Labelled 'fitna' 96 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,486 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,021 Posts

8 Threads

#91 10 years ago

Get back on topic, we have a thread for this type of discussion here.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#92 10 years ago

Sedistix, if you want to continue this I will respond in the religious discussion topic, but please leave your childish little personal attacks behind.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,795 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,179 Posts

6 Threads

#93 10 years ago

To return slightly to point: Yes, other abrahamic religions also include instructions as to the treatment of unbelievers/disbelievers. But that is not an argument for Islam; it is simply a further argument against abrahamic religions in general. The question is why we should allow such hate speech to persist within our societies, and appeal to other sources does nothing to mitigate, it just spreads the problem around.




do_NOt_ENTRY

******

50 XP

31st January 2006

0 Uploads

633 Posts

0 Threads

#94 10 years ago
Commissar MercZ;4808448Have you actually read the Koran, or are you just reading what people trim for you on the Internet? I've had to read it for comparative classes and while there are bad passages, the majority of it deals with the poor and how to dispense justice to criminals.

Yes. I'm aware there is plenty of non-violent passages, however, I have an extremely hard time believing you read anything substantial in your "classes".

Honestly, this whole practice of picking out unimportant passages and trumping it up as the chief feature of that religion isn't really "criticizing", just fear-mongering.

Unimportant to who? Islamic fundamentalists might have something to say about that. Wilder's point (or one of them) is that, as the Muslim population grows, so will extremists and sympathisers. Even if they are small portion, they will grow.

Your claims that Islam is chiefly founded as an anti-Semitic religion are just ridiculous. I mean techinically Arabs are semitites too, you know. The other thing I don't understand about this claim is that during its better times, the old Islamic caliphate let Jewish people flourish in their realms, especially occupied Spain.

That's great, but that information is pretty dated, and so is fairly irrelevant. I never said it was founded as an anti-Semitic religion, i said it has ties with Nazism. Jews are refered to as dogs and pigs in the Koran.

Don't the other main Abrahamic religions have passages telling what will happen to non-believers? However, unlike what seems to be the hip thing to do with Islam, I won't make those obscure passages the true meaning of the religion.

Do extremists justify murder with those passages? No.

And how does this have anything to do with the religion? Folk blame Mexicans for the same reasons and I'm not going to blame it on them being catholic.

See my post a few points above.

And what the hell is the University of San Diego doing studying things that a European statician should be trusted with?

SDU might find that comment rather offensive. I'm sure they are as capable at carrying out studies as any other university.

Which western nations would you even consider religious even more? Even those who claim to be religious simply go to services more than most of the population, not observe every rigid element of the scripture. I mean, we aren't seeing the Pope excommunicating Kings any more, or the massive religious wars of Europe's past over whose interpretation of the good book was correct.

America.

We have angry, religious evangelical nutjobs, but unlike in the weaker Third Nation worlds, they have little influence in the government to implement everything they want. I don't understand your point here. You say they are democracies but then talk about their endorsement of archaic laws. Seriously, you need to take a serious look at the governments of many of these nations. They're either one-party states, ruled by a king, or a sham democracy backed by the military.

Why can they not be both? They are elected governments (well, supposedly), that rule by brutal laws.

However, you are overgeneralizing, unsurprisingly, the laws going on. Again, how is this at all related to Islam? Sharia law which is used by Saudi Arabia is simply not true to the Koran's own law, and is only a sham measure. It's odd that while women in Saudi Arabia can't drive or hold jobs, those in Iran can. Iran also claims to be using legitimate Islamic law. Granted in the big picture they don't treat their women fairly, the point was that who says the Sharia really is what the Koran says?

Saudi Arabia is where Islam came from. All the laws are based on the koran.

Iran clearly has a more liberalised version of it. It's up to the respective country to interpret the law how they wish. They can both be legitimate interpretations.

However, the bottom line is that human rights are pretty much non existent in both countries.

No, but unlike you I wouldn't blame all one billion of the Islamic population over what the Ayatollah issued.

I'm sure a large portion of the muslim world supported the decision.

However, there's a difference between genuinly criticizing a religion and just hating it because of some group which is making you feel insecure. You can criticize Islam by mentioning why do they let radical clerics preach their messages, and why haven't they brought their religion to be modified for current times.

Islam and the west are polar opposites in pretty much every way. There's nothing wrong with not wanting the west islamified. I'm sure you've heard that British courts have adopted sharia courts? What about the fact that there are now schools in the EU that only serve halal meat? No go areas in Britain? Schools speaking urdu as a first launguage? The list goes on.

However, other folk insist on completely dismantling a religion over their own hate of some minority group. Where exactly is it ok to write off a religion of one billion people as medieval nutjoibs and just letting people spoonfood you shit about them?

Because the Koran is medieval bullshit. I think all religion is a joke, unfortunately it's islam that seems to be imposing itself where it's not wanted, not hinduism, not judism. The only people murdering innocent people in the name of a religion is islam. The only countries in the world with the worst human rights violations set down by law, are islamic ones.

Who's spoonfeeding me bullshit? I've clearly researched this far more than you have. Nice assuption, though.

Care to point out any fact i've stated as incorrect?

However, I disagree with your claim that it isn't bigotry. The problem is most of the people I've seen criticizing Islam have been doing it because of their problems with the minorities in their nation, not because of their general views on religion in general.

Well no one's going to stumble upon the koran in the street, pick it up and read it, then find it vile and offensive (although any one in their right mind would, if such an odd situations were to occur).

Of course, i became aware of islam when two large skyscrapers were destroyed in your country, when trains were blown up in Madrid, and when, just a few miles from me, 58 people were murdered in multiple terrorist attacks across london.

I wanted to understand why people would act this way. So i read the koran, read the ninth sura, and found out why.

Plus, going after Judaism is apparently bigotry, so I'm not really sure why they have the benefit of the doubt. Hitler thought the Jews were going to destroy German culture by seizing control of the businesses and marrying German females. Gee, I wonder how that went for him.

The jews never blew up berlin, or imposed their religion into german laws and customs, for starters. I'm not saying such action would be justified against muslims, at all. I'm merely showing that the comparison is weak.

If I was going to worry about the immigration issue. I would approach it in a different way rather than seeing it in such a black and white manner. However, I guess these gullible minds have allowed far right-wing nutjobs to secure seats in European parliaments by playing off their insecurities.

Actually, the far-right gets zero air time. ZERO.

What is actually happening is the majority of people want immigration either halted, or cut, and there is no mainstream government willing to listen. Thus, people turn to the far-right, the only party who will do it.

Is that because of Islam or the conditions in their countries? To be honest what you have mentioned exists pretty much everywhere at the moment. Muslim countries just happen to have them because they're also within the realm of the Third World.

Their laws are based on the koran.

They issues don't exist in first world countries legally.

Plenty do. However the media won't report on it because to be honest, it ain't newsworthy. It doesn't get people riled up as much as the image of the evil Muslim out to kill people does.

The BBC would be all over it. And, how do you know plenty do if it isn't on the news?

Meh, inevitably this will turn into more of an anti-Islamic rant in the end. It's exactly what this hate-mongerer really wanted to achieve anyways.

Are you referring to me or Wilders? I don't hate anyone. I, like most my fellow citizens, do not want Britain islamified. That doesn't mean i don't want muslims here, it means i -like most people -don't want laws changinng to accomodate them.




dRaStiQ

Master and Commander

50 XP

26th October 2003

0 Uploads

580 Posts

0 Threads

#95 10 years ago

do_NOt_ENTRY;4814971Yes. I'm aware there is plenty of non-violent passages, however, I have an extremely hard time believing you read anything substantial in your "classes". Unimportant to who? Islamic fundamentalists might have something to say about that. Wilder's point (or one of them) is that, as the Muslim population grows, so will extremists and sympathisers. Even if they are small portion, they will grow. That's great, but that information is pretty dated, and so is fairly irrelevant. I never said it was founded as an anti-Semitic religion, i said it has ties with Nazism. Jews are refered to as dogs and pigs in the Koran. Do extremists justify murder with those passages? No. See my post a few points above. SDU might find that comment rather offensive. I'm sure they are as capable at carrying out studies as any other university. America. Why can they not be both? They are elected governments (well, supposedly), that rule by brutal laws. Saudi Arabia is where Islam came from. All the laws are based on the koran.

Iran clearly has a more liberalised version of it. It's up to the respective country to interpret the law how they wish. They can both be legitimate interpretations.

However, the bottom line is that human rights are pretty much non existent in both countries. I'm sure a large portion of the muslim world supported the decision. Islam and the west are polar opposites in pretty much every way. There's nothing wrong with not wanting the west islamified. I'm sure you've heard that British courts have adopted sharia courts? What about the fact that there are now schools in the EU that only serve halal meat? No go areas in Britain? Schools speaking urdu as a first launguage? The list goes on.

Because the Koran is medieval bullshit. I think all religion is a joke, unfortunately it's islam that seems to be imposing itself where it's not wanted, not hinduism, not judism. The only people murdering innocent people in the name of a religion is islam. The only countries in the world with the worst human rights violations set down by law, are islamic ones.

Who's spoonfeeding me bullshit? I've clearly researched this far more than you have. Nice assuption, though.

Care to point out any fact i've stated as incorrect? Well no one's going to stumble upon the koran in the street, pick it up and read it, then find it vile and offensive (although any one in their right mind would, if such an odd situations were to occur).

Of course, i became aware of islam when two large skyscrapers were destroyed in your country, when trains were blown up in Madrid, and when, just a few miles from me, 58 people were murdered in multiple terrorist attacks across london.

I wanted to understand why people would act this way. So i read the koran, read the ninth sura, and found out why.

The jews never blew up berlin, or imposed their religion into german laws and customs, for starters. I'm not saying such action would be justified against muslims, at all. I'm merely showing that the comparison is weak.

Actually, the far-right gets zero air time. ZERO.

What is actually happening is the majority of people want immigration either halted, or cut, and there is no mainstream government willing to listen. Thus, people turn to the far-right, the only party who will do it. Their laws are based on the koran.

They issues don't exist in first world countries legally.

The BBC would be all over it. And, how do you know plenty do if it isn't on the news? Are you referring to me or Wilders? I don't hate anyone. I, like most my fellow citizens, do not want Britain islamified. That doesn't mean i don't want muslims here, it means i -like most people -don't want laws changinng to accomodate them.

Entry can I have your babies?




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#96 10 years ago

do_NOt_ENTRY;4814971Yes. I'm aware there is plenty of non-violent passages, however, I have an extremely hard time believing you read anything substantial in your "classes". [/quote]

We read a considerable number of religious texts, non-religious texts, and some oriental things to analyze methods of these.

What was common in all these texts that were analyzed that they were different ways of trying to fashion some sort of order. All religions in the end were ultimately some attempt at setting down some code of order and society, albeit how crude and draconian some measures were.

That was the main point. I can go and pick out lines here and there out of a fairly large text to yell about how violent x religion is and how it encourages bad behavior, but to imply that was the main purpose of the religion and its holy texts, it makes no sense.

Anyone can do that. I can get a condensed holy book by only leaving the bad things in there and make people hate it.

However, your post claimed the book was "filled with anti-semetic" statements as you would put it. I was pointing out there is very little of that sort in there, much less the focus of its attention.

Unimportant to who? Islamic fundamentalists might have something to say about that. Wilder's point (or one of them) is that, as the Muslim population grows, so will extremists and sympathisers. Even if they are small portion, they will grow.
Same reasoning was used by similar folk in the United States over Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants to the United States way back. Looking back at it, I'd say it was pretty unsubstantiated.
That's great, but that information is pretty dated, and so is fairly irrelevant. I never said it was founded as an anti-Semitic religion, i said it has ties with Nazism. Jews are refered to as dogs and pigs in the Koran. Do extremists justify murder with those passages? No.

Uh, how exactly would a religion be tied to Nazism? I don't understand your train of thought there. Oh, and here you go back to just singling out the religion to being anti-semetic. I really can't fathom how an entire religion would be founded on that, sorry.

Yes, there are passages that mention the Jews in bad light, but most religions do have mentions of the non-believers around them. That ties back into the larger notion of religion which is for another thread.

However, to say that the Koran's most obvious feature is that is utter bullshit.

However, you did say it was "filled" with anti-semitic statements, so I'm going to believe that's what you meant.

Saudi Arabia is where Islam came from. All the laws are based on the koran.

Based on the interpretation of local Imams who "condensed" the teachings for the masses. However, it is quite similar to when the Roman Catholic Church has their own little things being inserted into society, like the sales of indulgences and forcing people to use Latin in mass.

Iran clearly has a more liberalised version of it. It's up to the respective country to interpret the law how they wish. They can both be legitimate interpretations.

You missed my point. They are all ultimately interpretations. The only people who say they are true are the mullahs and Imams who say they are. A lot of it twists what the Koran originally says or simply stretches it into something much different.

I'm sure a large portion of the muslim world supported the decision.[/quote]Really? Any stats to back that up? That's like me saying the majority of the West things along my mindset, or someone else's mindset.

Because the Koran is medieval bullshit. I think all religion is a joke, unfortunately it's islam that seems to be imposing itself where it's not wanted, not hinduism, not judism. The only people murdering innocent people in the name of a religion is islam. The only countries in the world with the worst human rights violations set down by law, are islamic ones.

But why blame it on the religion? You are generalizing the efforts of a terrorist groups and merging it with anti-immigration and nativist sentiments of Muslim immigrants, much like Mr. Wilders did.

How exactly is Islam doing anything? Mr. Wilders didn't attack radicalism, he directly attacked the religion in a hateful manner. If he did that with Judaism or Christianity, he would have gotten the same treatment.

Who's spoonfeeding me bullshit? I've clearly researched this far more tan you have. Nice assuption, though.[/quiote]

Care to point out any fact i've stated as incorrect?

Because your post is filled with generalizations. That's all I'm reading.

Oh, let's see. The book is filled with hate passages, has Nazi links,filled with anti-semetic statements, teaches violence, etc etc All in all, you went off topic from Mr. Wilder's piece of shit "documentary" to a hate spheel about Muslims.

Well no one's going to stumble upon the koran in the street, pick it up and read it, then find it vile and offensive (although any one in their right mind would, if such an odd situations were to occur).

And this relates because?

Of course, i became aware of islam when two large skyscrapers were destroyed in your country, when trains were blown up in Madrid, and when, just a few miles from me, 58 people were murdered in multiple terrorist attacks across london.
wanted to understand why people would act this way. So i read the koran, read the ninth sura, and found out why.

And I'm willing to bet you picked out an obscure passage of that surah, probably laid out nicely on some website.

Only thing I can recall is maybe two paragraphs accusing rabbis and monks of hoarding wealth. The rest of the passage mainly focuses on what unseemly behavior for that time.

All of that is set in context of when it was "revealed", that is during the wars against other tribes in the peninsula when Islam was just beginning. It is of course one of the more violent filled ones, but I can't see how it would be extrapolated into somehow justifying those terror bombings.

The jews never blew up berlin, or imposed their religion into german laws and customs, for starters. I'm not saying such action would be justified against muslims, at all. I'm merely showing that the comparison is weak.

No, but much like Muslims there was a perception that they were running society and forcing things to curtail to them when courts ruled in their favor in regards of civil issues and property claims.

The only difference was that there was no attack by a Jewish group. However, like this train of thought people will apply the actions of a group to the entire population.

What is actually happening is the majority of people want immigration either halted, or cut, and there is no mainstream government willing to listen. Thus, people turn to the far-right, the only party who will do it.

They only USE immigration as a way to get elected, and to overshadow their other goals in the government. Much like Mr. Wilders and his party. They just use the classic scapegoating tactic that has been a tried and true method for populists and fascists everywhere.

Immigration has always been an issue for any nation at anytime, but this nativist sentiment has never really been any better.

Are you referring to me or Wilders? I don't hate anyone. I, like most my fellow citizens, do not want Britain islamified. That doesn't mean i don't want muslims here, it means i -like most people -don't want laws changinng to accomodate them.

I don't know, the way you come off tells me something else.

When people get the perception that x minority group is forcing y majority to adhere to their demands, it leaves a bitter population wanting a scapegoat to blame their issues on. I mentioned before the Polish, Italian, and Irish immigrants to the US who were accused of trying to force their beliefs into US society, and people advocated for limiting the immigration standards, using crime statistics that they were in mob activity or radical politics to back their claim that they were inherently violent.

But ultimately, how does any of this go back to religion? To me the larger issue is simply that of immigration. I'm fine with people arguing about that because I really honestly don't care about that, but when it gets to the point that people go into tangents bashing one's beliefs, well that's not really relevant at all.

Trying to play to this conspiracy that the Koran is guiding all these immigrants to do what they are doing is just unfounded. I can't see anything there, but it well have an audience with people wanting the easy way out.

I don't care about your beliefs on religion and I don't really think you should have to take mine in to consideration. All I'm talking about is it's not really a smart thing to go and bash a religious text in that manner.

However, so as long as this atmosphere persists, people will let hate-mongerers like this MP persist. And there's always going to be a receptive crowd waiting for him.

That is not the solution. Like I said before, the Dutch MP should have not written off the issue as something of purely religion. Study other effects like socio-economics, social enclaves, political views, and the norms (which factors in religion ultimately) among those groups of immigrants.

This man however took the path of hate, not much different from the very thing he was attacking for having, picked out some lines here and there, got some "experts", and put together something that was only noteworthy because it played off fears and anger of a populace. He didn't reveal anything extraordinary, anything thought provoking, nothing. He was just hoping to gain attention so he could get his message back to center stage.




Behold

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th December 2008

0 Uploads

65 Posts

0 Threads

#97 10 years ago

Athiesm in general makes no claims about the 'purpose of the universe.' Athiests simply do not believe in the existence of deities.