Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

Stating a fact is moving the goal posts?

 

[DrZoidberg]

In true islam according to the koran, good sound, music, [especially rock], musical instruments, Hi-Fi systems, dancing, and any other form of entertainment, except fornicating with goats, is strictly forbidden!

Is "true Islam" a bit like a true Scotsman? It's actually later ideas. There are Islamic paintings of Muhammed contemporary with the man himself. Which makes the whole thing in modern Islam about not depicting Muhammed a tad bizarre. We've also had variants of Christianity which similarly were against all forms of fun, because that was blasphemous somehow (like Calvinism). Yet, this not being mentioned in either the Quran or Bible.

In reality both Christianity and Islam are Smorgasbord religions. They all cherry pick, or creatively reinterpret in self serving ways as needed. The only reason the word "fundamentalism" carries meaning is because it's weird. If most religious people were fundamentalist. We wouldn't have a special word for it. We'd just call them "religious".

I suggest a law of averages-approach to figure out what it means to be a "true Muslim". The question becomes, how have most Muslims throughout history done Islam, and we let that be our guide. With this definition a true Muslim is a Muslim who identifies as Muslims, picks the bits they like from the Quran and Sharia, ignores the parts they don't, and completely re-interpret the parts that goes contrary to what they want to be doing, and most of all, look at what other Muslims in their vicinity do Islam and try to, at the very least, give a superficial impression of doing that.

They're all "true Muslims". I'd posit that it is impossible to fail at any religion. No matter what your interpretation I'd be willing to bet you can find a version (in history) that do exactly that. I'm not saying that religious people don't love pointing at one another and tell them that they're doing religion wrong. As well as atheists. What all these people have in common is that they're dicks. Also not a requirement in any holy text. Most of them actually have plenty of bits about forgiveness, not judging and so forth. Yes, also Islam.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Angelo's imaginary True Muslims^TM bullshit again.

You have just proven that you know Jack Shitt about fundamental islam.

Lol... I'll remind you that you're the one posting links to Jihadwatch, who incidentally have zero clue about.. well... both regular Islam and fundie Islam. Since Jihadwatch are the one's who are the most wrong, I think that proves that you're the one who knows the least about fundamentalist Islam in this thread.

 

[angelo]

You have just proven that you know Jack Shitt about fundamental islam.

Lol... I'll remind you that you're the one posting links to Jihadwatch, who incidentally have zero clue about.. well... both regular Islam and fundie Islam. Since Jihadwatch are the one's who are the most wrong, I think that proves that you're the one who knows the least about fundamentalist Islam in this thread.

JihadWatch is mostly wrong when it reports the latest moslem outrage?

 

[KeepTalking]

Lol... I'll remind you that you're the one posting links to Jihadwatch, who incidentally have zero clue about.. well... both regular Islam and fundie Islam. Since Jihadwatch are the one's who are the most wrong, I think that proves that you're the one who knows the least about fundamentalist Islam in this thread.

JihadWatch is mostly wrong when it reports the latest moslem outrage?

Well, you could have just left it at "JihadWatch is mostly wrong", and yes, that is correct.

 

[angelo]

In true islam according to the koran, good sound, music, [especially rock], musical instruments, Hi-Fi systems, dancing, and any other form of entertainment, except fornicating with goats, is strictly forbidden!

Is "true Islam" a bit like a true Scotsman? It's actually later ideas. There are Islamic paintings of Muhammed contemporary with the man himself. Which makes the whole thing in modern Islam about not depicting Muhammed a tad bizarre. We've also had variants of Christianity which similarly were against all forms of fun, because that was blasphemous somehow (like Calvinism). Yet, this not being mentioned in either the Quran or Bible.

In reality both Christianity and Islam are Smorgasbord religions. They all cherry pick, or creatively reinterpret in self serving ways as needed. The only reason the word "fundamentalism" carries meaning is because it's weird. If most religious people were fundamentalist. We wouldn't have a special word for it. We'd just call them "religious".

I suggest a law of averages-approach to figure out what it means to be a "true Muslim". The question becomes, how have most Muslims throughout history done Islam, and we let that be our guide. With this definition a true Muslim is a Muslim who identifies as Muslims, picks the bits they like from the Quran and Sharia, ignores the parts they don't, and completely re-interpret the parts that goes contrary to what they want to be doing, and most of all, look at what other Muslims in their vicinity do Islam and try to, at the very least, give a superficial impression of doing that.

They're all "true Muslims". I'd posit that it is impossible to fail at any religion. No matter what your interpretation I'd be willing to bet you can find a version (in history) that do exactly that. I'm not saying that religious people don't love pointing at one another and tell them that they're doing religion wrong. As well as atheists. What all these people have in common is that they're dicks. Also not a requirement in any holy text. Most of them actually have plenty of bits about forgiveness, not judging and so forth. Yes, also Islam.

Don't compare xtianity with Islam . The founders of both cults couldn't be more different. One was a paedophile war monger and terrorist, while the other taught to turn the other cheek. One has the Golden Rule while the other teaches jihad.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is "true Islam" a bit like a true Scotsman? It's actually later ideas. There are Islamic paintings of Muhammed contemporary with the man himself. Which makes the whole thing in modern Islam about not depicting Muhammed a tad bizarre. We've also had variants of Christianity which similarly were against all forms of fun, because that was blasphemous somehow (like Calvinism). Yet, this not being mentioned in either the Quran or Bible.

In reality both Christianity and Islam are Smorgasbord religions. They all cherry pick, or creatively reinterpret in self serving ways as needed. The only reason the word "fundamentalism" carries meaning is because it's weird. If most religious people were fundamentalist. We wouldn't have a special word for it. We'd just call them "religious".

I suggest a law of averages-approach to figure out what it means to be a "true Muslim". The question becomes, how have most Muslims throughout history done Islam, and we let that be our guide. With this definition a true Muslim is a Muslim who identifies as Muslims, picks the bits they like from the Quran and Sharia, ignores the parts they don't, and completely re-interpret the parts that goes contrary to what they want to be doing, and most of all, look at what other Muslims in their vicinity do Islam and try to, at the very least, give a superficial impression of doing that.

They're all "true Muslims". I'd posit that it is impossible to fail at any religion. No matter what your interpretation I'd be willing to bet you can find a version (in history) that do exactly that. I'm not saying that religious people don't love pointing at one another and tell them that they're doing religion wrong. As well as atheists. What all these people have in common is that they're dicks. Also not a requirement in any holy text. Most of them actually have plenty of bits about forgiveness, not judging and so forth. Yes, also Islam.

Don't compare xtianity with Islam . The founders of both cults couldn't be more different. One was a paedophile war monger and terrorist, while the other taught to turn the other cheek. One has the Golden Rule while the other teaches jihad.

Both have the Golden Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The Golden Rule is implicitly expressed in some verses of the Quran, and is explicitly declared in the sayings of Muhammad.

As does Judaism, Hinduism, Budhhism, and several other religions.

Wikipedia also has this to say about it:

Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess, Ma'at, who appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC)

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Lol... I'll remind you that you're the one posting links to Jihadwatch, who incidentally have zero clue about.. well... both regular Islam and fundie Islam. Since Jihadwatch are the one's who are the most wrong, I think that proves that you're the one who knows the least about fundamentalist Islam in this thread.

JihadWatch is mostly wrong when it reports the latest moslem outrage?

Jihadwatch is so wrong that Chemtrailers and 911 truthers point to them and laugh about how crazy they are.

 

[angelo]

For every verse in the koran perceived to talk about peace, there's another verse teaching hatred for infidels or "Kafirs." Mo was slightly more reasonable when he was week, and only had a few followers. Once he had gained power by the sword, the hadith's get much more violent, and any tolerance for infidels vanished overnight. In the koran , the later hadith's overrule the more peaceful earlier ones. Moslems are allowed to tell porkies if it benefits Islam. They have one story of tolerance and peace for Kafir ears in order to gain trust, another of non tolerance and violence for muslin ears.

 

[KeepTalking]

For every verse in the koran perceived to talk about peace, there's another verse teaching hatred for infidels or "Kafirs." Mo was slightly more reasonable when he was week, and only had a few followers. Once he had gained power by the sword, the hadith's get much more violent, and any tolerance for infidels vanished overnight. In the koran , the later hadith's overrule the more peaceful earlier ones. Moslems are allowed to tell porkies if it benefits Islam. They have one story of tolerance and peace for Kafir ears in order to gain trust, another of non tolerance and violence for muslin ears.

Every single time you type something in this thread, you type something wrong. Case in point, for someone who claims they know a lot about Islam, you have no idea that there are no hadiths in the Koran. Hadith's are sayings attributed to Mo that were not recorded in the Koran.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't compare xtianity with Islam . The founders of both cults couldn't be more different. One was a paedophile war monger and terrorist, while the other taught to turn the other cheek. One has the Golden Rule while the other teaches jihad.

It's not a fair comparison. It's like comparing Usain Bolt to Superman and laughing about how slow Bolt is in comparison. This is an advantage fictional characters always will have.

I've read and studied both books. I think they're interchangeable. The idea that turning the other cheek is preferable (ie forgive your enemies) is mentioned twice as much in the Quran as the Bible. And it's a much shorter book.

Religious people have never given a fuck what it says in their holy books. Whatever they need at the moment, that's what their God tells them to do.

 

[TSwizzle]

David Cameron’s apology to a London imam who he had wrongly described in the House of Commons as supporting Isis has been celebrated in some quarters. Less attention, however, was given to the fact that the Prime Minister clarified that Suliman Gani was actually reported to be in support of an Islamic state, rather than the Islamic State, or Isis. The shrill accusations of extremism that were thrown around in the run up to the London mayoral elections were a step backwards in our efforts to understand the dangerous global ideology behind groups like Isis. More useful is to try and understand why Gani shares the main objective of creating an Islamic state, but differs with Isis and others on how to achieve it.

Independent

It will be a lot easier to achieve an islamic state with more muslims in the 'hood. Basically the only difference between "moderate" imam Gani and ISIS is that one is more patient than the other.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not? Think of the bombing of Dresden, using lots of incendiary bombs, which was designed to produced lots of civilians casualties and misery to convince people to stop supporting Hitler; then the drop of two atomic bombs on populous cities in Japan, intended to convince the Japanese they should surrender sooner rather than later; then the terrorism carried out by at least some Zionist agents against the Palestinian population, resulting in a mass exodus that made Israel a possible proposition, not to mention the heavy-handed nature of the bombing of the Gaza strip a couple of years ago. The French did it quite a lot too in North-Africa. Think of the carpet-bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. So I think terrorism is used not just as a last resource, which seems to be your suggestion, but also as an effective short-cut to victory, even if that doesn't always work. Of course, "we" never called it terrorism but that's still very obviously what it was.
EB

1) Dresden. I'll give you that one. But it's questionable if that counts. The object wasn't to terrorise Germany to surrender. Dresden was more just savage and base revenge. They didn't give a fuck if Germans got scared. They just wanted to see the Hun bleed.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again... yeah. I'll give you that one as well. But I also think this one was a special case. Japan just wasn't accepting the inevitable.
3) Irgun and Haganah in Israel. Yes, anti-colonial terrorism is examples of terrorism were it's worked. So, yes. I'll give you that.
4) Bombing of Hanoi... well. they lost. So much for that example.

Good work finding examples of terrorism being successful. But if you analyse these you'll see that none of them have anything in common with ISIS or Al Qaeda making attacks in the west. It's just a completely different playing field.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. Both were valid military targets, they were simply destroyed by one bomb rather than a gazillion of them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1) Dresden. I'll give you that one. But it's questionable if that counts. The object wasn't to terrorise Germany to surrender. Dresden was more just savage and base revenge. They didn't give a fuck if Germans got scared. They just wanted to see the Hun bleed.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again... yeah. I'll give you that one as well. But I also think this one was a special case. Japan just wasn't accepting the inevitable.
3) Irgun and Haganah in Israel. Yes, anti-colonial terrorism is examples of terrorism were it's worked. So, yes. I'll give you that.
4) Bombing of Hanoi... well. they lost. So much for that example.

Good work finding examples of terrorism being successful. But if you analyse these you'll see that none of them have anything in common with ISIS or Al Qaeda making attacks in the west. It's just a completely different playing field.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. Both were valid military targets, they were simply destroyed by one bomb rather than a gazillion of them.

No, they weren't. They were cities with lots of civilians in them. They had easily been able to find targets with only military targets. The object of the nuclear bomb bombings was exactly that... too terrify the Japanese to the point where they would have to give up.

Granted that this is nitpicking, and I really don't have a leg to stand on. You could argue any case and be correct. Is it terrorism if there's a full blown war on. Mmm... it's a question of definitions. I say yes, but I'm aware that it's quite possible to make a valid case against it as well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For every verse in the koran perceived to talk about peace, there's another verse teaching hatred for infidels or "Kafirs." Mo was slightly more reasonable when he was week, and only had a few followers. Once he had gained power by the sword, the hadith's get much more violent, and any tolerance for infidels vanished overnight. In the koran , the later hadith's overrule the more peaceful earlier ones. Moslems are allowed to tell porkies if it benefits Islam. They have one story of tolerance and peace for Kafir ears in order to gain trust, another of non tolerance and violence for muslin ears.

The pattern of the Quran is this: Something something horrible done to the Muslim, the Muslim is allowed to take revenge for this slight. Next paragraph. Even if you're allowed to take revenge it's better to forgive. And then goes on about the beauty and virtue of forgiveness and talks about it more than the revenge. Clearly the forgiving part is to be preferred than the revenge bit. Yet this bit is somehow never quoted in Jihadwatch, nor on pro-atheist sites like this. The Quran goes on about forgiveness to the point where it gets tiresome IMHO. Way more than the Bible.

The Bible on the other hand mentions turning the other cheek and forgiveness a couple of time. But only a few times. On the other hand it passes judgement like a mother fucker. Because all the various books are so different in style Jesus comes across as a psycho who is mild and kind one minute just to lash out and say something horrendous and horribly judgemental the next. Jesus is extremely passive aggressive. At least Muhammed is aggressive aggressive. Jesus is all smiles but slips in about his father punishing them unless you do exactly what Jesus says. The Bible is a Frankenstein monster of a literary work and has no clear theme or tone. As books go the Quran is better written. The Bible is just confusing.

Also, Jesus is clearly the work of fiction. Jesus has mady uppy written all over him. I'm not saying the Muhammed story is kosher. But Muhammed actually did things that people took notice of, which gives later PR departments less to work with. For Jesus they could just make up any shit. Which they obviously did. Making him an inconsistent and schizophrenic character.

 

[TSwizzle]

We look forward to you leading Friday's prayers Imam Zoidberg followed by another sermon of course.

 

[whichphilosophy]

For every verse in the koran perceived to talk about peace, there's another verse teaching hatred for infidels or "Kafirs." Mo was slightly more reasonable when he was week, and only had a few followers. Once he had gained power by the sword, the hadith's get much more violent, and any tolerance for infidels vanished overnight. In the koran , the later hadith's overrule the more peaceful earlier ones. Moslems are allowed to tell porkies if it benefits Islam. They have one story of tolerance and peace for Kafir ears in order to gain trust, another of non tolerance and violence for muslin ears.

The pattern of the Quran is this: Something something horrible done to the Muslim, the Muslim is allowed to take revenge for this slight. Next paragraph. Even if you're allowed to take revenge it's better to forgive. And then goes on about the beauty and virtue of forgiveness and talks about it more than the revenge. Clearly the forgiving part is to be preferred than the revenge bit. Yet this bit is somehow never quoted in Jihadwatch, nor on pro-atheist sites like this. The Quran goes on about forgiveness to the point where it gets tiresome IMHO. Way more than the Bible.

The Bible on the other hand mentions turning the other cheek and forgiveness a couple of time. But only a few times. On the other hand it passes judgement like a mother fucker. Because all the various books are so different in style Jesus comes across as a psycho who is mild and kind one minute just to lash out and say something horrendous and horribly judgemental the next. Jesus is extremely passive aggressive. At least Muhammed is aggressive aggressive. Jesus is all smiles but slips in about his father punishing them unless you do exactly what Jesus says. The Bible is a Frankenstein monster of a literary work and has no clear theme or tone. As books go the Quran is better written. The Bible is just confusing.

Also, Jesus is clearly the work of fiction. Jesus has mady uppy written all over him. I'm not saying the Muhammed story is kosher. But Muhammed actually did things that people took notice of, which gives later PR departments less to work with. For Jesus they could just make up any shit. Which they obviously did. Making him an inconsistent and schizophrenic character.

Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist once wrote "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic". So by that reasoning, those who heard voices were Schizophrenic. However as you say there is a lot of forgiveness in Islam. The only objection though some unfairly blame Moslems is the excessive influx of economic migrants. This is a problem because the US and its allies have created several wars in the region and we are trying to cope with the refugees.

 

[angelo]

 

[DrZoidberg]

That made me laugh, but it's stupid to call Muhammed a paedophile. A political marriage back then was just a way for medieval rulers to sign along the dotted line in an agreement. Calling Muhammed a paedophile is like calling everybody in the EU a paedophile for being in the EU or everybody in NATO for paedophiles for being in NATO. Yes, I really think it's that stupid. Medieval European rulers wed their children off left and right. Often to other children. Which is no basis from which to build a long term nurturing and loving relationship.

What's problematic about it is that modern Muslims hold up Muhammed as some sort of ideal man. Yes, they do. And what they're saying is that the lives of women don't really matter, and can be traded like sheep. And we're not cool with that in the modern world. But it's not that problematic, since non-fundamentalist Muslims seem to have no problems ignoring that part. Which is almost all of them. And this view of women is exactly identical with Christianities/Biblical view of women.

On that topic. Jesus encouraged abstinence and his example was to never sleep with anybody. That is also a terrible example to follow. Sexuality is a strong instinct and if we don't allow ourselves to have any we'll start to desire that which we can get. Which leads to Catholic priests fucking young boys and all manner of other unhelpful sexual deviancy and anti-social weirdness.

I don't think I'm unique in realising this. So I suspect that when you mention Muhammeds alleged paedophilia (he most likely wasn't) you're just making a fool of yourself and you just come across as a loon. I'm not saying you aren't a loon. You may be. What I'm saying is, if you aren't a loon and you don't want to come across as one this isn't helping.

 

[angelo]

Lighten up for gawds sake! It's "draw Muhammad day" in support of free speech!