Mr Cameron: do we really want Turkey in the EU?

[Efendi]

I think a little taqiyya may be at work here, but that could just be my sceptical mind. However, there is some fodder for debate.

I don't know what taqiyya means, We can only communicate in english, and turkish, also few greek.

First off, Islam's always at war.

What does it means? Are there any country who don't need military power on earth? Our human history is full of blood, Europea, America, Assia, Africa.
May be we should enlarge our perspectives to a level that, human kind is always at war not only those in mideast.

History of Europea, Mideast, Assia, are full of wars even before Islam and after Islam. Sure It was Moors who invaded Spain. It was also the Jannissaries who reached Vienna. It wasn't islam it was Ottomans and Moors. Islam is religion not a name for a state or empire. Yet they had more power. There are crimes in the rule of powerfull leaders who also use religion as tool to lead people.

Muhammad the gang leader needed some pretext to justify his violence and playing victim was always the most expedient: Muhammad: The Jihad Begins

War didn't started in Medine, It is obvious. They were tortured, persecuted, and their land equity taken in Mekke. So migrated to Medine for safety. Cuting trade roads are usual tactic of warfare, when you have enemy. It was Pagans who decided to be an enemy, not Muhammed.

Europeans had to have the Crusades to push the Islamics back

You mean history of Europea is peacefull. Becaue they say they believe in Bible? May be because you want to compare Christianity and Islam.

And that's love is it? Assuaging guilt more like it.

"Be good" is active form of goodness.
"Love" is passive form of goodness. But in practice you are good if you do good things. Love is not enough.

If you're trying to say that goodness should be shown to everyone then I agree, but what I said is how things stand in Islam. Hence the whole concept of taqiyya and Muhammad telling his followers that Muslims must never believe any infidel (3:73), that disbelievers all hate the Muslims (3:118),

3:114 They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous.

You wouln't call the one above hatret. It is in the same chapter with 3:73, 3:118. Thus they are part of the same message.

3:72-73
And some of the followers of earlier revelation say [to one another]: "Declare your belief in what has been revealed unto those who believe [in Muhammad] at the beginning of the day, and deny the truth of what came later, (54) so that they might go back [on their faith]; but do not [really] believe anyone who does not follow your own faith." Say: "Behold, all [true] guidance is God's guidance, consisting in one's being granted [revelation] such as you have been granted." (55) Or would they contend against you before your Sustainer? Say: "Behold, all bounty is in the hand of God; He grants it unto whom He wills: (56) for God is infinite, all-knowing,

What is the problem with this verses?
I ve read the turkish translations and english translation I can't see. Whom not to believe defined and why not to believe is explained.

3:118
O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take for your bosom-friends people who are not of your kind. They spare no effort to corrupt you; they would love to see you in distress.(88) Vehement hatred has already come into the open from out of their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is yet worse. We have indeed made the signs [thereof] clear unto you, if you would but use your reason.

It says “Don't be friend to those whoes enminity is clear to the follower of Islam. “

Being against to something is different being against to ones personality. Also being hostile to an idea and being agianst to an Idea is different things than each others. First is product of closed minds, the second is product of thinking.

If one is hostile, he should seek its reason not in his mind but in his hearth.

Some more verses explaining the case:

60:8-9

As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: (9) for, verily, God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!

29:46. And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent onn evildoing and say: �We believe in that which has been be�stowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: or our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves.�

I have re read the verses witin their contend and text. I can't see your relatings with those verses. They seem to be selective texts out of their content.

that peaceful Muslims wiill go to hell (2:193, 2:206, 2:216), all non-Muslims are criminals (5:45) all disbelievers of other religions are evil (5:59), that disbelievers are hated by Allah and will suffer eternal fire (take your pick) or that Muslims have unlimited licence to kill infidels (4:101).

Soory for geting it too long, It was the shortest replie I can give to your post which requires too long and detailed reply. Kuran is not something like a main law book. It doesn't say do this do that article by article. Verses limit and explain each others.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

This is getting tiresome, but I persevere. You talk about getting things out of context Effendi old buddy. Not according to other Korans.



I have a selection of Korans and the less ambiguous and more concise versions tally better with the one I've quoted. For example, 3:118 in another Koran also states that non-believers hate the Muslims and that 'believers' should foist paranoia to that effect:

[3.118] O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths.

One example from one Koran: The Koran -- Browse


Funny how the more abruptly-put editions cut to the chase with no guff!







The ambiguity continues apace when you also claim that Islam takes in war and reacts to its influences. But Islam is no idle bystander. Yes, both Christianity and Islam were founded in a climate where bloody war was the everyday norm, yet Islam was created to promote it whilst Christianity tried in its own way to find peace.


After all, you don't get stories of Jesus Christ claiming that people of other faiths deserved death, that people who left his faith deserved death or that Christ had been made 'victorious through terror'!

The 7th century's Nazis: Offensive War to Spread Islam

Islam's a joyride for those terrorists. They need far less coaching from scholars to interpret what they see in black and white: Prophet of Doom - Islamic Quotes - Terrorism

People wanting to leave your religion? "Slay them wherever you find them": TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Killing Apostates , etc.


Wonder how all those bigwig scholars contextualise that?! Or do they just drown the points in a sea of bad prose and long words?








Scholars and imams! Even if Islam was a benign religion forged amidst war, there's still no little dishonesty and hypocrisy in trying to present the most evil of passages as neutral. Or at least written under the heaviest of duress and making excuses.

I feel sorry for the peaceful Muslims who may well indeed be largely ignorant of their creed's savage and inhuman roots. At least they have cleaner consciences and must be left alone. But to try to pull the wool over the rest of us here in Dar Al Harb, it's little short of treacherous deception.

That's just acting like a bunch of lags caught bang to rights squirming under interrogation!

 

[soguks]

@ republic of public


are you sure of having the ability to understand what you read in Kur'an ? btw, i know it is meaningless to talk to a person who hates Islam and Muslim !

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

@ Soguks

Having the ability to understand English sentences helps.

Btw, I know it is meaningless to talk to a person who makes preconceived, dismissive assumptions of what other people think, especially when the very last full paragraph written is ignored.


So how would you understand passages in the Koran then?

 

[Andalublue]

@ Soguks

Having the ability to understand English sentences helps.

Btw, I know it is meaningless to talk to a person who makes preconceived, dismissive assumptions of what other people think, especially when the very last full paragraph written is ignored.


So how would you understand passages in the Koran then?

There's nothing preconcived about pointing out your hatred of Moslems. There are about 100 of your posts on DP that attest to this. Here are just 3:

1. "Another day, another divisive ego-trip for the more lunatic and imposing adherants of the Religion of Peace."
2. "Curious that so much 'sensitivity' has to be shown towards those who slavishly follow a barmy creed which dictates which foot you should enter the lavatory with, as well as demanding Muslims clean their backsides with pebbles afterwards!"
3. "If Islamist fruitloops really don't like this country they should move to a country that is more in line with their perverse doctrine. Preferably permanently. That way they can enjoy all the delights of their primitive culture without foisting it upon us."

Now, Rop, tell us what you LIKE about Islam.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

There's nothing preconcived about pointing out your hatred of Moslems.

If you're going to make your own preconceived opinions about who I'm supposed to hate, you could at least spell them properly. As well as quoting me properly, as number 3 isn't even mine!


As the last emboldened paragraph I wrote here says, my aggro isn't with peaceful Muslims. It's firmly with Islam itself (their enchanting moonstone of the absurd), plus its more aggressive or forceful adherents to lesser extents. I've also said that before, so the only way to not get the picture now is to ignore it.


But now that you've reminded me that I have such an impressive back catalogue, I shall make a greater effort to plunder it for future use. Lots of interesting data.



And lastly, I'm not sure if I like much in Islam because as far as I'm concerned any goodness from it has come through the filter of human nature. And to look at some peaceful Muslims thank God it does.

But on the other hand I'm impressed at how they stick together more than we do and don't take any perceived nonsense (like telling their kids that other religions exist! Those corrupt, kufir Dar Al Harb teacher swines! May they burn in hell by command of Allah!)

Religion classes boycotted by Muslim parents - News - The Independent



__________________

Though it has to be said that thanks to people in the Left, knocking down houses and scattering communities far and wide to live in tower blocks has helped the social breakdown of our people. That and things like high octane trade union militancy, not teaching kids all about our proud British history, achievements and scientists, etc.

 

[Efendi]

I have a selection of Korans and the less ambiguous and more concise versions tally better with the one I've quoted. For example, 3:118 in another Koran also states that non-believers hate the Muslims and that 'believers' should foist paranoia to that effect:

[3.118] O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths.

One example from one Koran: The Koran -- Browse

It doesn't have considerably different meaning than the translation before.

Funny how the more abruptly-put editions cut to the chase with no guff

The ambiguity continues apace when you also claim that Islam takes in war and reacts to its influences. But Islam is no idle bystander. Yes, both Christianity and Islam were founded in a climate where bloody war was the everyday norm, yet Islam was created to promote it whilst Christianity tried in its own way to find peace.

Not Islam and Christianity, It is politic powers, as I explained in my previous post. Also there is no killing of apostacle in holly source of the religion. If you don't know, It is not shame in not knowing but shame in not learning.


.

After all, you don't get stories of Jesus Christ claiming that people of other faiths deserved death, that people who left his faith deserved death or that Christ had been made 'victorious through terror'!

The 7th century's Nazis: Offensive War to Spread Islam

Islam's a joyride for those terrorists. They need far less coaching from scholars to interpret what they see in black and white: Prophet of Doom - Islamic Quotes - Terrorism

People wanting to leave your religion? "Slay them wherever you find them": TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Killing Apostates , etc.


Wonder how all those bigwig scholars contextualise that?! Or do they just drown the points in a sea of bad prose and long words?

Scholars and imams! Even if Islam was a benign religion forged amidst war, there's still no little dishonesty and hypocrisy in trying to present the most evil of passages as neutral. Or at least written under the heaviest of duress and making excuses

I am not interested in Christianity or Nazis because I don't have reasons to interested in them. They are subject of other thread. I am not criticising Christianity or Atheism.

Say hello to scholars, they are not here, as far as ı see.

I feel sorry for the peaceful Muslims who may well indeed be largely ignorant of their creed's savage and inhuman roots. At least they have cleaner consciences and must be left alone. But to try to pull the wool over the rest of us here in Dar Al Harb, it's little short of treacherous deception.

That's just acting like a bunch of lags caught bang to rights squirming under interrogation!

First of all please do not use arabic words that I don't understand. It is the second time I asked.

If I understand what you mean I will answer you. What I guess for what it means is that, you have wit to tell anything about Islam, muslims in general don't know their religion and you know very well. If it means that , It is not good strategy of discussion to regard yourshelf as autority. It makes your case less convincing and weak. At least thats how I understand it. I am not interested in your charisma (If understand you correct) I am interested in wheather what you say is sensible or not.

I hope I misunderstood you.

Islam = Terrorism and verses out of their context doesn't make sense. I had my explanation which seem you found tiresom to answer. I don't want to get you tired. If you want to keep on believing Islam = Terrorism and verses out of their context, here my replie:

I am interested in what your comment sense to me, It is your bussiness to believe in what ever you want, no matter I find it absurd or not. I just had my replie the rest is your bussiness. I don't want to get you tired. But I will have a say what ever you say.

I may have tiresome replie for you

So how would you understand passages in the Koran then?

By reading the book fully. Not reading selective verses alone. Kuran is not written in a mainlaw book order, article by article.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

No, the Koran isn't. It's a, pardon my saying so, a tedious appendix volume to the Hadith and Sunnah, written in such bad prose that it's offensive to anybody with even an amateur or fumbling appreciation of literature.

And as for order, it is absurdly compiled in the order of the length of the chapters. You do indeed need to know something of the other books to know all the details referred to in the Koran, though passages exhorting believers to be nasty to people are set out plainly and obviously. And despite the abrogation of certain passages, I've found the general rule is that the nastier bits were written later on in the compilation of Muhammad's on-the-hoof verses.


And no, I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, though I have read the Koran and have some understanding of the religion's birth. I'm not expecting people to find my replies sensible if they don't wish to, but I do thank you for thinking I have charisma.


The point is that Islam does equal terrorism, though individual Muslims do not necessarily. I don't think you are an extremist yourself. But it is interesting that you claim I get it all out of context and then not tell me what that context is supposed to be. Either that or you directly contradict the evidence I have given with no counter.




Let us have just one example and then we can call it a day if you wish. What does this mean:

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6985] Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

That is IMPOSSIBLE to quote out of context. It's about as clear and unambiguous as you can get. But OK, how am I wrong in thinking that Jews are the enemy who must be slaughtered in showdown, Nazi style?



More sadism and brutality here: Quotes from the Koran


___________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX:

First of all please do not use arabic words that I don't understand.

Even I know, by talking to Muslims I've worked with, that the Koran and Islamic teaching ought to be in Arabic by command of Muhammad, so a few important words are known here now. Anyway, Dar Al Harb means 'House of War', as opposed to Dar Al Islam which you can work out for yourself.

Besides, my use of Dar Al Harb was in a reply to someone else.

 

[Andalublue]

That is IMPOSSIBLE to quote out of context. It's about as clear and unambiguous as you can get. But OK, how am I wrong in thinking that Jews are the enemy who must be slaughtered in showdown, Nazi style?

More sadism and brutality here: Quotes from the Koran

The Koran is just one more holy book to those who aren't of the faith, no more violent than many.
When you can find equally violent exhortations in the Bible, etc quote swapping becomes meaningless;
anyone can do that and make the bloodthirsty language and attitudes appear intrinsic to a religion.
Try the same game with any religious text and it's just as easy. You choose to single out Islam.

It's the interpretation that engenders violence and the political manipulation of those who use scripture to their own twisted ends.

 

[alexa]

The point is that Islam does equal terrorism,

My Gosh, you have no education at all and you living just across the pond from Northern Ireland

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

Tell me RoP what is an Islaophobe - someone who hates Muslims more than necessary perhaps?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Yeeeeees, aren't I thick compared to you? That's a common insolent theme with you and it says a bit about your character I reckon.



The Loonwatch article seems to imply that Islamic extremism is insignificant. But given that the timespan it quotes begins in 1980 (way before the explosion of Islamic terrorism since 9/11) and that most Muslims are still in the Islamic world and have no need for militancy against the kufir, it's misleading. But then, given that it's from a site designed to slander and ridicule whistleblowers, what else is expected?

Its implication that large-scale Islamic extremism is a myth (by only mentioning terrorists for one thing) is debunked by this academic study paper: (Page 1 of 18) - Explaining the Recent Surge in Islamic Extremism authored by Freeman, Michael.


And also given that according to your own paper 24% of terrorist attacks since 1980 were carried out by fellow Lefties, you're on a tight moral precipice!



______________________________

Some more digestable articles on extremism: The Rise of the Muslim Terrorists | The New York Review of Books

Rise Radical Islamic Terrorism United States essay islamic terrorism analysis united states - 45906

Islamic Terrorism on the Rise Domestically and Internationally Since Obama Became President in 2009 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Further massive dossier: http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...emism+%+rise&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8



'COURSE, IT'S ALL WHITEY'S FAULT: Islam Watch - "Blame the West for Islamic Terrorism" by Mumin Salih




For someone so inferior and unintelligent, I've got quite a few facts on my side!

 

[alexa]

Yeeeeees, aren't I thick compared to you? That's a common insolent theme with you and it says a bit about your character I reckon.



The Loonwatch article seems to imply that Islamic extremism is insignificant. But given that the timespan it quotes begins in 1980 (way before the explosion of Islamic terrorism since 9/11) and that most Muslims are still in the Islamic world and have no need for militancy against the kufir, it's misleading. But then, given that it's from a site designed to slander and ridicule whistleblowers, what else is expected?

Its implication that large-scale Islamic extremism is a myth (by only mentioning terrorists for one thing) is debunked by this academic study paper: (Page 1 of 18) - Explaining the Recent Surge in Islamic Extremism authored by Freeman, Michael.


And also given that according to your own paper 24% of terrorist attacks since 1980 were carried out by fellow Lefties, you're on a tight moral precipice!



______________________________

Some more digestable articles on extremism: The Rise of the Muslim Terrorists | The New York Review of Books

Rise Radical Islamic Terrorism United States essay islamic terrorism analysis united states - 45906

Islamic Terrorism on the Rise Domestically and Internationally Since Obama Became President in 2009 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Further massive dossier: islamic extremism % rise - Google Search



'COURSE, IT'S ALL WHITEY'S FAULT: Islam Watch - "Blame the West for Islamic Terrorism" by Mumin Salih




For someone so inferior and unintelligent, I've got quite a few facts on my side!

If you do not want people to point out your lack of education you should not say such ridiculous lies as Islam equals Terorism.

I'm not interested in debating your racist points but I would like an answer to my question whether to you the definition of Islaophobia is more hatred of Muslims than necessary ....

 

[Andalublue]

And also given that according to your own paper 24% of terrorist attacks since 1980 were carried out by fellow Lefties, you're on a tight moral precipice!

I note that you choose to ignore the FBI stats on extremist Jewish groups. 7% doesn't make Judaism = Terrorism, but then neither does 6%.

You will always need knowledge-free extremist rhetoric to justify your prejudice. If you feel so confident of your understanding of the Qu'ran, perhaps you'd share with us your theological qualifications.

 

[alexa]

Hmm seems I was a bit quick deciding not to read what rop said after noticing the 'whitey#, in the last line. The details are for 2006/7/8.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If you do not want people to point out your lack of education you should not say such ridiculous lies as Islam equals Terorism.

It does. I've pointed out time and again that Islam was a creed built for war by a genocidal megalomaniac. The fact is that you choose to ignore what you don't agree with, despite the raft of documentary evidence, choosing again to fall back on smears but no evidence. I've said it before and I've said it again. So don't get personal.

The details are for 2006/7/8.

And pending. Plus the other articles make a more contemporary roundup than yours. Once again, not a single attempt to rebut my dossiers of evidence, instead relying on personal attack or implication of invalidity with no floor. How very leftist.

I note that you choose to ignore the FBI stats on extremist Jewish groups.

Not really but it's not relevant. And I'm not surprised there have been militant Jewish groups with all they've had to put up with through the many many centuries. That's not to say I condone terrorism of course.

 

[alexa]

It does. I've pointed out time and again that Islam was a creed built for war by a genocidal megalomaniac. The fact is that you choose to ignore what you don't agree with, despite the raft of documentary evidence, choosing again to fall back on smears but no evidence. I've said it before and I've said it again. So don't get personal.

Genocidal Mania? Know nothing about WW2? I Know your interest is based on one thing and one thing only to hear yourself again speaking your hatred of Muslims. The way I see it you are the one walking on genocidal leanings.

I can ignore anything you want to fluff up your hate. You made a claim that Islam equals terrorism. Such a claim is not true.

Again is Islamophobia to you more hatred of Muslims than necessary or do you just go by the 'they are just so hateful only a leftist would not be Islamapobic'?

I make a point of not answering your posts because you are always so insulting and racist. I just could not believe my eyes when I saw you had written that you believe Islam equals terrorism. You did for a moment surprise me the extent to which you will allow you fantasies and lack of accuracy to go.

I can remember when people such as yourself just hated 'Pakis' now it's Muslims. New name, old hate.

However, I am not interested in spending my evening with a trolling insulting racist so my time with you is done.

 

[Andalublue]

It does. I've pointed out time and again that Islam was a creed built for war by a genocidal megalomaniac. The fact is that you choose to ignore what you don't agree with, despite the raft of documentary evidence, choosing again to fall back on smears but no evidence. I've said it before and I've said it again. So don't get personal.

And pending. Plus the other articles make a more contemporary roundup than yours.

Jewish, Christian, Mormon and umpteen other faiths have skeletons in their closets and early histories that none of their modern followers would wish to emulate. Unless you are judging all by the examples of their founders, you cannot single out just one faith, because you don't like their dark faces. Seeing as you ignore everything you don't wish to acknowledge, as per previous post, back at ya. This is the RoP we know and...

Do you want to elaborate on what you mean by 'and pending'? I can't work out whether we are waiting for new stats or are expected to assume 2006-8 hold good for all time.

Even hard-line pro-Israeli posters like Apo don't expect us to take things as read, and you have form.

Now, any chance we could return to the topic? Are you arguing that because Turkey is a majority Moslem state, and Islam=Terrorism, therefore Turkey in the EU assures terrorist activity across the union? Zionism is the secular philosophy of Israel that co-exists with the majority Jewish religion. In similar fashion, Ataturkism is the secular Turkish philosophy that co-exists with the Islamic majority religion. Secular and religious forces can and do cohabit peacefully, if not always harmoniously. Cameron seems to understand this. Unlike Sarkozy, Merkel et al. Maintaining a balanced, secular Union of multiple faiths would be helped greatly by admitting Turkey.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I couldn't care less about your slander and misguided intuition. Intuition which howlingly dictates that I'm some kind of latent mass murderer for blowing the whistle! How's THAT for leftist hyperbole and slander?!

Therefore I say:


PROVE that Islam is a Religion of Peace using Islamic scripture DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING my own proof.

REBUT my evidence, with your evidence NOT subject to Islamic rules of Abrogation when sourcing from the original Islamic documents or histories.

And ENSURE that when quoting any articles saying Muslim groups oppose this and that on the part of extremists, give me a reason that their position is ordained in their three books by the 'prophet'. Plus that they're in a position to actually do anything about it.


Go on then Miss Clever Clogs - emerge from your pokey hole of evidence-free slander and playground name-calling and give me a nice juicy bone of evidence to gnaw on!

___________________________________________________

Maintaining a balanced, secular Union of multiple faiths would be helped greatly by admitting Turkey.

And other than for whim or dogma, such an institution is required in the West because......?

It's a hard act to balance one cultural system with another. And as the minority grows bigger, greater friction ensues. I've also pointed out evidence of that in the past.

 

[Andalublue]

PROVE that Islam is a Religion of Peace using Islamic scripture DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING my own proof.

REBUT my evidence, with your evidence NOT subject to Islamic rules of Abrogation when sourcing from the original Islamic documents or histories.

And ENSURE that when quoting any articles saying Muslim groups oppose this and that on the part of extremists, give me a reason that their position is ordained in their three books by the 'prophet'. Plus that they're in a position to actually do anything about it.

Referring to a past post where I showed that you do indeed hate Moslems, it's not a stretch to see how the vehemance of your hyperbole might lead towards genocidal violence in others, if not in you. As far as 'proving' Islam is a religion of peace, how would one do that? Citing passages from scripture, as I said before, means nothing. It is possible to make any case you like from almost any scripture on the planet. Showing how the vast majority of Moslems are peaceful and law-abiding, even if they don't share my outlook on life, should be proof enough. The FBI stats from the previous post show that Moslems are significantly less likely to be terrorists than Latinos, Jews, or 'leftists', however that is defined.

Perhaps you are just enjoying your tinkering in religious texts too much and pretending that they are scientific treatises. I think that looking for 'proof' of anything (historical, scientific, linguistic etc) in holy books is like looking for soup in a volcano. Go on wth your own book larnin' by all means, but don't go playing the quote game when you clearly aren't approaching anything with an open, academic curiosity, merely a desperation to score points.

 

[alexa]

RoP if you believe it is slander have the guts to continue arguing with andublue without using your hatred as the only answer.

As he himself has said, take almost any religion and certainly the three major ones Islam, Christianity and Judaism and you will find plenty of fuel to fire any hatred.

Argue with reason with Andalublue and show me wrong.

 

[Andalublue]

And other than for whim or dogma, such an institution is required in the West because......?

Dunno. Idiotic idea of long-term peace. Could that have any benefit for everyone, whether western or otherwise?

Knowledge of your own and others' faiths and culture will always contribute to, rather than detract from harmony, cooperation and mutual prosperity.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Once again, slander and counter-questions to escape answering my points.

Hatwed... Oh, you've got me bitchslapped! Rave away, rave away.


So you CAN'T prove that Islam is a Religion of Peace. And as I've said many times before, because the truth has been ignored, Islam was founded for the purposes of war, whilst the others were built for peace but had no shortage of brutal madmen spreading violence in its name until such junk was abolished.

And what's more, Islam is the only religion which is supposed to be unreformable, unlike Christianity say. There's your major difference.




And you don't need just the Islamic scripture to make arguments. The single article you both quote from is again undermined by the fact that VIRTUALLY ALL people arrested for terrorism in Britain class themselves as Muslim. Just one example of the huge shift in the terrorist demographic since 1980 and a fact deliberately overlooked to downplay the increase in Islamic fundamentalism.

And that's not to mention 'ordinary' Islamic extremists who, if not carrying bombs, are being filmed by Channel 4 indoctrinating kids with terrorist propaganda or making a nuisance of themselves demanding rafts of special concessions, including making the police CONSULT them before arresting people and wanting their own legal system! A state within a state in other words.





___________________________________________

The National Association of Muslim Police is in denial over Islamist terrorism – Telegraph Blogs

The terror schools are the rifest deep inside the Islamic world: New Statesman - Inside Islam's ''terror schools''

Living in denial, just like some of you here: Nick Cohen: We call it Islamic terrorism because it is terror inspired by Islam | Comment is free | The Observer

Police to brief Muslims before terror raids - Times Online

Orthodox or just plain wacko? We know which the Met Police choose: Muslim Extremist to Lead Police Liaison Unit Once Again


_________________________________

Knowledge of your own and others' faiths and culture will always contribute to, rather than detract from harmony, cooperation and mutual prosperity.

Can't upset even the criminals because they need 'special sensitivity' too: 13 Ways Terrorists Can Avoid Arrest from Planck's Constant

Obviously we can't just get along together, we need 'Community Cohesion' ministers to force 'integration', for example by bussing kids in to other schools purely because they're black. There is such a thing as being heavy handed and trying to fix what ain't broke.



http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=et...B&sa=X&ei=6ydbTPrBGdaQ4gafxsCyAg&ved=0CAYQpwU

 

[Efendi]

No, the Koran isn't. It's a, pardon my saying so, a tedious appendix volume to the Hadith and Sunnah, written in such bad prose that it's offensive to anybody with even an amateur or fumbling appreciation of literature.

And as for order, it is absurdly compiled in the order of the length of the chapters. You do indeed need to know something of the other books to know all the details referred to in the Koran, though passages exhorting believers to be nasty to people are set out plainly and obviously. And despite the abrogation of certain passages, I've found the general rule is that the nastier bits were written later on in the compilation of Muhammad's on-the-hoof verses.


And no, I don't claim to be an authority on Islam, though I have read the Koran and have some understanding of the religion's birth. I'm not expecting people to find my replies sensible if they don't wish to, but I do thank you for thinking I have charisma.


The point is that Islam does equal terrorism, though individual Muslims do not necessarily. I don't think you are an extremist yourself. But it is interesting that you claim I get it all out of context and then not tell me what that context is supposed to be. Either that or you directly contradict the evidence I have given with no counter.




Let us have just one example and then we can call it a day if you wish. What does this mean:



That is IMPOSSIBLE to quote out of context. It's about as clear and unambiguous as you can get. But OK, how am I wrong in thinking that Jews are the enemy who must be slaughtered in showdown, Nazi style?



More sadism and brutality here: Quotes from the Koran


___________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX:




Even I know, by talking to Muslims I've worked with, that the Koran and Islamic teaching ought to be in Arabic by command of Muhammad, so a few important words are known here now. Anyway, Dar Al Harb means 'House of War', as opposed to Dar Al Islam which you can work out for yourself.

Besides, my use of Dar Al Harb was in a reply to someone else.

I just came back from the work in late night now. My head is aching. I checked the negative selective verses in the link. See your quatotions of Hadidths.For now I can say that I totally agree with you about Hadidths. There are brutal, racis, ones amongs them. But these are not holly sources and their authencity are fairly questionable. It is these hadiths that say kill the renegade, stone women..etc.

I will reply the rest when I am awailable with a refreshed mind to work my english.

 

[alexa]

RoP, it would be good if you could as Andalublue asks in post 42 return to topic.

As a sidenote and off topic but very much on your ever topic, I notice that somewhere you claim to have learned about these despicable Muslims only at 9/11. Interesting. I think certainly on internet forums and certainly increasingly everywhere that appears to be the mindset through which the west is viewing the ME. It wasn't prior to 9/11. Now as I understand it, this very attitude is pushing the ME more in this direction. The problem with your way of looking at things is first, it demonises Muslims living in Western societies which they do not deserve and encourages racism and is not acceptable to most people and secondly it does SFA to meet and deal with the real issues, all the time they are there festering, getting worse and all the time it appears that people like yourself are just geeing up for a Crusade.

We have to deal with all these issues one way or another. Ideally we will find a way to deal with them which will bring more harmony to the world. This seems to hardly have even entered the political arena because people are so busy shooing off people like yourself who read the Koran and bring out choice nasty sayings believing this proves that all Muslims are terrorists in waiting. Perhaps the reasons are more political than religious? As I say that is a footnote not trying to bring this into this thread because it is off topic. These are serious problems and not easy to solve. Maybe if you listen to other people with opposing viewpoints to your own, you could get a bigger view of the issues because our grandchildren are probably going to have to deal with the consequences of how people are acting now.

So, back to post 42

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

There are brutal, racis, ones amongs them. But these are not holly sources and their authencity are fairly questionable.

Indeed there are. But the hadiths are supposed to be the divine word, though there are now strong divisions between Muslims on the question of whether to follow them slavishly now. I've just had a Youtube debate with a Muslim on this very issue where we finally agreed that Muslims still loyal to each and every hadith were wrong. After a heated exchange we parted amicably, though DP has its own rules on temperate language.

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=5VfuPi7dl4Q

It would be good if you could as Andalublue asks in post 42 return to topic.

Don't see why not. The diversion's been explored and it was a relevant avenue as far as I'm concerned.


Though you do make an interesting point about Westerners becoming aware of Islam and Muslims since September 11. And governments promising Muslims the moon on a stick for 'cultural cohesion' is bound to stir things more. But 'demonisation' of Muslims as far as I'm concerned stretches only to those who deserve what is actually cultural exposure. ('Lyrical Terrorist' indeed!)

And no, I'm not geeing for a crusade - and that goes for one against us as well.

...people like yourself who read the Koran and bring out choice nasty sayings believing this proves that all Muslims are terrorists in waiting.

You've not taken it in after all this time. I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists-in-waiting. But I do believe and have seen evidence that Islam is the incubator for terrorist mindsets. They have no trouble picking it up for they're bigger motormouths on the juicy bits than I am, though for different motives.

And I honestly believe that less international interference and military adventures in the Muslim world will reduce the tension, though that should be at the expense of a complete halt of things like Western mosque-building, open-door Third World immigration, piecemeal adoption of Sharia and the like. I think both sides should just learn to mind their own business further than being friends with each other.

I agree that this is a poser and God knows who's got the most effective solution in practice. But we've escaped one Cold War unscathed, so perhaps we can make it through the new one.