The islam menace.

Off-Topic Off Topic
#401

Christ had a different view.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided,father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law
Matthew 10:34

Christ also considered it reasonable for whole cities to be wiped out if they failed to accept his message. See Matthew 10:14-15

Not surprising, really, as he was all in favour of killing people who didn’t accept his teaching and God.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

Sort of undermines the view of Christianity as the religion of peace, brotherly love, and tolerance doesn’t it?

As does the whole basis of Christianity founded on the absurd notion of a loving god who, even ignoring his cruelty and brutality in the Old Testament, according to New Testament Christian belief sent his only son to earth so he could die as a man. Not the sort of thing I’d expect a loving father to do. Although it is well within the capacity of the cruel and brutal god of the Old Testament who, despite some Christians’ desire to reject that God, logically has to be accepted by Christians as it was the Old Testament God who got one of his angels to tell Christ’s unsuspecting mother that she was up the duff (without her consent, which makes it the only recorded case of rape by a member of the Holy Trinity) about nine months before Christ entered the world of man.

Comparing one religion with another is a fairly pointless exercise as they are all full of bullshit, unless you happen to believe the bullshit in which case it is faith and justifies all sorts of silly and sometimes evil conduct, and especially towards people who don’t believe your brand of bullshit. Or it encourages you to be loving and tolerant towards all God’s creations. All the major religions allow either approach, and various approaches in between.

It’s not the religion that is the problem so much as the nature of people and the slant they want to put on the teaching of their religion. Some Muslims obviously are fanatics determined to impose their religious standards and medieval culture on everyone else, and to kill those who aren’t like them. Others aren’t. We shouldn’t view or treat the latter group in the same way as the former.

#402

The Nazis pretty successfully co-opted Christianity when they couldn’t just replace in with retarded mythologies on animal spirits and Norse B.S.

We might also point out that the Catholic Church took a pretty active interest in hiding fucking German War Criminals who conducted massacres and fed the machine of the concentration camps…and Pope Pius the Cunt seemed pretty reluctant to condemn the murdering of the “Christ Killers” as did the many Lutherans and other “Christians.”

Some of them went to church on Sunday…

#403

Well, but there’s a difference between killing for the Religion, as Amrit suggested and killing without being condemned by the Religion.

#404

not really mate,. :wink:

the other one " ehre ist meine treue" :smiley:

#405

ow man,. this still on,. interessant,. :smiley:

#406

Are there paedophile Mullahs like the priests that infested Los Angeles?

#407

Why does this matter?

#408

Not surprising, really, as he was all in favour of killing people who didn’t accept his teaching and God.

Quote:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

Sort of undermines the view of Christianity as the religion of peace, brotherly love, and tolerance doesn’t it?

Unfortunately for you, you are quoting a parable not a command of Christ

11 As the people were listening to this, Jesus went on to tell them a parable. He did so because he was near Jerusalem, and because they thought that the Kingdom of God was going to be proclaimed at once.
12 He said. "A nobleman once went to a distant country to receive his appointment to a Kingdom and then return.
13 He called ten of his servants and gave them ten pounds each, and told them to trade with them during his absence.
14 But his subjects hated him and sent envoys after him to say ‘We will not have this man as our King.’
15 On his return, after having been appointed King, he directed that the servants to whom he had given his money should be summoned, so that he might learn what amount of trade they had done.
16 The first came up, and said ‘Sir, your ten pounds have made a hundred.’
17 ‘Well done, good servant!’ exclaimed the master. ‘As you have proved trustworthy in a very small matter, I appoint you governor over ten towns.’
18 When the second came, he said ‘Your ten pounds, Sir, have produced fifty.’
19 So the master said to him ‘And you I appoint over five towns.’
20 Another servant also came and said ‘Sir, here are your ten pounds; I have kept them put away in a handkerchief.
21 For I was afraid of you, because you are a stern man. You take what you have not planted, and reap what you have not sown.’
22 The master answered ‘Out of your own mouth I judge you, you worthless servant. You knew that I am a stern man, that I take what I have not planted, and reap what I have not sown?
23 Then why did not you put my money into a bank? And I, on my return, could have claimed it with interest.
24 Take away from him the ten pounds,’ he said to those standing by, ‘and give them to the one who has the hundred.’
25 ‘But, Sir,’ they interposed, ‘he has a hundred pounds already!’
26 ‘I tell you,’ he answered, 'that, to him who has, more will be given, but, from him who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
27 But as for my enemies, these men who would not have me as their King, bring them here and put them to death in my presence.’"

Luke 19:11-27

#409

I never said it was a command of Christ.

Unfortunately for you, in dismissing the parables you are ignoring the scriptural presentation of Christ as a teacher, not a dictator who issued commands. He taught through parables, as Matthew records

13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Cut the parables out of the New Testament and you cut out a vast amount of Christ’s teaching, including parts known to just about everyone even if they haven’t had Christian instruction, such as the parable of the the Good Samaritan enjoining us to care for others. It also gets rid of significant elements of Christ’s identity, such as the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep as Christ did by dying on the cross.

#410

Perhaps so but I point out you were quoting the parable about the nobleman who became King as if it were Jesus saying that his ‘enemies must be killed in front of him.’

#411

Fair enough. Point taken.

#412

Here’s another great step backward for part of the Islamic world in one of its more backward parts.

However, the protest reinforces my belief that change will only come to these backward practices and beliefs when women challenge the men who run the show, as the courageous women protesters did here.

Afghan women attacked for protesting marriage law

KABUL (AP) — Dozens of young women braved crowds of bearded men screaming “dogs!” on Wednesday to protest an Afghan law that lets husbands demand sex from their wives. Some of the men picked up small stones and pelted the women. “Slaves of the Christians!” chanted the 800 or so counter-demonstrators, a mix of men and women. A line of female police officers locked hands to keep the groups apart.

The warring protests highlight the explosive nature of the women’s rights debate in Afghanistan. Both sides are girding for battle over the legislation, which has sparked an international uproar since being quietly signed into law last month.

The law says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days, unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home without a male escort.

Though the law would apply only to the country’s Shiites, who make up less than 20 percent of Afghanistan’s 30 million people, many fear its passage marks a return to Taliban-style oppression of women. The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, required women to wear all-covering burqas and banned them from leaving home unless accompanied by a male relative.

Governments and rights groups around the world have condemned the legislation, and President Barack Obama has labeled it “abhorrent.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai has remanded the law to the Justice Department for review and put enforcement on hold.

A host of Afghan intellectuals, politicians and even a number of Cabinet ministers have come out against the law. But those who decry the legislation face quick criticism from conservative Muslim clerics and their followers, as Wednesday’s protests showed.

“You are a dog! You are not a Shiite woman!” one man shouted to a young woman in a head scarf.

The woman, who held a banner reading “We don’t want Taliban law,” replied quietly: “This is my land and my people.”

The demonstrators chose a risky spot to hold their protest — in front of the mosque of the legislation’s main backer — and were easily outnumbered by supporters of the law. They said many women had been stopped on their way to the protest.

In the end, more women demonstrated in favor of the law than against it: A few hundred Shiite women marched with banners to join the angry men. They blamed foreigners for inciting the protests.

“We don’t want foreigners interfering in our lives. They are the enemy of Afghanistan,” said 24-year-old Mariam Sajadi.

Sajadi is engaged to be married, and said she plans to ask her husband’s permission to leave the house as put forth in the law. She said other articles — such as the one allowing husbands to demand sex — have been misinterpreted by Westerners prejudiced against Islam. She did not elaborate.

On the other side of the shouting, Mehri Rezai, 32, urged her countrymen to reject the law.

“This law treats women as if we were sheep,” she said.

Both sides say they’re defending their constitutional rights — but Afghanistan’s constitution is unclear. It defers to Islamic law as the highest authority, but also guarantees equal rights for women.

Abbas Noyan, a Shiite lawmaker who opposes the law, said he is hopeful it will be changed. But others are less sure, and even the country’s minister of women’s affairs, who is female, has declined to comment on the law.

New York-based Human Rights Watch maintains that the judicial review ordered by Karzai is unlikely to be truly independent because those leading the process come from a conservative Shiite background.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD97J3GG04

#413

Further to my last post, as my country supports the Afghan government which signed that primitive bullshit into law, then we’re just as guilty of supporting it.

And I thought we went there to rid Afghanistan and the world of the scourge of the Taliban and their ilk. Yeah, right! :rolleyes: :evil:

#414

Perhaps the title of this thread should be-Is Islamic Extremism A Threat?

A lot of old ground and religious arguments do not answer anything about the supposed threat to the western world by Islam.

digger

#415

Quite right.

But the last thing we want to do is to deprive people of the opportunity to generalise about a religious, racial or political group and attribute all kinds of evils to them, and to blame them for all that is wrong in the complainant’s world. :rolleyes:

I can’t speak for other mods, but for my part the thread title can stay, because the nature of some humans is that they love generalising about people who aren’t like them and who, given a free hand, would replicate the Holocaust, the WWII Japanese equivalent against Chinese in particular and Anglos to a lesser extent (not that that is recognised in much in the Anglo world), and more recent events such as Kampuchea, Bosnia and Dharfur. :frowning: Or older events by Christians in general and Catholics in particular. :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

Or we could re-title the thread ‘Western Threats to Islamic States’, because after GW1 and Iraq and Afghanistan, and the endlessly insane Western support for Israel’s assaults upon the largely Islamic Palestinians for the past sixty years, and much longer if we go back to the Balfour Declaration, there is plenty of evidence of Western attacks upon Islamic states and people and very little of the opposite kind.

Then again, if we re-title this thread ‘Is Islamic Extremism A Threat?’ are we going to leave it that general, which will introduce some embarrassing instances of Islamic extremism being a threat to many or most human rights in various Islamic states, or add ‘To the West’ in which case the answer is probably ‘not much’.

#416

You’re getting really into that, aren’t you?

#417

We’ve had some arrests of alleged Islamic terrorists here lately http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25884441-5006785,00.html , which given our police and security forces’ and prosecution authorities’ spectacular embarrassments in that area in earlier cases shouldn’t be taken as any reliable indication that they have changed tack and have suddenly got it right this time, but it reminds me that I am perplexed by what so-called Islamic terrorists want or hope to achieve.

The aims of other irregular groups called terrorists, such as the Viet Cong, IRA, ETA, and Shining Path were always clear and known to them and their opponents. Their aims were generally to liberate themselves from what they saw as foreign control and or to gain control of their national government. Those aims did not extend to random acts of violence in other nations which had no connection with the target nation, although they may have acted outside their own and the target nation as the IRA did in Gibraltar and Holland.

The most remarkable aspect of 9/11 is that it was not used by anyone to demand anything, nor for any other purpose. The same applies to all other apparently Islamic motivated assaults, such as the Bali, London and Madrid bombings.

So we are left with the prospect of more attacks by suicidal zealots who aren’t killing themselves or their victims for any known or clear aim.

Which makes me wonder why anybody bothers to devote as much attention as has been devoted here lately to trying to work out what ‘radicalises’ ‘Islamic’ ‘youth’ and so on.

If they don’t have any aim apart from sacrificing themselves to kill people who offend them, what is the purpose and what is the prospect of success in trying to understand suicidal zealots?

#418

A nice summation of why Islamic terror groups such as al Qaida are almost always failures. They lose support of the very people their trying to win over by killing them in suicide bombing attacks. Or they’re inviting very harsh retaliation against the people they’re trying to win over --as in the case of the Sunni’s in Iraq who were ethnically cleansed and exposed to counter violence of the US-“allied” Shiite militia gov’t…

I think the BBC’s “Power of Nightmares” brought up several excellent points on this, that the intrinsic philosophy of using an orgy mass violence to inspire a mass uprising and revolution only alienates everybody and leads to an inevitable defeat as the people (usually Muslims) tend to support harsher measures of the security forces in crushing them. I think the Algerian Civil War fought in the 1990s is a good example of this and is a case study of why the whole idea of Muslims being intrinsically terrorist is pretty retarded actually…

And the above does not only apply to Islamic societies, I think in South America you had these bands of leftist groups that didn’t subscribe to the idea of a long war insurgency, but instead tried to spur a mass bloody uprising that resulted in a harsh crackdown and popular support for military despots ‘disappearing’ them with out inconvenient laws getting in the way…

#419

That is one of the revolutionary theories espoused by, IIRC, people like Regis Debray in ‘Revolution in the Revolution’, which essentially is that ‘revolutionaries’ will do things which outrage the government and establishment so that they react with harsh measures which alienate the rest of the population and make the population sympathetic to the revolution (which will then instal a violent dictatorship which will make the citizenry yearn for the easy years of just a few of them having electrodes attached to their nuts while some uniformed government thug pedals away on the generator instead of the revolutionaries hanging all and sundry from the lampposts before confiscating their stock and crops while the new bosses live in socialist luxury).

As for the Islamic ‘terrorists’, they can’t win because no matter what they do they have no organised body to which to surrender, not to mention no terms of surrender.

‘Killing all infidels’ is just an activity statement which can be satisfied only when all infidels (which usually includes all Muslims who are not similarly disturbed in their view of the world and the people who live in it) are killed. Hardly grounds for a negotiated or even unconditional surrender there, as long as any infidels live!

There is no question that these people are dangerous to every society to which they are opposed, which includes some Islamic nations, but they aren’t going to conquer us no matter what they do, not least because they lack the organisation to do it.

That’s not a reason not to take strong action against them and everyone who supports them, at least in our own countries, but until we strike at the places where they export their violence to our nations, notably Saudi Arabia, instead of meekly accepting their exported venom we’ll just have to put up with it.

Allah (PBHN) protect and preserve Saudi Arabia the moment a replacement for oil is found. Yeah, right!

#420

A point I neglected to address. The problem with theory is that people tended to get pissed at the revolutionaries and willing give up their freedoms and support establishment’s harsh crackdown…