Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APQVkJcZMKI

[santafe2]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

You are most welcome, it was my pleasure to do it.

OK, that was funny TBO, you deal with pseudo intellectual narcissism much better than I can manage. The conversation is hilarious when I only read the 12 year old's comments you quote and your adult response. Maybe when he's old enough to get a job he'll buy a membership instead of just trolling for free. Of course, when he grows up, he'll have to get a job and stop using mom's computer.

Fred, please, let's dump this thread into the bore hole.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Fred, please, let's dump this thread into the bore hole.

I have to disagree; the only way forward is to accept everyone has a different viewpoint. Yes, I get angry when people get directly personal with their comment; but am old and ugly enough to know how to deal with that.

The UK proved the point when it decided to start talking to the IRA. Once that process was set into place, then all viewpoints surfaced. No one stood on high ground; everyone had made mistakes. But the dialogue allowed the settlement of the extreme differences, which in turn brought the temperature of the underlying debate down to the point where they were assimilated into a more normal political and social structure.

Personally, in part through coming into direct face to face discussion, (yes for only two days), with a number of what must have been very senior Muslim clerics at a major Islamic Finance Summit in London a couple of years ago, I came to believe that they are seeking a way forward out of their own intellectual dilemma. It is one thing to show an individual deliberately asking the provocative questions as gwynedd1 has with this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APQVkJcZMKI Particularly when the question is directed in public to a mass audience; it is quite another when you find yourself face to face in a private conversation.

And, for that matter, why did that individual ask the questions in that way? Was it to provoke; or was it to widen the debate? Until someone gets that individual into a direct face to face conversation with someone else that they respect; and thus will answer in a manner that gives reason to believe is what they believe; rather than what they believe that the mass want to hear, we will not have the answer.

I went to that conference with some grave misgivings, particularly because of my own belief in the origins of the word "God". Being me, I was open and direct, as only a very small number of other delegates were, (there were hundreds there), and as soon as the day started I added my input asking questions. Much to my surprise, at the first interval I was surrounded by Islamic Scholars card in hand wanting to talk to me. It would seem I made such an effect, the second day, when I arrived one in particular, already on stage for the start of the new days debates; positively beamed at me as though a new found friend.

It is my firm opinion that at the highest intellectual level, Islam is in deep conflict; needs to find a way out of their obvious conundrum; the honest intellectual is a reasonable human being, not unlike anyone else in any other sector of intellectual life.

Yes, I fully agree; there are those hell bent upon the destruction of everyone not agreeing to believe....... But that applies to everything in life. There are always those that will do everything in their power to destroy an obverse viewpoint. Who want to destroy, will use every chance to destroy. But that takes me back to the debate with the IRA. By bringing the whole debate out into the open with everyone involved, we made it possible for the peaceful majority view to prevail.

The debate must continue.

For the record, as I had additional input to the debate at that conference which was about a Sukuk for Egypt, an Islamic Finance instrument, (over those two days I have to admit that I learned that there are some very real advantages to be gained from the use of Islamic principles in finance), and to add that I was was much impressed with the general attitude of Islamic finance towards the use of finance within their communities; I wrote a short paper adding my additional input. However, being me, I also had to be completely open and I also created another short paper; A Philosophical Viewpoint, (regarding my belief that God is a figment of that wonderful thing called the human imagination), and sent both to each of the Islamic Scholars that I had met with during the two days, as also the organisers of the conference. No, I never got any return, have not been invited again; but am still here.

My view is very clear, for every individual that wishes to destroy those that have a different opinion, (I must add, in any area of discussion), there are many more who are open to a dialogue. Yes, fear, instilled by those that wish to continue their destructive ways will always depress the wider viewpoint. Even here the harsh personalised "Put down" can only be seen as a further attempt to destroy any other viewpoint than their own; but the dialogue must continue. It is only through open debate, without fear or favour, that we can move forward into a more peaceful future.A Philosophical Viewpoint.pdfAn Addition to Verbal Comments.pdf

[lektrode]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I have to disagree; the only way forward is to accept everyone has a different viewpoint....
.....

My view is very clear, for every individual that wishes to destroy those that have a different opinion, (I must add, in any area of discussion), there are many more who are open to a dialogue. Yes, fear, instilled by those that wish to continue their destructive ways will always depress the wider viewpoint. Even here the harsh personalised "Put down" can only be seen as a further attempt to destroy any other viewpoint than their own; but the dialogue must continue. It is only through open debate, without fear or favour, that we can move forward into a more peaceful future.

+1
i for 1 particularly appreciate the example of the UK vs the IRA

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Look at the "bewildering and confusing thing I said:"

Well one important difference. Christianity is a horrible warlord's religion. The Catholic policy to keep scriptures away from the lay people was wise. Literate Christians are often apt to find it to be a pacifist religion without the special guidance of a violent interpretation .

Yes maniacs can go to the fundamental text and pluck out a verse, just like John Hinckley, Jr. being guilty of Jodie Foster-ism. Is there anything inherent in it except that she was in a film with contextual violence?

Now mind you I insulted Catholicism in that first line did I not? Then I later "defended" Catholicism by objectivity looking what happened. What's my agenda with regard to the Catholic church when I blame them for "Christan Violence" , but take issue with them being in cahoots with Nazis as if they ought to receive special attention?


Do fundamentals matter? Yes. Are they immune to being subverted ? No.


Look at our own Constitution that is fundamental to our government. While many forces have been undermining and manipulating it, I have little doubt that the fundamentals in the Bill of Rights have had impact. We have always had Constitutional fundamentalists. We will always see these Constitutional fundamentalists fall, and then rise again. So as long as the fundamental authority has an ideology, it will reappear unless something else is regarded as an authority.

The fundamentals in Christianity is to proselytize:

Matthew 28

⁸ And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. ¹⁹ Go therefore^[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.^[d]

There are 2.2 billion


Judaism is far more hereditary


1 Kings 8:53

For you singled them out from all the nations of the world to be your own inheritance, just as you declared through your servant Moses when you, Sovereign LORD, brought our ancestors out of Egypt."

13 million or so Jews

One is fundamentally viral in nature while the other is not, and it shows.

Anyone who thinks they can approach Islam in the exact same way stems from not spending 15 minutes to know the idealogical differences and their impact.

[shiny!]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I admit I haven't read every word of this discussion, as much of it simply makes my eyes glaze over and my brain shut down. The tone of some of the posts is so vitriolic that even if the points might be correct, I just couldn't get through it. I tried, really I did... So if the point I'm about to make has been addressed already, I hope you'll all forgive me for wasting your time...

Full disclosure: I am a sikh who grew up in a blended Catholic-Jewish family. When it comes to arguments about the Abrahamic religions, I have my opinions but no longer have a dog in that fight. Many years ago I read the Koran from cover to cover and found much in it that was beautiful. FWIW (not much, I'll grant), I don't 'believe' that the muslim couple accused of the San Bernardino shootings did it. They might have, but I just don't know for certain, and neither does anyone else here. We only know what we get from the media. From what I've seen so far I think there's a distinct possibility that they were only involved as patsies. I do know that declaring them 'guilty' provides a convenient narrative for the single coin that is our political Left and Right, so that's that.

When I hear talk of an Islamic Reform Movement that will renounce the violent parts of the Koran, thus making Islam compatible with modern society, I sincerely want to believe it! But as gwynedd1 pointed out for those who might not know, Islam believes in taqiyah. Taqiyah means that if a muslim is in a weak, minority position, then it's their right and holy obligation to lie about whatever they must lie about until they can dominate the situation. Practicing taqiyah, muslims can say that they abhor violence, that they renounce jihad and Sharia law, that they believe in freedom and equality for women... and be totally lying. They can live and work side-by-side with you for years and be hiding their true beliefs and intent. This isn't fear-mongering; it's an unfortunate fact of taqiyah.

I'm not saying that all muslims lie about their peaceful intentions towards non-muslims, but given the importance of taqiya in Islamic philosophy, I cannot trust any promise a muslim makes to me or my country. This doesn't mean I hate muslims, because I don't. It means that because of taqiyah I can't believe them.

For all we know, the muslims calling for an Islamic Reform Movement are practicing taqiyah. Because taqiyah allows a muslim to lie about anything to me, how can I trust their word? Even if they say they renounce taqiya, how can we know for a fact that they're telling the truth? This is the ethical conumdrum I am faced with, and that all non-muslims are faced with.

The U.S. Constitution forbids governmental establishment of religion, but it doesn't forbid the banning of political philosophies that advocate the violent overthrow of our government. So set aside thinking of Islam as a religion for a moment and think of Islam as a philosophy. Islamic jihad advocates the violent overthrow of our government. Sharia law is completely incompatible with a modern secular culture that values Freedom, Liberty and Equality. If we can ban communists because Communism advocates the violent overthrow of our government, then why should we exempt muslims and Islamic philosophy from that same litmus test?

Given that Islamic philosophy believes in the conquest and forcible enslavement of non-muslims (using jihad and taqiyah as tools to achieve those ends), when it comes to immigration law and civil law I think we need to at least consider treating Islam exactly the same as we treat Communism. At the very least we as a society need to be able to have the discussion without parties resorting to hysterical accusations of hate speech and religious intolerance. Fat chance of that happening, though.

I accept Islam at its word and assume that a significant number of muslim immigrants and citizens are practicing taqiyah. It's unfortunate to have to think such a thing about anyone, but it's not wrong of me to form that conclusion. Speaking only for myself, not speaking for anyone else, I think it's a willfully naive, potentially dangerous mistake to ignore the existence of taqiyah and it's ramifications for a free, secular society. What should our policy be towards muslims already in this country? I honestly don't know.

I know that to ban all muslims from immigrating here would totally suck for truly honest, peaceful muslims. There are a lot of them. But I don't see why it should necessarily cause a Constitutional crisis. I'm not advocating hatred of muslims or cruelty towards muslims - far from it! I just need to see muslims reform their religion, and see those reforms reflected in their governments and societies outside of the U.S. before I will trust and welcome them en masse here.

[vt]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...rrorism-216656

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I admit I haven't read every word of this discussion, as much of it simply makes my eyes glaze over and my brain shut down. The tone of some of the posts is so vitriolic that even if the points might be correct, I just couldn't get through it. I tried, really I did... So if the point I'm about to make has been addressed already, I hope you'll all forgive me for wasting your time...

Full disclosure: I am a sikh who grew up in a blended Catholic-Jewish family. When it comes to arguments about the Abrahamic religions, I have my opinions but no longer have a dog in that fight. Many years ago I read the Koran from cover to cover and found much in it that was beautiful. FWIW (not much, I'll grant), I don't 'believe' that the muslim couple accused of the San Bernardino shootings did it. They might have, but I just don't know for certain, and neither does anyone else here. We only know what we get from the media. From what I've seen so far I think there's a distinct possibility that they were only involved as patsies. I do know that declaring them 'guilty' provides a convenient narrative for the single coin that is our political Left and Right, so that's that.

When I hear talk of an Islamic Reform Movement that will renounce the violent parts of the Koran, thus making Islam compatible with modern society, I sincerely want to believe it! But as gwynedd1 pointed out for those who might not know, Islam believes in taqiyah. Taqiyah means that if a muslim is in a weak, minority position, then it's their right and holy obligation to lie about whatever they must lie about until they can dominate the situation. Practicing taqiyah, muslims can say that they abhor violence, that they renounce jihad and Sharia law, that they believe in freedom and equality for women... and be totally lying. They can live and work side-by-side with you for years and be hiding their true beliefs and intent. This isn't fear-mongering; it's an unfortunate fact of taqiyah.

I'm not saying that all muslims lie about their peaceful intentions towards non-muslims, but given the importance of taqiya in Islamic philosophy, I cannot trust any promise a muslim makes to me or my country. This doesn't mean I hate muslims, because I don't. It means that because of taqiyah I can't believe them.

For all we know, the muslims calling for an Islamic Reform Movement are practicing taqiyah. Because taqiyah allows a muslim to lie about anything to me, how can I trust their word? Even if they say they renounce taqiya, how can we know for a fact that they're telling the truth? This is the ethical conumdrum I am faced with, and that all non-muslims are faced with.

The U.S. Constitution forbids governmental establishment of religion, but it doesn't forbid the banning of political philosophies that advocate the violent overthrow of our government. So set aside thinking of Islam as a religion for a moment and think of Islam as a philosophy. Islamic jihad advocates the violent overthrow of our government. Sharia law is completely incompatible with a modern secular culture that values Freedom, Liberty and Equality. If we can ban communists because Communism advocates the violent overthrow of our government, then why should we exempt muslims and Islamic philosophy from that same litmus test?

Given that Islamic philosophy believes in the conquest and forcible enslavement of non-muslims (using jihad and taqiyah as tools to achieve those ends), when it comes to immigration law and civil law I think we need to at least consider treating Islam exactly the same as we treat Communism. At the very least we as a society need to be able to have the discussion without parties resorting to hysterical accusations of hate speech and religious intolerance. Fat chance of that happening, though.

I accept Islam at its word and assume that a significant number of muslim immigrants and citizens are practicing taqiyah. It's unfortunate to have to think such a thing about anyone, but it's not wrong of me to form that conclusion. Speaking only for myself, not speaking for anyone else, I think it's a willfully naive, potentially dangerous mistake to ignore the existence of taqiyah and it's ramifications for a free, secular society. What should our policy be towards muslims already in this country? I honestly don't know.

I know that to ban all muslims from immigrating here would totally suck for truly honest, peaceful muslims. There are a lot of them. But I don't see why it should necessarily cause a Constitutional crisis. I'm not advocating hatred of muslims or cruelty towards muslims - far from it! I just need to see muslims reform their religion, and see those reforms reflected in their governments and societies outside of the U.S. before I will trust and welcome them en masse here.

Hi shiny,

Most of it wasn't worth reading anyway since, as I said from the beginning, Christianity is not a warlord's religion. There is absolutely no reason to have to defend that obvious statement, but I did anyway much to my regret. Judaism is a warlord's religion, but its not a proselytizing religion, not to mention more centrally authoritative. Christianity certainly has a mixed reputation which includes destroying native cultures and inspiring book burning , but again how much of that was really from the ideology itself? What ever it is that one can say about Christianity and Judaism, its not viral conquest by the sword. It also has nothing to do with religion in the abstract when in practice it violates civil rights.

Does this society want to face the dilemma which Islam will force on this society? Is it legal to train 5 year olds about Islamic martyrdom? Should it be? Is is OK to tell them they will be rewarded by taking others with them with suicide belts? I don't think the US will organically create this kind of culture. I do believe it can be imported. The preamble of the Constitution states it was to promote tranquility of this union. Even if its from our own panic, which it isn't, it will promote fear and paranoia.

For the Muslims here, it may actually benefit them since they may not be seen as a threat. Muslims who do manage to somehow interpret it as peaceful, instead violence on the road to submission, are truly between a rock and a hard place.

[touchring]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I know that to ban all muslims from immigrating here would totally suck for truly honest, peaceful muslims. There are a lot of them. But I don't see why it should necessarily cause a Constitutional crisis. I'm not advocating hatred of muslims or cruelty towards muslims - far from it! I just need to see muslims reform their religion, and see those reforms reflected in their governments and societies outside of the U.S. before I will trust and welcome them en masse here.

I believe there must be some sort of unspoken regulation in place for US embassies when it comes to issuance of visas to people from certain countries. For example, it must be much harder for someone from Afghanistan or Somalia to get a US visa than a South African.

There might even be a program to profile an applicant using some formula and the program will say PASS or FAIL.

Discrimination happens all the time, but Trump actually spoke about it. This is taboo as to actually talk about it makes many people "lose face".

[Chris Coles]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I admit I haven't read every word of this discussion, as much of it simply makes my eyes glaze over and my brain shut down. The tone of some of the posts is so vitriolic that even if the points might be correct, I just couldn't get through it. I tried, really I did... So if the point I'm about to make has been addressed already, I hope you'll all forgive me for wasting your time...

Full disclosure: I am a sikh who grew up in a blended Catholic-Jewish family. When it comes to arguments about the Abrahamic religions, I have my opinions but no longer have a dog in that fight. Many years ago I read the Koran from cover to cover and found much in it that was beautiful. FWIW (not much, I'll grant), I don't 'believe' that the muslim couple accused of the San Bernardino shootings did it. They might have, but I just don't know for certain, and neither does anyone else here. We only know what we get from the media. From what I've seen so far I think there's a distinct possibility that they were only involved as patsies. I do know that declaring them 'guilty' provides a convenient narrative for the single coin that is our political Left and Right, so that's that.

When I hear talk of an Islamic Reform Movement that will renounce the violent parts of the Koran, thus making Islam compatible with modern society, I sincerely want to believe it! But as gwynedd1 pointed out for those who might not know, Islam believes in taqiyah. Taqiyah means that if a muslim is in a weak, minority position, then it's their right and holy obligation to lie about whatever they must lie about until they can dominate the situation. Practicing taqiyah, muslims can say that they abhor violence, that they renounce jihad and Sharia law, that they believe in freedom and equality for women... and be totally lying. They can live and work side-by-side with you for years and be hiding their true beliefs and intent. This isn't fear-mongering; it's an unfortunate fact of taqiyah.

I'm not saying that all muslims lie about their peaceful intentions towards non-muslims, but given the importance of taqiya in Islamic philosophy, I cannot trust any promise a muslim makes to me or my country. This doesn't mean I hate muslims, because I don't. It means that because of taqiyah I can't believe them.

For all we know, the muslims calling for an Islamic Reform Movement are practicing taqiyah. Because taqiyah allows a muslim to lie about anything to me, how can I trust their word? Even if they say they renounce taqiya, how can we know for a fact that they're telling the truth? This is the ethical conumdrum I am faced with, and that all non-muslims are faced with.

The U.S. Constitution forbids governmental establishment of religion, but it doesn't forbid the banning of political philosophies that advocate the violent overthrow of our government. So set aside thinking of Islam as a religion for a moment and think of Islam as a philosophy. Islamic jihad advocates the violent overthrow of our government. Sharia law is completely incompatible with a modern secular culture that values Freedom, Liberty and Equality. If we can ban communists because Communism advocates the violent overthrow of our government, then why should we exempt muslims and Islamic philosophy from that same litmus test?

Given that Islamic philosophy believes in the conquest and forcible enslavement of non-muslims (using jihad and taqiyah as tools to achieve those ends), when it comes to immigration law and civil law I think we need to at least consider treating Islam exactly the same as we treat Communism. At the very least we as a society need to be able to have the discussion without parties resorting to hysterical accusations of hate speech and religious intolerance. Fat chance of that happening, though.

I accept Islam at its word and assume that a significant number of muslim immigrants and citizens are practicing taqiyah. It's unfortunate to have to think such a thing about anyone, but it's not wrong of me to form that conclusion. Speaking only for myself, not speaking for anyone else, I think it's a willfully naive, potentially dangerous mistake to ignore the existence of taqiyah and it's ramifications for a free, secular society. What should our policy be towards muslims already in this country? I honestly don't know.

I know that to ban all muslims from immigrating here would totally suck for truly honest, peaceful muslims. There are a lot of them. But I don't see why it should necessarily cause a Constitutional crisis. I'm not advocating hatred of muslims or cruelty towards muslims - far from it! I just need to see muslims reform their religion, and see those reforms reflected in their governments and societies outside of the U.S. before I will trust and welcome them en masse here.

Thank you Shiny! Nicely put.

My own view is that the best way forward is to look at the people within nations that are "Islamic", that had walked away from many of the edicts, such as women not covering their heads, or women wearing jeans. That the deep problem is the extremists; those that will go to any lengths to get their own way; particularly when it involves violence.

Simply, I do not believe any group can murder their way to ultimate power; and then keep it for any great period of time without that power being diluted by ordinary people deciding they are going to go their own way.

[shiny!]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Simply, I do not believe any group can murder their way to ultimate power; and then keep it for any great period of time without that power being diluted by ordinary people deciding they are going to go their own way.

The fact that violent empires eventually collapse is cold comfort for their victims, such as the approximately 80 million Hindus murdered under the Mongols, or the 20 million Hindus plus nearly all the Sikhs at one point, murdered under the likes of Aurangzeb. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin... the list goes on and on... their regimes eventually failed but only after killing millions.

So it doesn't comfort me to know that if we ever live under a reign of terror it will eventually end. In this particular case I don't want our granddaughters living under Sharia law for even one day.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

The fact that violent empires eventually collapse is cold comfort for their victims, such as the approximately 80 million Hindus murdered under the Mongols, or the 20 million Hindus plus nearly all the Sikhs at one point, murdered under the likes of Aurangzeb. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin... the list goes on and on... their regimes eventually failed but only after killing millions.

So it doesn't comfort me to know that if we ever live under a reign of terror it will eventually end. In this particular case I don't want our granddaughters living under Sharia law for even one day.

It may be, (and I am the first to admit I might be wrong), that the very recent use of electronics for mass communication will dampen down the length of time for such depredations to occur. Today we can all see what is happening. In the past beyond their locality, almost everyone was blind to such events and thus unable to comprehend the true extent of it.

I absolutely agree with you regarding Sharia Law.

[LorenS]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

It may be, (and I am the first to admit I might be wrong), that the very recent use of electronics for mass communication will dampen down the length of time for such depredations to occur. Today we can all see what is happening. In the past beyond their locality, almost everyone was blind to such events and thus unable to comprehend the true extent of it.

I absolutely agree with you regarding Sharia Law.

North Korea is still pretty well locked down. We can only hope that technology can crack that mess.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

The fact that violent empires eventually collapse is cold comfort for their victims, such as the approximately 80 million Hindus murdered under the Mongols, or the 20 million Hindus plus nearly all the Sikhs at one point, murdered under the likes of Aurangzeb. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin... the list goes on and on... their regimes eventually failed but only after killing millions.

So it doesn't comfort me to know that if we ever live under a reign of terror it will eventually end. In this particular case I don't want our granddaughters living under Sharia law for even one day.

Well ya don't hear the Zoroastrians complain much.

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Histor...b_invasion.htm


As you say, the problem is many victims also come to an end.

[Prazak]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I believe there must be some sort of unspoken regulation in place for US embassies when it comes to issuance of visas to people from certain countries. For example, it must be much harder for someone from Afghanistan or Somalia to get a US visa than a South African.

There might even be a program to profile an applicant using some formula and the program will say PASS or FAIL.

Discrimination happens all the time, but Trump actually spoke about it. This is taboo as to actually talk about it makes many people "lose face".

That's absolutely true. And those few immigrants coming from Muslim territories are particularly and thoroughly scrutinized.

But the whole debate over Syrian refugees focuses on the wrong issue: If you really want to smuggle an ISIS sleeper cell into the U.S. you're not going to do it by way of Syrian or Iraqi refugees or Pakistani or Afghani immigrants; you're going to do it through visa-free countries like France, Belgium, or the U.K. To combat sleepers among visa-free travelers we can only rely on the quality of our, and our allies', intelligence services.

Good luck with that.