to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; but as in other religions such as Catholic they don´t even follow the religious texts they claim to follow.

What a curious statement. Could you perhaps specify here as to which provisions "they" are not following and whether or not that is a positive or negative thing?

The Catholic Church is certainly a lucrative organization, but Christianity is not. Christianity comprehends the Catholic Church and many other ramifications, just like Islam.

Financial interests aside - which actually have nothing to do with the discussion; I also note that other Christian organizations might also be termed "lucrative" within their narrower emission - if it is the Christian Church that is specifically creating a problem (no condoms in Africa springs unerringly to mind), then criticism of the Catholic Church would certainly be appropriate to that body. If humanitarian crimes are endemic to the entire range of a given body - like islam - then it is entirely possible that there are conservative elements throughout it, without the social convention of blaming everything on the Saudis, or Wahhabis, or Salafists, or Qutb. And this is the present state of things. As a further commentary, you should also note that extremist interpretation is not limited to any given islamic school. At the risk of repetition, apostates from islam are subject to the penalty of death in all four islamic schools of jurisprudence, not merely one, and not merely the one Wahhabis cite most. This indicates a wellspring of repression possible throughout all islam and not in any particular sect. I cite Western civilization in contrast, if only for the sake that there are at the least laws against such institutionalized discrimination - late though they have arrived, they appear a step better than those any other civilization has undertaken, save perhaps under Sovietization. Laws regarding the pernicious 'other' in islamic society - the dhimmi - where they exist, have usually gone rather the other way.

The application of any such laws, of course, is left up to the individual; and in spite of the recent declamations regarding individual interpretation - which, if one pauses to note, may be neither a Pandora's box nor panacea to islam's social ills, since any individual at any level making his or her own decisions on the importance of exerting islam or the "lesser" jihad might choose the high or low road, to be frank. But as a group, in a group, all the old tribalist conventions common to Homo sapiens (of any origin and under any condition) results in a group tolerance of the more extremist members of a given group. These latter exploit commonality of belief as a protection against retribution or justice due them for their more heinous acts; the 'brotherhood' (a term of recent vogue in Indonesia) of belief.

Or, more shortly: it gets brushed under the carpet. The old "well that's terrible" followed by a nonplussed shrug, and then disinterest. This is humanity, you see. But only let islam regulate itself - in a Caliphate, or out of it - and I have no further beef with it.

[S.A.M.]

Whaaaa?

I assumed that since people in certain Islamic countries keep electing leaders who do things like impose the death penalty for the "crime" of not wanting to be a Muslim, most of the people in those countries must want the death penalty for people who try to leave Islam. Just like most of the U.S. population must like the way the current administration keeps invading other countries. Otherwise they would presumably not vote for the leaders who enact such laws. That seems like a perfectly logical connection to me. Of course there are bound to be many people who don't agree with that sort of policy, but apparently they are a minority.

So I stand by my statement that the Muslim extremists (and by "extremists" I mean people who think it's a good idea to kill anyone who decides they don't feel like being a Muslim any more) are not simply a tiny minority; rather, they are a huge group that comprises many millions of people, and are a significant fraction of the Muslims in the world. Have I made a mistake here somewhere? I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong about this. But the fact that there are many people in Islamic countries that don't take that view (which is what you seem to keep harping on) doesn't change the fact that there are apparently enough such people to keep getting the majority of votes.

Lets see. Musharraf gained power by a coup and until now has avoided elections. Bangladesh has elections but after Irshad gained power (again by a coup) he destabilised the political factions and they haven't recovered yet (they have two women fighting for top spot since over a decade) Ahmedinejad was elected because his opponent was also an ass, so 20 million Iranians stayed home and did not vote. Saddam was a dictator, the Sauds and Jordan are a kingdom. Palestine is occupied, Syria has a constitution that makes the Baathist party the primary one... Also all of them have been politically interfered with at some point by Western interests for some reason or another.

Which country are you referring to?

[GeoffP]

True, most of the muslim immigrants I know here and there are a few a good folks who are eager to be norweigan. It is, as with christians the more fundamentalist of the lot that are pushing for changes in law to suit themselves. This is actually a great disservice to the regular muslim immigrants I know. They have no desire to recreate the enviornment they fled from.

When we have muslim kids at my sons birthday partys or muslim guests we simply take that into account when preparing the meal, no need for a new law ;)

Exactly. Thanks, sock.

[Michael]

There about 350 million muslims living in countries where they execute people for trying to leave the Islamic religion (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Pakistan). I posted poll here before where >90% of Muslims in Indonesia want to make it illegal to leave Islam and convert to another religion.

As for YouTube.
Europeans do have their heads in their arses if they allow any single beleif any form of allowances over any other beleif. That's plain asinine. Secondly, as I have said from day dot, all the Europeans and Americans have to do (and I am shocked those p*ssy Germans have not started this) is teach children to the best of our understanding based on archaeological religous findings the basis on which each of the present religions evolved from. Any religion that has some stupid moronic beleif like taxing people for maintaining a different religous beleif should either be changed to renounce such a system as immoral or simply be banned as a cult.

Michael

[Michael]

they even sacked and looted the vatican in the 9th century. All that before any crusader was seen,In 846 Muslim Arabs arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained.

[DeepThought]

I think you need to expand your worldview. I spent 5 years in Saudi Arabia and I disagree with your view of the population.


WTF?

Tell me your not living in the States now?

[S.A.M.]

Weren't those pirates who looted the Vatican?
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro45.htm
846

Muslim (Saracens) pirates landed in force at the mouth of the Tiber storming the fortress of Porto and Ostia. They plundered St. Peter's and St. Paul's stripping them of all their treasures. Many believed this is punishment for the abuses rampant in Rome by the bishop and clergy.

[S.A.M.]

WTF?

Tell me your not living in the States now?

I travel a lot. The 5 years I spent in Saudi Arabia is the longest I've lived in one place (except home). I've seen a lot of the United States, I was there for three years.:)

[GeoffP]

In 846 Muslim Arabs arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained.

Not to mention the entirely of Assyrian Christendom. And the Barbary pirates episode thereafter.

Look, it's all very well to be one thing or another, but pretending that islam is humanitarian in political practice or that islam was on the defensive all that time is just absurd.

[GeoffP]

Weren't those pirates who looted the Vatican?
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro45.htm

Like the Barbary pirates, no doubt. And not at all sponsored by any islamic political power like, say, the Ottoman Empire or something.

[Michael]

Weren't those pirates who looted the Vatican?What's your point?

The Crusades were a grab for land as this was the only way a serf could become a Land Lord.


Anyway, what is you view on the topic? Do you think that Islamic people living in Europe should be allowed some special consideration due to the religous beleif or do you think that should be treated as any other religion and not given any special considerations? Do you think that the fundamental Islamic organizations in Europe that teach ideology such as: There should be a tax placed on non-Muslims living within Muslim States, that these Fundamental Islamic organization should be labeled Cults and are not religions and be banned within Europe?

What are your ideas on the matter SAM?
Michael

[S.A.M.]

Like the Barbary pirates, no doubt. And not at all sponsored by any islamic political power like, say, the Ottoman Empire or something.

If I'm not mistaken the Barbary pirates did not come out of the blue. They were followed by several traditions of piracy in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates

And the Ottomans supported them like the US supports Israel, because they were their personal thugs against the Crusaders.

[S.A.M.]

What's your point?

The Crusades were a grab for land as this was the only way a serf could become a Land Lord.


Anyway, what is you view on the topic? Do you think that Islamic people living in Europe should be allowed some special consideration due to the religous beleif or do you think that should be treated as any other religion and not given any special considerations? Do you think that the fundamental Islamic organizations in Europe that teach ideology such as: There should be a tax placed on non-Muslims living within Muslim States, that these Fundamental Islamic organization should be labeled Cults and are not religions and be banned within Europe?

What are your ideas on the matter SAM?
Michael

You're ascribing religious motivation to something that existed before Islam in the region and was continued due to the Romans penchant for attaching every land that came their way and later as a response to the Crusades or the competition over the countries. If you recall, the Turks were always ambitious, they displaced the Mongols after all. But of course, to you, its all religion.

But thats not surprising. As for the rest, just insert whatever you want to hear. I'm not going to bother.

[Michael]

To their benefit Europeans fought long and hard to get rid of fundamental monotheistic religious dogma from ruining their lives.

There are many teachings accepted within mainstream Islam that Europeans consider as fundamental, intolerant stone-age caveman like mentality.
For example:
1) Teaching that it's sanctimonious to tax non-Muslims living in an "Islamic" State.
2) Teaching that polygamy is acceptable.
3) Teaching that all other beleif systems are inherently wrong.
4) Teaching that owning Slaves, if properly Institutionalized, is acceptable.

In European's minds these Islamic teachings are easily recognized as backwards mentality defective and are better suited to rule and ruin the livesof the masses of Sheeple living in the Middle East. Similar to you SAM Europeans have found nothing novel nor anything of particular insight residing in the pages of the "Holy" Qur'an.

They simply don't want a bar of it.

Michael

[Michael]

Oh and again >90% of "moderate" Indonesians take an intolerant view of apostate and want to legislate legal means to see that Muslims are legally barred from converting out of Islam into another beleif system.

I wonder where in the hell they got that idea from? I mean greater than 90 f*cking percent of moderate Indonesians think it's wrong for a person to choose their own beleif???

It's a mental illness.

[Michael]

Then again, I know of a moderate Muslim who refused to accept even that the possibility could exist that Islam was wrong. So I suppose it's really not surprising at all. It's actually what we have come to expect from adherents of Mohammadism.

[S.A.M.]

see so much better to air your own opinions. no pretence of even listening to others.

btw, isn't it straange that as a person who is tolerant of other persons beliefs you have so much to say about mine? :rolleyes:

although, since you failed to understand what I said, I doubt you will see that the position you ascribe to me, is one that you fill quite nicely all by yourself.

although I will say, it is what I have come to expect of Islamophobes.

so nice to have my beliefs decided for me, tolerance (for all views EXACTLY like your own) kicks ass! :)

[Michael]

Does the possibility exist that there is no God?

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

While I am able to clearly see the injustice and indignity that the invasions of the Americas caused to the indigenous people who lived there I can also just as easily see the injustice and indignity that the invasions of Persia caused, it seems some people can only see one or the other.

Odd that. Oh wait, I forgot, not a single Persian was harmed, they all just jumped for joy at the opportunity to venerate a Arab Prophet of a foreign God of one of their client States all while peacefully giving up power and control over their cities and their people. And look how good it did them - why even today anyone can see the Islamic Republic of Iran is a beacon of light on the hill.


I'm an Islamophobe?

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Gee it looks like Jefferson was an Isalmophobe as well? Who'd have thunk it?

It's too bad you could comment on the following Fundamental beliefs whether they're acceptable or unacceptable but we both know how that song is sung. Better a full glass of ad hominem served with fresh herring pie.

1) Teaching that it's sanctimonious to tax non-Muslims living in an "Islamic" State.
2) Teaching that polygamy is acceptable.
3) Teaching that all other beleif systems are inherently wrong.
4) Teaching that owning Slaves, if properly Institutionalized, is acceptable.

[S.A.M.]

I absolutely loathe people who are intolerant, I'm very tolerant of all tolerant people. Of course they must be tolerant of all the things I am tolerant of and intolerant of all the things I am intolerant of.

This is my definition of giving equal credence to all beliefs; now there are these intolerant people out there who only give credence to their own beliefs while merely tolerating others. Disgusting!

/assumes lotus position to relieve stress of disgust/

Thomas Jefferson? Isn't he the guy who screwed his slaves and left little black Jeffies around for posterity?

A fine upstanding man/

In this same work, Jefferson advanced his suspicion that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind".[54] He also wrote, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. [But] the two races...cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." [9] According to historian Stephen Ambrose: "Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people."[55] His solution seems to have been for slaves to be freed then deported peacefully, failing which the same result would be imposed by war and that, in Jefferson's words, "human nature must shudder at the prospect held up [by war]. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent [the Spanish deportation or deletion] would fall far short of our case

Such a noble vision.

[scorpius]

Is he right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM
damn right!
muslims should obey the laws of Europe,and learn to act in more civilized way
instead of their medieval like tyrany.
Europe didnt get where they are today thru torture and abuse of humans rights but thru respect and equality of all,including women.


.

[S.A.M.]

damn right!
muslims should obey the laws of Europe,and learn to act in more civilized way
instead of their medieval like tyrany.
Europe didnt get where they are today thru torture and abuse of humans rights but thru respect and equality of all,including women.


.

no to mention the crusades, 300 years of feudalism and ethnic cleansing, 200 years of colonialism, 2 world wars and a holocaust

[abu_afak]

Ahh yes, 90% anti-apostasy Indonesia!

http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/Indonesia-Justice.jpg
Winners and losers in Islamic Indonesia.
One is a Muslim cleric who taught the Bali bombers to slaughter 202 innocents.
(Abu note: That's Abu Bakr Bashir, head of al-Qaeda sub-Group Jemaah Islamiyah)
He's released from jail after Only a 26-month sentence.
The same court gave the Christian Sunday school teacher on the right 3 Years for teaching others to turn the other cheek.

I always get a Kick out of the Most 'moderate' Islamic countries.
-

[GeoffP]

If I'm not mistaken the Barbary pirates did not come out of the blue. They were followed by several traditions of piracy in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates

Excepting the tiny compromising detail of:

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirate

Did the earlier tradition include islam? Oone can hardly complain about the European response - they were merely following an even earlier tradition they learned from 870 AD onward.

And the Ottomans supported them like the US supports Israel, because they were their personal thugs against the Crusaders.

And their women and children, yes. Ah, the Golden Age. Well...more of an off-yellow for some people, apparently. At least you attribute precedence to the Ottomans, though.

abu_afak: Excellent comparison. The tolerance of political islam in all it's logic and understanding. Well...for some people, anyway. One out of two isn't bad, you know. Brothers all.

[Michael]

[size=2]The same court gave the Christian Sunday school teacher on the right 3 Years for teaching others to turn the other cheek.[/i]Shit I didn't know it was really illegal?!?!? And this is a "moderate" Islamic State???

The three Indonesian woman that are serving a three-year prison sentence after their conviction of “attempting to coerce children to change their religion” under the Indonesian “Child Protection Act” after running a Christian Sunday school, .....

Of the conviction, Rebekka said, “My first reaction, I cry.” Rebekka is a medical doctor who had treated 30 to 40 Muslim and Christian patients everyday in her clinic based in Indramayu. Now she is confined in a dirty prison with a total of 437 inmates. Sixteen inmates are women. Eight women stay in a 5m by 5m cell and sleep together on a hard wooden platform with no blankets or sheets allowed. “We have to pay money to the guards to turn the water on to the toilet in our cell,” said Rebekka. “I wake up at 5:00am everyday to pray and read my Bible till 7:30am. At 8:00am they open the [cell] doors,” she continued. The 16 women are taken to a 10m by 10m room until 4 pm. There is only one chair. Three times a day, they are fed an ‘egg-sized’ lump of rice and soybean mixture covered in ants, assist news has reported.

Truly a civilized people if ever there were one...

[Michael]

Note: After serving 2 years those women were release a couple months ago.

[Michael]

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.


Really, some things change and some things stay the same. And this was the 1700s. Well, I'm sure they weren't "real" Muslims. Everyone knows "real" Muslims only preach peace - unless you're a singing girl making fun of a fat prophet, well then the gloves come off...

[GeoffP]

See, that's the thing again: I can criticize the US, socialism and other socialists, atheism, Christianity and even Western society, but on the flip it's all tu quoque. People have to accapt criticism of their system more; I'm trying to do so, and I don't always succeed. Anything else leans towards supremacism.

[abu_afak]

True, the Barbary Pirates had predecessors- but..


It Didn’t Start With bin Laden

Religiously Motivated terrorism against America isn't new — in fact, it dates back hundreds of years.

By Chris Jeub
2003

It may seem like the terrorist war against the United States is only a few weeks old, but radical Muslims’ hatred of our nation dates back centuries. In fact, it’s not the first time America has faced adversaries who were individual renegades instead of allied nations.

President Thomas Jefferson, for instance, faced threats from Islamic pirates who lived along Africa’s northern coast and daily terrorized European ships. When America won its independence, it too became a target for pirates — and Jefferson found himself forced into war.

But war against whom? Unknown pirates? African nations like Tripoli, Tunisia, Morocco and Algiers, which harbored the marauders but did not consider them citizens? Jefferson’s challenge resembles President Bush’s modern-day dilemma. Like today’s terrorists, the 19th-century pirates also were Muslims with an animosity toward Christians dating back to the Crusades.

The Muslim faith took root in northwestern Africa in the seventh century, and for generations the region served as a base for piracy — the looting and confiscation of ships as well as the murder of crew members. In the 19th century, European and American ships sailing around northern Africa paid tolls to the pirates for safe passage. This reign of terror went largely unchallenged until America took the lead — without the initial support of Europe.

War on Christianity

According to David Barton of WallBuilders, a Christian-heritage ministry in Aledo, Texas, the Barbary pirate raids stemmed more from prejudice against Christianity than from economic gain. “The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it always was viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations,” Barton wrote in his 1996 book Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion.

U.S. Capt. William Eaton, in a letter to the secretary of state in 1805, explained why the Muslims were such dedicated foes:
"Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful." Indeed, the countries whose ships were attacked — England, France, Spain, Denmark and the United States — all were predominately Christian. Nonetheless, Barton said, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli declared the United States’ religious neutrality, “in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a ‘Holy War’ between Christians and Muslims.” Article XI of the treaty states that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion . . . it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of [Muslims].”

But the 1797 treaty failed, as did others. The Muslims, motivated by religious fervor, continued their attacks.

In 1815, the U.S. government sent a war hero, Stephen Decatur, to negotiate a more forceful treaty. Decatur had demonstrated his ability to thwart Barbary pirates a dozen years earlier; In 1804, on Jefferson’s orders, he led 74 volunteers into the Tripoli harbor and burned the captured American frigate Philadelphia. British Adm. Lord Nelson called the raid “the most daring act of the age.”

In the War of 1812, Decatur, the youngest captain in U.S. Navy history, defeated the British frigate Macedonian and brought the enemy vessel safely to the United States. It was the only captured British ship to be refitted and commissioned in the American Navy during that war.

Perhaps it was his reputation for victory that persuaded Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli to agree to Decatur’s terms and put an end to piracy. Perhaps it was his charm. John Quincy Adams described Decatur as “kind, warm-hearted, unassuming, gentle and hospitable, beloved in social life and with a soul totally and utterly devoted to his country.” Or maybe it was America’s naval power that outmatched Tripoli’s.

Whatever the cure, then, we can only pray that today’s war will rid the world of terrorism as America rid the world of piracy 200 years ago. "

Link expired but was:
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen.../A0017918.html

[Michael]

This quote:
"Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful."


In essence this is the exact same thing my Iranian buddy said to me about why the Persian and Byzantine fell to the Muslim Arabs. Exactly the same thing.

[Sock puppet path]

Weren't those pirates who looted the Vatican?
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro45.htm

No it was part of a larger concerted effort that began in the seventh century

The first attacks from Islamic ships to Sicily, then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, occurred in 652: they were Arabs from Syria, led by Mu'àuia ibn-Hodeig (Mu`āwiyah ibn Hudayj) of the Kinda tribe, and remained on the island for several years. The Byzantine exarch of Ravenna Olympius also came to Sicily but were unable to oust the invaders, who returned to Syria after collecting a large amount of booty.

A second expedition occurred in 669. This time the strong, ravaging force consisted of 200 ships from Alexandria. They sacked Syracuse and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (complete around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Byzantine resistance.

The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740: in that year the Muslim prince Habib, who participated on the 728 attack, and his son Abdurrahman, after a successful siege of Syracuse, were ready to conquer the whole island when they were called back to Tunisia by a Berber revolt. A second attack in 752 aimed only to sack the city......

You could just as well call any invaders pirates.

[Michael]

Oh sock that's different for any number of reasons:
1) They weren't real Muslims as real Muslims follow Islam a religion of only peace.
2) If it did happen, which it didn't, it was purely defensive in nature.
3) They didn't harm anyone when they did sack a city, which they didn't do and if they did do they weren't real Muslims, they were pirates. Probably Xian pirates at that!

etc... etc... etc...


Note: the Crusades were not committed by Christians, because real Christians follow Christianity a religion of pure snow white peace. If the Crusades did happen it was purely defensive in nature, or to regain that which was stolen, anyway they didn't happen, but if some where to think that they did happen then it was only as a defense. When the Crusaders sacked a city, which they never did do, they never harmed a hair on a Muslims head, they were simply let in to the shouts of joy - finally infidel Muslims could hear the only absolutley true belief that can possibly exit.... Christianity.

[DeepThought]

I absolutely loathe people who are intolerant, I'm very tolerant of all tolerant people. Of course they must be tolerant of all the things I am tolerant of and intolerant of all the things I am intolerant of.


We all saw how tolerant you Indians were a couple of years ago when you mass murdered hundreds of Muslims and the Indian police just stood by and watched.

Muslims are safer in the West.

[S.A.M.]

No it was part of a larger concerted effort that began in the seventh century



You could just as well call any invaders pirates.

Sounds very similar to what the Vikings did actually, or Taimurlang on several occasions in India. :confused:

[S.A.M.]

Excepting the tiny compromising detail of:



Did the earlier tradition include islam? Oone can hardly complain about the European response - they were merely following an even earlier tradition they learned from 870 AD onward.



And their women and children, yes. Ah, the Golden Age. Well...more of an off-yellow for some people, apparently. At least you attribute precedence to the Ottomans, though.

abu_afak: Excellent comparison. The tolerance of political islam in all it's logic and understanding. Well...for some people, anyway. One out of two isn't bad, you know. Brothers all.

Well does the US NOT support the women and children of Israel? Thats news to me.

And what does what one pirate said in 17-whatever have to do with what another did in 18-whatever?

Besides look at where they originated

Following the conquest of Granada by Spain and the expulsion of the Moors in the late 15th and early 16th century, many Muslims from Spain emigrated to the coastal cities of North Africa. Under the tutelage of first the Islamic Mamelukes of Egypt and later the Moslem Ottomans, they together with local Arab and Berber tribes formulated Jihad expeditions called Riazzas to disrupt Christian sovereigns and capture the coveted white European women for the brothels of East. Under the power of the Ottomans in the 16th century, who organized the privateers into jihadis, the Barbary pirates became most powerful in the 17th century, until declining in the face of European power throughout the 18th century

[S.A.M.]

All the "tolerance" dripping in this thread. Makes one emotional, it does. Especially considering how equal the credence is to all beliefs. Awesome! :rolleyes:

No one sided beliefs here, nosirree

[S.A.M.]

We all saw how tolerant you Indians were a couple of years ago when you mass murdered hundreds of Muslims and the Indian police just stood by and watched.

Muslims are safer in the West.

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

^^^look at all the recruits campaigning on their behalf.

[John99]

All the "tolerance" dripping in this thread. Makes one emotional, it does. Especially considering how equal the credence is to all beliefs. Awesome! :rolleyes:

No one sided beliefs here, nosirree

Think its possible Sam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

[John99]

Concessions will need to be made.:itold:

[Baron Max]

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

Maybe Muslims should ask themselves why there is "Islamophobia" sweeping the western world. And maybe they should try to do something to resolve that.

Baron Max

[Vega]

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

^^^look at all the recruits campaigning on their behalf.

Al-Qaeida couldn't have said it better than that!!!

[GeoffP]

Sounds very similar to what the Vikings did actually, or Taimurlang on several occasions in India. :confused:

Which then makes it justified? Yes, yes: our rejection of islamic violence but the tacit acceptance of the ongoing atrocities of the Vikings must seem quite two-faced to you, I'm sure.

Well does the US NOT support the women and children of Israel? Thats news to me.

I was referring, rather, to the slavery of women and children of Europe by the Barbary pirates.

And what does what one pirate said in 17-whatever have to do with what another did in 18-whatever?

?? Odd. I thought it was your point a few posts back that they did have something to do with one another. My point was that the Barbary pirates were doing it because they felt they had an overt religious license to do so.

Besides look at where they originated

...yes, in the expulsed invaders of Spain. Not sure what you're getting at here. They felt the best way to get their territory back was to enslave the actual inhabitants? Well...I guess they had political islamic precedence to back up their argument. And anyway, any MSA-sponsored tafsir of Sura 9 will illustrate the important...ah, humanitarian reasons for enslavement and forcible confinement. It was really all for their own good.

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

Yes, indeed! Don't become aware of the issues, or fight back, because that just causes more jihad. Instead, you should submit...which creates more jihad. Absurd.

[Atom]

I'm not surprised that he's an Atheist as well as being very glib.

A lot of what he says rings true...

"I admire anyone who’s genuinely trying to achieve spiritual enlightenment and live a peaceful life. But religious dogma is a barrier to that. The last thing a dogmatist wants is for anyone to be enlightened, any more than a pharmaceutical company wants anybody cured.’ Or, as Condell puts it on his website: ‘Religion disapproves of original thought the way Dracula does sunlight.’

[Atom]

As with a lot of Atheists he seems to want some form of Utopia on Earth...we've seen the same with George Bernard Shaw re. Communism and HG.Wells re. Eugenics and Nazism.

Maybe he needs to visit the Middle East and have a few bombs land on him to realise that people don't become fanatics by mere whim alone.

:-)

[GeoffP]

They become fanatics - quite often it seems - via religious indoctrination, or resurgence later in life. But - and I regret to say this - not all religions so inculcate this position.

(More succinctly, Atom: what bombs were dropping on Malaysia? Pakistan? This century? Last century? The 12 ones before that? What bombs dropped on Mohammed, personally?)

[Atom]

You don't recall the Crusades then?

:shrug:

[GeoffP]

I do. Do you recall what went on just before the Crusades? Or when Mohammed was alive?

[LiveInFaith]

Shit I didn't know it was really illegal?!?!? And this is a "moderate" Islamic State???

- The charge was not "for teaching other to turn the othor cheek". It was for "preaching conversion to kids under the age of consent" without approval from the parents. The same charge could be given to any preachers tried to convert to any religion for kids under age, even muslim preachers if the try to convert non-muslim kids to muslim.

- Indonesia is not "Islamic State", nor "Moderate Islamic State". It is more secular though, despite it says in the 1st of its 5 principles "Believe in 1 God". It allows (actually, obligates the people to embrace one of) 5 religions (Islam, Christian, Catholics, Hindu, Buddha).



The three Indonesian woman that are serving a three-year prison sentence after their conviction of “attempting to coerce children to change their religion” under the Indonesian “Child Protection Act” after running a Christian Sunday school, .....

The media (deliberately, might be) forgetted to put 'the age of consent" and 'without approval from the parents".

The parents first gave permission to the kids, because the school was giving meals and gifts to children. After sometimes, it was found the school was preaching, the kids started to change. That triggered protests.

In such a climate where preaching is sensitive issue, the state decided to prohibit preaching to kids. Those preacher crossed the fence, put themselves in such vulnerable area by proselytizing.



Of the conviction, Rebekka said, “My first reaction, I cry.” Rebekka is a medical doctor who had treated 30 to 40 Muslim and Christian patients everyday in her clinic based in Indramayu. Now she is confined in a dirty prison with a total of 437 inmates. Sixteen inmates are women. Eight women stay in a 5m by 5m cell and sleep together on a hard wooden platform with no blankets or sheets allowed. “We have to pay money to the guards to turn the water on to the toilet in our cell,” said Rebekka. “I wake up at 5:00am everyday to pray and read my Bible till 7:30am. At 8:00am they open the [cell] doors,” she continued. The 16 women are taken to a 10m by 10m room until 4 pm. There is only one chair. Three times a day, they are fed an ‘egg-sized’ lump of rice and soybean mixture covered in ants, assist news has reported.

Truly a civilized people if ever there were one...

You are referring the livinghood in the prison. What prison is not alike?


Side note:
Will you please put the link of the poll that says 90% of moderate Indonesian muslim want to legalize the barring of muslim conversion? I missed that one.

[Michael]

Thomas Jefferson? Isn't he the guy who screwed his slaves and left little black Jeffies around for posterity?

A fine upstanding man/



Such a noble vision.I agree that Thomas Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves. At the very least he should have set an example by noｔ owning slaves at best he should had condemmed it. His owning slaves was wicked, his condoning slavery unenlightened and pathetic.

See SAM when you don’t worship someone as a Prophet you then can recognize them as an imperfect human with all the good and bad points of being a human. I admire much about Thomas Jefferson, I find　 his owning Slaves sickening. In regards to slavery Jefferson was an unenlightened fool.


How about Mohammad SAM? What do you think about his owning Slaves?

Oh that’s right, I forgot, your programming restricts critical thought in regards to Mohammad.

mii


I went to the beach yesterday and saw the most ridiculous act. Ａ Muslim girl was trying to swim wearing a burqua. She almost drowned. Finally she gave up an sat like a docile sad little kid next to her father who was staring bug-eyed at a topless chicks tits.

Ａｌｌ　Ｉ　ｃｏｕｌｄ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｗａｓ　ｗｏｗ　ｗｈａｔ　ａｎ　ｅｎｌｉｇｈｔｅｎｅｄ　ｐｅｏｐ ｌｅ．．．

[Michael]

Side note:
Will you please put the link of the poll that says 90% of moderate Indonesian muslim want to legalize the barring of muslim conversion? I missed that one.The link was in another post I made a few months ago, I`ll look for it later.


3 years in PRISON? What are your thoughts on that?


Has a single Muslim ever been convicted of converting a Xian to Islam?

(Maybe given a medal instead?)

[LiveInFaith]

3 years in PRISON? What are your thoughts on that?

It's better than the maximum of 5 years as stipulated in the regulation for "Preaching to kinds under age".
I think it's better to regulate than not, considering the existing climate of the community. The state should take action to prevent more riots uncontrolled.


Has a single Muslim ever been convicted of converting a Xian to Islam?

(Maybe given a medal instead?)

Please specify the issue here... " ... was the xian preached to, was under age"?

[GeoffP]

It's better than the maximum of 5 years as stipulated in the regulation for "Preaching to kinds under age".

...you don't see such laws as innately wrong? What if it had been the reverse? I suggest the tafsir for Sura 9 (thanks again Sam) to see what the political stance of the religion is on preaching to children of other faiths.

I think it's better to regulate than not, considering the existing climate of the community. The state should take action to prevent more riots uncontrolled.

The state of total hatred, it would seem.

[LiveInFaith]

...you don't see such laws as innately wrong? What if it had been the reverse? I suggest the tafsir for Sura 9 (thanks again Sam) to see what the political stance of the religion is on preaching to children of other faiths.



The state of total hatred, it would seem.

You may say anything. That's the state matters. They have their own laws.

I am stressing this is about stipulating law in a state.
But you guys pointing this is about Islam.

[GeoffP]

Given that they're not allowed to preach to muslims, this is about islam and its politics.

[Michael]

It's better than the maximum of 5 years as stipulated in the regulation for "Preaching to kinds under age".
I think it's better to regulate than not, considering the existing climate of the community. The state should take action to prevent more riots uncontrolled.



Please specify the issue here... " ... was the xian preached to, was under age"?So, other than 3 years is better than 5 years, your personal opinion is that it is better to sent people to prison than not to?

Also, if a Muslim were to convince an underage Christian to change their religion (and lets suppose the parents didn't care one way or the other because they were not very religous) you still think that the Muslim should go to prison for 3 years for converting a Christian to Islam? The Law is the Law right?



better to regulate than not, considering the existing climate of the community.

[LiveInFaith]

Given that they're not allowed to preach to muslims, this is about islam and its politics.

Can't you read 'kids'?
Keep continuing to change 'kids' with "muslim" , "christians', or any religions.

[LiveInFaith]

So, other than 3 years is better than 5 years, your personal opinion is that it is better to sent people to prison than not to?

3 years is better than 5 years.
My personal opinion is not what you stated, I never said that.


Also, if a Muslim were to convince an underage Christian to change their religion (and lets suppose the parents didn't care one way or the other because they were not very religous) you still think that the Muslim should go to prison for 3 years for converting a Christian to Islam? The Law is the Law right?

It doesn't matter what I think. The trial process will say.
The parents (or whoever could be representing the kids) could use the same charge.
Are you going to say the law is discriminative?



better to regulate than not, considering the existing climate of the community.[/QUOTE]

Let me tell you the facts.

In Indonesia, I lived there, I never knew any muslim preaching to non-muslim kids, the same way I never knew any Hindu or Buddha did;
Here:
Muslim teach Muslims about Islam in their own madrasa.
Hindus teach their own community about Hinduism.
Buddhist teach their followers about Buddhism.
Christian preach to everybody, kids and adults.

I know some people here in Sciforums get annoyed by evangelist knocking on their doors. Why is it strange when muslim parents get annoyed seeing their kids proselytised?

[GeoffP]

"Annoyed" meaning "lock them in jail for five years"? That seems a strange definition of "annoyed".

I very, very much doubt any muslim would be prosecuted for prosetylizing to Christian or any other kind of kids. That kind of punishment is a one-way street, frankly.

[LiveInFaith]

"Annoyed" meaning "lock them in jail for five years"? That seems a strange definition of "annoyed".

You are the one who did that simplistic translation.
You should come to the lawmaker seat to see the real problems. Had not them made the law, things would be out of control, could be worse.


I very, very much doubt any muslim would be prosecuted for prosetylizing to Christian or any other kind of kids. That kind of punishment is a one-way street, frankly.

You may doubt it at the very highest, and I guess yes, you won't find it. No muslim intentionally preach to other kids.
But if there were any, the law is there to prosecute the muslim. Someone just need to register the case to the police. With enough evidence, the case is there.

[GeoffP]

You are the one who did that simplistic translation.

No. You defended the whole process by saying that:

"I know some people here in Sciforums get annoyed by evangelist knocking on their doors. Why is it strange when muslim parents get annoyed seeing their kids proselytised?"

So to solve the "annoyance", you seem to feel that a jail term is acceptable. (I'd be very interested to see how the Indonesian legal system defines "prosetylization", also.)

You should come to the lawmaker seat to see the real problems. Had not them made the law, things would be out of control, could be worse.

Now how is this? Gangs of Christian ministers would be running around, terrifying people with hymns and pamphlets?

You may doubt it at the very highest, and I guess yes, you won't find it. No muslim intentionally preach to other kids.

Ha! Laughable.

But if there were any, the law is there to prosecute the muslim. Someone just need to register the case to the police. With enough evidence, the case is there.

My guess is that it would take a mountain of evidence higher than the one Mohammed trod upon to make that case. However, if you have any evidence of a muslim being prosecuted using this law for preaching to Christian children, please do post it.

[LiveInFaith]

No. You defended the whole process by saying that:



So to solve the "annoyance", you seem to feel that a jail term is acceptable. (I'd be very interested to see how the Indonesian legal system defines "prosetylization", also.)



Now how is this? Gangs of Christian ministers would be running around, terrifying people with hymns and pamphlets?



Ha! Laughable.



My guess is that it would take a mountain of evidence higher than the one Mohammed trod upon to make that case. However, if you have any evidence of a muslim being prosecuted using this law for preaching to Christian children, please do post it.


You are very good at twisting words.
All your words are speculation, but you really are convincing yourself.

Christian preachers preach to muslim kids, muslims dont like it. To avoid muslims act directly to those preachers, the state makes the law, a precaution. Are you expecting those muslims do something uncontrolled and the state does nothing to prevent? You dont want things happened the way Korean preachers experienced in Afghanistan.

Now get laugh, and post the case where an Indonesian muslim preach to other kids.

[spidergoat]

There's no such thing as Christian or Muslim children.

[GeoffP]

You are very good at twisting words.
All your words are speculation, but you really are convincing yourself.

You know, this omes up a fair bit whenever I slam political religion. Show me how I "twisted your words". Or tell me what you meant by seemingly defending prison sentences for prosetylization on the basis of "annoyed" parents. And illustrate to me where any muslim in Indonesia - or in any other islamic country in the world - has been charged for preaching to non-muslims. The smell of it is that you don't like the thought of people preaching something other than islam, and I'm willing to be it's an accurate impression.

Christian preachers preach to muslim kids, muslims dont like it. To avoid muslims act directly to those preachers, the state makes the law, a precaution.

So your society is protecting the Christians from themselves? How about instead, the state concentrates on educating such people so that they don't go out and attack others?

Now get laugh, and post the case where an Indonesian muslim preach to other kids.

There are a variety of ways in which islam is creeping in on minority religious communities in Indonesia. In short, it answers your request with "why would they need to bother?", besides suggesting a certain coercive declension on the part of Indonesian society. I'm attaching a small essay to this post:

THE person speaking had lived through it all. He was from the Moluccas - the Spice Islands of legend - and had been there most of his adult life. He was a Catholic and spoke from experience of people and events known to him at first hand. The tale he told of friends and communities betrayed, and innocents tortured and murdered without qualm or mercy, was heart-rending. All the more so because it need never have happened; and because it reflected badly on those who were obliged to prevent it: the Indonesian government and the International Community, especially the UN and its International Court of Justice.

It also exposed an unpalatable truth: that evil, cruelty and plain stupidity lie just beneath the surface of our seemingly humdrum lives, waiting to be summoned like the ring-wraiths and orcs in Tolkien’s classic metaphor of the human struggle of good against evil. Without compassionate and humane solidarity with those who suffer and are oppressed, our world becomes an uninhabitable jungle. There, as the pagan Roman playwright Plautus warned us, ‘homo homini lupus,’ man preys on his fellow men like a wolf, and fear and hopelessness dominate where once was love.

During 1997 and 1998 more than 500 Catholic and Protestant churches were burnt down throughout Indonesia. The figure is conservative, as, according to some estimates, more than 350 churches were burned down in the first months of 1998 alone. The Christians were weaponless and politically powerless. They were a minority in a Muslim country. They made no effective response.

This church-burning had been mainly restricted to Java and Sumatra including Aceh. Since 1968 more than 1,000 Indonesian churches had been burned down or demolished. The problem had not yet touched the Moluccas – mainly because Christians comprise 50 % of the population and relations between Muslims and their Christian neighbours were good.

By January 1999 all this had changed. When Christians in Kupang – the capital of West Timor – finally retaliated by burning down two mosques this act was regarded by Muslims as an affront by the 'Christian dogs,' - the infidels - and in January 1999 several people were killed in Dobu, in the Aru Islands.

Not long afterwards, on January 19, 1999, the killing started in Ambon, capital of the Moluccas.

A Christian driver of a minibus refused to give into extortion when a young Muslim demanded money; a fight started and people took sides and it quickly spread to the whole of the island. Muslims came from Hitulama and butchered many people – about twenty in the village of Benteng Kareng including one or more pregnant women - because they had heard that the mosque in Ambon was surrounded. The Christians then heard that the Silo Protestant Church had been burnt and destroyed. Tensions mounted.

The Catholics in Ambon were mainly immigrants from nearby islands and from other parts of Indonesia. The Ambonese were Protestants from Dutch colonial times, and Muslims. So the Catholics tended to stay out of the conflict - not regarding it as 'their fight'. This all changed when the Laskar Jihad arrived in May 2000. The Mujahidun in their distinctive white robes and caps, and brandishing machetes and guns, did not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants.

The Catholics and the Chinese subsequently suffered terrible material losses, but fewer of them were killed than the Protestant Ambonese because they fled back to their islands since they had no weapons with which to defend themselves, and they had fewer family estates to defend than their Protestant neighbours.

These latter on the other hand had weapons, and because they were locals, had nowhere to go. Ambon was their home, and they had been there longer than many of the Muslims who had taken part in early large-scale migration from Bugis, Buton and Makassar, or had arrived only after 1949 in this part of the Moluccas under government sponsored transmigration from Java. This partly explains the reaction of the Protestants to the violence of the Laskar Jihad and the local Muslims.

The Muslims looted and burnt the shops and homes of the Catholics and Protestants. Local Muslims also suffered damage to their homes and shops, but the military were ordered not to fire against the Muslims. Sometimes they did so. Mujahidun snipers controlled certain areas, and particularly bridges that Christians had to use, but the police never caught them.

Agence France Press [AFP] reported that east of the capital, Ambon. Muslims massacred 93 Christians on Kasui, a small island in Indonesia's Moluccas chain, for refusing to convert to Islam.

Annals hasn’t been able to confirm this number. But reliable sources confirm that all attacks by the Mujahidun on this occasion [November 23-26, 2000] took place at about 6.00 a.m. and that an estimated 3,000 Muslim fighters were involved.

The village of Utta was attacked on November 23, resulting in the burning of a church and 4 houses. Karlomin was attacked on November 24, resulting in several residents being killed, others wounded, and a number of houses burned. On November 25, it was the turn of Wunin to be attacked. The Catholic church, a school and 100 houses were burned. The village of Tanasoa became target of an attack on November 26: several Christians were killed, a church, a school and a number of houses were burned.

270 people from these villages managed to escape to the neighbouring island of Teor. More than 700 Catholics and Protestants subsequently agreed to convert in fear of their lives.

The victims were among and estimated 3,000 refugees who fled into the jungle when Islamic mujahidun attacked four [other] villages on November 28, according to AFP.

Associated Press [AP] reported similar attacks earlier in the week [referred to above] that destroyed two Christian churches and left 54 villagers dead. The soldiers reportedly pursued the villagers and forced captives to choose between Islam and death.

Some Muslims sought to protect their Christian friends and neighbors, a Catholic priest told AP. ‘There are good Muslims who want to protect, while there are bad people who want to slaughter,’ he said. The government was slow to respond to the emergency, said a witness who claimed that only one boat came to evacuate the refugees. Government officials said about 500 people were rescued and several infantry companies have been sent to the island to prevent more violence, according to AP.


In a statement to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan the Catholic bishop of the Moluccas Petrus Canisius Mandagi, MSC, testified,

"Only recently, reports have reached us about large-scale and ruthless Islamisation of Christians, both by brutal force and leaving them no choice. This happened in many places, including the islands of Buru and East Ceram, and most recently on the small islands of Kasui and Teor. On Kasui of the 692 Catholics, at least 473 are still alive and they have been Islamised; nothing is known about the fate of the other 219 Catholics. On Teor, with 841 Catholics, 142 have been Islamised, about 300 succeeded in fleeing to Kei Kecil island, while the remaining 400 are still on Teor. So of the 1,533 Catholics on the islands of Kasui and Teor, 615 have been forced to become Muslims, or have chosen to become Muslims rather than lose their lives. On these islands there are hundreds of Protestant Christians who have been converted to Islam in the same way. All these people urgently need to be freed and evacuated from Kasui and Teor." [1]

Christina Sagat was one such Catholic woman forcibly Islamised and, along with hundreds of other Catholic and Protestant Christians, forciby circumcised in brutal and unhygienic conditions by the Muslims. Her story was printed in The Sydney Morning Herald in January 2001.

Christina was born and raised in Karlomin, a Catholic village in Kesui island referred to above, and lived with her parents and seven brothers and sisters, in-laws, nieces and nephews. Catholics, Protestants and Muslims used to live peacefully before the Laskar Jihad came to the island.

After her uncle and a Catholic youth were killed, she and her family, along with hundreds of other Christians fled into the mountains On the fourth day ... some of their Muslim neighbours found them and told them that they had to become Muslims, otherwise they couldn’t protect them from the Laskar Jihad.

This is the 'protection' of the social system of Indonesia, I take it.

‘ … we finally decided to follow the Muslims to their village and do whatever they told us to do in order to save our lives. We're fully aware that refusing to do so would only get us all killed. The Muslim representatives told us to go straight to a mosque in Kampung Baru village so that when the jihad arrived they would think that we had already become Muslims. … When we all entered the mosque, the habib (Islamic preacher) asked us whether we really wanted to be Muslims. I felt miserable. The habib then told us to say the Al Fatiha prayer (chanted when a person adopts Islam) three times. I did not remember any of the words at all because I did not say it. I just opened my mouth but in my heart I said my own Catholic prayers. The Muslim crowd inside and outside the mosque yelled and waved their machetes, spears. We all cried. I felt mixed up, scared. I told my mum, who sat beside me, "Why do we have to go through all of of this?... it's coercion. I can't do this. But what else can I do. We would only be killed if we refused it, wouldn't we?" Meanwhile, the crowd in the mosque searched our bags, they took out the Bibles, Rosary necklaces and small statues of Mary, which were torn and broken to pieces and burnt outside the mosque. … All of us, men and women, old and young, even infants and pregnant women, were circumcised.’ [2]

Forced Islamisation on the island of Kasui to the south-east of Ceram Island started in November 2000. The Islamised Christians who, like Christina, managed to be evacuated after lengthy delays and much intimidation by the Muslims on the island, - 1,670 persons, most of them Catholic – lived on the island of Kei-Kecil or in Ambon while awaiting government action to guarantee their safety upon their repatriation to their homes in Kasui. At the time of writing I have no certain knowledge that all have managed to return to their homes without meeting opposition from their former Muslim friends who forcibly ‘converted’ them to Islam. Some 80 former Catholics who were ‘converted’ by force on Kasui have ‘chosen’ to remain Muslims, seemingly out of intimidation. Their land and spice crops are in Muslim villages.

Forced Islamisation is not confined to the use of physical violence, or to the Moluccas. [3] Christians living in Muslim countries often are denied promotion unless they become Muslims. In West Java, in the Kuningan district, Christians’ wells have reportedly been poisoned, their flocks have been killed, and access to their fields has been denied by Muslims in order to intimidate them into converting. In south Kalimantan, in Banjarmasin city, Shari‘a law has been proclaimed, and all who do not fast during Ramadan – including Christians – have been arrested and jailed if found eating in a public place. In Tangerang city, west of Jakarta, there is a curfew for all women. If caught travelling alone after dark unveiled even non-Muslim women may be arrested and charged with being prostitutes. In Makassar city in south Sulawesi Muslim students randomly check ID cards and if the bearers are found to be non-Muslim, they may be taken aside and beaten. The non-Muslims of Sindh and Boluchistan in Pakistan, and the Sufi Muslims, have endured forced Islamisation, and denial of their indigenous culture and Sufi traditions since the Pakistani State came into being fifty-five years ago. [4]

As well as Indonesia and Pakistan, forced Islamisation in a variety of subtle and less subtle forms is the bane of non-Muslims – and even some Muslims regarded as less observant - in a number of Muslim countries, including Iraq [5], Kashmir [6], Malaysia [7], Cameroon [8], and the Sudan.

Alarming reports were received of cases in southern Sudan where those who refused to convert and to send their children to a khalwa [9], were killed. During his recent mission, the Special Rapporteur received testimonies, including an eyewitness account, of the summary execution of 12 civilians, men, women and children, at Lobonok on 3 May 1995, at noon. At the end of April 1995, following fighting which reportedly had lasted almost three months, government troops entered Lobonok. The local population was forced to convert to Islam. Children were dressed in white jellaba and given Arabic names. Although some adults did convert to receive food, the group mentioned above was executed because they refused to convert and to send their children to the khalwa. According to an eyewitness, Victoria Yakisuk (aged 55), Salivar Yugu (aged 45) and Redendo Wani (aged 40) were killed after trying to run away into the bush; and Loku Mario (aged 35), Gumat Mario (aged 18), Yugu Mario (aged 10), Pitia Mario (aged 7), Redendo Tombe (aged 15), Renado Keny (aged 26), Kaku Tombe (aged 55), Kaku Lege (aged 12) and a middle-aged woman whose name the witness could not give, were lined up and shot dead. Kaku Lege was reportedly raped before being killed. The eyewitness claimed that the killings were carried out by a group of 12 soldiers in uniform. [10]

I believe that answers your direct question. There is hardly any need to preach, when one may simply forcibly convert the population altogether. If this happens in the outlying districts, I wonder what it's like in the cities?

The silence of official Islamic leaders and spokesmen in Indonesia and Australia at the inhuman treatment of the Christians – old and young, men, women, even pregnant women, and children, - in the Moluccas forcibly ‘converted’ to Islam, and circumcised with old Gilette blades and at the hands of so-called ‘female priests,’ [11] is revealing.

It throws doubt on claims that Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion, and that Muslims understand the much quoted verse 256 of Sura 2 - ‘there is no coercion [12] in the religion’ - to forbid the use of physical force to impose Islam on non-Muslims who fall into their power.

It may be helpful to comment on briefly on this much-quoted Sura.

Popularly it is translated ‘There is no compulsion in Islam’. But the verse reads din ‘religion,’ not Islam. Also it should be noted [though this is never usually stated when the verse is used as a proof of the peacefulness of Islam] that Sura 2,256 is addressed to Muslims, not non-Muslims. It warns Muslims not to dally with ‘unbelief,’ and implies that belief is easy which is what the reference to ‘no force’ seems to suggest.

The following verse - usually never quoted - is the one that deserves attention. It applies to non-Muslims whom it warns in unambiguous language of the dire consequences of not embracing Islam: ‘[you] are the inmates of hell, and shall dwell there’. There is intimidation and coercion in this verse [Sura 2, 257] and perceptive Muslims would realise that if you can threaten unbelievers with hell fire if they don’t become Muslims, then a fortiori you can use physical force to make them embrace Islam.

There is an even more cogent argument against the ‘tolerance,’ and lack of coercion allegedly preached by Sura 2,256: the behaviour of Muhammad.

‘Then the Apostle [Muhammad] sent Khalid bin al-Walid … to the tribe of Beni Haritha bin Ka‘b in Najran and ordered him to wait three days before attacking them, after inviting them to embrace Islam.. If they agreed then he was to accept their submission from them; and if they refused he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam saying “If you accept Islam you will save your life.” They embraced Islam because of the threat. ….. When they came to the Apostle [Muhammad] and he saw them he asked “Who are these people who look like people from India?” and they replied, “These people are the Beni al-Haritha bin Ka‘b. … The Apostle [Muhammad] said to them: “'Had Khalid not written to me that you had accepted Islam and not resisted, I would have tossed your heads beneath your feet”.’ [13]Despite denial by modern-day Islamic spokesmen, according to Ibn Hisham his biographer, Muhammad not only approved, but commanded the use of force in religion. And Islamic Law, especially the Qur’an, explicitly approves the use of such force.
Some Muslim scholars may grudgingly admit this privately when pushed, but publicly attest the opposite, claiming against all evidence to the contrary that the Qur’an opposes the use of force in spreading Islam.

Sura 2,256 is a trap for unwary non-Muslims. It cannot be taken at face value. The final blow to its credibility comes from the fact that whatever it may originally have meant, informed Muslims consider it to have been abrogated. [14] The abrogating verse is Sura 9:73 : 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them’.

When confronted with the indisputable fact of the abrogation Islamic apologists then try another spin by claiming that the abrogation only applies to pagans, not to Christians and Jews.

The history of Islam, and the recent actions of Muslims in Kasui and elsewhere in Indonesia and throughout the Islamic world, however, leave all thinking non-Muslims in no doubt that the abrogation of Sura 2, 256 and the continuing validity of Sura 2, 257 empower fanatics who don’t hesitate to use force to make non-Muslims embrace Islam.

Attempts to prove the opposite amount to falsifying the meaning of the Qur’an, and denying the example of the life and commands of Muhammad.

NOTES
1. The New Martyrdom: A Special Report. From the Caribbean to Oceania, Anti-Christian persecution heats up. See ZENIT.org (13.01.2001) /HRWF International Secretariat (16.01.2001)
2. Christina’s Story, Lindsay Murdoch, SMH January 21, 2001
3. Hizb ut-Tahrir stresses that they are ‘non violent’ while advocating the forced Islamisation of the Western World. It was reported that several of the 9/11 hijackers were connected to the group in Germany . HT was banned due to its virulent anti Semitic rhetoric. See ‘Soldiers of Allah in California,’ Militant Islam Monitor.org August 1, 2004
4. Sindhi Baloch Forum Ref.: SBF/14/08/02, 14th August 02; ‘Pakistan: Madrassa Reform A Mirage’ Adnkronos International, August 16, 2006.
5. Guardian, ‘A symptom of Iraq's tragedy,’ June 6, 2006.
6. ‘Acid test in the face of acid attacks,’ Sandhya Jain, The Pioneer, August 13, 2001.
7. ‘Temple Demolitions Spell Creeping Islamisation,’ Baradan Kuppusamy, Inter Press News Service, August 16, 2006.
8. North Province. See any Encyclopedia entry: e.g. Islam is the dominant religion in the north due to the cultural and political domination of the Fulbe. Those ethnic groups which resisted the Fulbe conquests and forced Islamisation are collectively referred to as Kirdi (‘pagans’), though they are not culturally homogenous. Kirdi groups include the Chamba and Fali. In addition, many inhabitants of the province profess Christianity, as well, particularly Catholicism.
9. A small Islamic rural school that stresses memorization of the Qur’an and provides some instruction in the reading and writing of Arabic.
10. United Nations, Human Rights Commission, CN.4/1996/62, 20 February 1996.
11. ‘Christina’s Story,’ Lindsay Murdoch, SMH January 21, 2001.
12. The Arabic word Ikrah means ‘coercion,’ ‘use of force’ or ‘constraint’.
13. Ibn Hisham, Biography of Muhammad, [Arabic version, Dar Ehia al-Tourath al-Arabi, Rue Dakkache Beirut Lebanon] Part 4, pages 249-250. Trans. Paul Stenhouse. Also, see ‘The Wolf Pack, What it means to live by Muhammad’s words and deeds,’ by Bruce Thornton, Private Papers: A review of Robert Spencer’s The Truth about Muhammad,‘ (Regnery Publishing, 2006).
14. See e.g. al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p. 80. See also Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, Beirut, 1986, p. 42. quoted: ‘Tolerance in Islam’ by M. Rafiq ul-Haqq and P. Newton, http://debate.domini.org/newton/tolerance.html.

I don't agree with everything he says, of course, but there's little doubt he's got Indonesia's number.

[GeoffP]

There's no such thing as Christian or Muslim children.

Interestingly put. I agree completely. There is no "innateness" to religion.

[S.A.M.]

Can I get a link for that essay? I'd like to see the source.

[abu_afak]

Muslim Medical Students get Picky
Daniel Foggo and Abul Taher
timesonline.co.UK

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

It will intensify the debate sparked last week by the disclosure that Sainsbury’s is permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds. It means other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Critics, including many Islamic scholars, see the concessions as a step too far, and say Muslims are reneging on their professional responsibilities.

This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to Refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers...."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece

[abu_afak]

THE DEATH OF A MUSLIM WOMAN

"The Whore Lived Like a German"
By Jody K. Biehl in Berlin
Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374,00.html

In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity.
How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women?

The shots came from nowhere and within minutes the young Turkish mother standing at the Berlin bus stop was dead. A telephone call from a relative had brought her to this cold, unforgiving place. She thought she would only be gone for a few minutes and wore a light jacket in the freezing February wind. She had left her five-year-old son asleep in his bed. He awoke looking for his mother, who, like many Turkish women in Germany, harbored a secret life of fear, courage and, ultimately, grief. Now her little boy has his own tragedy to bear: His mother, Hatin Surucu, was not the victim of random violence, but likely died at the hands of her own family in what is known as an "honor killing."

Hatin's crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family's adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men. For her family, such behavior represented the ultimate shame -- the embrace of "corrupt" Western ways. Days after the crime, police arrested her three brothers, ages 25, 24 and 18. The youngest of the three allegedly bragged to his girlfriend about the Feb. 7 killing. At her funeral, Hakin's Turkish-Kurdish parents draped their only daughter's casket in verses from the Koran and buried her according to Muslim tradition. Absent of course, were the brothers, who were in jail.

The crime might be easier to digest if it had been an archaic anomaly, but five other Muslim women have been murdered in Berlin during the past four months by their husbands or partners for besmirching the family's Muslim honor.
Two of them were stabbed to death in front of their young children, one was shot, one strangled and a fifth drowned. It seems hard to fathom, but in the middle of democratic Western Europe -- in Germany, a nation where pacifism is almost a universal mantra -- murderous macho patriotism not only exists but also appears to be thriving. It may even be Germany's liberalism -- and its post World War II fear of criticizing minority cultures -- that has encouraged ultra-religious families to settle here...."

Link above

[Michael]

abu_afak,

1) Fire the checkout clerk.
2) Fail the students.
3) Revoke the license from the Pharmacist.
4) Revoke the license from the Physician.

Problem solved,
Michael

[Michael]

As to paragraph #2, as I have said over and over, Europeans need to pull their heads from their collective arses and institute a mandatory archaeological based religous history class beginning in grade 1 through to grade 12. It's amazing what education can do to a person's superstitious beliefs.

[Michael]

It doesn't matter what I think. It may not matter what you think as in it may not effect the Law but I want to know what your opinion is on the question of a Muslim converting a child of another faith to Islam.

Well?

Do you think that a Muslim should go to prison for converting a child to Islam?


It's a straightforward question,
Michael

[Michael]

You are the one who did that simplistic translation.
You should come to the lawmaker seat to see the real problems. Had not them made the law, things would be out of control, could be worse.Isn't it ironic that both Christianity and Islam say they are about peace and in theory anyone should have the ability to make their own "free will" decision as to what fairytale they want to believe ... but in reality children have no freewill and will believe whatever bullshit they are taught (hence the law that only parents can brainwash their children) and Christianity and Islam are far from peaceful.

That said, I wonder how many Indonesian Buddhists and Hindu attack and cut off the heads of Muslims and Christians while chanting Buddha is Great!! .. Buddha is Great!! or some such thing?

[Michael]

Wow GeoffP that was a very sad story.
Very sad.

But what could one expect, if there is no possibility, the possibility can not even exist, of ones beleif being wrong then anything is sanctioned. The imprisonment of "infidels", the taxing of "infidels", the murder of "infidels", the forced circumcision of "infidels" the conversion of "infidels" burning down their places of worship, murder, intimidation, rape ... ... It's truely a mental sickness. These people were all part of one nation. This wasn't a grab at resources or a "defensive" war of conquest - it was plain out savage murder in the name of a f*cking fairytale God. And not even an Indonesian God but an Arabic one?!?!
Just crazy.



I remember one person wrote something like: So what if one art form was lost what does it matter?


It's truely a mental sickness.

[Michael]

Lastly,

In regards to Islam in Europe - what is one really good novel idea that Islam brings with it to Europe?

Polygamy?
The Burka?
The chunky Arab named Mohammad was the Last Prophet?
Walk around a square stone in Mecca get free Bebsi in Paradise?

While I know there are a lot of yummy foods that come from the Middle East, these are hardly "Islamic" they're just good food from various cultures. What I'm wondering is: What does Islam bring that's good for Europe? Anything? Nothing?

[Michael]

Hey the Burka does have some uses ;)

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/7/7c/Burka.jpg