Thread: Is it rational to believe that there is a solution to the situation in Israel? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024541
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Given the strong evidence that there is a persistent threat to Israel's very existence in the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street and governments, is it rational to assume there MUST be a solution to the situation in Israel? It's nice to be nice. It's nice to be optimistic. It's nice to believe that the other will play nicely. But given the history and present attitudes, is it reasonable to assume there MUST be a solution? Or is this an irrational belief based on an ideology that doesn't actually reflect the real world?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I think it's rational to believe there is a solution. Look at Northern Ireland, it's not all rosy but it's come to a point where things are stable and nobody needs to worry about being blown up just for catching the train to work.

Sadly, I don't think it's realistic to believe there is, at this time, enough will on either side to make the compromises that would be necessary to come to that solution and to make it work in the long term.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What the bun said.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Rational to believe there is a solution? Probably not. But, it is IMO essential to believe there will be a solution. The alternative is to throw up our hands in despair and allow the ongoing injustice, intolerance, violence and general inhumanity to continue.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
Is anti-Zionism now self-hatred?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I agree with the burger. An interesting example is Ireland, where resentment towards the occupier, and towards the occupied, has lasted approximately 800 years, and is still going on. However, much of the real sound and fury has departed, since Ireland became independent, and of course, N. Ireland still rumbles on, but much abated. Thus, eventually, human conflicts are resolved, therefore it is rational to believe that there is a solution to another conflict.

[ 07. January 2013, 12:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
Is anti-Zionism now self-hatred?

--Tom Clune
Prepare for the thread to descend into the joys of etymology...
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Alan is right. There are ghastlier and ghastlier Heraclitean endliche Lösungen - loops of 'final solutions'. This made-in-England perfect storm, like Kashmir and all similar, coalescing failures of Christendom HAS to be solved. By Christianity. Nothing else can possibly save Israel. And America. And the world.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Bullshit.

There have been efforts by what I think you mean by "Christendom" to solve the problem of the Israeli Occupation, but they haven't succeeded because there is not any will to seek that solution by the leaders of the parties which are directly involved, none of which you would describe as "Christendom." Indeed, the nation which has put the most effort into finding a solution is actually a secular republic run by money-hungry corporations and not a Christian nation by any measure.

How do you propose that the "Christian" leaders of the nations you call "Christendom" force the leaders of the nations directly involved to come around to their viewpoints if they don't want to? Threaten to bomb the crap out of the nasty heathens (in "Christian" love, of course) until they surrender to your view of how they should conduct their internal affairs?
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
Or how about...

Given the fact that Israel has started building settlements in East Jerusalem that will literally cut the West Bank in half, making it virtually impossible for a contiguous Palestinian state to exist in the West Bank in the future?

Antisemitism in the Arab world is real and horrible, in the same way that anti-Islamic tendencies (the term "Islamophobia" seems so strange) in the United States are real and horrible. Frankly, both of them constitute a roadblock to peace.

But it's important to recognize that peace is a two-way street, and the current Israeli government has consistently acted to promote its own nationalist agenda at the expense of the peace process.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
And, of course, Israel has full Bibnlical warrant for taking "their" land for Israel's purposes. I take it that the other side can find justification in their scriptures, as read by them.

The Holy Book always trumps any sense of justice or even of the "other" people bing basically human. This, together with normal human needs to support one's own tribe, prevents any rational solution being acceptable, because a solution would involve the "other" side getting something.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It always scares the living daylights out of me when
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The Holy Book always trumps any sense of justice or even of the "other" people bing basically human.
happens.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Ultimately there is only ONE possible solution to the conflict. It won't happen anytime soon, because of hardened opinions, but I believe that there is, quite literally, no other answer. It's a three point plan:

1. Israel must return to its pre 1967 borders.
2. There must be an enforcible UN backed charter which guarentees Israel's right to leave peacefully within those borders.
3. Jerusalem must be made an international city in respect for its status as Holy City to three world religions.

The last of these would be the most difficult, as both Israel and Palestine would claim Jerusalem as capital, and would fight over the holy sites. So it must be taken out of both their hands. I would challenge anybody to come up with a better, or fairer idea.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Ultimately there is only ONE possible solution to the conflict. It won't happen anytime soon, because of hardened opinions, but I believe that there is, quite literally, no other answer. It's a three point plan:

1. Israel must return to its pre 1967 borders.
What do you do with all the settlers who live outside the pre-1967 borders?
quote:
2. There must be an enforcible UN backed charter which guarentees Israel's right to leave peacefully within those borders.
As far as state actors, this basically already exists, due to US support and Israel's nuclear weapons (the last war conventional war between Israel and its neighbors was in 1973). As far as non-state actors, it's not obvious how you'd want to enforce something like that, or what meaning it would have. If Hezbollah attacks Israel from Lebanon, then...a US force invades Lebanon in retaliation? That'll go well.
quote:
3. Jerusalem must be made an international city in respect for its status as Holy City to three world religions.
There is quite literally a 0% chance of this happening. While a Tel Aviv/Ramallah capital split would be lovely, it's a total pipe dream. Israel would never accept it, the US would never accept it, and frankly the Palestinians would probably never accept it.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Pax Romana again. Coercion. 2 just moves the gentile-infidel enemy above the locals.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the strong evidence that there is a persistent threat to Israel's very existence in the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street and governments,
You'll have to unpack this for me. Israel has the most disciplined and technologically advanced military in the region, between 150 and 400 nukes with the capability of obliterating any Arab state that goes to war with it and is a client state of the U.S. which supports it to the tune of billions annually, both militarily and economically.

How do statements from Arab governments threaten the existence of Israel again?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

1. Israel must return to its pre 1967 borders.
Let's just have Islam return to its pre 622 borders, instead.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Ultimately there is only ONE possible solution to the conflict. It won't happen anytime soon, because of hardened opinions, but I believe that there is, quite literally, no other answer. It's a three point plan:

1. Israel must return to its pre 1967 borders.
Why the 1967 borders - the line of the ceasefire in 1948? That ceasefire line was violated by attacks made between 1948 and 1967, as well as the attacks at the time of the 1967 war, and so the ceasefire line is now irrelevant. You don't reward aggressors for their attacks
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the strong evidence that there is a persistent threat to Israel's very existence in the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street and governments,
You'll have to unpack this for me. Israel has the most disciplined and technologically advanced military in the region, between 150 and 400 nukes with the capability of obliterating any Arab state that goes to war with it and is a client state of the U.S. which supports it to the tune of billions annually, both militarily and economically.

How do statements from Arab governments threaten the existence of Israel again?
Because of the experiences seen at the time of the first Gulf War, when missiles from Iraq landed in Israel, the recent persistent attacks from Gaza and the prospect of similar from Hezbullah in Lebanon and from the territories given back to the Arabs. Such attacks render the country effectively uninhabitable even if they are not massively destructive. Meanwhile the nuclear weapons make no particular different in that scenario.

As to the claim of 150 nukes - where on earth do you get that figure from? It would make very little sense for Israel to have that sort of number, let alone 400.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Nothing you describe presents an existential threat to Israel.

The nuke claim comes from an article by Kenneth Brower (February 1997), "A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East", Jane's Intelligence Review (14): 14–5 and is referenced in The EU Non-Proliferation Consortium: Assessing Nuclear Capabilities in the Middle East (Warning PDF) U.S. Air Force has made a similar claim. The U.S. Department of Defence estimates that Israel has between 60-80 nukes.

Either way, any Arab regime that presents a true existential threat to Israel is assured destruction. Even the radical Arab regimes, rhetoric aside, are concerned primarily about stability.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
EeEss - where do you get this colossal ignorance? Israel easily has 200 nuclear weapons including hydrogen bombs. Facilitated by France, America, Britain for 60 years.

My blood ran cold during the Carter administration when Begin said that if Israel went down she would pull down the temple of humanity. And I was Christian Zionist then.

Whatever problems Christendom has created that it won't address with, in, as Christ it will address with ever worse hell on earth. As it always has.

WE are the enemy.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Israel easily has 200 nuclear weapons including hydrogen bombs. Facilitated by France, America, Britain for 60 years.
[citation needed]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Common knowledge
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Why the 1967 borders - the line of the ceasefire in 1948? That ceasefire line was violated by attacks made between 1948 and 1967, as well as the attacks at the time of the 1967 war, and so the ceasefire line is now irrelevant. You don't reward aggressors for their attacks
Neither do you allow countries to take land by conquest. It's illegal under international law. Personally I'd prefer a single state solution with Israelis and Palestinians having equal citizenship. Even less likely than a two state solution unfortunately.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet, which country do you think has taken land by conquest, and which land have they taken?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Care to look at these maps?

Jengie
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I've seen those maps, Jengie. If the point is that the Palestinians' land has been taken, then by the logic of those maps ISTM the entire state of Israel is a taking of Palestinian land through conquest, by the 1948 Israeli declaration of independence. Or if one argues that the 1947 U.N. declaration (unratified by the Palestinians) gave Israel the right to exist, then why not argue for the 1947 proposed partition lines?

The armistice lines of 1949 were deliberately stated by both sides that they were armistice lines, not boundary lines. This was done, AIUI, deliberately so that both sides could contest the lines later.

So the ensuing encroachment on the yellow areas of the maps after 1967 could be seen as a continued contesting of the boundaries which were left deliberately undetermined in the 1949 armistice.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
TeeGeeBee.

I propose that Christendom, the cradle of anti-semitism, Islam, European global imperialism and the state of Israel (including by Balfour, an anti-semitic Anglo-Israelite), particularly in the case of that ultimate European power the USA, stop warmongering. Stop uselessly pouring arms and money in to proxies to maintain its 'freedom'. Stops creating enemies that can devastate it with a couple of box cutters.

Start pursuing peace at a trillion dollars a year instead.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Sorry, TeeGeeCee.
 
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the strong evidence that there is a persistent threat to Israel's very existence in the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street and governments,
You'll have to unpack this for me. Israel has the most disciplined and technologically advanced military in the region, between 150 and 400 nukes with the capability of obliterating any Arab state that goes to war with it
There is an unfortunate weakspot when it comes to nukes, though. If you're going to hit your neighbour with them, chances are you will get some blow back. I would imagine the nukes are as good as useless really, unless they fire them on to one of their more distant enemies.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the strong evidence that there is a persistent threat to Israel's very existence in the clear anti-semitism of the Arab street and governments,
You'll have to unpack this for me. Israel has the most disciplined and technologically advanced military in the region, between 150 and 400 nukes with the capability of obliterating any Arab state that goes to war with it
There is an unfortunate weakspot when it comes to nukes, though. If you're going to hit your neighbour with them, chances are you will get some blow back. I would imagine the nukes are as good as useless really, unless they fire them on to one of their more distant enemies.
Which is why you see the former ex shin bet head denounces Netanyu security because he is afraid he may precipitate nuclear war with Iran.
.

The continued fragmentation of Palestine
with settlements is going to lead to a situation where a Palestinian state is not practical, the choices are an apartheid state , the highly unlikely creation of a secular democracy for all, or mass deportation of the Palestinians. That used to be unthinkable, but now it's being talked about by members of the ruling parties.

The US should stop funding this. The fact that Netanyu and company supported Romney, have appointed their Romney co-ordinator as a diplomat and the attempts to prevent Hagel from being appointed to the cabinet may put a pause in the mindless support.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
It seems that any conflict where one or other side can claim the rhetoric that "God gave it to us" is doomed to failure.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Airbursts.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Mere Nick - Islam isn't a state, it's a religion. Ok, I'll accept that aspects of the Caliphate idea incline towards the theocratic. But there isn't a single Islamic state, there are states that are predominantly Islamic. The Arab nations in the Middle-East are by no means monolithic, any more than Islam itself is monolithic.

You may as well ask that the USA goes back to pre-1620 Pilgrim Father's borders ... he said anachronistically ...

Or that Anglo-Saxon England went back to its pre-Anglo-Saxon invasion/incursions state and reverted to the situation at the end of the Roman Empire with the Romano-British in charge.

No, what's done is done and we've got Israel sharing uneasy borders with its neighbours. What has to be found - however difficult and intractable it might seem - is some kind of solution that respects the rights, dignities and lives of all the peoples of the region.

The current situation is highly volatile. Things could go very badly for Israel if the 'wrong' guys emerged on the winning side from the civil strife in Syria. Assad is an asshole but some of the rebels seem very, very scarey indeed. I wouldn't hold out much hope for either Jews or Christians if the very extreme Islamists won through ...

I really don't know where to start but I don't see the likes of Ender's Shadow holding out much of a solution either. From what he's posted before it sounds as if he favours Israel gaining even more territory and extending its borders even further than, arguably, it ever even did back in OT times.

How it could ever do that without displacing other peoples, provoking a back-lash or even more conflict is beyond me.

What's your solution, Ender's Shadow? Show the surrounding peoples a copy of the OT and say, 'Look, here is where your borders should be ... just move your frontier back here, there and over there, give up this town and that town, that land and this land and then we'll all live happily ever after?'

There's got to be a better way.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's got to be a better way.
Why?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's got to be a better way.
Why?
Because your way cannot end other than in war and death.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's got to be a better way.
Why?
Because your way cannot end other than in war and death.
Some would see that as a solution, certainly in Natural Selection terms. In fact I do have a friend who once suggested we just put a dome (Simpsons movie style) over the top of the area and allow them to fight it out to the death... Beyond it's impracticality (where the hell would you get such a large dome from in the first place?) it does have basic humanity issues as well... but anyway the point is, some do see a war as the solution... friction builds, it needs releasing...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Only people whose mental faculties haven't developed beyond kids beating each other up in the playground to resolve issues in the interests of the biggest, strongest and thickest.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Only people whose mental faculties haven't developed beyond kids beating each other up in the playground to resolve issues in the interests of the biggest, strongest and thickest.
Very true, but still somepeople hold the view!
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's got to be a better way.
Why?
Because your way cannot end other than in war and death.
That's not a reason to believe there's got to be a better way - it's a statement of faith about the situation. Whilst emotionally attractive, that doesn't constitute evidence that a better way exists. Just because we want to believe that a child won't die of cancer, doesn't stop it from happening. And it's because there is a stream within the pentecostal church that argues in exactly the same way: 'If we only had faith, God would heal' - that pentecostalism gets a bad name. In the same way when people from the wider church wander round saying 'there must be a solution', they equally attract the contempt of the world.

Ultimately the question is whether there is a way that will result in less war and death than the present situation. It is a rational conclusion of many within Israel that given the anti-semitism of so many of their opponents, maintaining the present situation is the route that will lead to the least war and death. ALL the ways forward are bad; the question is whether we, comfortably settled thousands of miles away from the situation, have the right to tell the people in the potential firing line that they have a duty to gamble with the safety not only of themselves but of their children. For instance, if you drive your child to school out of fear for their safety, then you've proved you are unwilling to do the slightly more risky thing. Therefore you have no right to demand Israelis take the same sort of risk.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ultimately the question is whether there is a way that will result in less war and death than the present situation. It is a rational conclusion of many within Israel that given the anti-semitism of so many of their opponents, maintaining the present situation is the route that will lead to the least war and death.
The least death for them, maybe. I'm talking about the whole situation though. Israel might decide that its own safety is worth the deaths of any number of Palestinians, but that doesn't make it right.

quote:
For instance, if you drive your child to school out of fear for their safety, then you've proved you are unwilling to do the slightly more risky thing. Therefore you have no right to demand Israelis take the same sort of risk.
And if you sit safe in your house, knowing that you have easy access to food, water, schools and hospitals, and knowing that you can go and visit anyone you know, wherever they live in your country, without being subject to armed searches or checkpoints at any one of which you could be shot should you fail to obey perfectly the instructions you are given (assuming you are allowed to make the journey in the first place, of course), and furthermore knowing that your house and those of all your neighbours won't be bulldozed so that some other folk can claim your land as their own - as long as you have all of those safeties and securities don't you fucking dare suggest that depriving the Palestinians of every single one of them just so the people doing the depriving can have a bit more safety is the best solution.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
This side of the Second Coming ? I doubt it [Smile] [Angel] [Votive]

[ 10. January 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: PaulBC ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I propose that Christendom... stop warmongering. Stop uselessly pouring arms and money in to proxies to maintain its 'freedom'. Stops creating enemies that can devastate it with a couple of box cutters.

Start pursuing peace at a trillion dollars a year instead.
No money in pursuing peace. No wide-spread adrenaline to keep the ruling party in power. External wars for internal political reasons is one of the oldest games.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I mostly agree with what Belle Ringer just said, but there could totally be money in peace, if the governement / military-industrial complex wanted there to be. Agriculture, training, medical... I can't even begin to list the number of things that could be usefully bought with money that we can't afford because we are spending that money on war.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It seems that any conflict where one or other side can claim the rhetoric that "God gave it to us" is doomed to failure.
I think this video sums it up well: This Land is Mine
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It seems that any conflict where one or other side can claim the rhetoric that "God gave it to us" is doomed to failure.
I think this video sums it up well: This Land is Mine
Thanks for the link.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Just found this quote. I thought it was quite telling:

quote:
"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Lebanon's Hezbollah October 23, 2002
Then I decided to source it and found .
this collection of quotes

I'm sorry but these outbursts seem to answer the question in the opening post. There is no solution to the situation in Israel. And reading what this man has said, one can understand the attitude taken by Israel.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] Mere Nick - Islam isn't a state, it's a religion.
It is an ideology.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mere Nick - Islam isn't a state, it's a religion.
It is an ideology.
No, it's a religion. Just like Christianity and Judaism.

Alternatively, all three of those are ideologies rather than religions. Up to you, but whatever you categorise one as you have to categorise the other two as as well.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
They all spawn ideologies that's for sure, but most aren't predicated on any rational ideal or morality.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mere Nick - Islam isn't a state, it's a religion.
It is an ideology.
No, it's a religion. Just like Christianity and Judaism.

Alternatively, all three of those are ideologies rather than religions. Up to you, but whatever you categorise one as you have to categorise the other two as as well.
No. Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.

There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They all spawn ideologies that's for sure, but most aren't predicated on any rational ideal or morality.
Are you talking about the ideologies that some spawn, or are, or that religions aren't predicated on any rational ideal or morality?
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
There was for a very long time no separation of church and state in Christianity either. Was Christianity an ideology then, and only in the last few centuries reverted to being a religion?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
There was for a very long time no separation of church and state in Christianity either. Was Christianity an ideology then, and only in the last few centuries reverted to being a religion?
That appears to be what Martin PC may be referring to, but such a combination of church and state is not something I find taught by Christ or the apostles in the NT. I find not one rule for non-believers in the NT that I am to nag them about. There are teachings for those who believe. Not so with the koran.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
No. Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.

There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
A religion having different beliefs than your own does not mean it isn't a religion!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
“With respect to us, briefly, Islam is not a simple religion including only prayers and praises, rather it is a divine message that was designed for humanity, and it can answer any question man might ask concerning his general and personal life. Islam is a religion designed for a society that can revolt and build a community."

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. (Hezbollah Gen Sec)
Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2011-12-08.

What troubles me is that it is a religion that is actively hostile. It is essentially an intolerant philosophy.

I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.

Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?

THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
It takes the Old Testament and changes it to suit the Arabs (i.e. Ishmael and NOT Isaac is the son of promise, the one rescued on Moriah) - that means they can oppose Judaism and disrespect it.

It takes the New Testament and removes the cross, saying that Jesus did not die on the cross - that means they can oppose Christianity and disrespect it.
It says that both Old and New Testaments are all false versions of the original and that only Islam is true.

Their anger, hostility and intolerance - all officially sanctioned by their Imams, preachers, scholars, theologians and politicians and presidents(!) as well as the mob in the street (and three was a mob AFAIWC) - is not seen in similar ways within Judaism and Christianity. We do not teach official, enforced conversion and the subjugation of the world, even less do we teach the harrassment of Muslims, Hindus and Jews because they have a different 'faith system' to us.

If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us. But because the word 'militant' is ascribed to it (because that is how it behaves), or the concept of 'jihad' (because that's what it proclaims), it is more than just belief and devotion - this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.

It's about time people woke up to this fact.
And an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.

[ 12. January 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.' You seem to want to judge Islam by the worst bits in their scriptures. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
Firstly, what about Turkey? It's a democratic republic with a mostly Muslim population and a secular tradition. For Turkish Muslims, it seems that there's no difficulty in separating mosque and state. You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the most undemocratic Muslim countries. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?

Secodnly, a 'cheep veneer of religiosity'? Considering the genuine spirituality of the Muslims I've known, I find that offensive. How would you feel if the faith of genuine, loving Christians you've known was smeared as a 'a cheep veneer of religiosity'? You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the worst Muslims. Do you judge Christians by the same standard?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I would not be so sure about it Mere Nick. I believe that St Augustine* no less believed there was scriptural warrant for burning heretics. He was using passages such as Matthew 18:9-10 and Luke 14:23.

This is of course repudiated by modern readings, but sometimes when we speak confidently of what others believe we need to remember the ways we too have read the text in the past.

Jengie

* Yes that St Augustine, this is not a dig at Roman Catholics, both sides claimed him at the Reformation
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.'
That would be a valid point if the Christian faith were little more than the pre-exilic writings. it's not. We have the New Testament as well to which the Old Testament was the foundation but not the essence.

Where did Mohammed ever say, 'You have heard it said, but I say unto you...'

The Bible is not one book that says one message all the way through - it is a book of gradual revelation that is seen as a whole through the journey of faith.
Islam needs a 'New Testament'
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us.
You talk about "their Islamic intentions" as if all Muslims believed the same thing. Would you talk about Christians in such a pejorative way, in terms of "their Christian intentions", impyling that all Christians support the behaviour of the worst Christians?

You accuse Islam of bullying, intimidation, anger, hatred and intolerance; yet what you describe - getting on with practicising their faith - is exactly what the Muslims I know do. They don't behave aggressively or violently. Do you judge Christianity according to the behaviour of the worst Christians? If not, why the double standard?

You say that 'Islam needs a New Testament'. The Muslims I know have no difficulty in understanding that they should not follow the worst bits of their scriptures or religious teachings - just as Christians don't normally think that the worst bits of the Bible really justify genocide.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.
[...] an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There are ideologies within all religions, those ideologies should not be confused with those religions - and, in some cases, those same ideological positions can transcend the boundaries of individual religions.

The desire to establish Islamic nation states where the only acceptable religion is Islam (and, often only one Islamic tradition if the conflicts between Sunni and Shia in many majority Islam countries are a reliable indicator) governed by Sharia law is an ideology. It's an ideology that some Muslims certainly subscribe to (although there would be variants within such an ideology about the exact nature of such a nation state and how to bring such a nation into existence). There is a very large Muslim community who would not subscribe to such an ideology.

A similar ideology would be Zionism, with the desire to establish a purely Jewish nation state. It's an ideology that is shared by some Jews and Christians. It's also an ideology rejected by many Jews, and the majority of Christians.

The situation in the Middle East, and within Palestine/Israel in particular, is primarily a clash of ideologies rather than religions. Attempts to paint it as a religious conflict fail to accurately describe the problems - although many people have made it out to be religious; through intellectual laziness, ignorance or because such a misrepresentation suits the propaganda of their ideological position.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.

Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?

THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
OK, let me get this straight. You were in Hyde Park with a group of Salvationists. Presumably doing what Salvationists, and others, do in Hyde Park - haranguing passers by with statements of what you believe to be true. Many people just walking through the park would find that words like "bully" and "intimidation" would fit all the assorted preachers there.

Why should the Salvation Army be allowed to preach what you believe? Because, if you accept the right of the Salvation Army (or any other Christian individual or group) to preach in Hyde Park why shouldn't that right be extended to Muslims?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
As mine also don't.

This is just prejudice. I daresay there are plenty who would post likewise about Christians. Bizarre, considering Christian history. Some of which is recent.

I'll add that I know Palestinian Muslims who don't fit in Mudfrog's view of Muslims.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Both Mere Nick. All pay lip service to the Golden Rule, but from our behaviour, we hate ourselves: If we treated ourselves as we treat others we'd be extinct. ESPECIALLY the people of the book.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.' You seem to want to judge Islam by the worst bits in their scriptures. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
The difference between violence in the Bible and the Qur'an is that in the Bible the violence against others is set within certain parameters, in a particular timeframe and against a particular nation/race. In the Qur'an it is not, it is often, if not always, open ended, with no time constraints nor with a specific cause - it is in effect an eternal call to wage violence against anyone and everything to ensurethe submission (Islam of course meaning submission) of the world.

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
Firstly, what about Turkey? It's a democratic republic with a mostly Muslim population and a secular tradition. For Turkish Muslims, it seems that there's no difficulty in separating mosque and state. You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the most undemocratic Muslim countries. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
Turkey is not the ideal you hold it up to be, not anymore anyway. The radicalisation and Islamising of Turkey is evident and ongoing, it has under the current leadership reighned back 'secular' nature we like in Western democracies and has begun to promote a more Islamised state. I would be interested to know what 'Christian' countries you rate as oppressive and militant (both physically and ideologically) as say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (that great example of an Islamic 'Israel'), Iran, the manner in which Egypt/Syria is going, people on the streets of Europe and North America who seem able to use freedom of speech to incite violence and hatred (whilst also using the same rules to suppress other people's use of freedom of speech and expression).

quote:
Secodnly, a 'cheep veneer of religiosity'? Considering the genuine spirituality of the Muslims I've known, I find that offensive. How would you feel if the faith of genuine, loving Christians you've known was smeared as a 'a cheep veneer of religiosity'? You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the worst Muslims. Do you judge Christians by the same standard?
The trouble you face there is the disagreement about who is right, the 'peaceful' Muslim or the 'violent' Muslim - both have very valid arguments from the Qur'an, using the Laws of Abrogation and how later revelations are superior to earlier ones however confuses the issue as does Islam's history which was spread by the sword rather than by people preaching...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us.
You talk about "their Islamic intentions" as if all Muslims believed the same thing. Would you talk about Christians in such a pejorative way, in terms of "their Christian intentions", impyling that all Christians support the behaviour of the worst Christians?

You accuse Islam of bullying, intimidation, anger, hatred and intolerance; yet what you describe - getting on with practicising their faith - is exactly what the Muslims I know do. They don't behave aggressively or violently. Do you judge Christianity according to the behaviour of the worst Christians? If not, why the double standard?

You say that 'Islam needs a New Testament'. The Muslims I know have no difficulty in understanding that they should not follow the worst bits of their scriptures or religious teachings - just as Christians don't normally think that the worst bits of the Bible really justify genocide.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.
[...] an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
It's because they are living under and within western values.

I can tell you however that I know of one city council that so ran scared of the Muslim influence and stated intention to create an Islamic 'ghetto' in the city that they banned ALL faith groups, including Christians, from applying for a certain, let's say, 'contract'. They did this because they dared not say an outright 'no' to the Mosque leaders.

In this same city, an on another occasion, the council wanted to do a listening exercise and went to the main Mosque to hear from the elders. They then, in the interests of diversity and equality, asked to speak to the woman of that Muslim community and the elders said 'No! we will tell the women what they think and then we will tell you what they think.'

Do you really believe that in the UK there is no attempt to build and then spread a separate Islamic society? Do you really believe that even ordinary Muslims don't want Sharia law? In which case what about the Muslim Council and all the other bodies that oversee the lives of Muslims outside and in addition to British law?

I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others and are as nominal as the next C of E member. But there are a significant number of devoted Muslims who do indeed want sharia law and Islamic values to be superior to English law.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.

Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?

THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
OK, let me get this straight. You were in Hyde Park with a group of Salvationists. Presumably doing what Salvationists, and others, do in Hyde Park - haranguing passers by with statements of what you believe to be true. Many people just walking through the park would find that words like "bully" and "intimidation" would fit all the assorted preachers there.

Why should the Salvation Army be allowed to preach what you believe? Because, if you accept the right of the Salvation Army (or any other Christian individual or group) to preach in Hyde Park why shouldn't that right be extended to Muslims?
We had been at speaker's corner and, one by one, we had stood for a minute each and given our testimony. It was later on when I was by myself, away from the speakers' stand, that I was approached by these young men.

My point was not that they disagreed with me - a good natured discussion would have been OK, it was the fact they pressed in on me and were extremely threatening and hostile - waving their little booklet in my face. It was not a pleasant experience.

Can you REALLY believe that three Salvationists would approach a young Muslim man in a white robe, surround him in a manner that prevented his walking away, and wave a Koran in his face and start shouting, in unison, about what a false religion Islam was? Really?

And what's more, on a larger scale, can you imagine any church going, mainstream Christians doing this to Muslims?

And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Christians from being 'openly Christian' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Christian services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?

Really?

[ 12. January 2013, 10:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The difference between violence in the Bible and the Qur'an is that in the Bible the violence against others is set within certain parameters, in a particular timeframe and against a particular nation/race.
I don't think that we should get into a 'our scriptures advocate violence less than your scriptures' contest, when our scriptures include (apparent) advocacy of genocide. I remember a Christian speaker (who had tried for years to convert people of other religions to Christianity) who argued that Christians should be cautious about pointing out bad bits of other people's religions, because they can always point at similar bad bits in our religion. Our bad bits are sometimes different in the details, but getting into a 'our bad bits are less bad then yours' contest is doomed to failure, in my view.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Turkey is not the ideal you hold it up to be, not anymore anyway.
I didn't say that Turkey was 'ideal'. I said that it's a democratic republic with a secular tradition. Turkey's example shows that, for many Muslims, there's no problem with separating mosque and state. Yes, it's true that there are people who want to change that secular tradition, but this brings us back to 'judging Islam by the worst Muslims' territory.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I would be interested to know what 'Christian' countries you rate as oppressive and militant (both physically and ideologically) as say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan ...
Just as I'm not interested in getting into a 'your scriptures have more unjustifiable violence than ours' contest, I'm not interested in geting into a 'your human rights violations are worse than others' contest, either. I'm not saying that Christian countries are equally oppressive, or worse, than countries such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I'm saying that Christians - and countries that are officially Christian (like the UK) and largely Christian (like the US) have done bad, violent things - like kidnapping people and taking them to be tortured, in the extraordinary rendition programme.

I'm reminded of a senior judge, Lord Steyn, who said that "In the light of Guantanemo Bay, Abu Graib, Fallujah, the other horrors of the Iraq war, and the continuing relevations about so-called extraordinary rendition - a fancy phrase for kidnapping - the Muslim world may not be over impressed with protestations about the rule of law." In the wake of such events, Muslims may not be over impressed with claims that Islam is inherently violent, whereas Christianity isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The trouble you face there is the disagreement about who is right, the 'peaceful' Muslim or the 'violent' Muslim ...
I don't think I face any difficulty in arguing that we should not judge Muslims by a standard that we would not accept, if applied to Christians. I'm advocating moral consistency and respect for the principle that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us. My Bible doesn't have a footnote under that text, saying that this moral principle doesn't apply to Muslims.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
woops, that final paragraph should have read:

"And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Muslims from being 'openly Muslim' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Muslim services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?"

I had, of course, in my mind the situation in a number of Islamic states where you cannot worship openly or even build a church. And God help you if you convert from being a Muslim (even a non-practicing one) and become a Christian.

When the British government, spurred on by the Archbishop of Canterbury passes a law in the commons, signed by HM The Queen, making it an offence to convert from Christianity to Islam, punishable in the extreme, then I will say that Christians are equal to Islam in intolerance and hostility.

And please don't allow your white Christian son to marry a Muslim girl from Bradford - I can't vouch for their safety. I can't recall hearing of an Anglican family from the local parish sending some relatives round to beat up their Christian sister who has just married a bloke who isn't a communicant in the C of E.

[ 12. January 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Mudfrog: yes, there are some Muslims who want bad things. But there are also many Muslims who disagree with them. Since I don't judge Christianity by the worst Christians, I don't judge Islam by the worst Muslims. To do otherwise would be to accept the claim of the extremists that their beliefs are the real Islam. I don't believe that Christians with extreme views represent the only authentic Christianity; basic moral consistency requires that I treat Muslims in the same way.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others and are as nominal as the next C of E member. But there are a significant number of devoted Muslims who do indeed want sharia law and Islamic values to be superior to English law.
Firstly, my Muslims friends aren't merely 'nominally' Muslim. To treat non-extremists as 'not really Muslim' is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' trap. They don't want to impose sharia law or Islamic values on anyone.

Secondly, I'm reminded of Barnabas62's previous comments about Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's comments that "If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

You seem to believe that the world is 'so simple': any Muslims we know who aren't evil must just be 'nominal' Muslims because (in your view) real Muslims are violent, aggressive people who want to impose their views on others. The world really isn't that simple. There are people who behave violently and aggressively, who want to impose their views on others, in every sufficiently large human group. The problem is not that they're Muslim, or Christian. The problem is that they're human.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you REALLY believe that three Salvationists would approach a young Muslim man in a white robe, surround him in a manner that prevented his walking away, and wave a Koran in his face and start shouting, in unison, about what a false religion Islam was? Really?
I admit, that would not be consistent with the Salvationists I have met and know. I have, however, met Christians (albeit representatives of a very small minority of Christians) who might behave in such a manner.

quote:
And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Muslims from being 'openly Muslim' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Muslim services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?
I don't need to imagine such a Christian society. All that's needed is to open up history books, and you'll find plenty of examples of Christian societies where Christians persecuted other Christians for worshipping in ways different from that dictated by the state. Even in the UK we still have residual legislation that dates from such dark parts of our history (eg: laws that would prevent a Roman Catholic ascending the throne), and our history is not as bad as some.

From this side of the Atlantic (and, hence liable to be inaccurate) there appear to be elements within the Religious Right in the US who would quite willingly do some of the things you accuse Muslims of wanting to do here. Actively lobbying for the passing of legislation that supports "Christian" positions (eg: on who can marry, whether someone can have an abortion, what gets taught in school science classes) is not, IMO, that different from lobbying for Sharia law.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Indeed, Alwyn.

My Muslims friends were, by the way, people who pray every day.

Portraying all devout Muslims as intolerant or what have you is not only untrue but also plays into the hands of those Muslims, Jews, Sikhs or indeed Atheists who believe Christians themselves to be full of prejudice.

[ 12. January 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I don't think that we should get into ...
Look, I was just correcting some of your factual errors... what you wrote would probably be classed as a mis-representation of the facts.

It's easy just to go, oh but I don't think tit-for-tat is useful, but I was not engaging in tit-for-tat, I was pointing out that you are basing an argument on an unsound premise where you believe that Christianity and islam are coming from a similar background in terms of tradition and scripture, when they are not... at it's basic islam has a great deal of divergence from the Christian foundations which mean that in thought and practice the outcomes are going to be very different...

Yes all should be juged by the golden rule, and I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:


quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others ...
Firstly, my Muslims friends aren't merely 'nominally' Muslim. To treat non-extremists as 'not really Muslim' is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' trap. They don't want to impose sharia law or Islamic values on anyone.

Secondly, I'm reminded of Barnabas62's previous comments about Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's comments that "If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

You seem to believe that the world is 'so simple': any Muslims we know who aren't evil must just be 'nominal' Muslims because (in your view) real Muslims are violent, aggressive people who want to impose their views on others.
Maybe you are just as prone to simplifying it as well.

Please read what I wrote again. I did not say that there were only 'extremists' and 'nominals.

'Some of them are not as religious as others' suggests two groups: the 'not as religious' and 'the others' Both of which come under my definition of Muslims I have met. Some are nominal, some are religious.

None of them are extremists.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
]Look, I was just correcting some of your factual errors... what you wrote would probably be classed as a mis-representation of the facts.
You see it as 'correcting errors', I see it as 'trying to move the goalposts'. For example, I said that Turkey has a secular tradition. You argued that there are people who want to change that. While true, your comment doesn't change the fact that Turkey has a secular tradition.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I was not engaging in tit-for-tat, I was pointing out that you are basing an argument on an unsound premise where you believe that Christianity and islam are coming from a similar background in terms of tradition and scripture
Again, to me this looks like an attempt to move the goalposts. My argument doesn't require Christianity and Islam to come from a similar background. It requires that, while there are bad bits in Islamic teachings, there are also bad bits in Christian teachings. That's true. Also, your claim about Islam coming from a different background in terms of scripture sounds dangerously close to treating 'real Islam' as defined by the views of the most extreme, or most conservative, believers. I'm not prepared to do that.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
So you get to define what 'real Islam' is, and say that my Muslim frinds aren't following real Islam? We're back to the 'no true Scotsman' probem. I could only agree that my Muslim friends' faith 'would be more reflective of Christianity' if I was prepared to essentialise Islam as intrinsically bad, and Christianity as intrinsically good. I'm not prepared to do that - that's not reality.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Most self declared Christian are nominal and most non-nominal are extremist. Exclusive way beyond any biblical-apostolic mandate to damnationist.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
This came up recently for discussion. For people where I live, it is an armchair and distant discussion, as the representation of the two religions is extremely sparse (Judaism, Muslim). The point was made that the Palestinians need to have their standard of living raised, and that the neighbouring countries of Arabs, and the Palestinian country of Jordan are vested in not doing this, so as to have the non-democratic government despots remain in power, and to keep the demon of Israel as the projected enemy.

The further discussion was that Israel is really a tiny space and the sacrifice that is being asked of the Palestinians is rather small in terms of territory, much less onerous than say Treaty 11 or Treaty 6, and all the others, which were about the surrender of First Nations lands to Britain/ Canada.

The point was further made that there had to be something in it for the First Nations peoples, in terms of services from the government. money, and ongoing nature of relationship which is again being pressed for negotiation though without violence. There was also a coercive aspect in that without the surrender the people stood the distinct chance of dispersal and disappearance. I'm not trying to be inflammatory with these comments, but that's the Canadian parallel. Though I don't think we can call the Palestinians "aboriginal peoples" and thus, the comparison probably fails there.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.

What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.

This hot war (which has been continuous since the Palestine Arab revolt circa 1937 to date) is occasionally overt, but is always there; like the ''cold war'' between the USSR and the West from 1947 to 1990. In it's cold form it has been around for a long long time.

It's roots are political but they are also strongly religious. There is a clash of culture, faith and ideology.

As this thread and any others posted on the Ship of a similar nature, views are strongly held by all ''sides''.

Saul
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
So you get to define what 'real Islam' is, and say that my Muslim frinds aren't following real Islam? We're back to the 'no true Scotsman' probem. I could only agree that my Muslim friends' faith 'would be more reflective of Christianity' if I was prepared to essentialise Islam as intrinsically bad, and Christianity as intrinsically good. I'm not prepared to do that - that's not reality.
There is another religious book, full of violence and intolerance. Now, what was its name? I'm certain I've heard it referenced 'round here quite a bit....
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.

What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.
That is quite a chilling prediction to make - and is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Another Bosnia, another Rwanda is not impossible.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.

What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.
That is quite a chilling prediction to make - and is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Another Bosnia, another Rwanda is not impossible.
Of course some would predict an axis of nations would decide to ''sort Israel out'' once and for all.

I shudder to predict anything.

Saul
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So they wouldn't mind the nuclear consequences? There must be a point on a graph somewhere where Israeli Arabs and Druze outnumber Jews. What an interesting time that will be.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Interestingly the Jewish population of Israel has grown and by international standards is still very small, it reached six million mark in 2012.

See here.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/israel-jewish-population-six-million


The existential threats to Israel do exist and will continue to exist for a while to come IMHO. Solutions of any kind seem a very long way off.

Saul the Apostle
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sadly, and in another context, W H Auden was on the money when he wrote:

'I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.'

The Jewish settlers who flocked to Israel after WW2 had suffered great evil. Sadly, they also perpetuated great evil - on a smaller scale, of course - committing massacres and atrocities in several Palestinian villages.

But evil is evil and atrocities are atrocities by whichever side they are committed.

Violence breeds violence. There is a cycle of it here as we've seen cycles of it elsewhere.

Israel is surrounded by some pretty scarey enemies. If extreme Islamicists carry the day in Syria then I dread to think what might happen.

But there are people of goodwill and people working for peace and justice on all sides.

There are also bizarre things on both sides too. I recently saw an Israeli/Zionist website which was trumpeting about a Muslim Zionist - a Muslim who had come to reject the prevailing Islamic view and who was apparently singing the praises of Israel as a warm, welcoming multicultural state ...

All these things are relative. Mudfrog is right to observe that there is precious little freedom of religion in some strict Islamic states. But Islam is not monolithic, and there are nuances.

It strikes me that the big problem isn't Islam, Judaism or Christianity - but fundamentalism. It consistently demonises the 'other' and cannot accept or tolerate any point of view other than its own. In different ways this is as true of Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.

I'm terrified right now of the US Christian Right being seduced by the siren voices of the extreme right. It is 'Christian' to bear guns, it is 'Christian' to oppose welfare reforms ... it is 'Christian' to support Israel whatever happens.

I believe that Israel has a right to exist - and the best solution to work towards is one where it can somehow co-exist with its neighbours ... how we achieve that, I have no idea. But it must be the ideal to work towards.

I don't see what solution Mudfrog has up his sleeve - other than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
Of course, we should make a stand against evil ideologies. But as Islam is neither evil nor an ideology, the target of our denouncements needs to be elsewhere.

And, of course, if we're going to make a stand against evil we need to start by making sure we're clearly making a stand against evil within our own societies. Something about taking the log out of our own eye before addressing the speck in another.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
Of course, we should make a stand against evil ideologies. But as Islam is neither evil nor an ideology, the target of our denouncements needs to be elsewhere.

And, of course, if we're going to make a stand against evil we need to start by making sure we're clearly making a stand against evil within our own societies. Something about taking the log out of our own eye before addressing the speck in another.
No society is perfect and in a democracy any disagreement with a policy can be corrected by the will of the people at the next local/national election. Does the UK promote or use 'evil' means?

I don't think so. You might disagree with a social policy or an injustice that you perceive is promoted or left unrectified, but I hardly think DC and his cabinet are deliberately and openly pursuing the kind of things as official policy that we see in repressive Islamic states.

Islamic law is intolerant and Islamic states DO pursue intolerant policies.

There is no separation between religion and state in these countries, hence the huge difficulties and the blanket application of Qu'ranic standards and sharia law.

People say that here in the UK there is also no separation between church and state. The difference is that the Church of England is NOT the ruling party and there are no clerics in our Government/Cabinet/House of Commons who are making laws according to any strict interpretation of the Torah.

Any clerics we do have in the establishment are seated firmly in the House of Lords, which is merely a revising/advising body, and they sit almost in a chaplaincy role.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
If we're going to start denouncing evil ideologies, like Jesus, we should start with our own.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
No. Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.

There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
A religion having different beliefs than your own does not mean it isn't a religion!
No, of course not. But there is far more to it than that and that is why Islam is a dangerous ideology.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Far less dangerous than Christianity, to which it has always been a reaction.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does the UK promote or use 'evil' means?
Of course the UK does. We participate in a global economic system that oppresses, practically to the point of enslaving, less prosperous nations and individuals. Though there may have been some justification for action in Iraq and Afganistan, our actions have been far from perfect - and in some cases 'evil' is an appropriate word to use. We have supported other nations in their actions which have been as bad as our own, sometimes worse. There are evils continuing to be perpetrated by our government, there are more that were perpetrated in our name by the predessors of the current government.

If we consider that in a hypothetical binary "us" vs "them" our side also includes the nation state of Israel then we also need to address the evils conducted by the Israeli government and its predecessors. We can't just say that the actions of some radical Muslims are evil if we don't also say that the actions of others are also evil: those who engaged in terrorism; eviction of peaceful and innocent people from the homes and farms that they have lived in for generations; restrictions on movement that stop innocent peaceful people from visiting relatives, attending school or work, getting to hospital when ill, getting their goods to market.

We can't condemn the actions of a minority of Islamic radicals without at least acknowledging how far from perfect the actions of those on "our side" are, and preferably standing against those evils as strongly (if not more strongly) than we stand against the evils of others.

[oops, left in a section of the quote]

[ 14. January 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Islam is a dangerous ideology.
I think what you mean to say is that Islam is a religion that includes some ideologies that you consider to be dangerous.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Islam is a dangerous ideology.
I think what you mean to say is that Islam is a religion that includes some ideologies that you consider to be dangerous.
Yes. A religion/iedology that says I'm to be fought against until I convert, die or pay protection money as a sign of submission is very dangerous.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Again, get your own house in order.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm all for taking planks out of our own eyes and so on but I'm not sure that's pertinent to the question I asked ... which is what do we DO about the situation in Israel other than to denounce Islam - as Mudfrog and Enders' Shadow seem to be doing - or to denounce 'the West' or 'the USA' or 'the UK' or whoever else.

The issue, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of any particular religious belief, is surely how we can work towards a peaceful solution - or as peaceful a solution as we are ever likely to get.

Is it education? Is it negotiation?

Simply fulminating and spouting off about how nasty 'they' are as opposed to how nice 'we' are - whoever the we or the they are in each case - doesn't get us very far.

So Mudfrog encountered some nasty Muslims in Hyde Park? I'm sure I could introduce you to some nasty Muslims near here and some nice Muslims near here.

That's not the point.

The point is that we have Muslims in the Middle-East, we have Jews in the Middle-East, we have Christians in the Middle-East, we have people of no faith or all manner of faiths in the Middle-East. We have seemingly entrenched and intractable issues on all sides. How do we prevent the powder-keg from exploding?

Israel isn't going to vote itself out of existence. Neither are some of the more radical Islamists going to desist from calling for its destruction.

Somewhere, between those poles, we have to find somewhere to stand.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm all for taking planks out of our own eyes and so on but I'm not sure that's pertinent to the question I asked ... which is what do we DO about the situation in Israel other than to denounce Islam - as Mudfrog and Enders' Shadow seem to be doing - or to denounce 'the West' or 'the USA' or 'the UK' or whoever else.

...

Israel isn't going to vote itself out of existence. Neither are some of the more radical Islamists going to desist from calling for its destruction.

Somewhere, between those poles, we have to find somewhere to stand.
I think the taking out of planks from ones own eye is important. Because, as you note, any solution has to come from between the extremes. And, I believe, those moderates who will have to find some solution (and, perhaps even harder, sell it to the extremists on their own side) are going to have to start by admitting the faults on their side. It's going to need Israeli's admitting that it was wrong to forcibly evict Palestinians from their homes, and for Arabs to admit that it was wrong to attempt to destroy the state of Israel by force. And, admit fault in the whole catalogue of wrongs since the mid 40s onwards.

In Northern Ireland, South Africa and other places the first steps to peace happened when moderates started to refuse to allow the shouted voices of the minority extremists to be the only ones heard. It takes moderates to stand up, and often take a risk in doing so, and be heard - and to start talking with those on the other side. Later there will need to be some process towards reconcilliation and justice (as there has been elsewhere), but we need to start by talking and being honest with each other as we talk.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Again, get your own house in order.
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.

To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.

[ 14. January 2013, 14:38: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.

To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.
Again, you get to be treated as an individual while all muslims are treated as one entity. [Roll Eyes]

I don't know a single muslim who is engaged in war against me. Despite having a large number of muslim friends I have never once been threatened with death if I refuse to convert, or had protection money demanded from me.

At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East. Who is warring against whom, again?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.

To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.
Again, you get to be treated as an individual while all muslims are treated as one entity. [Roll Eyes]

I don't know a single muslim who is engaged in war against me. Despite having a large number of muslim friends I have never once been threatened with death if I refuse to convert, or had protection money demanded from me.

At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East. Who is warring against whom, again?
You are making the mistake I often see made in response to questioning Islam. You think I am attack the believers. I attack the belief.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You make the mistake of not attacking your own.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East.
But only if you go back to the crusades and earlier...

To equate the USA, UK, France, Germany, NATO, the UN, the Arab League infact since they sanctioned the Libya thing as well... with 'Christian' nations is a mistake... the nations you describe are nominally Christian and did not go to war in teh name of Christ...

You are also arguing that 'Christian nations' (which is a disengenious term and one that cannot be held to be supportive of any country I can think of, except maybe the Vatican...) are going on religious wars whilst Mere Nick is talking about individuals, there seems to be an attempt to divert attention away from the issue you have in your argument that the level of violence, misogyny, intolerance etc. advocated and practiced by large numbers of muslims across the world cannot be exactly compared to actions by Christians around the world, since the number of Christians that get anywere near the rhetoric and actions of the muslims Mere Nick is pointign you to is infinately smaller.

I would also draw your attention to a verse in the Qur'an which stipulates it is ok to lie to non-muslims in an attempt to spread islam and shariah...

[ 14. January 2013, 15:49: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There is a difference between disagreeing with a belief and attacking it.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
WHAT? America is THE Judeo-Christian nation. Its synagogues and churches are SUPINE and worse. Zionist - both - imperialist warmongerers. There is NO church-state divide in America, there is one continuous killing machine to preserve OUR freedom.

No wonder we are HATED.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East.
But only if you go back to the crusades and earlier...
Palestine? Afghanistan? Iraq? Guantanamo? Abu Graib?

quote:
To equate the USA, UK, France, Germany, NATO, the UN, the Arab League infact since they sanctioned the Libya thing as well... with 'Christian' nations is a mistake... the nations you describe are nominally Christian and did not go to war in teh name of Christ...
How many muslim countries have gone to war in the name of Allah in the last, say, hundred years?

quote:
You are also arguing that 'Christian nations' (which is a disengenious term and one that cannot be held to be supportive of any country I can think of, except maybe the Vatican...)
But you're perfectly happy to call any country that has a muslim majority a "muslim nation", right? Or is it that their laws are based on Islamic law - in which case try looking at how many of our laws are based on Christian morality. Or is it that they have muslim religious leaders in their government - in which case look at the bishops in the UK House of Lords. Or is it that they're just overtly Islamic - in which case look at the words "In God We Trust" on US banknotes.

quote:
Mere Nick is talking about individuals, there seems to be an attempt to divert attention away from the issue you have in your argument that the level of violence, misogyny, intolerance etc. advocated and practiced by large numbers of muslims across the world cannot be exactly compared to actions by Christians around the world, since the number of Christians that get anywere near the rhetoric and actions of the muslims Mere Nick is pointign you to is infinately smaller.
You actually believe that, don't you? Have you even listened to some of the shit people over here come out with when they're talking about muslims? Have you ever looked at the number of muslims (and even people who just look like they're muslim) who get attacked on the streets of any UK or US city you like?

quote:
I would also draw your attention to a verse in the Qur'an which stipulates it is ok to lie to non-muslims in an attempt to spread islam and shariah...
Christ, this is like the Dummies Guide to Islamophobia. Chapter Two - "when someone points out that they know many muslims who are all perfectly decent people, imply that they're all just pretending to be nice to lull decent folk into a false sense of security until the day comes when they can rise up and destroy the world. Make reference to that one verse we found in the Quran that says it's OK to lie, that's a surefire winner."

Sorry Melli, but as soon as someone comes out with that crap I lose all respect I may once have had for their opinion.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You are making the mistake I often see made in response to questioning Islam. You think I am attack the believers. I attack the belief.
So you're saying the belief itself is at war with you, or trying to force you to pay protection money?

How does that work?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You are making the mistake I often see made in response to questioning Islam. You think I am attack the believers. I attack the belief.
So you're saying the belief itself is at war with you, or trying to force you to pay protection money?

How does that work?
9:29 says for it to happen. As to how well it works depends on how servile the infidel is.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How Christian you mean?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
You appear to have misunderstood my point. A belief cannot possibly do anything to you. 9:29 in and of itself has no more effect on your life than page 74 of Pride and Prejudice.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You appear to have misunderstood my point. A belief cannot possibly do anything to you. 9:29 in and of itself has no more effect on your life than page 74 of Pride and Prejudice.
There are many muslims collecting Jizya but I've yet to read of any killings over drawings of Jane Austen.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are many muslims collecting Jizya but I've yet to read of any killings over drawings of Jane Austen.
In which case you are attacking the believers, not the belief itself.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are many muslims collecting Jizya but I've yet to read of any killings over drawings of Jane Austen.
In which case you are attacking the believers, not the belief itself.
It's the belief that put them up to it. And even if you were right, anyone thinking God has ordained some sort of organized crime mob protection racket has no business complaining if someone tells them to take their "god" and stick it.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are many muslims collecting Jizya but I've yet to read of any killings over drawings of Jane Austen.
In which case you are attacking the believers, not the belief itself.
It's the belief that put them up to it. And even if you were right, anyone thinking God has ordained some sort of organized crime mob protection racket has no business complaining if someone tells them to take their "god" and stick it.
Whilst being criticised for pointing out things in islamic doctrine and scripture, and being told that I am deciding what is and is not a part of islam, I have avoided the childish habit of pointing out that in putting me down those criticising me are doing the same...

However, until some central authority, like the already mentioned Muslim Council of Britain, or even an ayatollah comes out and says something to the contrary we can only work on what is practiced and taught in statements of faith and doctrine and the qur'an.

As Mere Nick goes onto point out, believers and belief cannot be seperated out, we all act in accordance with our beliefs as do these people mentioned: here and Lutfur here .

Whilst the majority of individual muslims may not hold to the beliefs that these people hold to and therefore act in accordance to, those beliefs are there and are seemingly becoming a wider held/practiced set of beliefs.

islamic radicalisation is nothing new in Europe, but it is certainly growing and gaining a greater profile, Israel, unfortunately, has to deal with the root of this radicalisation, namely Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What is called for is an out and out statement from leaders, and the public declaration of assent by the ummah, calling for peace with Israel, an acceptance of Israel's right to exist and a call for the end of aggression against Israel.

Once peace is guaranteed at a high level, then the fine details can be organised - the one thing stopping a rational solution is the constant war mongering of radical islamists and the assiociated states that finance/help them in the cause.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And even if you were right, anyone thinking God has ordained some sort of organized crime mob protection racket has no business complaining if someone tells them to take their "god" and stick it.
If you were only "sticking it" to the ones who do that, I doubt any of us would be arguing against you.

It's the fact that you're "sticking it" to every single muslim in the world that gets people's backs up.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Mere Nick - you are WORSE than they.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0