Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on January 19, 2007, 04:21:17 am
-
I actually noticed this in a new story about Muslims feeling attacked by the media in Australia, but I think it stands as true most places. The essential point made was that no other group in the world is identified readily with religion rather than race, ethnicity, nationality (or ancenstral nationality); whereas we'll ('we' being western society in general) usually group people into 'British', or 'American', or 'Chinese', the generic term for any Arab bloke seems to be Muslim, particularly when described in the media.
I find this interesting, and curious as to whether it is the cause or the symptom of what appears to be a growing prejudice.
-
Two points:
1) Jews have been identified by religion for far longer than Muslims.
2)Most Mulsims in many countries are not of Arab origin, but Pakistani origin. Muslims, while they tend to keep to themselves (different holy days from other religions, plus their restrictions on food, make it very difficult to be otherwise), are not a racial group, but a religious group.
As for Muslims feeling attacked by the media, the media tends to attack everyone. After all, remember the problems over the cartoon in a Danish newspaper, that not only made fun of Mohammed, but also of Jesus and The Buddha, yet Buddhists aren't the ones one the street.
-
The muslim stereotype is quite a strong one. I'm not going to debate if that is fair or not. I have my own view, others have theirs. Either way because it is a strong stereotype it is naturally the first one we think of and the one our brains use commonly when it comes to abstracting the world.
-
Two points:
1) Jews have been identified by religion for far longer than Muslims.
2)Most Mulsims in many countries are not of Arab origin, but Pakistani origin. Muslims, while they tend to keep to themselves (different holy days from other religions, plus their restrictions on food, make it very difficult to be otherwise), are not a racial group, but a religious group.
1) I've rarely seen them done so in the media, though. I can't remember a single instance where there's been a link made between the aims of the state of Israel and Judaism as a religion, but such a link seems commonly made in - if not actual stories - opinion pieces in newspapers (for example).
2) That was my point (the grouping of disparate nationalities under a religious banner when it's not done for any other religion); however, I'm not sure about the 'of Pakistani origin' part and I'd like you to provide a source & meaning for that statement. For example, I believe the majority of Muslims in Austria & Germany are Turkish immigrants. The majority in Belgium are Moroccan or Turkish (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm).
As for Muslims feeling attacked by the media, the media tends to attack everyone. After all, remember the problems over the cartoon in a Danish newspaper, that not only made fun of Mohammed, but also of Jesus and The Buddha, yet Buddhists aren't the ones one the street.
Well, it's firstly worth noting that the Danish newspaper is a singular incident. The feeling of persecution is not really related to that (it's seen as symptomatic perhaps), but the general linkage between Islam and violence in the media. It's also worth noting a bit more about the circumstances of the cartoons; namely that the protests came as the result of circulation (by radical Imams) of the cartoons with the addition of 3 far more offensive cartoons (including pictures which were twisted in meaning to depict Islam when not actually referring to it atall) for the obvious purpose of sparking a reaction. Had those 3 more offensive cartoons (with the twisted context they were presented in) been actually published in said paper, the outcry - if not the extremity of the protests - would have been justifiable as they would have been clearly racist. (on the converse, I'd just like to emphasise that the cartoons had every right to be published under freedom of speech, and that Muslims equally had every right to peacefully protest)
-
It's partly a lose-lose situation though, let's face it, there are highly publicised areas of Muslim society that represent themselves as Muslim first and their country of origin comes second, and willingly pass on an image of a massive united Muslim nation to further their cause.
Now, that may or may not be a misrepresentation, it more than likely is, some sects of Islam, for example, in Turkey, are nothing like the sects in, say, Iran.
I suppose if you pick up a big hammer and wave it around, you'll be known as 'The man with the Big Hammer.', it's just human nature to label things like that, it's not exactly fair, but it is a natural way to think, and you always remember the most outspoken person or event (which is why a lot of peoples' perception of Muslims is based on incorrect information).
-
I suppose if you pick up a big hammer and wave it around, you'll be known as 'The man with the Big Hammer.'
The point I was trying to make, only made in a far more amusing manner. Nice quote. Consider it stolen.
-
Whil we're at it, how come no one uses the term "Mohammadens". anymore
-
Whil we're at it, how come no one uses the term "Mohammadens". anymore
Too many letters for them?
-
Keyboards cost :p
-
It doesn't fit on a Jihad video label.
-
1) I've rarely seen them done so in the media, though. I can't remember a single instance where there's been a link made between the aims of the state of Israel and Judaism as a religion, but such a link seems commonly made in - if not actual stories - opinion pieces in newspapers (for example).
Im thinking that that is only the case because of WW2. Had there been no great attack and attempted extermination of jewish peoples, the media today probably would refer to them all as jews. But because of the holocaust, it's a lot easier, now for a jewish person to feel "harassed" by such a labelling (in certain contexts) and in retaliation, label someone an anti-semite. And as soon as you're labelled an anti semite... well... look at Mel Gibson :p
-
1) I've rarely seen them done so in the media, though. I can't remember a single instance where there's been a link made between the aims of the state of Israel and Judaism as a religion, but such a link seems commonly made in - if not actual stories - opinion pieces in newspapers (for example).
Im thinking that that is only the case because of WW2. Had there been no great attack and attempted extermination of jewish peoples, the media today probably would refer to them all as jews. But because of the holocaust, it's a lot easier, now for a jewish person to feel "harassed" by such a labelling (in certain contexts) and in retaliation, label someone an anti-semite. And as soon as you're labelled an anti semite... well... look at Mel Gibson :p
Didn't hurt apocalypto......
Yeah, the label 'Jew' did occur to me as the only other example. But if the reason it isn't used is because of the Holocaust then... well, doesn't that indicate something about 'Muslim' as a label too?
-
Mm, it's more a case of humanity not learning more than anything. People will claim that we've learned from the mistakes of the past, but in actuality, we only learn from individual instances, and when the scenario changes slightly, it's brand new again.
IMO, of course.
-
Perhaps, but then again, here in the US a vast majority of blacks, particularly those who get stuck with the nasty stereotypes (i.e. inner city) are Muslim. But nobody identifies them as Muslim. They're identified as black.
It might have to do with ease of use, too. The Middle East has precious few unifying factors save its religion. Iran for example is ancient Persia, and Persians and Arabs don't play nice. Even the term Arab incorporates a great number of ethnic subgroups that have long memories and bad relations with each other. The Bedouin proverb "Me against my brother, my brother and I against my family, my family against my tribe, and my tribe against the world." has a lot of truth to it.
There's a parallel with Africa and its own intercine conflicts in such places as Rwanda that rings more true as time goes by and Islam fractures further.
-
I actually noticed this in a new story about Muslims feeling attacked by the media in Australia, but I think it stands as true most places. The essential point made was that no other group in the world is identified readily with religion rather than race, ethnicity, nationality (or ancenstral nationality); whereas we'll ('we' being western society in general) usually group people into 'British', or 'American', or 'Chinese', the generic term for any Arab bloke seems to be Muslim, particularly when described in the media.
I find this interesting, and curious as to whether it is the cause or the symptom of what appears to be a growing prejudice.
Lets put some of this into context:
Over the last few years you have gangs of muslim men who rape girls, then get away with it. Then you also have them going to countries like Australia and they critize non-islamic girls for not wearing a veil on the beach, and then you also have that idiot cleric who said that women who did not wear a veil were "uncovered meat".
Australians are getting tired of this BS. The biggest problem is that muslim society is horrifically backwards and instead of trying to come out of its hell hole, it tries to drag everyone else down with them.
-
Mm, it's more a case of humanity not learning more than anything. People will claim that we've learned from the mistakes of the past, but in actuality, we only learn from individual instances, and when the scenario changes slightly, it's brand new again.
IMO, of course.
I agree. Last time I expressed that opinion though (on a different forum), it got a less-than-favourable reaction.
In a similar vein:
A *huge* proportion of people cannot make *correct and accurate* generalisations of principles. They have to learn everything as if it's an unrelated piece of crap, BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID! PEOPLE ARE STUPID! YES, THAT'S RIGHT, I'M SHOUTING NOW! AIEEEE!! PEOPLE ARE STUPID!
-
Lets put some of this into context:
Over the last few years you have gangs of muslim men who rape girls, then get away with it. Then you also have them going to countries like Australia and they critize non-islamic girls for not wearing a veil on the beach, and then you also have that idiot cleric who said that women who did not wear a veil were "uncovered meat".
Australians are getting tired of this BS. The biggest problem is that muslim society is horrifically backwards and instead of trying to come out of its hell hole, it tries to drag everyone else down with them.
haha yes because all muslims are the same
get out
-
I actually noticed this in a new story about Muslims feeling attacked by the media in Australia, but I think it stands as true most places. The essential point made was that no other group in the world is identified readily with religion rather than race, ethnicity, nationality (or ancenstral nationality); whereas we'll ('we' being western society in general) usually group people into 'British', or 'American', or 'Chinese', the generic term for any Arab bloke seems to be Muslim, particularly when described in the media.
I find this interesting, and curious as to whether it is the cause or the symptom of what appears to be a growing prejudice.
Lets put some of this into context:
Over the last few years you have gangs of muslim men who rape girls, then get away with it. Then you also have them going to countries like Australia and they critize non-islamic girls for not wearing a veil on the beach, and then you also have that idiot cleric who said that women who did not wear a veil were "uncovered meat".
Australians are getting tired of this BS. The biggest problem is that muslim society is horrifically backwards and instead of trying to come out of its hell hole, it tries to drag everyone else down with them.
That's the absolute illustration of my point; you are grouping all Muslims with this group of idiots. Yet we do not have 'christian gangs', or claim the likes of Billy Graham (the homophobes, the racists, etc) as representative of Christianity. We don't look at creationists and go 'ah well, it's because christianity is so backwards'. When the Vatican makes a statement of tolerance, people accept it - when a Muslim cleric does the same, they are ignored or treated as a minority. Even the use of 'them' is in it's own way a dehumanising statement.
-
those people are however used as representitives of Americans, it's because there are enough of us who listen to the grahms ect to make it a problem, same with islam, even if it's 10% of the population thats still 100,000,000 people.
-
those people are however used as representitives of Americans, it's because there are enough of us who listen to the grahms ect to make it a problem, same with islam, even if it's 10% of the population thats still 100,000,000 people.
I've never heard nor seen the likes of Billy Graham as representatives of either Americans or Christians.
-
I've seen them used as such many a time.
-
I've seen them used as such many a time.
Really? Where? I mean, where is Billy Grahams homophobic bile considered to be the opinion of ever person in America or, to more accurately compare to Muslims, every person who goes to church?
-
Australians are getting tired of this BS. The biggest problem is that muslim society is horrifically backwards and instead of trying to come out of its hell hole, it tries to drag everyone else down with them.
You can't say that about "Muslim" society because "Muslim" societies do not exist. What you are referring to is the society of immigrant (or otherwise) peoples, who happen to be Muslim. Think about it: some Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Levant practice gender segregation and (worse) female circumcision. Would you term these Christians "representatives" of their faith?
A follow up to my initial remark: Muslims have been fighting and killing each other ever since the Prophet Muhammad died. They managed to pull themselves together briefly - barring the Shia schism - to form a viable state. You may or may not have heard Muslims speak of the four "rightly guided" leaders (or caliphs) of this state. They were called "rightly guided" because they were democratically elected in the aboriginal Arab councils (the shuras) and because they put the principles of Islam - gender equality, tolerance, etc. - above the prejudices of their native culture. That's right: A lot of the nonsense you see emanating from Muslims today is largely the product of cultural values alien to Islam that unscrupulous bastards processed and fed to the uneducated masses.
You probably want to know why Muslims "hate women and democracy." The answer is simple: they don't. That rubbish was part of the tribal culture of Arabia. In the Qur'an, Muslims are ordered to see men and women as equals, see the world with an open mind, and build bridges across religions and nationalities. And for a time, Muslims followed these commandments. But for the past 1300 years, Muslims have been in a state of decay and rot. Take a look at the respect accorded to women in the Qur'an - several chapters are named after famous women of history - and take a look at the pronoun variations used when referring to God.
You talked about the Muslim "cleric" that said women without veils are "uncovered meat." I'm not trying to be an asshole, but there is no clergy in Islam. Not even in Shia Islam: the Ayatollah is less a clergyman and more a political leader. Anyway, this man's idiotic statement is representative of the state of Muslims throughout the world. He has no formal education whatsoever. I've always personally questioned the Qur'anic basis for "fatwas" and mullahs and such - I've researched it a lot, and concluded that the Qur'an in fact forbids any such injunctions. This is consistent with the Quranic standpoint on everyone following their own path and their own interpretations, just as long as they obey the five pillars of Islam. So, we've established that this "cleric" has no authority to project his voice as that of the Muslim or even the Australian Muslim diaspora. Second, his statement reflects my earlier remark about the influence of native culture on Muslim thought: probably in whatever Indo-Pak village he grew up in, his Quran teacher told him that "women are fields for the sowing of man"* and other such bull****. He, along with millions of other Muslims, took the lesson to heart and now that he's memorized the Qur'an by rote thinks that he has the authority to pass judgement on any subject that he pleases. In short, he's not speaking as a Muslim, but rather as a donkey who's full of himself.
So why do Muslims follow and swallow such trash? Beats me, but most Muslims are uneducated and apathetic. They're even more parochial than the most virulent nationalists that Europe ever produced. They don't know and don't care, and most wouldn't hesitate to stab their brother in the back if they knew they could earn an extra dollar from it. Look at the map of the Middle East and read about how it was carved up, and you'll get the general idea. and before anyone gets on me for my racist attitude, I'm speaking as a member of this horrible community
There was my rant ;) - if anyone has any point they'd like me to elaborate on, I'll be happy to oblige. As the Qur'an says, faith is incomplete without knowledge.
*A shockingly common expression of ignorance in the Subcontinent
-
De basic problem of those who have problems with muslims is that they never met one.
Do not judge by the knowledge of others.
-
De basic problem of those who have problems with muslims is that they never met one.
Do not judge by the knowledge of others.
QFT
-
De basic problem of those who have problems with muslims is that they never met one.
Do not judge by the knowledge of others.
QFT
QU-EF-whattes?
-
Quoted for Truth.
Alternate form of QFA or "Quoted for Accuracy."
Can also mean "Quit ****ing Around." ;)
-
I actually noticed this in a new story about Muslims feeling attacked by the media in Australia, but I think it stands as true most places. The essential point made was that no other group in the world is identified readily with religion rather than race, ethnicity, nationality (or ancenstral nationality); whereas we'll ('we' being western society in general) usually group people into 'British', or 'American', or 'Chinese', the generic term for any Arab bloke seems to be Muslim, particularly when described in the media.
I find this interesting, and curious as to whether it is the cause or the symptom of what appears to be a growing prejudice.
Lets put some of this into context:
Over the last few years you have gangs of muslim men who rape girls, then get away with it. Then you also have them going to countries like Australia and they critize non-islamic girls for not wearing a veil on the beach, and then you also have that idiot cleric who said that women who did not wear a veil were "uncovered meat".
Australians are getting tired of this BS. The biggest problem is that muslim society is horrifically backwards and instead of trying to come out of its hell hole, it tries to drag everyone else down with them.
QFT
-
Err. No. No it's not truth. It's turning a blind eye to reality and calling every Muslim a hypocrite.
-
Perhaps if the individual muslim (or follower of ANY religion) doesent agree with the direction his relgious leaders are taking or the image they protray as a whole, he should dissassociate himself with the label.
-
With what label? Muslim?
That's the same bad logic as calling all christians bigotted racists because of the minority with the loudest voices.
-
I'm not saying the name calling is justified, and i agree that it IS a small minority of muslims creating the stereotype. In an ideal situation, people would understand this. However, since people cannot be changed from their urge to stereotype, it would be in the best intrest of the muslim to change his label a bit. Now i dont think its fair that he has to do it, but hes only making life harder for himself if he doesent.
This is why I usually refer to myself as a broader category of "agnostic" rather than "satanist"
-
Does anybody know what society means? How about generalization?
Figure those out and put them together. Then you'll know exactly why Kosh hit the nail right on the head.
-
So it's just an algebra problem? Why didn't anyone tell me this? It all makes sense now.
-
Does anybody know what society means? How about generalization?
Figure those out and put them together. Then you'll know exactly why Kosh hit the nail right on the head.
Society = group of people of the same culture/ethnicity/beliefs and or live in relatively close proximity to each other.
Generalization = a blanket idea covering every facet of a group of people or assuming everyone in a society is the exactly the same even if there not.
EDIT: woops, you weren't really asking that, were you :nervous:
*looks at title
sorry
-
Congratulations Sizzler, you have gotten both those definitions wrong. Way to butcher those two words with absolutely inaccurate meanings.
-
Perhaps if the individual muslim (or follower of ANY religion) doesent agree with the direction his relgious leaders are taking or the image they protray as a whole, he should dissassociate himself with the label.
"I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."-Gandhi
There is a difference between wearing the label and being what the label professes. Being what the label professes, in a religious sense, almost invariably requires wearing the label in addition to whatever else it needs. Hence the suggestion you make is not possible for anyone who is in fact a devout Muslim. (Or Christian, or whatever.)
Whoops.
-
This is history repeating itself, thousand years ago (during the crusades), most muslims saw us the same way as the most of us now see them.
-
Quoted for Truth.
Alternate form of QFA or "Quoted for Accuracy."
Can also mean "Quit ****ing Around." ;)
It's also annoying "postcount++" method of not actually saying anything.
-
Quoted for Truth.
Alternate form of QFA or "Quoted for Accuracy."
Can also mean "Quit ****ing Around." ;)
It's also annoying "postcount++" method of not actually saying anything.
QFT (Someone had to do it)
-
I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says QFT!
-
I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says QFT!
FTW! :nervous:
-
I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says QFT!
QF.....oh.....
-
I'm glad to see the backlash against QFT has started. About bloody time. If you can't be bothered to write a sentence then your post is NWP (not worth posting).
-
"I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."-Gandhi
There is a difference between wearing the label and being what the label professes. Being what the label professes, in a religious sense, almost invariably requires wearing the label in addition to whatever else it needs. Hence the suggestion you make is not possible for anyone who is in fact a devout Muslim. (Or Christian, or whatever.)
Whoops.
First of all id rather you quote my second post, which clarified the first one, but anywiggles:
A label is just a shallow, superficial word that is used to describe (or in society's hands, generalize [used both words in same sentence]) a particular group, or used by a particular group to identify themselves. It is far more important that the person actually beleive their religion than care about their label, because their religion is obviously more deep and profound than the word they use to label it.
-
Congratulations Sizzler, you have gotten both those definitions wrong. Way to butcher those two words with absolutely inaccurate meanings.
Hmm, I guess your right. Except for the parts that you got wrong. Which is all of it.
It's called paraphrasing.
-
"I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."-Gandhi
There is a difference between wearing the label and being what the label professes. Being what the label professes, in a religious sense, almost invariably requires wearing the label in addition to whatever else it needs. Hence the suggestion you make is not possible for anyone who is in fact a devout Muslim. (Or Christian, or whatever.)
Whoops.
First of all id rather you quote my second post, which clarified the first one, but anywiggles:
A label is just a shallow, superficial word that is used to describe (or in society's hands, generalize [used both words in same sentence]) a particular group, or used by a particular group to identify themselves. It is far more important that the person actually beleive their religion than care about their label, because their religion is obviously more deep and profound than the word they use to label it.
Albeit surely part of faith and belief is the adoption and pride of that 'label' into your identity? People don't be complain about being labelled but being mislabelled, after all, either by being given the wrong label or that label being corrupted by the wrong meaning. Plus I'd guess most Christians, Muslims, et al take the position that they have to live 'up' to that adopted label of being a true Christian/Muslim/Xenu-worshipper/etc.
It's hard for me to see how people can retain self-identity without having some way to describe themselves, and that's what a label is (or, rather, should be). It's important to remember that the people professing to be true Muslims whilst blowing themselves up, or true Christians whilst bombing abortion clinics, would be complete nutters regardless of whether or not they put a label on themselves.
-
Perhaps if the individual muslim (or follower of ANY religion) doesent agree with the direction his relgious leaders are taking or the image they protray as a whole, he should dissassociate himself with the label.
Despite thinking about your statement for a few minutes, I am still at a loss. Please explain to me how this would work, and why it is a good idea.
I may have misinterpreted your post, but it seems that you are proposing that muslims should stop calling themselves muslims, merely to satisfy those non-muslims that have a misinformed stereotype of the religion. Surely, if a muslim doesn't like the image of Islam, then to him/her, the religion itself is not the problem - the people doing the labelling are. Why would they dissociate from a religion, which they believe is correct, rather than educating non-muslim westerners, whom they believe are wrong? For muslims to abandon their religion (at least, for this reason) would be to accept that the bigots are right, and buckling to their wishes, rather than tackling the actual problems, which are ignorance, bigotry and misinformation. If we stand by and let such things happen to Islam, it will happen to any other minority group. Before long, everyone remaining will be blond-haired and blue-eyed.
As for the other part of your proposal; almost no religious 'leaders' are unanimously followed. They can't really 'take' a whole religion anywhere, only the people that follow them. People who disagree strongly and stubbornly over politics will differentiate between each other, rather than leaving the religion (a way of life to some) altogether. People do this - this is why, for example, there are 'Catholics' and 'Protestants', rather than just 'Christians'.
-
I give up, I cant say anything in here without it being totally mistinterpreted. :blah:
-
I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says QFT!
QFT QFT QFT!!!!!!!
:wakka:
-
Here's the problem...Arabs, Asians, Indians, Europeans...whoever you are...you go into a country and you play by that countries rules and social customs. You do not go into someone else's country and isolate yourself off in a small little corner and lash out at whatever offends your countries sensibilities. Particularly when the country in question is a well established and stable one. From what I've heard in the media about Australia and what has been said about the "problems" they have been having with specific groups of Muslims in the country I'm pretty much saying right on. I'm not sure if I have the whole picture but that one religious leader who is insulting western women for not covering up, calling them "meat", and other examples of that sort of stuff is just too far. You're in a western style country (technically it isn't in the west) and its our general culture in European nations not to cover things up so much. We're still pretty uptight about things I think...but thats our way. Its not unjust...it doesn't unduly harm anyone and most western countries seem to bend over backwards as much as possible to accommodate people and they scream ever louder that they are being wronged.
It makes me sad because I want to espouse equal opportunities wherever possible but these people want want want and don't care where they are living. This type of behavior offends me. Doesn't matter who you are, where your from, or anything. Be fair.
-
I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says QFT!
Hey Farva, what's that place you like to go to? The one with all the goofy **** on the walls?
:p
-
I'm not sure if I have the whole picture but that one religious leader who is insulting western women for not covering up, calling them "meat", and other examples of that sort of stuff is just too far. You're in a western style country (technically it isn't in the west) and its our general culture in European nations not to cover things up so much.
...
It makes me sad because I want to espouse equal opportunities wherever possible but these people want want want and don't care where they are living. This type of behavior offends me. Doesn't matter who you are, where your from, or anything. Be fair.
I agree with this. He has a right to criticise western culture and preach his religion if he wants to, thanks to freedom of speech, but name-calling serves no use whatsoever.
Such comments may be borne out of frustration - some people, who happen to be westerners, throw a lot of undue insults at Islam too, and he may feel that he is responding in kind. It's a cycle.
It is sad to see people judging entire communities due to the words of a few vocal maniacs. The injustice works both ways.
-
I'm not sure if I have the whole picture but that one religious leader who is insulting western women for not covering up, calling them "meat", and other examples of that sort of stuff is just too far. You're in a western style country (technically it isn't in the west) and its our general culture in European nations not to cover things up so much.
...
It makes me sad because I want to espouse equal opportunities wherever possible but these people want want want and don't care where they are living. This type of behavior offends me. Doesn't matter who you are, where your from, or anything. Be fair.
I agree with this. He has a right to criticise western culture and preach his religion if he wants to, thanks to freedom of speech, but name-calling serves no use whatsoever.
Such comments may be borne out of frustration - some people, who happen to be westerners, throw a lot of undue insults at Islam too, and he may feel that he is responding in kind. It's a cycle.
It is sad to see people judging entire communities due to the words of a few vocal maniacs. The injustice works both ways.
Keep in mind the muslim community goes to great lengths to segregate themselves in western countries. They need to learn how to live in the 21st century.
-
Keep in mind some of the muslim community goes to great lengths to segregate themselves in western countries. They need to learn how to live in the 21st century.
:rolleyes:
What were we saying about generalisation, again?
-
Keep in mind the muslim community goes to great lengths to segregate themselves in western countries. They need to learn how to live in the 21st century.
You have odd Muslims.
-
Keep in mind the muslim community goes to great lengths to segregate themselves in western countries. They need to learn how to live in the 21st century.
I'd love to see proof of this. Dearborn, for certain, is most definitely not like this.
Note: the fringe fundamentalist, ultraconservative elements of Islam do not represent the entire Muslim community.
-
I'm not sure if I have the whole picture but that one religious leader who is insulting western women for not covering up, calling them "meat", and other examples of that sort of stuff is just too far. You're in a western style country (technically it isn't in the west) and its our general culture in European nations not to cover things up so much.
...
It makes me sad because I want to espouse equal opportunities wherever possible but these people want want want and don't care where they are living. This type of behavior offends me. Doesn't matter who you are, where your from, or anything. Be fair.
I agree with this. He has a right to criticise western culture and preach his religion if he wants to, thanks to freedom of speech, but name-calling serves no use whatsoever.
Such comments may be borne out of frustration - some people, who happen to be westerners, throw a lot of undue insults at Islam too, and he may feel that he is responding in kind. It's a cycle.
It is sad to see people judging entire communities due to the words of a few vocal maniacs. The injustice works both ways.
Oh indeed..."westerners" in general are throwing a fair bit of flak at Islam too. They are supposed to be the latest villain that the western powers must unite against to defeat. Last time it was the Soviets and before that the Nazi's and before that the Soviets. Gotta keep the military industrial complex going after all...
I think there is a hidden fear that isn't vocalized much...and its quite similar to the McCarthyist period...where people think that Islam is trying to take over the world in some sort of religious revolution. It doesn't help when some of the extremists are saying that exact thing. This is probably worse than the 1950s because we're also doing parts of the 1960s all over again too. Its all sort of compressed down into a few years.
I'm really hoping that means that in a few years we can get back to the 90's because I seem to remember that time as being pretty good overall.
-
It's not just the extremists, look what the Muslims as a whole are doing to France.
-
It's not just the extremists, look what the Muslims as a whole are doing to France.
What are they doing, exactly?
(NB: equating the Paris riots as 'what the Muslims are doing to France' is about as sensible as equating the Rodney King riots as 'what the blacks are doing to America')
-
It's not just the extremists, look what the Muslims as a whole are doing to France.
What are they doing? From what I understand the French are forcing integration by enforcing a very secularized public education system. It sounds somewhat discriminatory but it does appear to put everyone on even ground. I don't know enough about the issues to say more or understand the implications.
-
It's not just the extremists, look what the Muslims as a whole are doing to France.
What are they doing? From what I understand the French are forcing integration by enforcing a very secularized public education system. It sounds somewhat discriminatory but it does appear to put everyone on even ground. I don't know enough about the issues to say more or understand the implications.
The Muslims have been rapidly immigrating, and The French have done exceptionally well dealing with it thus far (secularization laws). These laws are not discriminatory at all because the same policy applies to Christian and Jewish stuff as well. However, if they continue to immigrate at the current rate, they may overtake the country and reverse the secularization laws. Not to mention their birthrate is INSANE compared to native French, and they immigrate just as fast. Anyone who has been keeping track of this knows that they are seriously poised to overtake the country.
-
It's not just the extremists, look what the Muslims as a whole are doing to France.
What are they doing? From what I understand the French are forcing integration by enforcing a very secularized public education system. It sounds somewhat discriminatory but it does appear to put everyone on even ground. I don't know enough about the issues to say more or understand the implications.
The Muslims have been rapidly immigrating, and The French have done exceptionally well dealing with it thus far (secularization laws). These laws are not discriminatory at all because the same policy applies to Christian and Jewish stuff as well. However, if they continue to immigrate at the current rate, they may overtake the country and reverse the secularization laws. Not to mention their birthrate is INSANE compared to native French, and they immigrate just as fast. Anyone who has been keeping track of this knows that they are seriously poised to overtake the country.
Well, there is that thing about democracy called the will of the majority. If the immigrating Muslims who become citizens wish to change the government to suit their needs, then that is well within their right. However, a state based around any particular faith usually has not stood up well in regions where there are multiple major religions, and the end result may very well be internal strife or ethnic tension.
You all can think what you wish; it could be a vast Arab conspiracy to bring down the West through turning popular sovereignty against democracies, or it could be just a large number of Arabs who see France and the West in general as being a better world than the Middle East and Africa. There are any number of options, though I personally believe that fear of Arab immigrants overturning the government is just as ridiculous as being afraid of the mass immigration from Europe to the US.
In many cases, immigration can do nothing but strengthen a country through allowing it to adopt ideas and customs of its new arrivals and their offspring. Hell, my weekly diet usually consists of fried rice from the Chinese takeout up the street and an occasional sitdown at the local Mexican restaurant just as much as I enjoy meals from places run by white Americans. Immigration usually can go over well so long as the country allows its minorities to integrate peacefully and willfully, not forceably as through France's secularization laws. If the Arabs and Muslims wish to remain separate and retain their culture while living in France, that is their choice; it is never the government's place to force a group to mix against its own will.
-
I think there is a hidden fear that isn't vocalized much...and its quite similar to the McCarthyist period...where people think that Islam is trying to take over the world in some sort of religious revolution. It doesn't help when some of the extremists are saying that exact thing.
Actually, Islam as a whole has always kind of assumed that they would eventually be Last Religion StandingTM, being newer and to their minds better then the other religions they actually profess some respect for (Judaism and Christianity); everyone else is a bunch of paganistic loonies. Paganistic being meant in the original connotations of the term.
That is IMO one of the fundemental causes of Islam's troubles. They thought they would win; now they look like they're losing.
-
Not to mention their birthrate is INSANE compared to native French, and they immigrate just as fast. Anyone who has been keeping track of this knows that they are seriously poised to overtake the country.
Quoted for being fantasy.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2550502,00.html
France has overtaken Ireland to become the European nation with the highest birthrate after decades of policies to promote childbearing and large families.
More children were born in 2006 than in any year since 1981, the National Statistics Institute said, taking the fertility rate to two babies per woman for the first time since 1974. This compares with about 1.8 in Britain, which also has one of the higher rates. The slowly rising European Union average is 1.52, and the rate needed to replenish generations is 2.07.
French officials hailed the 3 per cent rise as confirmation of the success of expensive schemes to encourage couples to produce more children, while also remaining in the workforce. French women now give birth at an average age of 30, and half the children are born outside marriage. Almost 50 per cent of the working population is female. The birthrate among immigrants generally matched that of native-born French.
-
Joshua, if you dont have anything with substance to add, kindly stfu. ;)
And aldo, I suppose the data all depends on the source.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm
Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim
-
Joshua, if you dont have anything with substance to add, kindly stfu. ;)
And aldo, I suppose the data all depends on the source.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm
Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim
And then on the other hand (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html)....
Although the Muslim birth rate today is the world’s second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa), it is falling faster than the birth rate of any other culture. By 2050, according to the latest UN projections, the population growth rate of the Muslim world will converge on that of the United States (although it will be much higher than Europe's or China's).
Albeit I'd note that the post I quoted referred to native French, not muslims, unless you believe muslims cannot be native french citizens.
-
Other sources predict the birthrate will simply continue to increase, but I'm not going to have an "inconsistant sources" battle with you. :p
I suppose it will depend on world events, especially how the French continue to respond to the mass immigration and how events unfold in the mid east.
-
Other sources predict the birthrate will simply continue to increase, but I'm not going to have an "inconsistant sources" battle with you. :p
I suppose it will depend on world events, especially how the French continue to respond to the mass immigration and how events unfold in the mid east.
The birthrate will probably only increase in terms of African muslims; the tendency everywhere else, IIRC, has been for population decrease regardless of religion.
-
Other sources predict the birthrate will simply continue to increase, but I'm not going to have an "inconsistant sources" battle with you. :p
I suppose it will depend on world events, especially how the French continue to respond to the mass immigration and how events unfold in the mid east.
The birthrate will probably only increase in terms of African muslims; the tendency everywhere else, IIRC, has been for population decrease regardless of religion.
Precisely. I thought it was France's policy to counter this with the large family program that they have going on. It's really bad in Italy, IIRC.
-
Other sources predict the birthrate will simply continue to increase, but I'm not going to have an "inconsistant sources" battle with you. :p
I suppose it will depend on world events, especially how the French continue to respond to the mass immigration and how events unfold in the mid east.
The birthrate will probably only increase in terms of African muslims; the tendency everywhere else, IIRC, has been for population decrease regardless of religion.
AFAIK every country in the EU has a declining population due to lower birth rates; France and Ireland being the highest, but still below the level needed to maintain a constant population.
Precisely. I thought it was France's policy to counter this with the large family program that they have going on. It's really bad in Italy, IIRC.
-
Look. Muslims may indeed by the villain of the moment but does that mean they are beyond reproach? I think that it's long past the point now where the muslim community has proven itself the most racist and megalomaniacal community on the face of the Earth. So I'm starting to get a little annoyed that we are so concerned about treating them fairly. You think they give a damn about us? If they did they wouldn't set up their own little ghettos in foreign countries whilst simultaneously blowing foreigners up and sticking them in orange jump suits. They are a problem. Stop beating yourselves up for recognising the blatantly obvious and start dealing with it. Ok you're all very nice people but that doesn't mean you have to be understanding about the guys who want to murder you and your family because you happen to not believe in their particular fictional deity.
-
Which is exactly why muslims who don't agree with that approach need to label themselves differently.... As I (tried to) explain earlier.
-
Look. Muslims may indeed by the villain of the moment but does that mean they are beyond reproach? I think that it's long past the point now where the muslim community has proven itself the most racist and megalomaniacal community on the face of the Earth. So I'm starting to get a little annoyed that we are so concerned about treating them fairly. You think they give a damn about us? If they did they wouldn't set up their own little ghettos in foreign countries whilst simultaneously blowing foreigners up and sticking them in orange jump suits. They are a problem. Stop beating yourselves up for recognising the blatantly obvious and start dealing with it. Ok you're all very nice people but that doesn't mean you have to be understanding about the guys who want to murder you and your family because you happen to not believe in their particular fictional deity.
Except all muslims are not 'the guys who want to murder you', which is exactly my bloody point.
-
Except all muslims are not 'the guys who want to murder you', which is exactly my bloody point.
And I'm sure that "point" would be a great consolation to you when one of the many, many, many muslims who do want to see you dead get hold of you, torture you, and behead. Maybe you can argue points with them since you're so good at it.
-
Which is exactly why muslims who don't agree with that approach need to label themselves differently.... As I (tried to) explain earlier.
So, Muslims who follow the Islamic faith need to call themselves something other than Muslims? Like what? Muslims Who Follow Islam But Don't Believe In Blowing People Up (Which Obviously Everybody Who Calls Themselves Muslim Does)? There are Christians who believe in treating everybody fairly and there are Christians who believe in torching gays. Does this call for a splinter group, Christians Who Don't Believe In Torching Gays And Who Believe They Can Be Rather Nice People? No! Ultraliberal and ultraconservative Christians alike believe in Christ as God's son, therefore they are Christians. They should be referred to as such.
This post is a work of fiction. I in no way meant to imply that any conservative-leaning people of the Christian faith in fact set fire to any person, particularly because of their homosexuality or stance regarding thereof. Any such implications are strictly coincidental.
-
The Christians HAVE made spliner groups. For example, one would expect a Baptist sect to be much more radically conservative than a Unitarian sect. Islam's two main groups, Sunni and Shiite, are both tied to radical conservative actions.
EDIT: Spellcheck
-
Except all muslims are not 'the guys who want to murder you', which is exactly my bloody point.
And I'm sure that "point" would be a great consolation to you when one of the many, many, many muslims who do want to see you dead get hold of you, torture you, and behead. Maybe you can argue points with them since you're so good at it.
How many?
-
Wouldn't a splinter group of the Muslim religion that's pro-actively positive about respect for other peoples and religions be a wonderful thing? I imagine a group like that could get a lot of media coverage and achieve a lot of good. Then we could all say to them "Fair play to you. Now come in, have a cup of tea, and tell me about your prophets.".
-
How many?
Well I went to the hairdressers and suddenly everyone who worked there was "m". Oh and they told me I couldn't have my hair dyed blonde because they had run out of peroxide.
-
The Christians HAVE made spliner groups. For example, one would expect a Baptist sect to be much more radically conservative than a Unitarian sect. Islam's two main groups, Sunni and Shiite, are both tied to radical conservative actions.
EDIT: Spellcheck
But that's from religious interpretations. They split up based upon their diferences INSIDE that religion. For example, you don't expect people to call christians jews because they split up from them.
What you are sugesting is that people who follow the same religion as the mainstream terrorist group change their religious denomination. That makes as much sense as if in bizarro world if most terrorists were white people, white people should change their skin color!
-
He's not suggesting reasonable, normal muslims become scientologists. He's suggesting reasonable, normal muslims set up a group for reasonable, normal muslims! Actually it's the best idea I've heard on this subject for a long time. A stroke of genius. So think twice before you start trying to score cheap debating points off it.
-
How many?
Well I went to the hairdressers and suddenly everyone who worked there was "m". Oh and they told me I couldn't have my hair dyed blonde because they had run out of peroxide.
So you're just making that up on the basis of 6 people being tried in the news? And what does everyone working in a hairdressers being 'm' have to do with the price of cheese?
-
He's not suggesting reasonable, normal muslims become scientologists. He's suggesting reasonable, normal muslims set up a group for reasonable, normal muslims! Actually it's the best idea I've heard on this subject for a long time. A stroke of genius. So think twice before you start trying to score cheap debating points off it.
Muslims = people who believe in Mohamed (or some other prophet bloke)
It's not a terrorist label, it's not any sort label except a religious one. I don't see how this is a stroke of genius. It's a religious belief. When someone says they're muslim, do you think they are telling you they are about to kill you? If the UK had done the same about Ireland, would you be calling catholics another name? No, catholics are christians who have the same interpretation as the church of Rome. Same thing applies to muslims.
So it's not a stroke of genius, it's a stroke of idiocy. Religious labels are not political labels, they are *gasp* religious! ::)
-
Aldo and Ghostavo. Thank you for those fascinating replies. Enjoy the thread guys. :yes:
-
They SHOULD be religious labels, but they have been transformed by society into political labels. If in the US someone says they're deeply Christian, it is assumed that they are conservative. The point of a label change is to dissociate themselves with that political ideology while still maintaining their religious one. And there is no valid analogy to changing skin color, as one can splinter to a new denomination easily while it is for the most part impossible for someone to change their skin color.
-
They SHOULD be religious labels, but they have been transformed by society into political labels. If in the US someone says they're deeply Christian, it is assumed that they are conservative. The point of a label change is to dissociate themselves with that political ideology while still maintaining their religious one. And there is no valid analogy to changing skin color, as one can splinter to a new denomination easily while it is for the most part impossible for someone to change their skin color.
So you'd say normal Christians should stop calling themselves Christian because people are wrongly using that as a label for something else? I mean, if you say 'all Americans are stupid', the general response of American citizens is not to say 'ok, we'll call ourserse Supericans' - is it?
-
No but it should be. :nod:
I dont go around advertising and celebrating the fact I'm an American because I dont want to deal with ignorant people who formulate stereotypes from that label.
-
Well, that's what you do. I personally find it offensive (not too offensive, mind you) that you think people should simply abandon their declaration of faith instead of trying to spread understanding. You should be accepted, not have to change for people stupid enough to associate "Muslim" with "terrorist".
-
I AGREE, but lets be REALISTIC here. people are too STUPID to accept the spreading of understanding. Why cant you understand this?
-
No but it should be. :nod:
I dont go around advertising and celebrating the fact I'm an American because I dont want to deal with ignorant people who formulate stereotypes from that label.
Well, sorry to say KW, but you're doing nothing to dispel that stereotype tonight.
-
I AGREE, but lets be REALISTIC here. people are too STUPID to accept the spreading of understanding. Why cant you understand this?
Here we dip into cynicism and opinions. Granted, I wasn't doing much better when I was pulling from personal philosophy...
I still think that even a futile attempt to spread understanding is better than being forced into a name change, unless the leader (if any) of your religion declares war or something. It's another philosophy thing of mine. ::)
-
I AGREE, but lets be REALISTIC here. people are too STUPID to accept the spreading of understanding. Why cant you understand this?
:rolleyes:
I don't know if that was meant to be ironic or not?
-
I AGREE, but lets be REALISTIC here. people are too STUPID to accept the spreading of understanding. Why cant you understand this?
If you are being ironic then it's somekind of self-irony which is OK, I think. Maybe. Sometimes!
If you are not - because your opinion about "self-labelling" and stuff is exactly what you said in the very post I quote now - then you pointed out how hollow and baseless your argument is by yourself.
-
I love how people understand my sarcasm. :)
EDIT: I guess this is where we disagree, Koopa. :)
-
I love how people understand my sarcasm. :)
EDIT: I guess this is where we disagree, Koopa. :)
if no one at all understands your sarcasm it means your sarcasm is abysmal
-
Wouldn't a splinter group of the Muslim religion that's pro-actively positive about respect for other peoples and religions be a wonderful thing? I imagine a group like that could get a lot of media coverage and achieve a lot of good. Then we could all say to them "Fair play to you. Now come in, have a cup of tea, and tell me about your prophets.".
It would not be a splinter group. From what I have seen, this is what Islam is supposed to be like anyway. The people who aren't respectful should be considered the splinters.
Even if you labeled all of the 'good' muslims seperately, such a group would not get a lot of media coverage. Peace doesn't sell papers. Violence and intolerance is publicised, which is presumably why that is all that you can see.
Would you really say "come in, have a cup of tea"? What is stopping us from doing that now, to 'moderate' muslims?
-
For now, the muslim society is properly labeled extremist and terrorist. The 'good' muslims ARE the minority. Why is this? Because the people in power, who primarily dictate the community, are extremists and terrorists. Once a few years pass when loving and peaceful people in power are around, the muslim society will again be known not for terrorism (I hate that word), but for being loving and peaceful. It's the same thing that is happening with Christianity. It once made great societies, but because of Dubya, Pope Benedict, Pat Robertson, and every other major christian player, it is nothing more than a skidmark. Christians need a decent being in power to clean the **** stain from its track record... And so does muslim society.
BTW, notice I said 'society' and not 'people'.
-
I love how people understand my sarcasm. :)
EDIT: I guess this is where we disagree, Koopa. :)
if no one at all understands your sarcasm it means your sarcasm is abysmal
Or it could be that its kind of hard to understand sarcasm when its not spoken.
And Scuddie, I totally agree.
-
For now, the muslim society is properly labeled extremist and terrorist. The 'good' muslims ARE the minority. Why is this? Because the people in power, who primarily dictate the community, are extremists and terrorists. Once a few years pass when loving and peaceful people in power are around, the muslim society will again be known not for terrorism (I hate that word), but for being loving and peaceful. It's the same thing that is happening with Christianity. It once made great societies, but because of Dubya, Pope Benedict, Pat Robertson, and every other major christian player, it is nothing more than a skidmark. Christians need a decent being in power to clean the **** stain from its track record... And so does muslim society.
I think you've made an error there. That's nothing to do with good or bad and everything to do with the fact that people (as a group) are basically stupid and lazy. They're lazy in that they want the easiest solution to a problem. And they're stupid in that they don't see that the easiest solution is not the best one.
Look at Americans after 9/11 or Lebanese after the invasion by Israel earlier this year if you need an example of that.
Not all of the Christians voting for Bush are doing so cause they believe his fundamentalist views. Same goes for the people supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. They simply choose those leaders because they're stupid enough to believe their claims that they can get something done.
Most people don't follow a cause because they're bad or good. They follow because they're sheep.
-
I think it's worth noting that the likes of, say, Hezbollah and Hamas also do the whole 'gun in one hand, olive branch in the other' when it comes to politicking - we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals - or that they were seen as far less corrupt and dishonest than the Fatah government (which had also really failed to achieve any sort of peace or solution to the situation there). So a vote for Hamas isn't necessarily a vote for suicide bombings, but something more complex and multi-layered. Also, of course, when someone is bombing you ala Lebanon, you tend to sympathise for the people who appear to be defending you - the Lebanese government (sensibly, really) didn't declare war on Israel, so Hezbollah was the only force opposing the IDF marching into Lebanese territory. Even though Hezbollah provoked Israel (to a highly disproportionate response), and both sides are regarded as commiting war crimes, it's only understandable people in Lebanon would see Hezbollah as defending them given the situation.
-
we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals
If you were a real politician Aldo, and I know you fancy yourself as one, just imagine all the fun people would have with that quote. :D Put the shovel down Aldo. The hole is big enough. You can get in now.
-
I agree with aldo, ordinary citizens looked up to Hezbollah because they were seen as assisiting the poor and disadvantaged with works of charity. It makes perfect sense that the people of Lebanon would back Hezbollah. Any of the people's respect they lost when attacking Israel was almost immediatley reversed my Israel's overreaction.
-
we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals
If you were a real politician Aldo, and I know you fancy yourself as one, just imagine all the fun people would have with that quote. :D Put the shovel down Aldo. The hole is big enough. You can get in now.
I don't fancy myself as a politician - I'm not dishonest enough, and I believe in actually understanding as much of a situation as possible before commenting.
It's a well known fact that Hezbollah gain/ed political favour through charitable action. It doesn't matter how reprehensible their terrorist actions are, if you want to analyze why they were voted for you and the character of those voters need to look at the full scope of what they do within Palestine and what the voters for them saw. It's easy to characterise Hamas voters as being murderous bastards - but it's also ignorant and assumptative, and I'd say the kind of attitude that creates cultural schisms and inferiority complexes.
-
They simply choose those leaders because they're stupid enough to believe their claims that they can get something done.
That is entirely true, but thankfully in an entirely different sense from what you mean.
After 9/11, Americans were quick to allow the Patriot Act to pass through Congress, controlled by the neoconservative Republicans, and President Bush. Throughout the six years of the united government, anti-terrorism legislation passed through too quickly, and the voters got what they had coming to them with wishing politicians would get something done.
Frankly, a government that does little or nothing unless absolutely necessary to the protection of its citizenry's civil and political rights is the best government.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/
Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday
Anyone want to go out on Friday night? :p
-
Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:
The religion is just fine. It has its problems, but so long as it remains an option and not a forced set of rules for everyone to follow, it works.
The state taking control of the religion, however, is the problem. What you see here is Saudi Arabia's government mixing religion and state.
-
Islam does not make a real distinction between church and state, however. Indeed to the Islamic mind such a distinction is unnatural.
-
Islam does not make a real distinction between church and state, however. Indeed to the Islamic mind such a distinction is unnatural.
The last muslim I talked to this about - admittedly a while ago, on a uni bb - said pretty much the same thing. However, I'm not sure if that's a majority view or not; I'm pretty sure Christian states had the same view a few centuries or so ago, what with the monarch being appointed as God, etc.
-
If the actions of the followers of a religion are in fact controlled by a ruling body then, based on the number of people who follow the reilgion, what is the difference between one country declaring war on another country as opposed to the religion declaring war on another country? Could you then, as a country, declare war on a religion in self defence? I have to admit I haven't thought those ideas through so feel free to pull them apart ;). Knock yourselves out.
-
The last muslim I talked to this about - admittedly a while ago, on a uni bb - said pretty much the same thing. However, I'm not sure if that's a majority view or not; I'm pretty sure Christian states had the same view a few centuries or so ago, what with the monarch being appointed as God, etc.
It really has its roots in the "founding fathers" so to speak. Jesus of Nazareth was never a temporal leader like Muhammed was. Muhammed lead a city and a nation. So did his descendants (functional if not literal) down through to the Ottoman Empire. Much is made of divine right, and often kings had more control over the appointment of bishops then did Rome, but the seperation was there and real.
Arabic, which is as close to an offical langauge for Islam as one can get, tellingly did not have words for the concepts of temporal, lay, or secular, until the last hundred years or so. Similarly until the Ayatollah came along there was no such concept as Islamic clergy; there were mufti and quaddi, but these would fulfil what we'd see as a judicial role.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/
Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday
Anyone want to go out on Friday night? :p
Why not destroy the christian religion? the aids problem would be solved then (largely)
An atheist
-
One could make the argument that all religion should be disbanded, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it possible.
-
Nobody pulled apart my last completely rubbish post. I'm disappointed. That one was begging for it.
-
One could make the argument that all religion should be disbanded, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it possible.
Now theres a novel idea. :)
I personally think its the right thing to do, but its totally impossible since new bastions of irrationality and stupidity will rise up where old ones were cut down. Just like the Iraq insurgents.... Now back on topic! :)
-
The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.
-
The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.
And the problem with that is?
-
If you have to ask, it's too late for you. You must be eliminated.
-
The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.
And the problem with that is?
I quite happen to like my thetans. I'm very attached to them.
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
I'm a collector :)
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
I'm a collector :)
Indeed. I received some with my internets that my staff emailed me the other day.
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
I'm a collector :)
Indeed. I received some with my internets that my staff emailed me the other day.
You did? Aaah, so that's why my tubes were full!
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
I'm a collector :)
Indeed. I received some with my internets that my staff emailed me the other day.
You did? Aaah, so that's why my tubes were full!
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
I'll get a better main screen. :)
-
Multiple Thetans? :wtf:
I'm a collector :)
Indeed. I received some with my internets that my staff emailed me the other day.
You did? Aaah, so that's why my tubes were full!
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
I'll get a better main screen. :)
Youll need a truck to haul that. :)
-
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
I'll get a better main screen. :)
Did you turn main screen on?
-
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
I'll get a better main screen. :)
Did you turn main screen on?
No, because Aqua Teen Hunger Force set me up the bomb. Couldn't get signal.
-
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
Maybe you forgot to launch all of them?
-
Sorry, my zigs must not have been moving fast enough.
Maybe you forgot to launch all of them?
No, I guess they just don't know what they doing.
However, it looks like NKEMBE MOTAMBO of Nigeria is able to help me, since he's willing to give me 16 000 000 USD ($) if I just give him my bank account number. Lord knows how many zigs, tubes, internets, and thetans that'll buy me!
-
Foreigners on the internet are extremely helpful. I had one guy from Egypt offer me a free holiday there. Oh and when I asked him if the pyramids were at the end of his garden, they actually were! How fantastic a deal is that?
-
Apparently Kristen loves me so and wants to express her love with greetingcard.exe :)
-
Foreigners on the internet are extremely helpful. I had one guy from Egypt offer me a free holiday there. Oh and when I asked him if the pyramids were at the end of his garden, they actually were! How fantastic a deal is that?
I know what you're talking about! Some British guy once told me that I won the lottery. Hey, my local lottery didn't even know I had! They're some smart fellows sometimes.
-
Thread closure in 3, 2, 1...
-
Thread closure in 3, 2, 1...
I-Its not a thread!!! I-I-Its a series of posts!
-
I-Its not a thread!!! I-I-Its a series of posts!
Sure but isn't it more fun than that Iraq bollocks?
-
Thread closure in 3, 2, 1...
Er- so, uh, Mohammedites! Roudy bunch of religious types, aren't they?
-
Guy in a robe strapped with explosives turns up at your door.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
1) Launch zigs. (every last one of them)
2) Agree to aid Charles Okumbe in the transfer of $50,000,000 from the Bank of Nigeria (claiming 15%)
3) Laugh as his explosives go pop and spill onto the floor forming an unimpressive puddle of bread.
-
4) I say, "Good evening gentleman..."
-
i cum
-
i cum
Suddenly, your custom title seems incredibly fitting.
Guy in a robe strapped with explosives turns up at your door.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
Shout: "GAZPACHO SOUP!!"
-
Guy in a robe strapped with explosives turns up at your door.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
Wow, those Jehovas witnesses must be getting really desperate round your neck of the woods.