Danger of Islam!

[Shamanita]

I read in the newpapers today that the president of somalia introduced sharia laws... very sad...
but there's a difference between the islam itself (as a religion) and islamism (political islam). I think zezt is more talking about the second, as islamism is a threat.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I read in the newpapers today that the president of somalia introduced sharia laws... very sad...

Last night I saw on the news that Geert Wilders and his 'Freedom Party' became very popular since he was indicted and refused entrance into the UK.

but there's a difference between the islam itself (as a religion) and islamism (political islam). I think zezt is more talking about the second, as islamism is a threat.

What I've been arguing throughout this thread, mostly in my own words, is that although you're right that physical danger (bombs, knives, bullets) only comes from "political islam", there is also a subtle danger in Europe submitting to the demands and desires of the islamic religion in general, insofar as they are diametrically opposed to modern values. If Europe does not resist such pressures, the religious Islam will create an infrastructure for political islam to proliferate.

Yes, the problem is political, sectarian and/or territorial (the conflict in the Middle-East for example, with Americans and the UN trying to control the region), but it is also scriptural.

 

[zezt]

This was in our paper on Saturday: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21159061/

MULLAH JUSTICE: Over 1,000 men, women and children hanged in Iran over the past three years

*
*

By Lord Corbett Chairman, All-Party Parliamentary 28/02/2009

Defiant to the end, a convicted killer - and hero to some - faces his executioners.

A hooded gunman stands guard as Majid Kavousifar has the noose placed around his neck.

He gives a final wave to his family and even manages a smile before the bar stool he is standing on is suddenly kicked away. The body of rebel leader Kavousifar, 28 - found guilty of assassinating a judge - swings from a crane watched by a small, silent crowd outside Tehran's Judiciary headquarters.

This is "justice", Mullah-style.

More than 1,000 men, women and children have been hanged in Iran in the three years to last December.

In the first month of this year, 59 died, including a 35-year-old woman after 12 years in Rafsanjan prison. In December two men were stoned to death, a third being spared after he managed to clamber out of a pit where he was buried up to his shoulders.

The official 170 forms of punishment include limb amputation without anaesthetic and gouging out eyes with a spoon-like instrument.

Iran has executed the highest number of children in the world since 1990. Currently 71 sentenced to death await the gallows.

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran was set up 30 years ago, about 120,000 political prisoners have been hanged. About 600,000 have been tortured in the mullahs' notorious prisons. This is medieval murder on an industrial scale.

Spearheading opposition to it all is Maryam Rajavi, 56, presidentelect of the coalition National Council of Resistance of Iran.

One of her sisters was executed by the Shah who was exiled in 1979.

A second was murdered by the mullahs while pregnant.

The Council has 540 members, more than half of them women. It offers Iranians a democratic, secular coalition government through UN-supervised elections.

President Obama has signalled a willingness to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear weapons development and its arming of terror groups killing British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there needs to be another item on the agenda - how will the mullahs respond to 54 UN condemnations of its human rights violations?

The terror the mullahs use to stay in power is also exported. An estimated seven out of every 10 allied troops are killed in Iraq by roadside bombs supplied by Iran.

They also train and pay militants in their use. That government, our own and the US, were given these details by the Resistance.

The mullahs also train, pay and arm Hizbollah who try to strangle the infant democracy in Lebanon as well as Hamas in Gaza. The heart of terrorism beats in Tehran. It is also where its bankers are. The mullahs are brazen in their menace.

Sir John Sawyers, Britain's ambassador to the UN, said last week: "The Iranians wanted to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme."

For seven years, led by then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Britain, France and Germany tried to bribe Iran into ceasing nuclear development.

The policy failed - simply giving the mullahs more time to get nearer to building the weapons.

The UN's nuclear watchdog the IAEA, last week reported that Iran had enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.

Despi te sanctions it was expanding its nuclear plant. The world needs to tremble.

The Resistance tries to alert the world to the dangers.

After a long campaign, backed by a majority of MPs, the Resistance was taken off the list of terror organisations by the Court of Appeal.

How did Jack Straw react?

In an interview with state-run news agency IRNA last week he is reported as saying: "There is an independent kind of court... and it decided that the evidence did not support what the Government was saying." As the mullahs hang and torture those who want democratic change the best Mr Straw can say is that it is "regrettable" the Resistance was unshackled.

Those millions of Iranians who oppose tyranny deserve better.

Britain should stand with those seeking freedom, not siding with those who have stolen it from them.

Iranian history

1921: Military chief Reza Khan stages coup and names himself Shah of Persia.

1935: Khan changes name from Persia to Iran.

1941: Allies make pro-German Reza abdicate. His son Reza Pahlavi named Shah.

1963: Shah tries to modernise the country, gives women right to vote.

1966: Women can now divorce, marriage age up to 18.

1979: Shah alienates clergy, leading to riots. He goes into exile. Islamic Ayatollah Khomeini returns after 14 years in exile. Islamic Republic of Iran is declared.

1980: Women's hijabs made compulsory. Start of Iran-Iraq war.

1989: Khomeini issues fatwa on Salman Rushdie, for his Satanic Verses book.

1995: US imposes oil and trade sanctions.

2002: Construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor.

2004: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is made president.

2007: Stand-off with Britain after Iran detains 15 British sailors.

2008: Deadline for Iran to agree incentives in return for halt in nuclear activities passes.

Death toll

120,000 political prisoners have been hanged since the 1979 revolution

An estimated seven out of 10 allied troops are killed in Iraq by roadside bombs exported by Iran"

Now, I dont know if you know a politican called George Galloway? Well like you Wilders is 'far right' , Galloway is 'far left', and I had --in a way--liked his boldness about some issues, TILL the other month when he was all over saying that a gay male wanting refugeee status shouldn't get it, because it was 'pro war propaganda' against Iran!

I couldn't believe what he was saying so I emailed him and laid down the facts about the oppression against gay people there, and women, and children. And after about two mails to me denying, when i really pushed him to checkout what i was telling him, I never received further reply.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I just finished watching History Channels one and a half hour documentary Inside Islam (I borrowed it from the library). I learned a great deal from it. I'll write about it later though, I'm gonna watch Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon now.

 

[JJJ]

If Europe does not resist such pressures, the religious Islam will create an infrastructure for political islam to proliferate.

(just as a sinceere question) How do you have in mind that Europe should 'resist' there cultural pressures you assume? And what makes a categorical (as you clearly describe it) 'resistance' against a whole religion different from a suppression? (or do you think that religious suppression is a valid tool as well?)

Again, I think that the image of a (whole, not the extremist part of a) religion that threatens our culture is a myth. I think it's an irritional fear. Did you follow the news about Wilders' tour in the U.S. lately? I was expecting lots of sympathy from U.S. citizens and politicians for his ideas of course because of their issue with Islamic terrorist attacks, but instead, their reactions to him were quite indifferent. That's because in de U.S. they DO fear Islamic extremism, but in U.S. cities, Muslims are a large minority spread over all social classes and not giving problems at all. Thus, in the U.S., people have a very strict intuïtive separation between the Islam and Muslim extremism, and do not share our intolerance of Islam as a religion. So even the quite conservative Republicans do not share Wilders' 'islamification' fears. In fact, CNN even compared his anti Islam movie with 'Der ewige Jude', which I found quite just (allthough Fitna is much more amateuristic of course )

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

(just as a sinceere question) How do you have in mind that Europe should 'resist' there cultural pressures you assume?

Great-Britain for example should have allowed Geert Wilders entrance into the House of Lords despite Lord Ahmed's threat to gather 10.000 muslims in front of that building.

 

[Shamanita]

(just as a sinceere question) How do you have in mind that Europe should 'resist' there cultural pressures you assume?

Great-Britain for example should have allowed Geert Wilders entrance into the House of Lords despite Lord Ahmed's threat to gather 10.000 muslims in front of that building.

jeah, actually that's true,
in belgium, there is a community center where they aren't allowed to give alcohol to people on some occasions... coz some radical muslims asked to not allow alcohol there anymore. If we just said 'fuck you, we give alcohol if we want, you aren't going to tell the rules" there would be no problem... but we just let those radicals make up the rules, and that causes anti-islam thoughts by many people.

 

[Forkbender]

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters if you're a good person or not. Not in a biblical sense, of course, but the 'can look yourself in the mirror' type.

 

[GOD]

"In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters if you're a good person or not. Not in a biblical sense, of course, but the 'can look yourself in the mirror' type."

I agree ........... but the strange thing is that a lot of arseholes can look in the mirror and havent got a guilty conscience , or at least can pretend to themselves that they havent . I`ve noticed that several arseholes i know can take LSD and not freak out , and that the thick people i know never have issues on trips ??????

 

[st.bot.32]

yes, agreed, it's easy to forget that the so-called "bad people" might not think what they are doing is wrong.

Islamic terrorists, wanting revenge for bombs dropped on their countries, believe in what they are doing. they are willing to die for it.

Likewise, religious fundamentalists frequently are 100% convinced that they are right, and everyone else is not only wrong, but deep down inside, knows they are wrong. That's basically what the fundamentalists i've been exposed to thought.. that's why they believe god can judge them fairly and send them to hell or eternal damnation, because everyone should know better.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Religious leaders generally don't appreciate it when individuals really look into the mirror, because the more observant the individual becomes of himself, the more he or she will see through the bullshit of the belief system, and those expounding it.

 

[GOD]

"Religious leaders generally don't appreciate it when individuals really look into the mirror, because the more observant the individual becomes of himself, the more he or she will see through the bullshit of the belief system, and those expounding it."

Very true , but the same thing is true for religeous / antireligeous fanatics like you and zest .

 

[Forkbender]

^exactly what I had in mind throughout the discussion. If you find out something is bullshit, MOVE ON, don't waste time defending the position that it is bullshit, because then you are just a guy pointing to feces saying it is shit.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

"Religious leaders generally don't appreciate it when individuals really look into the mirror, because the more observant the individual becomes of himself, the more he or she will see through the bullshit of the belief system, and those expounding it."

Very true , but the same thing is true for religeous / antireligeous fanatics like you and zest .

Ah, so you're trying to lay a guilt trip on me. I should have pangs of conscience for the things I'm talking about, I should feel guilty and very bad for my opinions. Well sorry, I don't, and I will not.

 

[GOD]

I`m not trying to do that . Thats the way you want to see it , and thats called paranoia .

" and I will not"

Exactly . Your not open minded . Your not neutral . Your not objective . Your not willing to look at the fanatical things that you preach . Your just an egoist whos convinced that hes right = BLIND .

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Your not open minded . Your not neutral . Your not objective . Your not willing to look at the fanatical things that you preach .

Last night I spent one and a half hours looking at a more or less positive documentary on Islam, by the History Channel. It was extremely positive about Mohammed actually, and pointed out how the Islamic period in Spain actually played a major role in the European Enlightenment. Quite ironic... That documentary wasn't on TV, it was a DVD I rented. I also bought a book two weeks ago by an Arabic scholar, Nasr Abu Zaid, for the purpose of broadening my view. You may disagree, but I am trying to get a broad perspective here.

 

[zezt]

Your not open minded . Your not neutral . Your not objective . Your not willing to look at the fanatical things that you preach .

Last night I spent one and a half hours looking at a more or less positive documentary on Islam, by the History Channel. It was extremely positive about Mohammed actually, and pointed out how the Islamic period in Spain actually played a major role in the European Enlightenment. Quite ironic... That documentary wasn't on TV, it was a DVD I rented. I also bought a book two weeks ago by an Arabic scholar, Nasr Abu Zaid, for the purpose of broadening my view. You may disagree, but I am trying to get a broad perspective here.

haha CM I love your spirit of openmindedness. For me that is what debate, learning, exploration is, It is like a winding road around cliffs, or a labyrinthe, paths into the woods..............ie., it is tenuous. You HAVE to be flexible, and be aware that it is very easy to get lost on path/worldview, and once there cling like dear fuck to it. Etc. Anyone honest will agree

I am aware of this: That for many women and gays and children and criminals, and males in certain Islamic countries they are oppressed. That is not made up (and see the article I posted above). That is real.
Now, usually, as you say, it has been assumed that the reason for that brutality is because the Islamic traditions missed out on the 'European' Enlightenement, and that is because the Qu'ran is not to be contradicted because its believed to be the word of 'God'.
YET you say you have watched that History channel that claims Muslims were very much involved with and even influenced the Enlightenment. And I have just read an article that also says the same: Islam and the Enlightenment http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/artic ... umber=9680

and fished out this video: The Islamic Enlightenment: The Beginning of Modernity

So...where are we? How does this argument help us with our understanding of Islamic shariah law? With the Qu'ran and its violent passages which are very xenophobic?

yeah let us get a broader view

 

[zezt]

Today, or yesterday I received this: http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?opti ... 4&Itemid=2

"A Salute to Champions of Liberty Print E-mail
Monday, 02 March 2009
Geert Wilders, an outspoken politician and chairman of the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands who produced a 16 minute-long movie “FITNA,

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

YET you say you have watched that History channel that claims Muslims were very much involved with and even influenced the Enlightenment.

Yes, but that also had to do with the wealth certain families and later the Ottoman empire, and the creation of Baghdad with its library and many educational centers. Many Islamic scholars at that time would study texts in Latin, Greek and other languages. But I'd have to watch the documentary again to get the names (of cities and people) and the chronology right. Very interesting to find out that some of the Islamic tribes that invaded India had actually invaded the Islamic regions before, with Mongol ruler Ghazan Khan converting to Islam in 1296. The Mongol Empire launched several Mongol invasions into the Indian subcontinent from 1221 to 1327. That would mean the invasion was already attempted before the Mongols became Islamic.

 

[JJJ]

(just as a sinceere question) How do you have in mind that Europe should 'resist' there cultural pressures you assume?

Great-Britain for example should have allowed Geert Wilders entrance into the House of Lords despite Lord Ahmed's threat to gather 10.000 muslims in front of that building.

Okay, I had the idea that it was about systematic measures for a systematic problem, not about how to manage incidents. But your reaction is consistent with my opinion that this 'problem' is not systematic at all, but only consists of (media-!) incidents in itself. Only look at Wilders' movie: it's all about generalising from incidents and extremes as well. For that's all he has.