Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Hitchhiker Guide to Islam, Jihad, Jews, Sex with minors and the 70 virgins Part I

By KingRamsis in Culture
Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

As a rare contribution to kuro5hin I decided to step out from the shadows of the silent majority and bring you this article, what makes this article unique is that your host today is an Arab Muslim living in the middle east so I (for once) will bring you a fresh view of what is really happening and why directly from the “other side”.
Recently more and more FUD about Islam has been spreading mainly due to ignorance and partially on purpose by parties who stand to gain from trashing the image of Islam and Muslims.
Finally please forgive my English it is my second language after all.


The Long Introduction

This is the story of prophet Mohammed, you can accept him as a prophet sent from God or as a genius radical leader who gathered the fragmented Arabia into a vast empire.

The choice is yours, I am not preaching Islam with this article however my main intention is to correct some wrong views about Islam and the prophet Mohammed.

I will discuss the implications and effects of Islam by examining the Arabs before and after the message of Islam. I will touch on the divine experience of Mohammed which I personally believe it as if I witnessed it, I cannot prove it but thats why it is called Faith. I will also discuss the stages underwent by the Islamic movement which started secretive and eventually public.

The Quran will be discussed in detail, and I will explain why this book should be respected even if you do not believe in it, I will highlight the moral and ethical guidelines in the Quran, and explain the parts where Muslims are encouraged to kill infidels and frame it in the correct context.

I will also share with you the bigger picture where Judaism, Christianity and Islam fit and explain why the natural evolution of both faiths is Islam and stress the fact that they all came from the same God.

About the end of this series I will discuss the controversial Jihad subject, and naturally the promised reward of 70 virgins. I will also discuss the accusations directed towards Mohammed for marrying a 9 year old girl and you will be surprised of the outcome, from this incident and others you will discover that the typical stereotypes of Muslim women is as accurate as the Hollywood portrayal of Soviets during the cold war.

Finally the troubled relation between Judaism and Islam, the origin of conflict and why I personally pity some of Jewish people for being fooled by the racist Zionist movement, and I will even refer to you honest Jews including rabbis who stood against Zionism knowing very well that true Judaism has nothing to do with it.

Before Islam

The Arabs were mainly a nomadic pagan society, riddled with wars, blood and endless disputes among the tribes, the early Arabs were competing for the limited resources offered by the desert and the only loyalty was to the tribe.
The modern civil society as we know it today did not exist, there was no government, authority or global leadership, life was not materialistic, and sometimes a water drop can be more valuable than a ton of gold.

In such a poor and harsh environment the only thing a man can lose is his honor and reputation, the early Arabs used poetry as a weapon of mass destruction, someone can insult you or your tribe with clever articulate poetry and you will be ruined unless you defend your honor by the sword or the word.

Arabs valued poetry and lingual skills more than anything, and they took the spoken word very seriously, they held a yearly congress called “Okaz” (The market of poetry) where everyone gathers and recite their poetry.

As primitive as they were the Arabs were probably the first nation in the world to value and acknowledge intellectual property.

The concept of honor extended to your own property of land, livestock not for their actual value but because those items are associated with you so infringing on them is like infringing on you personally and thus your honor.

One of the most famous wars was the “Passos” war which lasted for 40 years among the Arab tribes and it started because a man called “Kolayeb” killed a cow that walked into his land.

The early Arabs had good qualities like honor, loyalty, honesty, generosity with guests but also suffered from bad habits like killing their infant young girls (preferred boys), unreasonable fanatic support for the tribe even if it was morally wrong, complete disregard of women and considering women to be nothing more than a breeding device.

Such a hopeless and a bleak image was casted on Arabia, needless blood baths, the bodies of young baby girls buried alive in endless desert pits, the Arab man was more monster than man, it was rare for two tribes to co-exist without wars and killings.

In short Arabia needed a miracle, or perhaps a divine intervention of some sort.

Mohammed the layman

Tribes varied in their honor, on the top of the honor chain was “Korayish” the most honorable tribe because they held and maintained the “Kabah”, the ancient house of God built by the prophet “Abraham” (Ibrahim in Arabic) the father of Ismael also a prophet, in Islam we acknowledge and accept the prophethood of all of them including Jesus and Moses and believe they all came from the same divine source.

Mohammed was born an orphan, his father died and shortly afterwards his mother died.
The name Mohammed means the “praised one”, the name itself has a story, the few Arabs who embraced Christianity at that time talked about the next and final prophet to come, it was written in the original version of the bible that the final prophet will show up in Arabia and that his name will be Mohammed, some of the Arabs believed it and called their sons Mohammed in hope that he will be the chosen one, in total there were three men named Mohammed before the prophet birth.

Mohammed grew up as a shepherd and he was nick named “The honest trustworthy one” by his tribesmen who happened to be the most honorable tribe of Arabia.

At the age of 25 with his honorable reputation and integrity he was approached by “Khadija” a 40 year old rich widow, she offered him a business partnership to manage her trading business, they later got married.
At that point the typical story should end up with “and they lived happily ever after” but there was a troubling thought surfacing under the calm exterior of Mohammed.

Mohammed was always perplexed with the meaning and purpose of life.

Was living your life, having children and then dying a meaningful thing ?

Who created the universe and gave us life ? And more importantly why ?

If there was a creator then there must be a purpose behind all this, this creator will probably have demands, rewards or punishments.

Mohammed was different from the rest, he used to climb a mountain outside Mecca and walk into a tight cave (Heraa cave, pic1, pic2) and meditate praying to an abstract anonymous God, observing the vast raw skies of the desert from the opening of the cave and thinking about the unknown great creator.

In one of those peaceful meditation nights something happened that never ever happened before and will never ever happen again on earth.

A great paranormal being appeared to Mohammed so big that it blocked the horizon of the great desert it had thousands of wings, the ground shook beneath Mohammed's feet.


Coming next:
Mohammed The Prophet
The Secretive Islam
The Quran
Islam Evolution or Revolution
The Jihad Prophet
The Miracles of Mohammed
70 Virgins and more
Aisha the 9 year old bride
Madinah Jews
Jews in the Islamic Empire
Zionism
Bin Laden

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Quran
o accusation s directed towards Mohammed
o the racist Zionist movement
o “Abr aham”
o pic1
o pic2
o A great paranormal being
o Also by KingRamsis


Display: Sort:
The Hitchhiker Guide to Islam, Jihad, Jews, Sex with minors and the 70 virgins Part I | 1008 comments (859 topical, 149 editorial, 0 hidden)
please someone repost those danish cartoons (2.62 / 8) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:18:48 PM EST

that so offended conservative muslims that they burned the danish flag, threatened danish soldiers in iraq, and boycotted danish products

maybe then someone will burn kuro5hin in effigy? that would be awesome

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

The only thing Denmark exports is bacon! (2.90 / 10) (#11)
by mr strange on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:26:06 PM EST

So it's not going to be much of a hardship for them.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
i heard dairy products (nt) (3.00 / 3) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:57 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
danish bleu cheese is tasty (n/t) (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by Delirium on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:32:08 PM EST



[ Parent ]
And fairy tales. /nt (3.00 / 9) (#15)
by Ignore Amos on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:34:42 PM EST


And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

But one must admit (3.00 / 5) (#17)
by toulouse on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:47:40 PM EST

They are rather good at both.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
And Carlsberg beer (3.00 / 23) (#25)
by MrHanky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:15:41 PM EST

When the muslim word cut down on their consumption of pork and beer, Denmark will be in teh shit.


"This was great, because it was a bunch of mature players who were able to express themselves and talk politics." Lettuce B-Free, on being a total fucking moron for Ron Paul.
[ Parent ]
I regret that I have but only one 3 to give. /nt (3.00 / 8) (#28)
by Ignore Amos on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:39:48 PM EST


And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

If I lived in the Middle East (2.66 / 9) (#32)
by Lenticular Array on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:06:37 PM EST

I would really be missing those iced pastries with the cream cheese filling right about now.
ANONYMIZED
[ Parent ]
Check DJ Allah's website (none / 1) (#36)
by topynate on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:03:36 PM EST

and don't let on that I sent you there:P


"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately we can't post pictures here (none / 1) (#61)
by marx on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:07:54 AM EST

Posting a link to a picture hosted somewhere else isn't very exciting.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Where are the protests?? (3.00 / 6) (#223)
by dxh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:25:17 PM EST


Funny how the dealth cult islamo-facist retards will march to the streets and demand the destruction of denmark and france for a little funny cartoon, but you couldn't find three of them willing to stand on a corner holding an anti-Bin Laden sign for 10 minutes.

[ Parent ]
They do protest Bin Laden.... (none / 0) (#487)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:47:53 AM EST

...but there is no convenient Embassy of Laden to burn down, and it would be a bit harsh to go and burn down the local madrasa (since that's the closest alternative to an islamonazi embassy that I can think of.)

Also, the moderate Muslims are the ones NOT burning effigies of those they disagree with.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

CARTOONS HERE! (3.00 / 3) (#225)
by dxh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:29:25 PM EST


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010009.php

[ Parent ]
Furrfu, is *that* all? (none / 0) (#226)
by Nimey on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:39:52 PM EST

That was nothing.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
Publishing... (none / 0) (#253)
by Znork on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:14:35 AM EST

... _only_ those cartoons was less than a stellar idea.

If they actually wanted to get the free speech point across, the danish newspaper should have taken the opportunity to publish cartoons offending the rest of the religions at the same time. It's not as if there's a lack of derogatory cartoons on those subjects or a shortage of easily insulted Christians, Jews, Hindus, FSM followers or others.

And, hey, why not take a potshot or two at us godless heathen commie atheists, as well, I'm sure someone could somehow find a good way to insult our disbelief in pink elephants orbiting pluto. We really feel left out; I cant remember any really good insult since some suggestions that Darwins direct ancestry was rather hairy and liked bananas...

Trying to make a free speech point by insulting a specific group is counterproductive and will ensure the debate gets mired in anti-specific-group issues instead.

Trying to make a free speech point by insulting absolutely everyone and then saying neener neener, now, _that_ would deserve support and respect.

[ Parent ]

You MUST live under a rock! :-) (none / 0) (#322)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:32:07 AM EST

If they actually wanted to get the free speech point across, the danish newspaper should have taken the opportunity to publish cartoons offending the rest of the religions at the same time.
I believe the Danish publication was because an art piece was removed in order not to offend muslims.

Few that are so badly informed that they believe it is not old hat to offend other religions!

[ Parent ]

As far as I've read... (none / 1) (#361)
by Znork on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:05:07 AM EST

... it was related to exploring and challanging the level of self-censorship in media as regards such publications.

I did point out that it's not like there's a lack of material offending other religions, which they could also have published, were they interested in testing the limits of free speech versus religion, as opposed to testing to what extent they could offend a certain group.

As it is, wow, religious fundies get angry when you very publicly offend them in particular. Now, who didnt see that one coming?

Like you say, it's old hat...

[ Parent ]

What's wrong with burning Danish flags? (3.00 / 2) (#261)
by jmc on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:13:16 AM EST

Is the dye toxic?

[ Parent ]
Where did the other 2 virgins go? (1.36 / 11) (#22)
by DJ Allah on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:42:59 PM EST

Are you trying to cheat us?

The real image of Islam!
trolling again are we? (2.60 / 5) (#23)
by KingRamsis on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:54:34 PM EST

I don't know why you hate muslims and islam, but I will basically ignore you not hate you back.

[ Parent ]
Muhammad ate his own faeces (1.31 / 16) (#26)
by DJ Allah on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:19:54 PM EST

maybe you should add that.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#163)
by artsygeek on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:10:13 PM EST

And so did Ezekiel.

[ Parent ]
He covered that in the article (3.00 / 9) (#30)
by godix on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:44:44 PM EST

Arabs kill female children. Apparently things are so bad that they can only find 68 virgins in all of the middle east now. Which sounds bad but really isn't, if you think about it the middle east had at least 60 more virgins in it than all US grade schools combined.

More CORN!

[ Parent ]
Never is a long time (2.81 / 11) (#27)
by killmepleez on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:39:22 PM EST

In one of those peaceful mediation nights something happened that never ever happened before and will never ever happen again on earth.
A great paranormal being appeared to Mohammed so big that it blocked the horizon of the great desert it had thousands of wings, the ground shook beneath Mohammed's feet.
While it may be true (although ultimately unprovable) that this specific situation never happened before/will never happen again, the judaic Tanakh is filled with pre-existing, similarly bizarre/awesome apparitions, and the christian Revelation of St. John is filled with bizarre/awesome apparitions purportedly yet-to-come.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
As I understand Islam... (2.75 / 4) (#44)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:25:11 AM EST

He's not saying that nothing paranormal had happened before or after, but this might be imperfect translation. He might be trying to say "unique" somewhat poetically.

I'm only vaguely familiar with most religious mythologies, so it is possible he is suggesting the magnitude of the event was unique. If that is the case, then I do agree with you, it would seem that both judaism and christianity speak of supernatural phenomena that are at least comparable.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Who says (1.75 / 4) (#114)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:46:41 PM EST

I'm only vaguely familiar with most religious mythologies, so it is possible he is suggesting the magnitude of the event was unique. If that is the case, then I do agree with you, it would seem that both judaism and christianity speak of supernatural phenomena that are at least comparable.

Who says that they are myths?

[ Parent ]
Myths can have a kernel of truth to them. (3.00 / 5) (#132)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:21:47 PM EST

But they are indeed myths, by any formal definition. Unless you can cite multiple, historically acceptable sources that all independently confirm that a thousand winged archangel visited Mohammed.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
But then, Elvis lives! :-) (none / 1) (#321)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:23:33 AM EST

But they are indeed myths, by any formal definition. Unless you can cite multiple, historically acceptable sources that all independently confirm that a thousand winged archangel visited Mohammed.
The "traditional" answer here is that there are lots of independent sources that Elvis still lives.

(Note that those sources are much closer in time and from a fully literate society. Much better than "historically acceptable" from Arabia before 1000AD, by any measure...)

1/2 a :-)

[ Parent ]

Anyone with a grain of sanity (nt) (2.66 / 6) (#133)
by DJ Allah on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:32:50 PM EST



The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
70 virgins... (2.61 / 13) (#33)
by gordonjcp on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:46:52 PM EST

... wouldn't they be more trouble than they're worth?

Specifically, since women's menstrual cycles synchronise, wouldn't that mean they'd all be grouchy and "unavailable" simultaneously? Just think of the 2am petrol station run you'd have to do, getting all the chocolate and tampax orders right.

And furthermore, 70 *virgins*? Think of the training requirements. Wouldn't you be better with 50 or 60 virgins and the balance made up of "old pro's" so you could get started right away, as it were?

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


In heaven (3.00 / 8) (#35)
by livus on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:55:41 PM EST

there are no menstrual cycles.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Unless you're mormon (3.00 / 6) (#38)
by prolixity on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:38:12 AM EST

Then the lucky women are blessed with eternal pregnancies..
Bah!
[ Parent ]
umm (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by tkatchevzz on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:45:40 AM EST

okay

+1 for wacky physiology

[ Parent ]

I guess that's part of the fun (none / 0) (#115)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:48:16 PM EST

And furthermore, 70 *virgins*? Think of the training requirements. Wouldn't you be better with 50 or 60 virgins and the balance made up of "old pro's" so you could get started right away, as it were?

I think it's part of the fun

[ Parent ]
The 70 Virgins... (1.20 / 5) (#174)
by Xptic on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:44:14 PM EST

are all boys.  All the hot, repressed arabic chicks are chilling in the hot tubs in heaven with good, redneck christians.

But even knowing the 70 virgins are all boys isn't that bad for arab men.  Everyone knows they like fucking little boys anyway...

[ Parent ]

that explains (none / 0) (#262)
by shokk on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:13:28 AM EST

why Michael Jackson was welcome with open arms
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
I hate geek humor. nt (2.00 / 2) (#277)
by Comrade Wonderful on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:21:41 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I think there is a lot of potential here... (2.77 / 9) (#39)
by FeatheredSerpent on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:51:45 AM EST

but it's not really developed enough IMHO.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
IAWTP (none / 1) (#40)
by IceTitan on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:18:10 AM EST

It needs more meat, even for a setup article.
Maybe if you touched a little on each forthcoming article as an intro instead.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
[ Parent ]
done, thanks [nt] (none / 0) (#47)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:36:52 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Arabs valued "lingual skills"? (1.19 / 21) (#56)
by stupefaction on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:04:08 AM EST

Lingual skills, eh? You're saying that the Arabs excel at giving head? Interesting. I'd always wondered what they taught the young boys in those Saudi-funded madrasas.

``honest Jews'' (2.57 / 7) (#62)
by stuaart on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:08:23 AM EST

An exception to the rule, one presumes.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


IAWTP - If I can't stereotype I dont wanna live nt (none / 1) (#118)
by IAWTP Troll on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:08:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
+1 SP (2.50 / 8) (#64)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:52:03 AM EST

This is one of the better articles I've seen out of a nullo in many, many moons. It seems quite informative; however, please watch your tone going forward. If you're trying to present information, please do so in as neutral a tone as possible. Otherwise, you risk having your article dismissed as a rant or a troll, sending it down in flames in a hurry.

I'm going with SP instead of FP, mostly because of the nature of the article as being more informative than discussion-oriented. Don't sweat that - this designation is not intended to suggest that your writing isn't of high quality.


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
And yet (none / 0) (#116)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:51:17 PM EST

If you're trying to present information, please do so in as neutral a tone as possible. Otherwise, you risk having your article dismissed as a rant or a troll, sending it down in flames in a hurry.

And yet some of the best books in the world are written in precisely opposite to this.

Or at least entertaining ones.



[ Parent ]
ATTN: All voters (1.66 / 6) (#74)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:13:48 AM EST

I know the article is short, the next one will be bigger complying with the audience demand. I want to be practical with the length of the article, I personally get discouraged from reading very long articles. There is more to come don't rush it, I need to establish a context first it will be all make sense later on. Finally this is my first attempt ever so don't be so harsh and keep in mind that English is my second language.

I suggest (3.00 / 2) (#75)
by stuaart on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:21:33 AM EST

You let this one slip away, and write the first part of the series with this introduction included as part of it. Keep it punchy. That way you will introduce the series and give readers something to chew over at the same time.

As a side note, I suggest you attempt to keep a relatively dispassionate tone, otherwise you will be perceived to be a troll. It is worth remembering that although a Western will have preconceptions about you, so you will have preconceptions about your (mostly) Western audience.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
To add to this (none / 1) (#77)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:23:51 AM EST

if you wanted to write a criticism of Zionism, go right ahead, and if you want to do it from a religious perspective, feel free. But I think it would create a more dispassionate tone if you didn't include it as part of a series of essays that purport merely to be informative of Islam as a religion and culture - it could otherwise be perceived as political.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

The idea (none / 1) (#80)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:45:27 AM EST

of this article is to answers questions about Islam, I figured a typical westner is thinking "whats the deal with those muslims and jews", "why is the middle east is always in trouble of some sort", the middle east hands on is the most unstable region in the world since the dawn of history.

I have been hearing the phrase "The middle east crisis" since I was a little kid.

[ Parent ]
I understand (3.00 / 4) (#82)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:47:47 AM EST

and for that reason, I really, honestly believe you should leave politics out of it. Write an anti-Zionism article by all means, but not in the name of Islam.

Because also, calling the anti-Zionist Jews "honest" implies that most Jews aren't, or that the only way to be honest is to oppose Israel.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Shut up, woman! (1.75 / 4) (#99)
by DJ Allah on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:30:27 PM EST

and put on your burka or I'll beat you into unconsciousness!

Honestly, the audacity of these unclean western women these days is just outrageous.

(<3 holly)

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

You are not helping anyone. £ (3.00 / 2) (#102)
by stuaart on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:39:33 PM EST


Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Don't be so short-sighted (none / 1) (#103)
by DJ Allah on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:43:52 PM EST

there is essentially no way to determine in advance the value (effect) of that post.

One thing I do know though, is that anything is better than silence.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

Um, no (none / 1) (#83)
by New Me on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:49:05 AM EST

since you were a little kid != the dawn of history.
Please notice the middle ages, and compare the middle east to Europe in that time.

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

Maybe he wasn't around when history dawned (n/t) (none / 0) (#561)
by icastel on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:46:04 PM EST




-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
It's too late for this one, but (3.00 / 5) (#78)
by New Me on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:31:11 AM EST

I would like you, for future reference, to consider my earlier remark, namely:

I personally pity some of Jewish people for being fooled by the racist Zionist movement

Does make you sound quite arrogant and hateful. Please consider writing in a more neutral tone next time.

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

True Muslims? (2.83 / 12) (#113)
by Honorbound on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:39:50 PM EST

KingRamsis wrote below: Regarding 911 I still have my doubts about the whole thing. Killing cripples or non-combatants (women, childern and elderly) is not allowed in Islam even during war, I doubt who ever did it is a true muslim.

By saying "whoever did it," you seem to be suggesting that you believe it was not bin Laden - who has claimed responsibility for the attacks. I am incredulous that you would make a comment like that and yet still expect to be trusted to provide a factual history of Islam.

Also, I am interested in your opinion of who is and is not a "true Muslim." Bin Laden would likely suggest that he is one of the "truest" Muslims. Perhaps this could be addressed in a subsequent part of your series.

he probably would (none / 1) (#117)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:59:33 PM EST

Also, I am interested in your opinion of who is and is not a "true Muslim." Bin Laden would likely suggest that he is one of the "truest" Muslims. Perhaps this could be addressed in a subsequent part of your series.

He probably would be he would be wrong.

[ Parent ]
you missed the dot (1.60 / 5) (#124)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:29:32 PM EST

which marks the end of a sentence, so who ever did it =refers to= killing crippled people.
Thanks for playing.

[ Parent ]
Clarification (3.00 / 6) (#134)
by Honorbound on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:35:21 PM EST

Let's just cut to the chase. Do you believe that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Regardless of your answer to that question, do you consider him to be a "true Muslim?" I'm not trying to suggest that he should be thought of that way; I'm merely interested in your opinion.

[ Parent ]
Black & White (1.71 / 7) (#175)
by Xptic on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:09:16 PM EST

While it would be nice to live in a B&W world, we don't.

If you want someone to blame for 9-11, why not blame the people (CIA, NSA, FBI) that should have worked harder to keep the country safe?

Why not blame the jackasses in Florida who gave flying lessions to people "not interested in learning to land?"

Why not blame 50+ years of US policy that allowed hatred to breed in Arabia?

Why not blame the rich Saudis who funded OBL?

Why not blame the Soccer Mom who funded the rich Saudis?

Blame Exxon, Enron, The Carslile Group, and all the companies that sell motorized death.

Blame ABC, CBS, and NBC for promoting a "bigger is better" lifestyle.

Just because OBL took the oppertunity to connect the people with the money to the people with the ability does not mean he is to "blame."

[ Parent ]

Yes, it does, (3.00 / 5) (#179)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:13:13 AM EST

and I have to say that only a complete moron could claim otherwise.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Correct to say not the 'only' one to blame though$ (1.66 / 3) (#202)
by procrasti on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:50:08 AM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
responsibility (3.00 / 10) (#219)
by horny smurf on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:23:54 PM EST

So if I kick in your door, cut off your nuts and shit in your sink, it was your fault for not having a better door?

[ Parent ]
Was he sleeping with your wife? $ (2.00 / 3) (#231)
by procrasti on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:43:14 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
Blame (2.60 / 5) (#319)
by Xptic on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:04:29 AM EST

Blame is not a coin that only one person can hold.  Blame is more like an oily rag that leaves stains on everyone's hands.

If you choose to only punish the guy holding the rag, then you have not acted honestly.

There are a lot of people with bloody hands after Sep 11.

In your case, maybe your mom and dad share blame for not raising you properly.  Maybe the cops are to blame for spending time busting dope smokers vice busting hard criminals.  Maybe the door or lock company should have designed a better product.  Maybe I should have checked the locks before bed.

You may have taken the final action, but analasys of the line of events leading up to that action would reveal many points that could have stopped that action.

[ Parent ]

Great quote (none / 0) (#445)
by fromwithin on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:49:58 PM EST

Blame is not a coin that only one person can hold. Blame is more like an oily rag that leaves stains on everyone's hands. If you choose to only punish the guy holding the rag, then you have not acted honestly. Did you get that from somewhere, or is that your own?
MikeC - fromwithin.com
[ Parent ]
Just Made It Up (none / 1) (#451)
by Xptic on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:33:26 PM EST

I fucking hate quotes anyway.  Just because some dead fucker said something a long tome ago does not mean that every jackass repeating it is a fucking philosopher...

[ Parent ]
You know I have to sig that. (none / 0) (#497)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:20:45 AM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

And again! (none / 1) (#530)
by fromwithin on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:23:39 PM EST

Just because some dead fucker said something a long tome ago does not mean that every jackass repeating it is a fucking philosopher.

How do you do it? You're natural!

MikeC - fromwithin.com
[ Parent ]

Or not electrifying my sink. (none / 1) (#496)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:18:11 AM EST

And you'd have to somehow neutralise my robot space dogs.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

I am skeptical about the attacks. (none / 1) (#532)
by ionajn on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:37:25 PM EST

Is that OK?

I think the attacks were extremely sophisticated and extensive for an Arabic terrorist organization to realize by itself. I wouldn't like to appear prejudiced but 'Arabic' is the keyword here.

IMHO anyone who believes that there is an entity capable of doing that - morally and potentially - in the Arab world must really panic. No war is going to solve that.


[ Parent ]

Isn't that bin Laden video fake? (none / 1) (#536)
by revscat on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:47:05 PM EST

I thought it was determined that the video where bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11 was faked.

- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
[ Parent ]
Hmm (2.93 / 15) (#119)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:10:27 PM EST

I can go read about Islam anywhere, and get a good summary of it.  I don't see any real mandate for you to re-invent the wheel and write another summary of Islam.  It would take a lot of time, and might not bring much new to the table.

But what you have to offer that I'm very interested is a perspective on how religion is intertwined with current world politics.  

For example, are you satisfied with the political situation in Saudi Arabia?  As an abstract idea - do you think it would be great if Saudi Arabia was a democracy with a parliament containing Christians and women?  Do you think most people in Saudi would agree or disagree with your position?

Do you think it should be legal and OK for someone to make a cartoon featuring Allah?  If not, why? And if so what do you make of all the Muslims who apparently disagree?  Do you sort of think of them like I think of Pat Robertson (as mostly harmless religious nutjobs)?

I would love to read answers to the above kinds of questions.  For my part, I promise I will answer any similar questions you might have about life in Canada.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

Answering for me (none / 1) (#846)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:38:19 PM EST

>For example, are you satisfied with the political situation in Saudi Arabia?  

No.  Then again, I'm not happy with the US government either.

>As an abstract idea - do you think it would be great if Saudi Arabia was a democracy with a parliament containing Christians and women?  

No; not for the reasons u think (christian, women) but for the reasons u don't mention (corrupting corporate money, lobbyers/lawyers, bullshit democracy, shortsighted citizenship or any of the other glorious practices that have historically marred the US experiment as a republic masquerading as a democracy).  

>Do you think most people in Saudi would agree or disagree with your position?

Ask a saudi.  I would _hazard a guess_ to say that they prolly don't want to live under their current goverment which is a very stringent version of an Islamic goverment.  I think they'ld prolly want a more liberal Islamic government like that of the Calipha periods.

>Do you think it should be legal and OK for someone to make a cartoon featuring Allah?  

Sure if you will make it legal for me to beat u with a stick when you're done drawing; otherwise No.

>If not, why?

Specific religious prohibition against representing Allah or Mohammed in drawing or sculpture.  That simple.  You might not think its rational, but really so what?  Suffice it to say that (you) as a (assumedly) self-proclaimed rational person, you should expect to get beaten at every opportunity by any practicing muslim.  Everything else is fair game.  You want to draw anybody else go right ahead - wanna characterize Palestinianas as terrorists, its your perogative.

Those are my viewpoints only; They may or may not represent the viewpoints of other muslims.
Other than that, interesting questions; I'ld love to see some other muslims responses.

[ Parent ]

beating with a stick (none / 0) (#1008)
by naught on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:26:16 PM EST

hey, i'm on board with this -- you get to beat me with a stick, and (at least in my jurisdiction) if you do so, i get to fill you full of holes until you stop bleeding.

see, we both win.

--
"extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.
[ Parent ]

-1, Author is not angry enough to be a real Muslim (2.23 / 13) (#120)
by debacle on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:11:47 PM EST



It tastes sweet.
a very lame excuse indeed (3.00 / 12) (#126)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:37:01 PM EST

ok I will break your neck and burn your house and kill your neighborhood now give me my +1FP.

[ Parent ]
NO MENTION OF INFIDELS (2.66 / 9) (#130)
by debacle on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:11:12 PM EST

Author is most definitely not a muslim.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
lol. Nice. $ (none / 0) (#156)
by mr strange on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:23:21 PM EST

Are you looking for CORBA training?

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

I am looking for COBRRAAAAA training. nt (none / 0) (#276)
by Comrade Wonderful on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:13:24 PM EST



[ Parent ]
OK. We'll start next Saturday afternoon... (none / 0) (#337)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:47:24 AM EST

Wear one of these unders a pair of tight red leather pants. Pack a pair of handcuffs. Leave the keys to the padlock and the cuffs at home and go to the South end of the Mall in Central Park, New York. Make sure you've drunk plenty of water. Sit down on the third bench on the left and discreetly handcuff yourself to the bench.

Await further instructions.

If I was president I would just blow up their fucking shitty island [Aruba] and be done with it - Acidify

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

Give me a break, dude (2.70 / 17) (#148)
by stupefaction on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:48:38 PM EST

If you accept as fact a medieval camel trader's claim that a "great paranormal being" with "thousands of wings" appeared to him in the desert, you'll believe anything. More to the point, if this is the sort of thing you present as fact, I have no reason to believe any part of your dull, misshapen article. And of course you'll say anything to justify the risible practice of dressing your women in black tents, and the hideous crime of blowing up buses and pizza parlors.



ofcourse, (2.80 / 10) (#153)
by New Me on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:02:07 PM EST

walking on water and bread multiplication is far more believable. Not to mention parting the red sea and turning Lot's wife into salt.

These are all metaphors and tales meant to convey a certain moral. Every religions have them

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

no, they aren't. (1.33 / 3) (#159)
by DJ Allah on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:27:06 PM EST

Unlike christians, intrepid islams interpret these stories literally.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
You've never been to a muslim country, have you? § (none / 1) (#160)
by New Me on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:46:47 PM EST


--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

never and proud of it /nt (1.50 / 2) (#181)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:49:21 AM EST



The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
You haven't been... (3.00 / 3) (#161)
by artsygeek on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:01:39 PM EST

You haven't been to any of the United States, have you?
The number of people who DON'T take those stories literally is seemingly infinitesimal.

[ Parent ]
Christian fundies? I don't see them! (2.00 / 2) (#168)
by akostic on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:34:02 PM EST

I've lived in America my entire life and I have yet to meet even one of the christian fundamentalists so often described. As a non-believer with an interest in religion, fundamentalism should be plain to me. I offer another idea that America isn't populated with these fundies, but since they have the loudest voices they appear to be the majority. They arent.
--
"After an indeterminate amount of time trading insane laughter with the retards, I grew curious and tapped on the window." - osm
[ Parent ]
I know just one (none / 0) (#207)
by endeavor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:50:26 PM EST

Even that one I don't know in person -- just over the internet from my gaming days. He's actually non-denominational; i.e. he's basically in a cult that bases their entire dogma on the Old Testament. Kind of scary, considering he used to be pretty normal.

FWIW, I live in the south so it's not like I am geographically separated from the purported swaths of crazy Christian fundies. My point is that it is rare for Americans to take the Bible completely literally.

[ Parent ]

I live within spitting distance of Kansas (none / 0) (#479)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:15:17 AM EST

And I've never met a fundie. I narrowly missed out on meeting one though. When my GF and I went down to Branson, we stayed with some of her relatives and she warned me that one cousin might started preaching at me. I mentioned joking that I was a "godless atheist", and my GF recommended that I not make such jokes. Luckily, her cousin wasn't there at the time.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I work in Kansas (none / 0) (#565)
by Nimey on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 03:37:45 PM EST

I've met real, live fundies in my hometown, just on the Missouri side of the border.  I never imagined I'd meet so many strange people from working in a grocery store.  A co-worker there was an unthinking Bible-thumping misogynist, but he left fairly quickly.  We also have a large homosexual- and liberal-hating contingent around here (even among the students at the state university here), and there's the God Hates Fags untermensch in Topeka, who came to my current city-of-residence last year to intimidate this gay kid at a local high school.

There are different grades of fundie around, though.  My wife's family, for instance, has some people from the Arkansas side who could be justly described as Christian fundamentalists (Missionary Baptists, to be exact), but they're the nicest people and I've never heard them speak an unkind word about anyone.  They just live their lives as they think Jesus would want them to and haven't done a single thing to try to force their beliefs on me.  They don't know that I'm a Discordian agnostic with a strong antipathy towards organized religion of any type, but then my family doesn't either.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

They sound just fine (none / 0) (#595)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:23:46 AM EST

I'd have no problem with religious types if they actually followed their faith, in christian terms it would be living according to the sayings and example of Jesus - be kind and generous, live simply and love thy neighbour. I don't remember Jesus having said anything much about hating fags or killing abortionists.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
IAWTP! (none / 0) (#603)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 08:43:57 AM EST

I don't even consider the likes of Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson to be real Christians! Just a couple of loud-mouthed hate-mongers.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I personally think (none / 0) (#612)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:09:28 PM EST

They don't know that I'm a Discordian agnostic with a strong antipathy towards organized religion of any type, but then my family doesn't either.

I think that's something you made up. Not a real recognized belief system.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

Why does a belief system have to be recognised? (none / 0) (#614)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:28:58 PM EST

And would you care to name a religion that is beyond the "that's all just made up" accusation?

Discordianism is a religion of chaos and jokery, if it is a religion at all and not just a joke. It's up to you to decide.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Unless of course IHBT (none / 0) (#615)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:31:57 PM EST

and IHL, and my username.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
no I'm quite serious (none / 0) (#618)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:47:37 PM EST

Unless of course IHBT

I assume that you are meaning "I have been trolled" by that akronem.

I'm quite serious in bashing your "beliefs" in this "religion" that you have.

Hey maybe I can have a "religion" too. It's called "I hate stupid hippies" Now maybe I can get together say 500 pages of rants and put them together now I have a "holy book" too right?

Sorry that's wrong as wrong can be.

[ Parent ]

It's not my religion (none / 0) (#624)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 05:05:43 PM EST

But to me it's as valid as any other.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
That's like saying (none / 1) (#693)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:50:10 PM EST

But to me it's as valid as any other.

That might be part of the problem. Let's give a little example.

Most modern history texts claim (totally correctly) that Lee Harvy Oswald killed John F. Kennedy alone and with no other assassins.

There are *some* people who rant and rave and claim that it just couldn't be true. They even try really, really hard to bring up theories to make it so.

What ultimately survives as the truth? The obvious fact. He acted alone to kill Kennedy, all this other crap is just wrong.

People who discredit Christianity is just the same some ranters who just want to come up with something else and which fundamentally isn't right.

These guys have had 2,000+ years to make it look stupid, have had financial, cultural, intellectual, and financial support (especially Soviet Union, various parts of Europe).

See my point?

[ Parent ]

-1, no ratrional argument (none / 0) (#705)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:14:13 PM EST

of course! it's obvious fact that some guy lost in the mists of time and written about well after the fact by people trying to promote an authoritarian belief system actually did rise form the dead! of course! Obvious fact!

try harder, try again. This time use evidence and reasoning and, you know, that grey mess between your ears.

For fucks sake...

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
depending on the era (none / 0) (#751)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:34:46 PM EST

of course! it's obvious fact that some guy lost in the mists of time and written about well after the fact by people trying to promote an authoritarian belief system actually did rise form the dead! of course! Obvious fact!

There were people who were much closer in time to him than us. How about them?

Frankly you dumbass to think that Christianity in it's original form was "authoritarian" is just about completely silly.

Most of these supposed episodes of abuse of authority were mostly in eras where the leaders of say *some* Christian churches were abusing position. This was corrected it's called "The Reformation" perhaps a google serarch or a nice old book for once.

Of course you still have to seperate the institution and the beliefs properly. Anyone can sin even in the most holy of areas.

But hey that subtle difference isn't going to be understood.

Hate the sin and love the sinner or something like that. Most teenagers can understand my point.

[ Parent ]

What point? (none / 0) (#770)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 01:06:51 PM EST

You haven't made a point. The post I responded to originally claimed that discordianism was not a true religion because it is not "recognised". Somehow you've wandered WAAAY off topic to "Hate the sin and love the sinner or something like that. Most teenagers can understand my point."

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT

I agree with that point - we probably don't agree what makes a sin - but I agree that people should be loved cherished and supported and helped past any problems they might have. Does anyone not think that?

What we were debating here is your view that it is somehow "obvious" that Christianity is correct and Jesus was/is divine. Your backup for this so far has been that "everyone thinks so". I have two responses for that:
Firstly it isn't true, most of northern europe now is pretty much godless. Here in the UK, for example, we have a church attendance figure of around 2%, which is not in any way a consensus.
Second, even if it were true that most people agreed on it, are you saying we should not still look at the evidence and evaluate it? That we should not question something that most people think is true? Because at some points in history "most people" thought that the King of England was god's representative on earth. And "most people" thought for a long time that bloodletting (to let the demons out and rebalance the humours) was the best form of medicine.
What "most people" think isn't good enough for me, and it's even worse when "most people" don't actually believe it at all.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
easy (none / 0) (#616)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:37:00 PM EST

And would you care to name a religion that is beyond the "that's all just made up" accusation?

How many literally *millions* of books stretching to very near the actual events of Christianity have been printed.

People who were living contemporaneously to those involved with the events provided proof as well.

Judiasm falls into this as well since it and Christianity are linked well into the past.

I could go on but most people who aren't out to actively promote their own rather lackluster ideals usually don't think.

Discordianism is a religion of chaos and jokery, if it is a religion at all and not just a joke. It's up to you to decide.

No it's just some silly internet think at very best.

No observable miracles.

No independent verification

No ideas about afterlife, morality, etc.

"chaos and jokery" aren't qualities which are moral, and anywhere close to being consistently so as Christianity.

Real religions have a number of qualities which internet fads don't have.

Real corpus of literature, history, verification, intellectual power, seriousness.

No religion which relies on "jokes" can do this.

Any rate I could go on, if you need further specifics I could probably suply them.

[ Parent ]

hard (none / 0) (#621)
by Nimey on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:31:10 PM EST

It's a sign of madness to attempt to prove something nonrational like religion. One way of dividing up ideas is into rational, irrational, and nonrational. Rational ideas can be easily proven as true or not-true and are consistent. It can be proven that Hitler ordered the murders of millions of Jews. It can be proven that I do not like sauerkraut. It can be proven that I, as a thinking being, exist. Irrational ideas plainly run counter to rationality and fact. It is not rational to believe that the Earth is flat, nor is it rational to believe that the world is run by a conspiracy of ants. Nonrational ideas cannont be proven or disproven; they are orthogonal to rationality. This is where religious ideas lay. You either believe or you don't believe. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of Athena as an actual being who lives atop a notional Olympus, but you may certainly believe in her. The Catholic Church fell into the trap of trying to prove the existence of their god with logic and reasoning, which is impossible and intellectually dishonest.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
dammit (none / 0) (#622)
by Nimey on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:32:24 PM EST

Should have posted that as plaintext.

It's a sign of madness to attempt to prove something nonrational like religion.

One way of dividing up ideas is into rational, irrational, and nonrational.

Rational ideas can be easily proven as true or not-true and are consistent. It can be proven that Hitler ordered the murders of millions of Jews. It can be proven that I do not like sauerkraut. It can be proven that I, as a thinking being, exist.

Irrational ideas plainly run counter to rationality and fact. It is not rational to believe that the Earth is flat, nor is it rational to believe that the world is run by a conspiracy of ants.

Nonrational ideas cannont be proven or disproven; they are orthogonal to rationality. This is where religious ideas lay. You either believe or you don't believe. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of Athena as an actual being who lives atop a notional Olympus, but you may certainly believe in her. The Catholic Church fell into the trap of trying to prove the existence of their god with logic and reasoning, which is impossible and intellectually dishonest.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

seems to me (none / 0) (#623)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:53:14 PM EST

The Catholic Church fell into the trap of trying to prove the existence of their god with logic and reasoning, which is impossible and intellectually dishonest.

Didn't do half bad, but hey.

As to disproving the existence of Athena it's easy use various historical sources, science, sociology, and the external condition of men to invalidate how the existence would have to logically effect.

[ Parent ]

Oh? (none / 0) (#629)
by Nimey on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:57:17 PM EST

"Why didn't [Athena|G-d] protect [Athens|Jerusalem] from the [Spartans|Romans]?"

"We pissed [her|him] off, so [she|he] let us be conquered."
--------
And so on.  People will make any unprovable excuse to continue believing their nonrational beliefs.

It's "easy", eh?  Okay, convince us.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

well it's not nearly as simple as you make it out (none / 0) (#686)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 12:44:03 PM EST

Why didn't [Athena|G-d] protect [Athens|Jerusalem] from the [Spartans|Romans]?" "We pissed [her|him] off, so [she|he] let us be conquered." -------- And so on. People will make any unprovable excuse to continue believing their nonrational beliefs

It's more complex than that. It's not just getting screwed and then blaming your god. If you look at the specific religious texts involved and if you look at the history you tend to see actual events.

It's "easy", eh? Okay, convince us.

How about the fact that compared to greek "gods" we actually have documentary evidence in the form of written reccords and historical persons?

[ Parent ]

Can't prove the supernatural (none / 0) (#691)
by Nimey on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:00:55 PM EST

If you look at the specific religious texts involved and if you look at the history you tend to see actual events.
So? All that can prove is that suchandsuch person near this place and this time had an idea. You can't prove the "supernatural" aspects, which is my whole point.

In 1957 or 1958 (the Original Confusion) at a bowling alley in Whittier, CA, two men named Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley shared an idea and started Discordianism.

About 1600 years ago a man named Muhammad who lived in what is now Saudi Arabia had an idea and started Islam. He had many adventures leading from this and knew suchandsuch people.

About the same time period in southern Asia, the one who would become known as the Buddha sat underneath a tree and had an idea.

You get my drift.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

The problem here is (none / 1) (#692)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:44:39 PM EST

One essentially of capability.

People like those depicted in either the Koran or the Bible didn't have the intellectual capacity to originally have come up with these ideas on their own. Let alone write staggeringly big books on the matter.

The ideas contained are seemed to be believed but the supernatural side seems to be something that people can feel that they are capable of dismissing.

You get my drift.

Yes all too well. You're doing something which many people do to seemingly easily invalidate religious concepts.

It seems that you take this challenge all too simply as trying to shed disbelief in some concept or another without the whole being taken care of.

All sorts of people have tried to invalidate these concepts and most of them had staggeringly different aspects to their argument; mostly levels of proof, approach, or thought.

Sade tried it, mainly because he was sore at people and was basically a satanic pervert (yes I've read "120 of Sodom" try saying that those acts aren't almost totally beyond the pale of even current imprisoned sex offenders and you must be crazy).

Freud tried it, again through largely a large number of shoddy psychological concepts and such which have almost either been totally transmuted, or disproven outright.

Hell even various groups of people who were contemporary to Christians tried it, because they feared or misjudged them.

Today we still have complex discussions about this topic [within the last week].

Try looking at http://opp.weatherson.net

in particular look at http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/AltruismTeleologyAndGod.pdf

For one such one which brings up stuff which will take a little longer to disprove.

Tell me if it wasn't true why hasn't anyone eliminated it?

I mean we don't have witch burnings anymore. We disproved witchcraft. Obviously we don't have that belief and it wsa going strong for a *long* time.

I'm sure if I got you in a room and berated you about being a stupid evil, traitor, who should be killed, eventually if done with enough force you would cave. [See "The Gulag Archipellago"]

Maybe this tells you something about the truth value of Christian belief.

[ Parent ]

-1 sloppy thinking (none / 0) (#706)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:18:33 PM EST

You come across as about as intelligent as the average creationist. Who the fuck are you, buddy, to say that people a thousand years ago weren't inventive enough to come up with a religion?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0) (#732)
by Nimey on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:27:15 AM EST

Pretty much. At their very cores, people today are the same as people four thousand or more years ago. Different environments, different experiences, but the same basic drives.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
funny how (none / 0) (#747)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:09:01 PM EST

Pretty much. At their very cores, people today are the same as people four thousand or more years ago. Different environments, different experiences, but the same basic drives.

Funny how I heard an author argue precisely the opposite. Given our opportunity and information people who are intelligent are far more numerous if using the standards of ancient times. (I believe this was NPR if I recall correctly).

[ Parent ]

What author? (none / 0) (#769)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 12:56:54 PM EST

Just because someone's an author doesn't make them correct. If it was an archaeologist or a historian I would have less trouble with it, but still want references and names.....

Do you really think people were less intelligent 4000 years ago?

I'm just asking 'cos I'm interested in your opinion. When do you think people became fully intelligent? Why do you think that?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Personally I think the opposite of the OP (none / 0) (#813)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 11:59:18 AM EST

It seems to me that people were MORE intellegent 4,000 years ago. At least they didn't turn themselves into brain-numbed zombies staring at a box in their living rooms. ;)

When do you think people became fully intelligent? Why do you think that?

I'm not convinced we're fully intelligent NOW!
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]

Neither am I... (none / 0) (#818)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:14 PM EST

I'd be more inclined to believe somebody putting forward the proposition we're in a steady intellectual decline.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I need specifics (none / 0) (#626)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 05:08:50 PM EST

Prove to me that christianity is not made up. Prove to me that Jesus rose from the dead. Prove to me that the ten commandments were written by god. Prove to me that Allah appeared to mohammad. You can't.

To this atheist they are all various degrees of myth, fallacy, wishful thinking and cynical invention.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Like i've said (none / 0) (#700)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:37:34 PM EST

Prove to me that christianity is not made up.

When people write in books about Jesus and his life and times as well as good works, it stands to reason that it indeed happened.

This is the same standard that most everyone uses including for this site.

How do I know you aren't some senile old lady in a rest home who just is waiting to die?

I don't so I assume that this is the same standard.

[ Parent ]

What if I am a senile old lady? (none / 0) (#704)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:11:21 PM EST

Does that make any difference to what I say? Does the content of my posts change depending on who you think I am? I don't think so.

"It stands to reason" is not an acceptable logical backdrop for any point, on this site or anywhere else, sorry. It stands to reason that the people that wrote the discordian tracts wrote them in a bowling alley, just like they said they did, does that make them any less true? If so how? Prove it to me.

Sure, I believe jesus was some guy who was probably pretty cool (in a liberal hippie sorta way) whatI don't get is why you think his sayings are any more valid than anyone else's.

At this point you're coming across as a total crackpot.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Well I think your massively avoiding my point (none / 1) (#734)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:06:51 PM EST

"It stands to reason" is not an acceptable logical backdrop for any point, on this site or anywhere else, sorry.

It was good enough for Abraham Lincoln. Appeals to common sense or reason are acceptable means of advancing an argument.

Frankly most people who don't sit with the ideas I'm advancing are the ones who are the most strange.

It stands to reason that the people that wrote the discordian tracts wrote them in a bowling alley, just like they said they did, does that make them any less true? If so how? Prove it to me.

Hmmm. It seems that you don't understand a little of how we humans order our ideas of importance.

Think back to how you related with people on special occasions.

Suppose I get you a gift say from the gas station. Then I claim that I was just "so inspired" to get it that it was special and full of meaning.

I suppose that from your previous attempts to post to my responses that you'll miss the metaphor here as well.

There's a difference between authentic religious experience and just shadows and phantoms.

Getting some bright idea isn't the same thing as say getting a true revelation.

Sure, I believe jesus was some guy who was probably pretty cool (in a liberal hippie sorta way) whatI don't get is why you think his sayings are any more valid than anyone else's.

Because I frankly like the *majority* of the people in the culture that I'm in have reached a *consensus* about the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I also don't buy into relativism that you seem to have an interest in. As far as a philosophy goes it's a very weak one.

As to the comment about being a senile old lady I was referring to a specific point which you apparently missed while rushing to give the same answer.

The point is, is that we take events in the world from respected sources with a grain of salt. My point was that you have to take the authority of a text as truth.

I'm starting to think that you simply have a very personal stake in trying to keep yourself religion free. Honestly I think it's laziness and a lack of caring about the great issues.

You sound eerily similar to my brother's ill informed rantings about issues. I even linked to some papers in philosophy in another post and you pooh, poohed them without *EVEN READING ONE WORD*.

I get it you *DON'T LIKE RELIGION*.

Do you have even the slightest inkling just how difficult it is to disprove it?

I just glanced at the paper again and saw something you didn't probably even look at: the concept of the unmoved mover, etc. Couldn't get a good answer for even that?

Why don't I like the idea of your clown religion? Hmm. It seems that you need specific examples. Alrighty then here we go:

1. Ancient Greece the cult of Dionysis/Pan. Most people don't know that Pan was some evil, lusty, rather uncaring fool of a "god" who spent his time playing his crappy harmonica and wacking off. Dionysis and his followers would make modern sex deviants blush with his behaviour. I linked this to Sade and apparently you didn't notice. Taken to the fullest expression with that French psycho it's undeniably a bad thing.

2. In ancient Rome there was substantial lack of caring or disapproval for basic problems like slavery or such. They just weren't "wrong" hence there was little to stop them from being applied to the problem at hand. Slavery went on and on and on until someone said it was wrong. Does doing things because they're zany really put the brakes on something that is wrong or hurtful? How about things which are less obvious?

That's just two basic ideas that I came up with.

I feel you're probably one of those types who just thinks that religion is somehow wrong becuase the elementary tools you have available can't prove it. Frankly this kind of thing makes me want to scream. Scientific ideals and principles are usually a theorem away from being disproven or re-ordered into lesser or greater importance on a single whim. Get someone smart enough and you get a new idea.

I know go up to say 1,000 people on the street on any given day. Do so for about a week notice how many of them actually fall in line with your point of view? I doubt it would reach 5%. You seem to be incredulious that anyone could find something wrong with some religion which is most likely *not* true. Do you really have this same problem with say Newtonian physics? How about history books written say 100 years ago?

Please don't just reiterate the same points again and again without actually trying to convince the majority that your belief system is actually superior and superceedes mine.

Disprove it and don't just say "well you 'can't prove it' so it doesn't work".

I have theories that eventually we'll build a self aware AI system by simulating human neurons, develop near immortality, and make a colony on Alpha Centauri. Now I can't "prove" those things. I'm using the principle of taking my reason and applying the logic of the whole situation.

In math, or science we'd do this by using a theorem which is robust enough to stand up to objections. In real life we find all the difficulties and we address them, then address those difficulties.

You call Jesus a hippie and in the same breath claim that some "religion" done by beatniks in some Bowl-A-Rama in *fucking California* isn't hippie? My god do you have any idea of the sheer weight of the hippiness in the rest of the world's eyes for that kind of set up.

Heinrich Himmler thought up a religion too as well from "ancient Teutonic" practices. He took his own headquarters and created a "religious" ceremonies and such. Maybe you should look at that one. After all isn't he right and the "aryan race" is the best right?

Truth values for ideas aren't all equal.

[ Parent ]

You're a nutbar! (none / 0) (#736)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:26:22 PM EST

Wow! It's a while since I've seen anything like that!!

Where do you live out of interest? I'm interested to know where on the planet there is any consensus on the divinity of Jesus, because there's none in my country, non in europe at all really.

And even if there was, so fucking what?

AND you don't have a clue about logic. No, I can't disprove religion, but neither can you prove it ya moron! Ever wonder why 'faith' and 'belief' surround religion? It's because none of it is proveable and it requires a leap of faith to believe in it!

The rest is pure comedy gold. the unmoved mover is something I've looked at before. What it is is a twisted christian justification for a creator and it's so full of holes as to be laughable. And you're right that I don't know the difference between an 'authentic religious experience' and 'ghosts and phantoms' because I don't believe in any of those things!! As far as I can tell they're all made up or come from the weak minds of the self deluded!

And yes I call jesus a hippie. That's because I like hippies. I'm sure the guys that invented discordianism come under the broad definition of "Hippie" too, and why not?

As for Himmler's ancient Teutonic religion, why would I look that up? I think all religiong is bunk by definition, because it relies on faith and fancy rather than evidence.

You're also right that I don't like religion - I don't, because it's used as a justification for war, murder, censorship, authoritarianism, ostracism... need I go on?

That's the most insane post I've read in ages. I salute you sir!

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Never looked up the USSR much huh? (none / 1) (#739)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:40:09 PM EST

You're also right that I don't like religion - I don't, because it's used as a justification for war, murder, censorship, authoritarianism, ostracism... need I go on?

Which is also the reason that I have to point out that these things existed *in spades* in the past.

The soviets managed to do this will be just about as hostile as you could be to it.

Want to know how bad? I had a professor in college who was traveling in Russia. She managed to take a picture of some little old 90 year old lady doing her wash on the church lawn. The old lady freaked out ran after this lady something like 15 blocks to try and get the camera back. Reason for this? She thought that she was part of the KGB and was going to send her to the gulag.

To state that religion can and has justify thing is one thing. To claim that it has exclusive or majority share in it is foolish to the bitter end.

Look at most of Shakespear's plays. A hell of a lot of persecution, war, murder, censorship, authoritarianism, ostracism, etc. Most of this is done without really even mentioning a church, let alone something specific.

To get specific

Where do you live out of interest?

Western United States

I'm interested to know where on the planet there is any consensus on the divinity of Jesus, because there's none in my country, non in europe at all really.

Well since you asking about this maybe I should really define my definition sharply.

If you havn't gone to a church lately let me fill you in: most people go there because they genuinely believe what they are saying and is being said in the bible. Due to this inconvinent little fact I have to state that in fact there is much that could easily be said that nearly 90+% of those that go to church believe in the metaphysical claims contained in that religion.

Now what exactly again are the percentages of people who go to church? Oh that's right something we call a clear majority (in politics this is over 2/3rds or 66+ in the least).

Hence my claim.

On to other points.

AND you don't have a clue about logic. No, I can't disprove religion, but neither can you prove it ya moron! Ever wonder why 'faith' and 'belief' surround religion? It's because none of it is proveable and it requires a leap of faith to believe in it!

Maybe you should open a book on epistimology some time.

Maybe in some silly book on cs algorithms or something it can't be done. But there were (and are) many people who would doubt this concept.

Depending on what your branch of science is it's easy to find similar ideas which are equally taken on a large degree of acceptance and glossing over the facts.

This is not to maintain that it's necessary to scientifically approach the topic in such a manner of course. Science and society don't mix. Finding out why say Hitler came to power can't be done by looking at physics, or chemistry, but by society.

Maybe you should reaquaint yourself with how people put their trust in things that they can't understand or could *EVER* understand every day. The best you can do is that there is a vague feeling in the back of your head that it works.

Compare say the concepts that we currently know now to concepts in the 1850's from science. There is no conceivable way they could have known those things at that time.

We currently have science fiction which is all based on the principle that there are things we can more or less model but can't correctly prove. (Something your comfortably left out of your reply). Does it make it impossible for those things to exist now, or ever to exist just because we don't have the blueprints and proper equations to explain about say the torrisonal stress on the inner beam of a space station on Saturn.

As for Himmler's ancient Teutonic religion, why would I look that up? I think all religiong is bunk by definition, because it relies on faith and fancy rather than evidence.

And I think your applying chemistry principles to society when you try and defame religion.

Try looking at Richard Swinburne sometime. The guy makes you look like Pee Wee Herman and does a much better job of analyzing such things.

Don't ever get sick again or you might have to have "faith" that say some untested idea to save you might have to be "believed" rather than totally proved.

The world is far better for the existence of religion.

The proof is contained frankly in all those tomes.

That's the most insane post I've read in ages. I salute you sir!

That's total shit and you should know it.

If it isn't you probably move in a very insular group of people and have limited contact with others becides your little atheist friends.

You have flat denials to virtually everything I've said and came back with oh-too-predictable answers about how I can't "prove" anything.

History isn't science.

I bet you a great deal of money right now that I could find a book you neither understand, nor will ever understand.

Does that mean it's full of lies?

Belief is there in principle for a couple operating reasons:

1. To show devotion and moral piety (ie conviction). Again these pesky moral ideals which you fake religion doesn't have.

2. To make up for the limited intellectual, time, and mental capacity of even genius humans. More books have been published on the elementals of almost any idea set (history, science, religion, philosophy, etc) which mean that this very process is going to have to happen *ALL THE TIME*.

A very fashionable response at this point in time is to try and claim that you can look up the answers to all these complex problems and somehow prove them. That's all well and good but the exact same thing can be said of religion. Ask someone who knows: again same with religion. Literally multiple billions of people independently have came to the conclusion that *some* afterlife exists. Now whether they agree or disagree, or even fail to get with the program or not isn't the point. The point is that all these people couldn't be *WRONG*. Especially when all of the detractors aren't disinterested third parties but people with real things to gain and lose from their non-participation.

Just admit it, you simply couldn't survive in such an environment largely because your a slothful person in this.

It's why we have demarcations in branches of learning.

Oh and one more thing. I have a strong feeling that I have more education both formal and informal than you do at this point. I don't like operating with someone who's just like my brother. Guess what he hasn't bothered to even read the texts in question or even bother to do anything expcept play video games and dink around in high school.

Spare me this "but you can't prove it" crap. It's like someone asking you, your thoughts on say a prediction equation for earthquakes based on temperature, core thickness, and say magma buyancy (something I've read about recently for Venus for example). There is proof you just think it's disqualified from consideration because History doesn't meet math's criterion for being a step by step mathmetical proof.

How much of your own life can you "prove". Did you realize that there's degrees of proof? What happens theoretically for example if all of the reccords of chemistry were suddenly gone tomorrow and all the knowledge lost? Would be still be "proved"?

Honestly your very point about religion being the *professed* reason that people went to war.

This is almost as bad as the idiot who claimed that mental illness didn't exist becuase you can't have two types of rules governing sane and insane behavior. Sometimes if a theory doesn't match the available evidence then the theory has to be ammended.

So far no one worth a damn has been able to completely explain away those billions.

But science has been able to explain away witchcraft, a supposedly flat earth (early on). It being 6,000 years old, etc (don't believe that).

Frankly I believe every part of what science says I can also believe in Christianity.

Again let's look at specific points here what's stood the test of time? Right.

As far as logic perhaps you realize that much can be done with classical non-symbolic logic which is absolutely wrong. In fact in homo-land of the Greeks they had people called sophists who did just that. Made up things that were totally wrong.

[ Parent ]

don't waste your time with a troll (none / 0) (#741)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:49:40 PM EST

who created dupe accounts to slam me because I "pissed" him off, I think I wrote close to 90 comments exchanges with him and it was pointless, I cornered him many times and he just walks away and start another thread from square one.



[ Parent ]
This is what now (none / 0) (#744)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:56:32 PM EST

who created dupe accounts to slam me because I "pissed" him off, I think I wrote close to 90 comments exchanges with him and it was pointless, I cornered him many times and he just walks away and start another thread from square one.

You seem to be privy to information that I don't have. I checked your comment history. I don't recognize any particular discussion that *I* have participated in.

Pray tell when was I ever "cornered" by "you"?

I seem to have more substantive comments than the rest.

Plus I ultimately do believe in what I say the proper litmus test for a "troll".

Plus the vocabulary.

Anyhoo "Ramsis" maybe you need to get back in the wrappings *snicker*.

[ Parent ]

I meant HAVE A NICE DAY, not you -nt (none / 0) (#745)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:00:43 PM EST



[ Parent ]
truly sorry (none / 0) (#746)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:02:11 PM EST



[ Parent ]
You cornered me? Ha! (none / 0) (#768)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 12:54:11 PM EST

You don't answer any points! You don't offer any rational evidence!

I created the dupe to show you what you look like to me, and others. Not because you pissed me off. The only annoyance you present is constantly dodging the point.


You don't even know what a troll is.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
you're a kook (none / 0) (#758)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 11:36:51 PM EST

and your part of the world is rapidly gaining a reputation as being backward. You live in a fantasy world where evidence is unnecessary. And before you spout off about soviet russia i'd like you to tell me where exactly I said blind adherence to any dogma is a good idea. Can't find it? Thats because I didn't say it. Good luck with that religion thing of yours, i'll stay clear headed and rational if it's all the same to you. I'm just not ready to start believing in magical elves and fairies yet .

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 0) (#620)
by Nimey on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:18:05 PM EST

Read the Principia Discordia and the Illuminatus! trilogy, and also on the phenomenon of the Sacred Clown.  There are many other Discordian writings on the Internet and even in print.  I didn't just pull my belief system out of my ass, believe it or not.  It may be one of paradox and play, but it's precisely as real as any mainstream religion.

Of course I made /some/ of it up, that's the nature of Discordianism.  The fun bit is that you don't know which parts are real and which aren't. :-)
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

Well from my historical readings (none / 0) (#694)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:58:53 PM EST

Read the Principia Discordia and the Illuminatus! trilogy, and also on the phenomenon of the Sacred Clown. There are many other Discordian writings on the Internet and even in print. I didn't just pull my belief system out of my ass, believe it or not. It may be one of paradox and play, but it's precisely as real as any mainstream religion.

People who advocate various forms of capriciousness in regards to human affairs are just the people who in the end are quite evil.

Read anything written by Lenin for example. The man was a boring ranter, then when he was caught a little more off guard and less than totally polished he just ranted and raved and insulted people with (for an "intellectual") extremely terse vulgarity.

Hitler was actually less bad in this regard.

Then we get good old Mao. There was a *whole book* on his schennagans and his private life which was extremely far away from his theoretical ideals.

Of course I made /some/ of it up, that's the nature of Discordianism. The fun bit is that you don't know which parts are real and which aren't. :-)

In any document that is sufficiently complex or interpreted well enough that can be an extreme liability. Doesn't seem to be a religion which would be good for a large enough group or to be intrepreted correctly or not.

Mathmetically morality is a far better system than chaos in several ways.

[ Parent ]

Twit (none / 0) (#733)
by Nimey on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:57:08 AM EST

People who advocate various forms of capriciousness in regards to human affairs are just the people who in the end are quite evil.
You don't know me. Don't assume that I'm evil, or good, or that I like traffic lights.

It could be argued that those who advocate disorder are those who have no interest in controlling others (except where their free wanderings harm me or mine). Why should I care that my neighbor has a crossbow collection, or that a co-worker is in a plural marriage, or the kid down the street believes in "Bob"? None of my business. If that neighbor starts shooting crossbow bolts at my car, that's something else.

Read anything written by Lenin for example. The man was a boring ranter, then when he was caught a little more off guard and less than totally polished he just ranted and raved and insulted people with (for an "intellectual") extremely terse vulgarity. Hitler was actually less bad in this regard. Then we get good old Mao. There was a *whole book* on his schennagans and his private life which was extremely far away from his theoretical ideals.
WTF does that have to do with anything? You do have a point, yes?
In any document that is sufficiently complex or interpreted well enough that can be an extreme liability. Doesn't seem to be a religion which would be good for a large enough group or to be intrepreted correctly or not.
"We Discordians must stick apart". That's the whole point, man. Everyone's got their own interpretation, and nobody can get a critical mass of like-minded people to begin lording it over. There will be no Discordian Inquisition (except as a joke), no witch-burnings, no sectarian violence.
Mathmetically morality is a far better system than chaos in several ways.
Oh yeah? Mathemagically chaos wins every time. Neener.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
that's the thing (none / 0) (#735)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:15:57 PM EST

I could address many of these ideas but I'm pressed for time somewhat.

It could be argued that those who advocate disorder are those who have no interest in controlling others (except where their free wanderings harm me or mine). Why should I care that my neighbor has a crossbow collection, or that a co-worker is in a plural marriage, or the kid down the street believes in "Bob"? None of my business. If that neighbor starts shooting crossbow bolts at my car, that's something else.

Seems you're advocating libertarian theories which fundamentally have a highly debatable premise.

Afghanistan during it's pre-Taliban phase was all about people doint whatever they wanted. It's just that this eventually lead to some people obviously taking this do-what-you-want theory and made themselves powerful princes.

If you look at public policy and history you would find millions of possible things that fit into the initial "it doesn't hurt me" thing that would eventually indeed hurt you.

Endangered species legislation is one thing.

How about the "broken windows" theory of social decay? In short if you do something that socially convinces others to act in a negative way you get social decay.

So frankly you didn't do anything to anyone else.

Something was done that didn't hurt *you* personally, but you still get screwed over by the social environment.

If we didn't have Christianity we wouldn't have had an end to slavery because there wouldn't have been any strong enough social sanction to end it. Period. No one would have been moved to end it, even if it were unprofitable it would still have happened for revenge reasons, or for doing something periphrally.

I just notice you're still in college it seems in Pittsburg. Maybe you should take a look at Carnegie and the Homestead steel plant.

That's just a small fraction of what can happen when someone doesn't care and it shows.

So which science are you studying. You probably think it's just that much easier to apply the exact principles to life.

Humans been there done that back in the 1880's. Didn't hold up then.

[ Parent ]

HaND is right (none / 0) (#737)
by Nimey on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:38:13 PM EST

You /are/ a loony. It's plainly a waste of my time to try to reason with you. {plonk}
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
good job (none / 0) (#740)
by Phil San on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:43:07 PM EST

You /are/ a loony. It's plainly a waste of my time to try to reason with you. {plonk}

Doesn't seem sporting you assume you point is right and mine plainly wrong (according to you).

If anything's a waste of time if would be to try and hope that the standard of intellectual thinking is being met.

Being in a fool's paradise where everyone agrees with you must be fun.

[ Parent ]

Phil, dude (none / 0) (#767)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 12:51:51 PM EST

Whilst you've posted one or two coherent comments here, the reaction from myself and Nimey has come because in some of your longerposts there are no points to argue, you don't use logic and you don't present evidence, only opinion and flawed arguments (like "everyone belives it where I'm from, it must be true!!").

If you up your level of debate to the logical and rational then you might find you get more sense back from us. believe it or not I have a lot of respect for some of the christians on this site. SaintPort is one, there are others.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Then how do you know... (none / 1) (#220)
by kewl on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:42:45 PM EST

... that islamic countries ARE populated with fundies ?

[ Parent ]
I made no such claim. n/t (none / 0) (#280)
by akostic on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:59:59 PM EST


--
"After an indeterminate amount of time trading insane laughter with the retards, I grew curious and tapped on the window." - osm
[ Parent ]
something very easy to ascertain (none / 0) (#619)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 03:05:11 PM EST

... that islamic countries ARE populated with fundies ?

Support for terrorism when their feelings get hurt.

The existing cultral trends which couldn't exist in a vacuum.

Not to hard for smarter people to understand.

[ Parent ]

Probably pretty similar... (none / 0) (#501)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:28:06 AM EST

...to the Middle East.

Everyone in both the USA and the Middle East is going "Dum de dum de dum... Whoa! God hates what? Who? Why?!? What the fuck, stupid religious nutbags..."

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

bull (1.00 / 3) (#182)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:49:54 AM EST

shit

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Unlike _WHO_?? (3.00 / 5) (#228)
by darkonc on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:14:50 PM EST

Unlike christians, intrepid islams, [George Bush, and god only knows how much of his administration] interpret these stories literally.

It only takes a couple of wierdos to paint a whole population as radical ... Think about it. What would people think of America if they thoug that George Bushes religious and personal views represented the Majority of the country?

We're talking about somebody who wants to put creationism back into the schools. Somebody who, in response to an act of terrorism that cost 3000 lives started a war on a country essentially unrelated to the original act. This war is estimated to have cost over a quarter of a million civilian lives as of last yeat --- or almost a 100-1 kill ratio.

If you claim that radical islamists represent the majority of the people in those countries, then you should also claim that Bush is representative of the almost-50% of the US that didn't vote for him.

Every country has it's wackos and wierdos. I'd say that bush is wierder than most middle-east political leaders, but not as far-out as some of the more extreme religious leaders ... Then again, some of the religious leaders that Bush idolizes may be abou as radical as their extreme islamic counterparts.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

another (1.33 / 6) (#244)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:38:49 AM EST

delusional liberal pussy. Crawl back under your rock pls. We'll come to wake you when this is all over.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Two words: Pat FUCKING Robertson. (none / 0) (#500)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:25:57 AM EST

Three. Three words.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

describing without vocabulary (none / 0) (#310)
by krkrbt on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:46:05 PM EST

These are all metaphors and tales meant to convey a certain moral.

The religious books of the past were written using words available at the time.

If no one has ever seen as simple an explosive as a firecracker, how would a "seer" describe a nuclear bomb?  Metaphors are both literal and moral.  

Suppose someone 2,000 years ago looked to our present times, and described his vision as "the masses were seduced by a man without a soul".  Today observers comment on how television mesmerizes the masses.  Couldn't you say that a T.V. is a "man without a soul"?

[ Parent ]

Bad habits? (2.20 / 5) (#165)
by akostic on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:17:47 PM EST

"bad habits like killing their infant young girls" Smoking is a bad habit, not killing infant girls.
--
"After an indeterminate amount of time trading insane laughter with the retards, I grew curious and tapped on the window." - osm
You must be dense. (2.50 / 6) (#178)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:08:42 AM EST

The sarcastic understatement is clear even with the language barrier.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
-1, not in Arabic (2.50 / 2) (#172)
by United Fools on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:36:39 PM EST

This should be written in the native language.
We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
ok (2.40 / 5) (#185)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:40:42 AM EST

بس انت مش هاتفهم العربي !

[ Parent ]
Man, (1.77 / 9) (#186)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:11:30 AM EST

if you're writing death threats against Ruston's wife, then at least have the courage to write them in a language he understands.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
You'd need to use HTML/UTF8 entities... (2.50 / 2) (#245)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:01:51 AM EST

That only looks correct if you switch the character encoding to match, at which point everything else on the page looks funky.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
great (none / 1) (#260)
by shokk on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:06:35 AM EST

now he's issuing Fatwas. What next? Semtex for his Sentra?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
Did you mean (none / 0) (#579)
by vectro on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:01:08 AM EST

بس انت مش هاتفهم العربي !
?

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
yes, the other one is not UTF -nt (none / 0) (#580)
by KingRamsis on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:09:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Kuro5hin uses ISO8859-1 (none / 0) (#707)
by vectro on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:41:56 PM EST

... But you can other characters using HTML character entities. I made the earlier post by taking your text (which Mozilla had attempted to translate from ISO8859-1 to UTF-8) and processed it with uconv -f utf-8 -t iso8859-1 | uconv -f cp1256 -t iso-8859-1 --to-callback escape-xml

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
FP (1.00 / 5) (#196)
by rozilla on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:24:12 AM EST

as a muslim i'm interested in seeing this series make it thru the voting process, so i voted FP. i think it's a good oportunity for people here to straighten out possible misconceptions they might have on islam and muslims. hopefully it will serve as an informative counter to some of the misrepresentation by contemporary mainstream media of the northern hemisphere.
____________________________________________________________
"Apparently, all the assholes went nuts at the same time." - rusty
I wish I could find a muslim, (1.66 / 6) (#209)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:06:20 PM EST

that had enough respect of the English language to use it properly!

It cannot possibly be that difficult! Try it!

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

hypicrate! I am quoting you below (1.00 / 3) (#210)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:21:20 PM EST

Editorial: I exagerate, I employ absurd and satire, (1.50 / 2) (#151)
by DJ Allah on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 05:54:47 PM EST

but, centrally, the point which I attempt to illustrate is honest. To dismiss it simply because of the way it is delivered would be a fallacy.

[ Parent ]
We seem to have a misunderstanding. (1.85 / 7) (#211)
by DJ Allah on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:33:00 PM EST

I'm not dismissing anything based on how you people spell. Indeed no. There are plenty of other valid reasons to dismiss your points.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Like what points? (n/t) (none / 0) (#562)
by icastel on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 03:02:05 PM EST




-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
Hurray! something as fun as a blonde (1.00 / 3) (#200)
by neozeed on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:47:00 AM EST

that gets lost on a desert island!


-----------------------
Unless you're alive you can't play. And if you don't play, you don't get to be alive.

Don't miss on the editorial comments (1.50 / 4) (#201)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:49:01 AM EST

Lots of good debate.

Well, they're gone. % (none / 0) (#255)
by Mylakovich on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:47:53 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Little racist Smothie (1.87 / 8) (#216)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:15:22 PM EST

Editorial: Can you read? (none / 0) (#213)
by Smothie on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 03:56:32 PM EST
Remove the inflamitory "Zionism is racism" crap.


While looking into your posting history I came accross this marvel below:

So, I'm thinking, in the usual tradition of darwinism, we should just let the Jews exterminate the Palistinians. It's never going to be 'over' until one side, or the other is dead. After that, we turn them lose on those fuckers in Iran, Syria, and anywhere else the stupid fucking sand niggers think blowing people up is an appropriate solution to the world's problems.

-1 I don't see anything about sex with minors (2.50 / 4) (#217)
by bighappyface on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:23:35 PM EST



A pity this went to section (2.00 / 2) (#218)
by LodeRunner on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:19:01 PM EST

It would have been fun to see this alongside the Thelema article in the front page.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner

Endless cycle of religion (2.60 / 5) (#221)
by nsayer on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:08:56 PM EST

It seems like every monotheist religion in the tree that has judism at the root has these 3 sacrosanct rules:

1. The messiah figure of the predecessor religion was actually a prophet.

2. The current node's messiah is, in fact, the *true* messiah.

3. Anyone who comes along afterwards is a fake.

So in another few hundred years, I expect islam++ to come along and repeat the cycle.

Already happened. Multiple times. (3.00 / 4) (#230)
by Apuleius on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:35:29 PM EST

See Ahmadi -ism, Druze-ism, and Bahaii-ism.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
As mentioned in my article (none / 1) (#232)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:52:21 PM EST

I am not preaching Islam, this is simply the story of prophet Mohammed.


[ Parent ]
tell (1.42 / 7) (#259)
by shokk on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:03:26 AM EST

me the story of how he raped that little girl? And beheaded any and all in his way? Yet you hold that carnage and depravity in deep respect. What a vile religion you uphold.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
If you're not preaching Islam (2.50 / 4) (#317)
by ChaosMage on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:46:58 PM EST

then don't refer to him as a prophet

[ Parent ]
Left out all the good parts (1.77 / 18) (#222)
by dxh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:21:59 PM EST

Wow you left out all the really good parts like:
  1. How anything you such as lying(AKA this article), cheating, deception(again this article), stealing, killing, raping, chopping off heads for parties etc.. is NOT a sin if they are infidels.
  2. Mohammed is a child rapist and raped a little girl(the modern koran says 9 now but thats inflated, most estimate she was really 6) and called her his wife.  Funny, did jesus rape any little girls and write about it?
  3. He was a war mongering bastard that told his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the Holy months, when the victims would least expect it.   Revelations were conveniently provided to him, which allowed his people to murder and steal in his service.  The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and people.  At one point, Muhammad even provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the Prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way.  The Hadiths are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means.  In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that "hell-fire" will take care of the poor fellow's orphaned daughter.

Raids on caravans turned into military victories in which entire tribes were wiped out, their men executed and their women and children raped and enslaved under the Prophet's direction.  Some became Muhammad's personal concubines, of whom there were an unknown number in addition to his fifteen wives.  His personal life became a picture of hedonism and excess, all justified by frequent "revelations."  When he wanted a woman, even if she were the wife of another man or a child as young as 6, he was able to justify his lust and inevitable consummation with an appeal to Allah's revealed will.

Though many of the Arab and Jewish tribes were eliminated and absorbed through military victory and forced conversion, the city of Mecca required a different sort of strategy.  In 628, seven years after fleeing, Muhammad's followers were allowed to reenter the city under an agreement whereby he set aside his title as "Prophet of Allah."  This was a temporary ploy that enabled him to gain a political foothold in the city through the same "5th column" activities that are still used today by organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, which use their host's language of religious tolerance to disguise ulterior motives.

Once Muhammad gained power through deceit in Mecca, he put anyone to death who would not submit.  In what would be the model for future Muslim military conquests, those who would not convert to Islam were required to pay a tax and accept third-class status.

Muhammad died of a fever at the age of 63, with his violent religion now firmly rooted in the Arab lands.  Through his teachings, his followers viewed the world as a constant battle between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb).

Over the next fourteen centuries, the bloody legacy of this extraordinary individual would be a constant challenge to those living on the borders of the religion's hegemony.  The violence that Muslim armies would visit on people across North Africa, the Middle East, and into Asia as far as India is a tribute to a founder who condoned subjugation, rape and murder in the cause of the spread of his religion.

It is certainly the basis not just for the modern day terror campaigns against Western infidels (and Hindus and Buddhists) but also the broad apathy among Muslims across the world to the violence, which is an obvious enabler.

As Indonesian cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir recently put it, "If the West wants to have peace, then they have to accept Islamic rule."

Funny, I don't remember Jesus or Moses doing this sort of thing with their followers.

Islam is a sick death cult of the kind we dealt with in Nazi Germany.  I have no doubt that someday it will be either wiped off this planet, or western civilization as we know it will no longer exist.

Either way, there are many people that don't fall for the "Religion of peice" crap, the word is spreading and more people are waking up.

www.jihadwatch.org - 4The TRUTH about islam daily (2.00 / 5) (#224)
by dxh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:27:10 PM EST

http://www.jihadwatch.org

[ Parent ]
Watching JihadWatch - THE TRUTH ABOUT JIHAD WATCH (3.00 / 4) (#233)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:01:59 AM EST

http://watchjihadwatch.blogspot.com/

[ Parent ]
YEAH! BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET THE TRUTH GET OUT! (1.50 / 2) (#235)
by dxh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:09:59 AM EST




[ Parent ]
Damn (none / 1) (#227)
by dxh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:57:31 PM EST

Did I really type peice instead of peace.... god damnit.

Sorry.


[ Parent ]

People like you (1.50 / 4) (#229)
by KingRamsis on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:15:08 PM EST

are the main motive for me to complete the series to the end exposing your FUD, please keep it up, build a higher and a higher tower of lies.
Eventually you will fall off it when I systematically dissolve every lie and deception written above.

[ Parent ]
Yeah right. (1.28 / 7) (#234)
by dxh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:06:31 AM EST


Go ahead and write more lies and attempts to re-write history, you might find one or two people to belive it.

But, Islam's days are numbered. It has made the mistake of waking up the slumbering lion of America.

And unlike the pussy europeans, we have our own guns.

[ Parent ]

Bandwidth is cheap (1.50 / 2) (#241)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:44:10 AM EST

Yet your mumbling is still a waste of it.
I got your point and walls in my office got your point so wait for the rest of the series.
there is no point of discussing in advance.

[ Parent ]
ok (none / 0) (#257)
by shokk on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:00:40 AM EST

So we'll just repost these same remarks when you post the rest of your little series. Your text won't change the truth of what the Muslim world has done.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
rated (2) because (none / 0) (#252)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:06:44 AM EST

some of us aren't pussies.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Uh, dude, I hate to tell you this... (none / 0) (#504)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:36:46 AM EST

...but the Europeans have got their own guns.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

sex offender (1.75 / 4) (#256)
by shokk on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:57:51 AM EST

Mosques should be put on sex offender lists for pushing an ideology that involves revering a man who sleeps with 9 year old girls.

Your "religion of peace" crap is a real sham. If 90% of Muslims act as radicals, it isn't a small faction that is out whack. The whole lot need to be used to spackle in the Marianas Trench.

You need to be honest and truthful to yourself about what your sexually and physically violent cult represents.


"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
[ Parent ]
ummm. you don't know much about old moses. $ (none / 0) (#251)
by superawesome on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:56:54 AM EST


--
I FUCK DEAD PUPPIES
[ Parent ]
Religion and child rape! (3.00 / 2) (#258)
by murchadh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:01:39 AM EST

"Mohammed is a child rapist and raped a little girl(the modern koran says 9 now but thats inflated, most estimate she was really 6) and called her his wife.  Funny, did jesus rape any little girls and write about it?"

Sounds like any number of Catholic Priests. Maybe he just wanted to be a Catholic. I was raised a Catholic, but their intolerance, protection of child rapers and blood lust offends me (Crusades against others are not new).

Religion has always been a good reason to shed blood, slaughter and rape. All in the name of God! By the way, I'm not an Atheist, I'm an Anti-theist. Humanity would be best served, by maturing, and putting these childish beliefs to bed.

Imagine going to War in the name of Santa (that actually sounds kinda feasible in our crazy consumer society: "They don't buy shitty little baubles at Christmas - Bomb them!!!")

I could never reconcile the teachings of Christ with Christians. His was undoubtedly a Socialist Minded Philosophy, totally at odds with Capitalism, yet he has become the Icon of what he stood against. Dunno what'll happen if he comes back. I ask myself what organisation he would align himself with if he returns. I don't see him thinking much of the big three Religions.

Anyway, he may well have returned and been blown to smithereens, before they could locate Three Wise Men. I hope not, or there'll be no convincing him to come back again.

God - "Please Jesus, one more time?"
Jesus -"Get busy Dad, time you made another kid for your silly games. I'm not going back. They never listen! Look at them, that's not how I told them to live!"

[ Parent ]

Death of critical thinking - religion in sci class (3.00 / 6) (#266)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:19:21 PM EST

Mohammed is a child rapist and raped a little girl(the modern koran says 9 now but thats inflated, most estimate she was really 6) and called her his wife.  Funny, did jesus rape any little girls and write about it?

Perhaps you could cite the verse in "the modern koran" that says Aisha was 9?  

Or perhaps not since the Quran does not say diddly about Aisha's age at marriage or consumation.  In fact, about 2 minutes of research on the net would turn up the fact that all of this pre-puberty nonsense sources from one guy - Abu Hisham - who was over 70 at the time he wrote it and probably more than a little senile.

So, on one hand you've got Abu Hisham who is only respected for his writings at a much younger age, and on the other hand you have:

  1. Shedloads of circumstantial evidence from multiple sources that Aisha was at least 14 at the time of marriage and 16 or more at the time of consumation.
  2. Common sense.
It serves the interests of people like Jerry Falwell to promote this "urban legend" about Islam because it increases his powerbase among the uncritical and easily swayed masses who will vote the way he tells them to, but it sure doesn't do you any good to go around citing such an easily disproven claim if you want to sway people who can actually think for themselves in places like kuro5hin.

[ Parent ]
Judge Agianst The Whole (none / 1) (#327)
by Xptic on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:14:16 AM EST

If someone took a random, good person, and claimed that person fucked a 9-year-old girl, almost no one would belive it.

However, when you look at Mohammed as a total person, you start to realise that seeing him as a pervert is not so hard.

He already has at least two sexual perversions; multiple wives and he likes older women.  He also enjoyed torturing his enemies which could be considered a sexual perversion.

So, just based on that, it's not so hard to envision him fucking a child.

[ Parent ]

Good Joke Dude (none / 0) (#413)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:07:11 PM EST

He already has at least two sexual perversions; multiple wives and he likes older women.

What the fuck?  You would be hard pressed to name one major figure in the old testament who did not also have multiple wives.  Moses, Abraham,  Solomon, Jacob, David.  Tons more where they came from.  So, by your logic, the entire judeo-christian theology was started by a bunch of pedophiles.  I'm not even going to ask what twisted logic has turned polygamy into a perversion.

He marries older women, so that makes him a pedophile?  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He also enjoyed torturing his enemies which could be considered a sexual perversion.

What, are you trolling or something?  You are going to have to do MUCH better than that.  Lets see some non-jerry-falwell-speak that a) he "enjoyed" torture and b) that there is any link between torture and pedophilia.

Your post is a perfect example of someone lacking common sense.

[ Parent ]

Perversion (none / 0) (#435)
by Xptic on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:05 PM EST

>>So, by your logic, the entire judeo-christian theology was started by a bunch of pedophiles.

Maybe.  However, Jews and Christians don't have writings that claim their prophets fucked children; Muslims do.

>>I'm not even going to ask what twisted logic has turned polygamy into a perversion.

While polygamy can be a healthy, natural thing, muslims use it as a perversion.  They keep harems for their own sexual gratification.  Also, based on muslim cultural treatment of women, the domination factor of "keeping" women is, in itself, a perversion.

When a male monkey fucks 5 female monkeys to produce many offspring, it's natural.  When a man locks 5 women behind the walls of a palace (or behind a vail, or sews her pussy shut), it's a perversion.

>>He marries older women, so that makes him a pedophile?

Not nescessarily.  However, when a person is given to one, fairly extreme, sexual perversion, one must wonder if he also indulges other perversions.  His first wife was, at best, in her 40s.  Probably closer to 50 or maybe even 60.  Desert chicks back in the day did not age well.

>>Lets see some non-jerry-falwell-speak that a) he "enjoyed" torture

Just look at how he took over Mecca.  If you look at the historical accounts of his actions, you'll see that he was a really sick individual.

>>that there is any link between torture and pedophilia.

Ever hear of the Marquis de Sade?

>>Your post is a perfect example of someone lacking common sense.

If you participate in a religion based on a guy who sees giant dragons and likes fucking old women and little girls, then you are the one who lacks common sense.

Muslim extremists have given Islam a bad name.  But, every muslim perpetuated the bad name by refusing to ostracise the fringe groups.  And, as everyone knows, if you sleep with the dogs, you are bound to get some fleas.

[ Parent ]

You assume too much about yourself (none / 0) (#455)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:13:29 AM EST

However, Jews and Christians don't have writings that claim their prophets fucked children; Muslims do

You are quite smug in that belief aren't you?  Would it surprise you to learn it was wrong?  Seems the Talmud is pretty clear that sex with a girl of only 3 years is A-OK.  Just google for, "A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse" - that's not the only "writing" to endorse pedophilia either, just the first that cme up in google.

While polygamy can be a healthy, natural thing, muslims use it as a perversion.  They keep harems for their own sexual gratification.  Also, based on muslim cultural treatment of women, the domination factor of "keeping" women is, in itself, a perversion.

Do you even know the islamic requirements for marrying multiple wives?  The man has to provide a full and equal household for each woman.  Nowadays that means a complete house, usually newly built, a car, servants, etc.  For the most part, muslim polygamy is just a way for a man to display wealth  - and not for sexual graitification - men, even the not so wealthy ones, can get that simply by sleeping around.

However, when a person is given to one, fairly extreme, sexual perversion,

I don't know what kind of naive, white-washed upbringing you've had, but marrying an older woman  (or marrying an older man which happens ALL the time) is not an extreme sexual perversion.  Necrophilia is an extreme sexual perversion - an inter-generational marriage, which was primarily about money and resources is barely more perverse and than something like interracial sex.

Just look at how he took over Mecca.

I'm looking and I ain't seeing anything to support your claims.  Did I not say to lay off the Falwell-speak?  PUH-lease put up or shut up.

Ever hear of the Marquis de Sade?

Wow - proof by anecdote, and an anecdote referencing the most famously perverse figure in all of the west.  So, if I can name one famous pervert who was not a pedophile, does that mean you'll admit how wrong you are?

If you participate in a religion based on a guy who sees giant dragons and likes fucking old women and little girls, then you are the one who lacks common sense.

Versus, oh I dunno, a guy who sees talking burning plants, thinks fucking 3-year olds and slaughtering suckling babies is A-OK and is just as polygamous?

By the way, I participate in no religion at all, never have, never will.  That hasn't stopped me from learning about them - something you clearly haven't done.

[ Parent ]

Texts (none / 0) (#465)
by Xptic on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:26:49 AM EST

The Talmud might say that, depending on your translation, sex with a 3yo is OK.  However, we have first-hand accounts that Mohammed actually participated in fucking children.

A reference saying that it might be OK is a damn sight from someone actually doing it.

Oh, and pointing fingers saying "they say it's OK too" does not make it any better.

>>Do you even know the islamic requirements for marrying multiple wives?

If the Islamic requirements for weddings are anything like the Islamic requirements for being peaceful, then I'm pretty sure a lot of people are skirting the system.

And while the modern requirements may be slightly more humane than traditional law demands, you can't dispute the fact that the law demanded nothing from Mohammed.  What he did and said was law.

That's the core of the peoblem.  Mohammed is a perfect Muslim.  And he's fucked in the head.

No matter what a priest claims the law demands, anyone can fuck a 9yo and, because Mohammed was OK with it, then it's OK.

>>I'm looking and I ain't seeing anything to support your claims.

Koran 8:12
Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

So we should break the necks of unbelivers?  Or maybe it's OK just to smash their fingers.

Koran 9:73
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.

How did Mohammed "deal rigorously" with unbelivers?

Koran 5:33-34
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, merciful.

Cut off the hands and feet of unbelivers?  What a fucking tool.

The Koran is a book of hate from the hand of a hateful man.  Knowing how hateful he spoke, wrote, and acted, it isn't so hard to see him as a kiddie-diddler.

>>I don't know what kind of naive, white-washed upbringing you've had, but marrying an older woman  (or marrying an older man which happens ALL the time) is not an extreme sexual perversion.

Uuh, fucking a grandma is pretty extreme.  Even in the US, most people frown on a 20+ year age gap.  Look at Anna Nichole Smith for an example of how people react to this.

So, he enjoied torture agianst non-belivers.  He wrote that other people should engage in torture.  He had multiple wives and probably fucked kids.

There's the perfect example of a Muslim man.

No wonder countries like Iran and Afghanastan are so fucked up.  And the fact that Saudis and the rest of Arabia allows it to continue just goes to show that they condone those lifestyles.

[ Parent ]

Forest and trees (none / 0) (#470)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:12:54 AM EST

However, we have first-hand accounts that Mohammed actually participated in fucking children.

We do?  All I see is one senile guy writing about something at least 40 years after the fact.  The multiple accounts bit seems go to the other side of the argument with multiple accounts claiming otherwise.  Or perhaps you are like all the others who can't be bothered to exercise a little critical thinking and refuse to acknowledge those other inconvenient facts.

Oh, and pointing fingers saying "they say it's OK too" does not make it any better.

Wooosh!!!  You are going to have jump a little higher to catch those high balls.  The point in citing it is that if you look hard enough, you can find some fucked up shit somewhere in the doctrine of all religions.  To single out one religion and ignore the others is at a minimum hypocrisy and is begining to seem actively malicious on your part.

The Koran is a book of hate from the hand of a hateful man.  Knowing how hateful he spoke, wrote, and acted, it isn't so hard to see him as a kiddie-diddler.

So, now you have gone from saying that he enjoyed torturing people when he attacked mecca to generalized, context-free quotes.  Your argument was untenable and illogical to begin with, and yet you are able to make it poorer and weaker with each post.  Do I really need to go pull out a bunch of similar quotes from the old, and even some in the new, testament to illustrate how silly your argument is?

Uuh, fucking a grandma is pretty extreme.  Even in the US, most people frown on a 20+ year age gap.  Look at Anna Nichole Smith for an example of how people react to this.

Uuh, if I wave my hands and say it enough times, maybe it will be true?  I haven't heard one person say Smith was a pervert, much less an EXTREME PERVERT.  If anything, you illustrate my point, she married for money - just like most marriages were back then.  If Mohammed had wanted sex, he would have picked up a concubine or two.  Ain't no reason to buy the cow.  After all, as you claim his will was law.  He could have gone through a grandma in the morning and a 9-year old virgin in the afternoon each and every day if he wanted to, right?

then I'm pretty sure a lot of people are skirting the system.

So, now you blame islam for people who "skirt the system" of islam?  Should we blame the police when criminals break the law?

So, he enjoied torture agianst non-belivers.  He wrote that other people should engage in torture.  He had multiple wives and probably fucked kids.

You keep making these claims of evil, yet your evidence for all of them is so piss poor that it seems like you are the evil one, trying to tar a religion and the people who follow it with your own brush just so that you can demonize them.  Why do you choose to be so actively ignorant?  Do you have some sort of emotional attachment to hating muslims?  All 1.2 billion of them?

No wonder countries like Iran and Afghanastan are so fucked up.  And the fact that Saudis and the rest of Arabia allows it to continue just goes to show that they condone those lifestyles.

Islam, and islamic countries have got some fucked up shit going on, but then again, so do all the major organized religions - particularly those controlled by corrupt ruling elite who only give lip service to their proclaimed religions.  For example, a good friend of mine experienced "bethrothal through intercourse" just 12 years ago - raped and forced to marry her rapist in a catholic church in a predominantly catholic country well known for endemic corruption

But Mohammed being a pedophile ain't a a part of what's wrong with Islam in the modern world, not even close.  To focus on such a silly little thing is to argue emotion and miss any opportunity for reform.

[ Parent ]

Little Thing (none / 0) (#533)
by Xptic on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:08:50 PM EST

>>To focus on such a silly little thing is to argue emotion and miss any opportunity for reform.

When the core is rotten, the rest of the fruit should be destroyed.

[ Parent ]

Works both ways (none / 0) (#537)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:03:54 PM EST

When the core is rotten, the rest of the fruit should be destroyed.

I'm glad you said it.  Since you have been unable to come even close to showing that the core is rotten, you are saying that the rest of the fruit of Islam should be nurtured.  I think you have had a breakthrough today, congratulations.

[ Parent ]

Dense (none / 0) (#539)
by Xptic on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:10:16 AM EST

Maybe you are just dense.

Islam is a religion of hate and torture.  It is demeaning to women and children.  It is intolerant of other cultures and beliefs.

The reason Islam teaches these things is because Mohammed wrote these things.

The reason he wrote those things is because that's what he did and thinks is true.

[ Parent ]

Because You Said So (none / 0) (#1007)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 02:19:50 PM EST

Islam is a religion of hate and torture. It is demeaning to women and children. It is intolerant of other cultures and beliefs.

You can assert that all you want, but you have not come close to supporting your claims. Instead, you just keep demonstrating circular reasoning.

Meanwhile, my personal experience having married a foriegn-born girl from a muslim family is in stark contradiction to your claims. Her family, and every single one of the hundreds of muslims I have met, have been no more hateful than anyone else in America and a damn sight more tolerant and kind than ideological fools like yourself.

[ Parent ]

The entire Old Testament... (none / 0) (#505)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:42:24 AM EST

...is full of instructions from God (or really, the nutjob priests who wrote that section) on how you should kill entire populations because they're in your way, sell your daughters into slavery, poison cities, stone people for being in the same room as a menstruating woman, and have bears rip apart children for laughing at bald people.

I think the Christians should, y'know, stop throwing up their arms in horror at crazy stuff in other religious mythologies.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

OT (none / 0) (#534)
by Xptic on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:46:15 PM EST

While the OT does perscribe things like stoning for adultery, we don't see Jews and Christians actually doing it.

Hell, animal sacrifice is a core belief of Judiasm.  No Jews practice sacrificing goats today.

Muslims, however, still literally practice their religion.

Well, maybe that's not entirely fair.  I know US muslims that have married non-muslims and they are alright people.

I spent months in Sarajevo living with muslims.  We even went to bars together.  It's some weird shit when the bartender is observing RhamaDan.

However, the vocal majority/minority in the Arabian peninsula is giving the rest a bad name.

Now, either the majority should stand up and marginalize these groups, or someone else will do it for them.

>>I think the Christians should, y'know, stop throwing up their arms in horror at crazy stuff in other religious mythologies.

See, here is the problem.  Muslims envision it as Christians doing this to them.  It isn't.  It's a US/EU desire to see our Arabian brothers and sisters treat themselves, and us, with the respect that people deserve.

I deserve the right to say that Mohammed fucked kids.

Muslims deserve the right to say Mary wasn't a virgin.

We both have the right to say that Jews are, well, whatever bad thing we can say about them.

If a Muslim walked through Times Square with a sign saying we deserved 9-11, he would not fear for his life.  If nescessary, our government would surround him with police to see that he was allowed to say his peice.

If I walked through the streets of Mecca, would I be free to say that Mohammed was a drunk sheepherder?  Would I be put to death in Iran for greeting someone with my left hand?

[ Parent ]

Oh for the love of... (3.00 / 2) (#274)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:06:33 PM EST

Fucking hell, enough with this Aisha shit. That's just bullshit.
Nevermind that Mohammed's first wife was 20 years older than him, nevermind the fact that his other wives (whom he married because they are widowed, political reasons or were in bad situations) are all universally non-virgins or children (if I remember my studies, they were all over the age of 30 in fact) if anything, I realized Mohammed liked the grannies more than the youngin's.

But, nevermind my words, I'll just give you a site that explains it in great detail for you, you know, from the people who actually are part of the religion rather from some weird ass with one badly translated script. It even cites other sources for Aisha's age, that she could be anywhere from 14 up to 20 with historical reasons (such as reports of her becoming a Muslim; if it was true that she was around 8 years old when Mohammed married her, she would not have even been born when she converted; odd how that shapes up.)

Hell, Aisha was friggin engaged to someone else before they even considered her for Mohammed.
Funny how people never mention that part.

[ Parent ]

The text begins with (none / 1) (#275)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:12:37 PM EST

Every time the Muslims talk about Prophet Muhammad (saw) to the heretics ...

Oops. There goes any point which you might have had. Right down the drain. Indeed, sir. Thank you for playing.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

Please tell me you're joking (none / 1) (#278)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:28:40 PM EST

Are you serious? Heretics doesn't mean infidel, heretics means going against the orthodox you idiot. Meaning since they don't believe in it, they are heretics.

Heretic: Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the `catholic' or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, [heresy is an] opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretics

Heretic : 2. one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine. (webster online dictionary)

But, nevertheless, I will give you another site so as to not offend your delicate sensibilities.

[ Parent ]

Since you seem so fond of the OED, (none / 0) (#283)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:10:35 PM EST

why don't you look up the word infallible? Because lets face it, if we accept that the Quran is wrong on one thing, then it's no longer infallible, which means we have to question what else is wrong, at which point we might as well conclude that none of it makes sense at all (which it doesn't, but good luck explaining this to a muslim).

So you see, you can't actually say that the Quran is wrong. Consistency is largely irrelevant here. Muslims believe that the Quran is perfect, and if they read that the girl was 9 years old when he brutalized (lets not kid ourselves. 9 year olds aren't able to have normal sex with adults) her, then, by Allah, she was 9 years old.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

Um What? (none / 1) (#287)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:55:42 PM EST

Where on earth does it say in the Quran that she was nine years old? Site examples please, one with the untranslated text and the translation (since I can read Arabic and understand it fully.)

There is no mention of Aisha's age in the Quran, you are thinking of hadiths; and even the most respected Muslim scholars will admit that not all hadiths are 100 percent accurate. It just means that someone overheard the prophet say something and thought it was important to relay it to someone else. A lot of Muslims don't even use the hadiths as a guideline for their worship, my sister, for example, is one.

Second of all, if you had read the article instead of trying to troll me some more, you would see that the author has clearly explained everything about the hadiths.

So in conclusion, no, you fail it.

[ Parent ]

Oh boy (1.33 / 3) (#288)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:21:25 PM EST

Get this, not all muslims agree on everything. Especially ugly little details that make their prophet a paedophile. Well, no surprise there really. Sure is convenient how some of you can fuck children and say it was okay because Mohammad did it too, and at the same time claim-- to us who find such shit disgusting-- that it wasn't like that at all. Funny that for all the claims of perfection it should all be so internally inconsistent and flawed.  That you can spin it around to support just about anything you want. Excuse me if I am somewhat sceptical of islamic propaganda sites. Have you seen that one that says that the Quran predicts human embryos and the Cat's Eye nebula? A marvel really. I think I'll just go with the mainstream opinion on this, namely, that he was a paedophile who brutalised a 9 year old girl, while she was still playing with dolls.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Critical thinking.. (none / 0) (#289)
by McArabian on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:28:43 PM EST

I think I'll just go with the mainstream opinion on this, namely, that he was a paedophile who brutalised a 9 year old girl, while she was still playing with dolls. It's a bitch.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Critical thinking... (none / 0) (#290)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:32:50 PM EST

Given that I like to think of myself as knowing a fair bit about argumentation, and that I mastered formal logic to a degree which is fundamentally beyond your comprehension, I think my critical thinking skills are just fine. Certainly better than those of religious fools.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#291)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:38:22 PM EST

You still didn't give me proof that it was in the Koran that claimed she was nine. Until then, you still fail it.

[ Parent ]
s/Quran/Hadiths (3.00 / 2) (#332)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:47:30 AM EST

lol owned

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
DJ (none / 0) (#293)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:42:50 PM EST

Mohammed is not a paedophile.

why don't you wait until I finish my article and then judge yourself?

[ Parent ]
Yes Ramsy, (none / 0) (#295)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:52:28 PM EST

while I would not like to lose that insult (it's not of my favourites), I will concede if you manage to make a coherent and compelling argument.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
I know I am pushing my luck (none / 0) (#297)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:58:29 PM EST

with you.... will you also lose the cartoon ? because it will be irrelevant ?

[ Parent ]
sure, but you HAVE TO promise (none / 0) (#298)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:04:45 PM EST

that you won't be blowing anything up in the forseeable future (this is null and void if you join the americans though.) You are also not allowed to behead anyone, not even-- and I want to make this absolutely clear --not even jews.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
must resist urge to behead people... (none / 0) (#300)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:13:09 PM EST

m m m ust resist...uhaa ok !

[ Parent ]
+1FP realistic depiction of a muslim's internal (3.00 / 2) (#301)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:16:51 PM EST

struggle against stupid doctrine.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Denying that Aisha was nine? Its in the scriptures (3.00 / 3) (#299)
by dxh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:12:00 PM EST

There are MULTIPLE Islamic sources for the big Mo being a pedo in addition to being a psychopathic murdering war monger.  What is funny is any Muslem who tries to deny this is lying through their teeth. I the "real" muslem world its taught to everyone and not denied.  However, muslems know that in the western world they must hide the true nature of the the sick bastard that is the founder of their religion.  But of course this only works until someone actually looks up their own scripture:

Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina.  He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 3896.]

Urwa narrated:  The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 5158.]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported:  Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 3310.]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[Sahih Muslim, Number 3311.]

Ashia's OWN WORDS are quoted as well how she still played with dolls when they were married.

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated:  I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me.  When Allah's Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 6130.]

What is even sicker is the fact that Aisha was made to wash the semen out of his clothes before he would go to pray:

Sulaiman bin Yasar narrated:  "I asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) about the clothes soiled with semen.  She said:  `I used to wash it off the garment of Allah's Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and he would go for the prayer with water spots still visible.'"[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 230.]

Aisha said:  In case you saw it (i.e. drop of semen), it would have served the purpose (of purifying the garment) if you had simply washed that spot; and in case you did not see it, it would have been enough to sprinkle water around it, for when I saw that on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I simply scraped it off and he offered prayer, while putting that on.[Sahih Muslim, Number 566.]

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated:  I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.[Sahih Muslim, Number 232.]

Islam is the religion founded by one totally sick and evil fucker.  

[ Parent ]

I don't think you'll find many fans here (none / 1) (#302)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:18:50 PM EST

we like to hug trees and ignore the obvious.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
In the links (1.50 / 2) (#303)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:36:50 PM EST

I posted below. It debunks all of that. Especially Urwah. This is sepcifically debunked by the second one I posted to DJ Allah. The author goes through and disproves each for various reasons (especially Urwah and Urwah's son).

Funny, I've been raised in an Islamic country, in an Arabic country, and I have never, ever been told she was 9. In fact, I never heard of it until I heard it from non-Muslims.

In case you are as lazy as I am, however, here are the sites that debunks it in full, including those quotes.
here, here, and here.

[ Parent ]

"Debunks"? (3.00 / 3) (#308)
by BJH on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:23:13 PM EST

What it looks like is several sources saying "she was nine", and a bunch of denials that rely on things like "maybe that particular source was senile when he wrote that" and backward calculations from people's age at death to try and prove she was actually older.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
Here goes... (none / 1) (#313)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:24:28 PM EST

Okay, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but your question seems genuine enough.
Here goes:

If you noticed dxh's quotes they all come from two sources. Bukhari (Al-Bukhari) and Muslim. Where did those quotes come from? Urwa. How do we know? Heck, one of dxh's quote says clearly "Urwa narrated".

Urwa is not a reliable source once he went to Iraq due to his senility: ""Yaqub ibn Shaibah says: He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq." (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol 11, pg 50) " And that reporting? Was after moving over to Iraq since he became senile.

Again it was said: "I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq." (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol 11, pg 50) "

And from a different source: "when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly" (Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Arabic, Al-Maktabatu'l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol 4, pg 301)

If you continue to read with the site I provided, the author clarifies about the portion where dxh declares that supposedly Aisha narrates her own stories. She hasn't. Those stories were told from Urwa, he was the one who said Aisha said all of those things: "If you take a look at the chain of narrators of the four reportings of Sahih Bukhari, you shall see that in the first two cases, Ayesha's (ra) statement has been quoted by none other than `Urwah - Abu Hishaam (the father of Hishaam). In the later two cases, it is [...] `Urwah - Abu Hishaam [...]. " And since dxh reported exactly three of those supposedly from Aisha, I am guessing they are the same ones.

Along with the site, the author commented on the multiple different names that supposedly said Aisha was 9, similar to bxh, but he claimed those are false since all their statements came from none other than Urwa.

 "It seems that your friend has missed out on my point on Hisham ibn `urwah. He seems to be unaware of the fact that each one of his quoted statement, whether it is from Tabari, Bukhari, Muslim or Abu Dawud, is either narrated by Hisham ibn `urwah or is reported to the respective author by or through an Iraqi. Not even a single narrative is free from either of the two problems. "

Bukhari and Muslim are both used in all of dxh's quotes. So how does that not debunk it?

[ Parent ]

OK. (3.00 / 3) (#316)
by BJH on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:40:11 PM EST

To be honest, I have little interest in whether Mohammed was a pedophile (by modern standards) or not. Indeed, I know very little about Islam.

However, I find it disturbing that certain people seem to assume, simply because he is Mohammed, that he must be infallible.

As it looks to me, there are several possibilities here:

  1. Mohammed did not have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa was senile.
  2. Mohammed did not have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa lied.
  3. Mohammed did not have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa's account was mistranscripted.
  4. Mohammed did not have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa's account was rewritten maliciously.
  5. Mohammed did have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa was senile but got it right.
  6. Mohammed did have sex with a 9-year-old; Urwa was not senile, but was later portrayed as senile in order to discredit his account.
From among those, you are asking me to believe #1, but (from exactly the same preconditions) any of the other possiblities remains. Saying that "Urwa was senile" does not change that.

Now, if you are assuming that Mohammed is (by definition) infallible, then I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.
However, if you have some concrete proof to discredit Urwa's account (other than comments from people who have a vested interest in discrediting Urwa's account), I'm listening.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (none / 1) (#320)
by BlindRoach on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:08:04 AM EST

First let me clarify. I never said Mohammed was infallible, I just said he was not a pedophile. In fact, any Muslim would claim that Mohammed is human, because he is. The usual claim of him being the perfect human being is silly, most would claim he is the perfect example of a Muslim; there is a difference, though slight, and he has made mistakes to prove his own humanity (my mind is blank, I'll need to ask my mom as there is a well known story following that; something about accusing or assuming the wrong thing, etc.)

So yes, I am saying number 1 is the answer. Urwah was senile, plain as that. He was well-known before he became senile and yet has never mentioned one of those stories or passages, why is that?

I am not sure how it doesn't cover the other six though, I don't think I understand you fully. If he was senile and thus his stories were false, then wouldn't it mean that the other six are wrong/not an issue? What I site was not proof? But those are books that date back from the 1930s if not earlier. How much more concrete would you like? I don't honestly know of any non-Arab or non-Muslim who wrote about the narrators of the traditions of Mohammed; if you know of any then by all means, I'll get the books and read them to see if they match up or not.

But I just want to get one thing straight. So it's okay to accept any Westerner to write about his own history but all Arabs or Muslims must be authenticated by others in order to prove their worth? I understand you feel that there may be vested interest in this, but who else would write our history if not us? As can clearly be seen by the news in the States and in Israel, we can't really depend on them. So who do we depend on to write down our history without their bias effecting their writing?

[ Parent ]

A couple of points. (3.00 / 4) (#325)
by BJH on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:06:45 AM EST

Any writing by someone with a vested interest in the outcome cannot be taken at face value.
This applies to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, non-religious beliefs, whatever.

Also, I did not specifically single you out as a person who believes Mohammed to be infallible.

Lastly, a book from the 1930s doesn't carry a lot of weight when we're talking about something that occurred in the sixth or seventh century. (Note that means that recent texts cannot necessarily be relied on for either side of the argument.)

Please understand, I don't consider Western accounts of history to be completely reliable; just the same as I consider any source without objective verification to be unreliable.

By that yardstick, pretty much any historical account has to be taken with a fairly large pinch of salt.

To give you an example: Take a look at this site. See how it refers to an "historic treaty", "tireless negotiations", and presents the Japanese people of the time as simpletons that thought steamships were "giant dragons puffing smoke"?

Seen from the Japanese point of view, this is all bullshit. (Please note that I'm not saying the Japanese account of events is objective, either.)

The treaty was viewed in Japan as an unfair, one-sided piece of colonial strongarming; the "tireless negotiations" were more along the lines of "open your ports or we shell your largest cities". Indeed, the acceptance of the treaty was one of the largest factors in the violent overthrowal of the Shogunate (the de-facto government of Japan).

In particular, the point of view presented by that website is "doing what was good for the Japanese, even though they didn't know it at the time". This is cultural paternalism; a "father-knows-best" attitude toward other cultures.

Do you understand now where I'm coming from? I don't accept your views on Mohammed, not because I dislike you or Islam, but simply because I have no objective proof one way or the other, and your status as someone with an interest in projecting a positive view of Mohammed does little to help you.

this is the same reason why I think that the US's protests that they are not becoming a warmongering fascist state because they love freedom and peace cannot be trusted, as their stated views and their actual actions are contradictory.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Forgot one more option there: (none / 0) (#730)
by MSBob on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:01:18 AM EST

8. Muhammad never existed because Islam just like all other religions is a fairytale fabricated to control the ignorant masses.

Given that this is by far the most probable option, it's inexcusable that you skipped it altogether.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Sounds a bit like Julius Caesar... (none / 0) (#503)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:34:49 AM EST

...a man who is venerated in Western culture.

Especially the Pax Romana thing.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Regarding Judaism and Zionism. (2.66 / 9) (#236)
by Apuleius on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:21:11 AM EST

Last week, a 13 year old Coptic Christian boy named Girgis Shehata was murdered for the "crime" of carrying chairs into a church. He was beaten to death. It was in a small Egyptian village you've never heard of. Nobody will be punished for his murder. It is rare for a Muslim to face any punishment for the murder of a Copt. I predict that you this murder will not affect you in any way, shape or form. Nor will it cause any soul searching among Muslims about whether or not they have been decent to the Coptic minority. Nothing will change. And soon another Copt will be murdered. And another, and another. I am a Jew. I am also a Zionist. I am a Zionist because I grew up among people who know what it is like to be Jews living as a minority among Muslims. Face it. It sucks. And if you are an honest Muslim, you will admit it. And perhaps you will step back from talking about "honest Jews" rejecting Zionism.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
I lived in Egypt (none / 1) (#237)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:31:21 AM EST

and alot of Coptic people are my best friends, I even did consulting work for the Egyptian church, as matter of fact I was considering calling on my Coptic Egyptian friends to vote up my story but I thought it would be considered cheating.

The Coptic minority as you call them live in prosperity in Egypt, however it is a very well known fact that the CIA infiltrated some of their immigrant descendants and used them to pressure the Mubarak dictatorship for some reason or another.



[ Parent ]
So your nutty conspiracy theory (1.75 / 4) (#239)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:24:09 AM EST

makes it okay to murder children? You fucking suck.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
no my nutty (none / 0) (#240)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:34:11 AM EST

theory explains to people why some reports of incidents will be exaggerated, half truths or plain old lies.

[ Parent ]
Oh okay. (2.00 / 3) (#243)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:00:27 AM EST

I guess that makes it okay to murder children.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
clarification (none / 0) (#359)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:45:07 AM EST

there is no excuse to murder innocent ppl. whether they are male or female, adults or children.

pls. note that when Prophet Muhammed conquered Mecca after being prosecuted by the Meccans for years, he did not seek revenge.
He also forbade pillaging Mecca. (rape is an offence whose penalty is death)
The Meccans were pleasantly surprised coz in his shoes they would have done the pillaging, rape, and murder.

which reminds me, did u see those pictures of american G I's in the baghdad mosque walking around with their shoes on?

muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

Exaggeration? (none / 0) (#432)
by Apuleius on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:26:23 PM EST

How is it an exaggeration to say this kid was beaten to death? Guess what, sharmut, he was beaten to death.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You're not addressing the murder (3.00 / 2) (#271)
by tert on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:37:48 PM EST

You're not addressing the claim that murder of christians in Muslim countries is considered acceptible.

Now may be a good time to point out that Christ, as revealed in the new testament, is one of the most liberal peace-loving characters of all time.  And look what America's "christian" government is doing.

When it comes down to it, reading the old testament, Judaism is a murderous tribal religion.  It is about killing the other guy.  It is a bad thing.  Christianity is a ruthlessly egalitarian religion based on freedom and peace.  Islam, well, I don't know the first thing about the Quran.

In the other corner we have modern jews, who range all the way from peace-loving prosperous members of non-Jewish societies to the war-like "Jihad is a word in Hebrew too" Israelis.  The Christian world today runs the gamut from peace-loving freedom-loving Quakers to war-starting American jingo protestants.  And Islam runs the gamut, I'm sure, from loving families and communities based on trust and honor and kindness towards strangers, to people running airplanes into foreign buildings.

So it turns out that all religions have a lot of shit-poor excuses for practitioners.  But it is worth noting that when you go by the book, Christianity is the only one of the trio that is unanimously peace-loving.  I very much look forward to your explanation for how the Quran does not encourage constant war on infidels.  Perhaps a Jew would like to step up and explain how the story of Elijah and Jezebel told in the book of Kings is anything other than an exortation to constant jihad as well.

[ Parent ]

I would again like to point out (none / 0) (#272)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:45:34 PM EST

that Christianity, Islam, and Jewism (Jewishism? Judaism? Whatever), do not make up "all religions".

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Judaism § (none / 0) (#273)
by New Me on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:56:17 PM EST


--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

Yea, Don't forget Thelema! $ (none / 0) (#279)
by Mylakovich on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 04:34:58 PM EST



[ Parent ]
all religions (none / 0) (#358)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:39:00 AM EST

you are right
there is also zorastrianism (the religion founded by abraham)

here is a hint: a religion needs a prophet. a prophet is one who is designated by Allah to be his messenger eg. Moses, David, Abraham, Jesus, Muhammed (peace be upon them).

here is another hint: there will not be a prophet after Muhammed (peace be upon him), because Allah said Muhammed (peace be upon him) is the seal on the prophethood.

muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#438)
by Kal on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:09:06 PM EST

There's going to be no new religions? Isn't that a little narrow minded?

[ Parent ]
Seek professional help now (none / 0) (#463)
by DJ Allah on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:00:18 AM EST



The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Hm. (3.00 / 3) (#305)
by BJH on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:51:25 PM EST

You may or may not know this, but using this kind of phrasing:

I lived in Egypt and alot of Coptic people are my best friends

in response to a charge of racism is a such a cliche that it almost confirms the charge by itself.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Only because it's a cliche but... (none / 0) (#583)
by LodeRunner on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:41:34 AM EST

what about when it's true? Also, I think it sounds more "cliche" in English than in other languages (with the whole "black people love us" website, etc).

Crap, if someone asks me if I hate Americans and the fact is that I lived in America and made a lot of friends there, what am I supposed to answer?

Maybe it's just the phrasing, really, and answering "Not at all, in fact I lived in the US, met some great people there, etc." would sound less 'false' to your ears but to someone who is not that much into the subtleties of the culture saying "No, I lived in the US and have a lot of American friends" sounds equivalent.

I did notice you gave him the benefit of the doubt, though, which is cool.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

maybe I can ask one of them (none / 1) (#584)
by KingRamsis on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:46:52 AM EST

to write here and kick your ass on my behalf ? not only did I befriended christians I also did consulting work for the church and they loved me there and even allowed me to practice my Islamic prayer there, the coptic people are the natives of Egypts some of them became muslims and some of them remained christians.

If Islam was killing people for not becoming muslims then you by know you should have 0 christians in Egypt.




[ Parent ]
But not in the US, I take it. (3.00 / 4) (#430)
by Apuleius on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:24:02 PM EST

Do you have any idea just how contemptible it is to say "some of my best friends were ()"? It also does not address the issue. The Copts you met didn't complain to you about their situation because complaining would only make things worse. That is why until Zionism came along, us Jews kept quiet too, no matter how bad things got. You have also completely stepped aside the murder of Girgis. You know full well nobody will be punished for it, just as nobody was punished for massacring Copts at Al Kosheh a few years back, nor for the attack on the Mar Girgis church two months back. The Copts are quiet because they consider it the best route. We Jews have decided it's time to fight back - hence Zionism. And you have a lot of nerve to lecture to Jews about "honest" Judaism.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
egypt (2.25 / 4) (#354)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:17:27 AM EST

i live in egypt. i havent heard of this coptic boy who died in a church.

but i did read about this article where this elder jew in alexandria was complaining that he was one of the last 2 jews in egypt.

and when there is a murder against a copt, the police are especially sensitive and are quick to solve the case. then arrest the offender.

in any case, let me replace a few choice words in your example, and it could be a (real) story from israel:
"Last week, a 13 year old Palestinian boy named Mohamed Ahmed was murdered for the "crime" of crossing a field. He was beaten to death. It was in a small West Bank village you've never heard of. Nobody will be punished for his murder. It is rare for a Jew to face any punishment for the murder of a Palestinian"

yeah, i know .. totally inflamatory. but i m getting tired of this biased, unfounded FUD.
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

You are a liar. (none / 1) (#431)
by Apuleius on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:25:12 PM EST

Perhaps you might care to exlain, then, why nobody was punished for killing Copts at al Kosheh? A dozen dead, and no prison time served.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
That's not very realistic. (1.50 / 2) (#506)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:51:56 AM EST

Usually 12-year-old Palestinian boys are shot by Israelis, not beaten to death.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

I've visited Egypt... (none / 1) (#845)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:22:51 PM EST

numerous times (I'm egyptian, my entire full family tree is over there), and I've never met a Copt that felt threatened about their security. My main family has lived next to a Coptic family for about 75 years or so. We're good neighbors, and so are they. The _ONLY_ complaint I've found that Copts have is that regarding their religion; specifically: while not prohibited from practicing their religion, it is difficult (relative to mosques) to get a permit to expand your church. Thats it. Regarding this discrimination crap; I don't really care whether someones' Coptic or not; it is _not_ a question I ask. However, Copts don't trust Egyptians (probably for good reasons that happened a while ago); that is also a fact -- I've had several Coptic Egyptians (whom I've never met), "warn" friends of mine based solely on the fact that I was Egyptian and not Coptic. Based on the average age group of said complaintees, it was probably a crackdown that happened around the 1970's or so (I would guess) -- its usually older people, who have emigrated from Egypt; the real roots though, I'm sure, stretch much further back. Its like that in the middle east; people don't forget anything there. You can get ur ass kicked for coming into the wrong area (very tribal in parts of Egypt) if u don't know anyone there, or for liking the wrong soccer team, but 95% of the time, there really isn't much violence in Egypt. Lots of death through stupidity (mostly overcrowding of transports, people smoking next to propane tanks etc) or old age, but thats about it. Really, if you're going to be pulling news stories out of thin air, try pulling something _representative_ of the culture you are talking about. To the Zionist on this thread - might I point out that I have _not_ made any comments about Israeli's despite a severe dislike of their actions? See how that works?

[ Parent ]
to paraphrase ramsi (1.80 / 5) (#238)
by flaw on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:21:31 AM EST

he will in a later installment explain how, in the right context, there is nothing wrong with fucking a nine-year-old? what the fuck is wrong with you!?

--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
Why speculate when you can wait? [nt] (none / 0) (#242)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:44:55 AM EST



[ Parent ]
you're a pedophile (none / 1) (#331)
by flaw on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:39:37 AM EST

maybe you should be on wikipedia, not kuro5hin

--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Obviously you've not been here long. (none / 0) (#507)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:03 AM EST

There's tons of kiddy-fiddlers on this site.

Well, a few anyway. There was a big fuss about it a while back.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Tolerance? (2.85 / 7) (#248)
by carsamba on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:18:56 AM EST

Well well.

All I see is one guy trying to shed some light on what the ongoing "clash of civilizations" or "power grab" is all about. Hopefully he will correct some common misconceptions. In any case, he will have presented a different take on the subject. We will all end up better informed to make comments.

Western society is so smug with the belief of its own enlightenment, it has lost the ability (or the tolerance) to listen to the other side of the story, which was the main driving force for the current level of civilization. That the arabs are wallowing in the dark ages is no excuse to be zealots ourselves.

For myself, I am pretty much irreligious. There is no excuse for the carnage. Human life is the holy thing I hold, regardless of their beliefs. With the commies down the drain and no longer a worthy threat, I think islam has been made to be the new bugbear - to justify many decisions we would not have approved otherwise.

It is a touchy subject to be sure, but I hold everyone to blame. If we are so open minded, we owe it to ourselves to listen. I say let the guy finish his series.

believe me (none / 0) (#250)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:52:16 AM EST

All I see is one guy trying to shed some light

it is like trying to left the mountain on your own.

[ Parent ]
left the mountain? (none / 1) (#254)
by carsamba on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:29:47 AM EST

"left the mountain"? What do you mean?

Anyhow, I would like to add that I think western/eastern civilization dichotomy is a manufactured concept. Both are entwined and interdependent in more degrees than we can see. That the western world is in ascendance right now is no guarantee it will continue to be. Much of modern science and art have originated in the east, which has lost its drive and glory today, struck with poverty and ignorance instead. However, I can see similar ignorance in the U.S, masked by the wealth it has amassed.

[ Parent ]
*Lift [nt] (none / 0) (#263)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:15:22 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Modern science and muslims? (1.33 / 6) (#268)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:50:19 PM EST

pass the joint pls.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Wrong on both accounts (2.66 / 3) (#281)
by nusuth on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:04:01 PM EST

Islam has contributed to birth of modern science and weed does not make you delusional.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (1.00 / 5) (#286)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:47:54 PM EST

Arabs translated some books from Greek into Arabic while Europeans were busy whacking and torturing each other. Eventually we realised that we should be whacking people who look and think differently from us, and that was when and where science really started. Namely, in the West. And science has stayed in the West ever since.

Never done pot or any other drugs, so I wouldn't know if it induces delusions or not. Certainly it hinders mental development, as evidenced by so many bleeding liberal minds.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

yah.. (none / 0) (#311)
by carsamba on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:52:04 PM EST

How come the decimal system is arabic numerals, instead of roman? Weed out the ignorance in the first place..

[ Parent ]
Hey moron! (none / 1) (#329)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:14:20 AM EST

they stole that from the Hindus when they were busy slaughtering them. We call them arabic because that's where we stole them from when we were busy slaughtering them.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
words (none / 1) (#356)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:19:39 AM EST

chronologically correct but wrong choice of words:
knowledge is free. i used a word in your presence, you have learned the word. can i "unlearn" you that word? ;)
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]
egyptian nobel prize winners for science (none / 0) (#362)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:05:12 AM EST

dr. ahmed zeweil
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]
Hahahaha thats funny. (none / 1) (#849)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:55:43 PM EST

Alexandria was the center of learning bub; people from Greece and Rome came to Egypt to study and learn from US.  Algebra (which is the basis for all formal math btw) was written by an Arab; the concept of zero (which was independantly arrived at by the Mayans) is Arabic.  Most medicine "discovered" by the Greeks was discovered in Egypt BECAUSE we did not have any rules regarding the dissection of corpses - if you were serious about anatomy studies YOU CAME TO EGYPT.  

Problem is mate, none of your layperson western books will say that; its left to academics & scientists to be in the know about the contributions that Islam has made to science.  Same goes with Russia; many of the mathematical/scientific advances credited to the west (by themselves) were independantly discovered by Russians, in many cases decades before they were on the Radar of Americans/Brits.  Same goes with China, and India.  

Don't get me wrong; thats not to say Western civilization (Europe/US) have not contributed; it is just not as unique, or completely onesided as the West would claim when examined diligently by objective people interested in the ideas and not necessarily the *glory* in claiming to have discovered them first.

If your from any of those ethnicities above, feel free to chime in :) I _know_ you've got the same complaint :)

[ Parent ]

Alright, I'll bite (3.00 / 8) (#270)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:28:31 PM EST

Salaam ya akhi,

I am also a Muslim Arab here; although I admit that I no longer believe in Islam as a religion (more Athiest with a slight lean towards agnostic) but I was raised Muslim and I still practice the culture.
Fuck, in fact, I will admit that I am also a woman, but considering how hard it is for any K5er to believe that there are women here, I have a feeling no one would believe me, even if I do shove my used pad down their throats as proof.

I noticed the trend here and was getting ready to post some articles on that (I also made this account specifically to post links; such as Arabic newspapers that are already translated into English instead of people running for MEMRI.)

If you don't mind, I'll help you answer the questions so you don't lift this mountain alone as you call it.

[ Parent ]

May I suggest you (3.00 / 3) (#304)
by LodeRunner on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:49:32 PM EST

to focus on the people who are actually interested and open for debate, rather on the trolls.

In any case, good luck, guess you'll need it...

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 1) (#306)
by BlindRoach on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:56:34 PM EST

I should, you're right. I suppose it was rather pointless but hoped that it addressed other people's concerns about Mohammed and his supposed pedophilic tendencies (I stopped once I realized DJ Allah cornered himself.)

[ Parent ]
We alikum Aslam okhti (none / 0) (#307)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:07:00 PM EST

I thank you for your great efforts, and I hope that you mend the broken link between you and Allah one day, it is never too late.
I noticed your posts after posting the "lifting the mountain alone" you are doing just fine, please by all means help as you see fit.
Trust me this Umma will always be ok.

[ Parent ]
When ya gonna post the rest of it? (none / 1) (#264)
by FeatheredSerpent on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:30:25 AM EST



-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
I plan part II by the 7th [n] (none / 0) (#265)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:41:44 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Honor Shmonor (2.90 / 11) (#267)
by coward anonymous on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:25:15 PM EST

The article itself and its author are telling of the fundemental rift between Islamic thikning, the Arab part of it in particular, and modernity. The article uses the word "honor" and its derivatives 10 times. Arab/Islamic tribalism is still central to Islamic thinking and the most imporant element of it is "honor" and perceived insults to it that justify any action to regain said "honor".
Honor justifies anything and everything - from the regular "honor" killings of sisters who slept with the wrong man or cheated on their husbands or refused to marry the designated rapist; to crying for the death of Danes for a silly cartoon.
This is what most modern Westerners fail to understand when dealing with the Islamic world. "Honor" distorts the Islamic world view to a point that most Westerners can't fathom.

re: honor shmonor (none / 0) (#312)
by carsamba on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:57:47 PM EST

When honor is based on vanity, which in turn is based on misplaced concepts (not misconceptions) and stands in stead of morals and logic... I do hope you catch my drift.

[ Parent ]
Bush used somewhat the same rhetoric in his (3.00 / 4) (#334)
by spooky wookie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:25:31 AM EST

state of the union speech...

"There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat."

How the military campaign in Iraq can be reduced to a question about honer is beyond me...

[ Parent ]

American's can't even SPELL "honour". $ (3.00 / 3) (#344)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:48:11 AM EST


Try my event calendar plugin for Wordpress.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
Learn (none / 1) (#382)
by coward anonymous on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:09:51 PM EST

Will you get over your inferiority complex and accept that Americans dropped the silly "ou" construct because it serves no purpose anymore - you might take a lesson from it on how change can be good while being stiff, inflexible and curmudgeonly is a sure recipe for being left behind.

[ Parent ]
Nevah! $ (none / 0) (#404)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:09:33 PM EST

Are you looking for CORBA training?

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

re: Honor (none / 0) (#360)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:49:24 AM EST

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

and then Allah clarified that those who have broken his commandment (man or woman) should be punished. even if it is your sister. or your mother.

muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

Only when it suits you (3.00 / 2) (#381)
by coward anonymous on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:02:34 PM EST

I'll assume not a troll and bite. The males involved in these "sins" are rarely murdered, ever notice that? Here is a good set of examples for murders that had nothing to do with your silly commandment (which, by the way, equates women with oxen and other property), instead they were all about "honor".

[ Parent ]
please don't mix (none / 0) (#385)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:16:42 PM EST

local customs with Islam teachings, it is a common mistake, the Islamic law states that if a non-married man/woman committed adultery that he/she will be punished by lashing.

Regarding adultery of a married man/woman is to be stoned to death - now TRUST ME ON THIS - I will discuss this in details in the coming parts and you will be surprised I give you my word.

[ Parent ]
I'm not (3.00 / 2) (#401)
by coward anonymous on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:51:05 PM EST

I'm not mixing local custom with Islam. It is Muslims who repeatedly do so just as "Muslim" did in his post. He excused these abominations by quoting a commandment from the bible. I just pointed out its and his hypocrisy.

[ Parent ]
Au contraire mon frier (none / 1) (#848)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:45:04 PM EST

Commandments fall on all people of the book.

That means (in order of antiquity):

1. Jews
2. Christians
3. Muslims
4. any of the other splinter religions (with new prophets derived off any of the 3 faiths above, excluding those which may renounce the Commandments).
--
Apparently you're not aware of the historical basis of islam as a "continuation" of judiasm & christianity?


[ Parent ]

frier? (none / 0) (#922)
by coward anonymous on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:02:04 PM EST

In what language is that and what does your point have to do with anything in this thread?


[ Parent ]
The title would be in ... (none / 0) (#934)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:31:04 PM EST

French (though I was posting so much late last night I mis-spelled freir as frier); and as to the relevance to the discussion at hand it would have been to address your questioning of his use of a quotation of the 10 commandments.


[ Parent ]
frère (none / 0) (#1002)
by coward anonymous on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:20:55 PM EST

That would be in French.
And yet your comment still has no bearing on the thread. He quoted a commandment to justify the actions I mentioned. It is meaningless whether other religions revere these commandments. A factoid yes, relevant no.

[ Parent ]
no i wont. (3.00 / 2) (#513)
by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:23:13 PM EST

for what i know of the quran (i admit, not much) it has the same fundamental flaw that other holly books of the major abrahamic religions (clarifying: abrahamic religions are the ones that worship abraham's god, such as judaism, christianity and islam. there are others, but these 3 are the most known).

the flaw ? they were all writen by men, in a time when women were seen as little more than oxen or house appliances. a situation created by stupid males used to think that their greater physical strenght gave them the right to enslave the weaker.

this is the same mentality that causes distortions such as institutionalized rape as a form of punishment for crimes, stoning to death, and others, that are only aplied to _women_. tell me, when was the last time that a muslim _men_ was analy raped as a punishment for a crime ?

you claim that those are tribal customs that are not a characteristic of islam, but i see that abuses against women and other form of inequality exists in the whole muslim world in several degrees, except for the few countries where western influence is stronger, and even on these, there are ongoing movements trying to revert things back to barbaric regimes such as the one in afghanistan under the talibans. and those fanaticals all quote the quran as a source of inspiration for their madness.

embellish it what you want, islam still have a long way ahead before you people undertands that even holly books can become obsolete with time, with whole parts of it reduced to mere historical information instead of a source for law, ethics and moral. if it wasn't this way, christians would still be ravaging africa (including the muslim coutries) for slaves. i'm glad christianity and judaism already learned the lesson that not everything in their respective bibles have to be taken literally.

http://www.comofazer.net
[ Parent ]

Stereotypes of Muslim women (2.50 / 4) (#269)
by tert on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 03:23:00 PM EST

I have a lot of trouble accepting "from this incident and others you will discover that the typical stereotypes of Muslim women is as accurate as the Hollywood portrayal of Soviets during the cold war."  There is an incident in my life which affected my perception of Muslim women -- it was talking to one of them.  And let me tell you...if the "typical stereotypes of Muslim women" are basically the same as the "profile of a battered woman," I'm absolutely convinced they're accurate.

You won't make any points by battling with the truth.  Just accept that Islamic women are much different from (some) western women.  If you have to get in a jab at western culture, point out that Catholic women and battered women also share a lot of similarities.  If you have to defend treatment of Islamic women, you can point out that women are basically useless (western men are not ignorant of this either), or point out that women are the backbone of Islamic society and the role that to us looks constrained and slave-like is in fact liberating to the female soul in a way westerners may never be able to appreciate.  All of those may be true, but telling us that the women aren't treated like we think they are isn't going anywhere.

Stereotypes and reality (2.80 / 5) (#284)
by Homburg on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:20:41 PM EST

"There is an incident in my life which affected my perception of Muslim women -- it was talking to one of them."

Why do you think that talking to one Muslim woman qualifies you to make statements about "Muslim women"?

[ Parent ]

Thank You $ (none / 1) (#285)
by McArabian on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:46:14 PM EST


"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Well presumably!!!!! (1.50 / 2) (#296)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:56:12 PM EST

she saw and talked to other women too!!!! Whoa there, does it take being a freakin' batman to point out the obvious?!

that's if she wasn't kept in a cage or something.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

All the Muslim women I've ever met, (none / 0) (#343)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:47:04 AM EST

have been cool, funny, sorted people.

But then, I suppose there's an element of self selection in that sample.

Reading K5 is like watching a retard trying to tie his shoelaces. Entertaining, but also a little bit sad.
- Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand


intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

Likewise, (none / 0) (#367)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:31:30 AM EST

Including my family members. However they are only muslim in the sense that they don't believe any more but do not renounce their muslim status as that carries alienation from friends and family that do believe and possible punishment if they return to visit their native country (Iran).

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Tell that... (none / 1) (#851)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:26:09 PM EST

>... you can point out that women are basically useless (western men are not ignorant of this either) ...

tell that to my grandmother, who raised 7 children on her husbands meager teacher salary, but is welcomed in everyones home on account of her generosity and kindness.

tell that to my mother who raised 4 children, worked on call in obstetrics, and still managed to come home, cook and clean despite having woken up @ 4am in the morning to deliver someone's kid.

tell that to my sister, who's just finished up residency, working insane hours for a month straight while studying for her prelim licensing exam

the truth mate, is a simple one; its easier to believe that muslim girls are slaves than it is to examine their lives or their beliefs in detail, especially when u think your own womenfolk are useless.

[ Parent ]

And what country is that in? (none / 0) (#870)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 07:15:25 AM EST

I bet it's not one under islamic law now is it?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Muslim Egypt you dumbass -nt (none / 0) (#872)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 10:50:05 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. (none / 0) (#875)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:11:46 AM EST

He's egyptian american and the only time he mentions being in egypt is when visiting.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I rode a donkey like you (none / 0) (#876)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:17:13 AM EST

I've visited Egypt... (none / 1) (#845) by paulgrant999
on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 06:22:51 PM EST

numerous times (I'm egyptian, my entire full family tree is over there)




[ Parent ]
Except he has not lived there. (none / 0) (#878)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:23:50 AM EST

He has only visited. Which says to me that whilst his extended family tree may be over there, it is not where he grew up.

Bzzzzzzzt. You lose, try again!

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
To explain more fully, as I know you need it. (none / 0) (#880)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:29:55 AM EST

If he didn't grom up in Egypt, which it didn't sound like he did, then it's unlikely that that's where his mother is, and if she's not there then it's unlikely the sister is either.

Hopefully he'll speak up himself and confirm this.


--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
ha ha ha hhaaa stupid (none / 1) (#881)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:36:42 AM EST

he is telling a story of his grandmother, mother and sister who are = family tree
and family tree lives in = egypt.


No wonder a dumbass like you FAILED HIS TAXES, I hope you go to prison on tax fraud.

[ Parent ]
See I knew you need the extra explanation (none / 0) (#883)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:39:58 AM EST

Either he didn't grow up with his mother (unlikely, he says she brought up children) or she's in the USA.

Nowhere does he say he lives or lived in egypt, nor that his immediate family are there.

I knew I shouldn't have started responding to you again, you're a moron.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Well u can split those statements along generation (none / 0) (#902)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:24:36 AM EST

s; my mother and my grandmother were born and raised in egypt; my mom emigrated after medical school; my brother was raised in egypt for the first years of his life; we all have been to egypt almost every year of our lives (minimum 2 months at a time); everybody has stayed there for at least 6 months (continuously) at a time (usually longer), we all speak the language, know the customs, maintain residences there, have citizenship and actively maintain business and friendships there, as well as identify with our cultural heritage.  so I think that would allow me to claim some sort of working knowledge of Egypt :)

HOWEVER, u have made an unintended point; in that Egypt is not an islamic government, although it is an islamic republic.  In point of fact it operates under napoleonic law (which is of course, why the courts are so overwhelmed).  Also interesting from a legal point (as an aside), is that they have a debtors prison.

Now, having agreed with you that it is not an islamic government, let me point out how I addressed your original point; that of Islamic women resembling battered women; I've given you four clear examples of Muslim women, raised in a heavily islamic environment, not being battered, and instead valuing their faith.

Incidentally, in case your only example of an "islamic government" is that which is currently operating in Saudia Arabia (or the Taliban), consider extending your investigations to historical examples; they mirror a true Islamic government much more than Saudia Arabia's current government does.  Saudia Arabia has a much more tribal aspect to it, and is basically filled with a bunch of hopped-up tribeman made rich by oil, and propogating their own version of Islam (literally!).  One noteable exception to this, is that of the people of Medina (in Saudia Arabia), who are famous for their...worldly (secular is not quite the right word) spiritualness.

[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#909)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:58:16 AM EST

Though as you point out - Egypt and the northern african states have islamic populations but not necessarily islamic law (though of course it will be a heavy influence, as christianity has been on the UK lawbooks even if most of the people here are not christian any more).

We are perhaps at cross purposes here - it is saudi and other repressive tribal islamic states and the values they espouse that I have a problem with, and these are the very values KingRamsis tries (and fails) to defend.

I still think religion is a backward force (and not just islam) and that people the world over would be better were it gone, but that is an argument I could have with a believer in any faith.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
that would be my point :) (none / 0) (#933)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:28:33 PM EST

>We are perhaps at cross purposes here - it is saudi and other repressive tribal islamic states and the values they espouse that I have a problem with, and these are the very values KingRamsis tries (and fails) to defend.

Islam's not cut and dried as you would like to think of it; but up until this point there has not been a differentiation between Islamic varieties.  And this does not even begin to address how Islam has spread outside of the middle-east :)  There are (as I understand it) a number of muslims in China (and other countries) as well, with their own traditions they incorporate in their interpretation of the Quran.  

Pretty much all Muslims (at least Sunni and Shia) though, will take extreme offense at depicting either Mohammed or Allah; its specifically verboten.

One last point, and this is something that I have seen time and time again since first starting my conversations with Westerners; really, the things that you would consider unacceptable and/or desireable are not necessarily valued the same in the Middle East.  It would do you well to listen and *observe* what a _BROAD_ spectrum of people from the middle east consider important, if only to gain a perspective on what you value (and why) in turn.  

I think (personally) that such an exchange would be invaluable in _BOTH_ directions, as I have my own seperate criticism of Egyptian culture (which stem from what I have gained from being born and raised Stateside).  It is a conversation I often attempt with people from both sides of the divide :)

[ Parent ]

Yes, I know different cultures (none / 1) (#938)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:54:07 PM EST

have different values. The point I have been trying to make all along though is that those so-called "values" in some of the muslim states (saudi, pakistan, Iran) include the institutionalised oppression and abuse of women, amongst other things, and as such are not tolerable to us. It doesn't matter if it's someone else's "values" because their values include denying freedom to others.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
It must be true. It's IN the Koran. (3.00 / 5) (#282)
by dxh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:07:46 PM EST


It all must be true... after all "It's in the Koran"(video)

ROFLMAO! (nt) (none / 0) (#529)
by jubal3 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:20:18 PM EST




***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
Islam as a civilizing force (2.00 / 2) (#292)
by xnixman on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:42:12 PM EST

Was Islam really a major civilizing force? As I understand (and I am certainly no expert (or even well read) on this subject) the wars, tribal conflicts, etc pretty much continued up until oil being discovered around the time of WW2. At this point political stability was required and outside influences led to basically the situation we have today in the middle east (with regard to the leadership). X

Actually chaos (none / 0) (#294)
by KingRamsis on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:49:26 PM EST

started with the fall of the ottman empire, plus the transition periods of successive Islamic states.

[ Parent ]
influence of Islam (2.00 / 2) (#323)
by cronian on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:38:34 AM EST

If Islam is a civilizing force, they why are muslims still so into all the honor nonsense? Today, Palestinians send their children off to blow themselves up.

Although, I believe the Ottoman empire was backward in that respect as well. When a new prince suceeded they would put all their brothers to death. Even when that was given up, they would still fuck up the non-suceeding brothers. They also didn't bother getting doing the work of the running empire. Instead, they took Jews and Christians as slaves, forced them to convert to islam, and had them run their empire, threatening them with death.

WHy couldn't muslims come up with a reasonable system of governance. Why does all involve forcing everyone give up everything for their family, islam, or what have you?

I don't think it is right to wish for people to die, regardless of the circumstances. Even if the death penalty may be used in some circumstances, it isn't a good thing that it has to happened. However, 'Palestinians', and other muslims seem to believe it is OK to support or even encourage their children to blow themselves up.

While Muslim groups may have grievances with Israel, the US, and whoever else, that is not what I see. All I hear in the media muslim views is: destroy Israel, destroy America, destroy all the Jews along with assorted complaints about America interfering with the middle east, or about Israel mistreating 'Palestinians', etc. The only real alternatives I have heard about the for the middle east are maintaining the status quo, fundamentalist Islam, and destroying Islam to make way for westernization akin to the young Turks. None of these alternatives really sound very reasonable. Although, you may believe otherwise. While you may not like Israel, I challenge you to show that the PLO of Hamas can do better job of governing. Whatever you think of America, do you really believe the Saudis have a better system of government?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
It looks like a silly claim ... (none / 0) (#535)
by ionajn on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:05:57 PM EST

They also didn't bother getting doing the work of the running empire. Instead, they took Jews and Christians as slaves, forced them to convert to islam, and had them run their empire, threatening them with death.

... but I think they really did something like that. However I also think that the Ottoman rulers weren't real Muslims, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter anyway...


[ Parent ]

link (none / 0) (#540)
by cronian on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:14:41 AM EST

This site and there is also an article on wikipedia. I first learned about the system in my high school class on the middle eastern history--thank the multiculturalism curriculum.

The apoligists claim that the slaves had powerful positions, and didn't really have a bad life, blah blah blah. However, because they were slaves they could be killed at the sultan's whim.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 0) (#564)
by ionajn on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 03:27:54 PM EST

Anyone could be killed at the padishah's whim. We're talking about 14th-17th centuries here. I guess I don't need to quote; your first source clearly explains that it is not more of a slavery than any other military system of the time. It was slavery because there was no consent, but in some aspects it was also considered a military career and even a prestigious position.

Slavery continued all over the world for 3 more centuries.

I quoted you because 'to enslave people and then make them run your empire' sounded quite funny, considering it really happened. I don't think Islam is a 'civilizing force'. But your argument doesn't prove otherwise for various reasons.


[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#582)
by cronian on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:24:18 AM EST

My main point was simply that the empire couldn't rely on recruiting its own Muslim subjects to run the empire. To an extent, I was believe this was done to keep tribal rivalries from messing up the government.

To be fair, the situation of the 'slaves' probably wasn't all that different from children sent to an elite boarding schools and colleges. Of course, the schools were probably more attune to way things were at that period, and parents had little consent in this process.

However, I wouldn't quite equate it to modern conscription. The children were pretty much taken at birth. I suppose this might be comparable to some of the traditional Spartan practices.

Although, if study schooling and indoctrination, I think the use of slavery to describe their condition is quite accurate. Even if they were put into a supposedly priveledged position, they were first cut off from their family and heavily indoctrinated. Even if they, 'willfully' went along with things, I think the indoctrination could possibly constitute a sort of psychological slavery.

The power of indoctrination is well recognized today. Companies buy commercials. Hamas doesn't appear to have too difficult of a time convincing people to blow themselves up.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
I agree with these points. (n/t) (none / 0) (#609)
by ionajn on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:47:46 PM EST



[ Parent ]
civilizing force (1.50 / 2) (#353)
by Muslim on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:59:47 AM EST

let me see...
algebra
democracy(first democracy in world history!)
schools
universities (tho i am not sure if the Azhar university is the earliest)
the renaissance (due to interaction of the crusaders with muslims)
and more
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]
Ahlaaan ya baladyat !! (none / 0) (#355)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:19:04 AM EST

I hope you liked the article.

[ Parent ]
the renaissance? (none / 0) (#366)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:28:11 AM EST

Due to interaction between crusaders and muslims?

LMFAO.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 1) (#436)
by Kal on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:41:49 PM EST

democracy(first democracy in world history!)

You sure about that?

[ Parent ]
First Democracy???? TRY GREECE!! YOU ISLAMIC TARD! (none / 1) (#437)
by dxh on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:54:22 PM EST


hehe..really just kidding in the subject, I don't think your really a tard.

But, never the less..The first known example of democracy was Greece.  

And please, name a single democracy in the Arab world??  Because there are none.  Arabs love their brutal dictators and religious zelot freak Mullahs and Imamas.

Hmmmmm...Oh yeah there is Iraq.... Of course admiting that this is the only democracy would have to admit that the USA is acting as a positive force in the Arab world.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 1) (#439)
by Kal on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:18:55 PM EST

hehe..really just kidding in the subject, I don't think your really a tard.

Well, I won't be taking offense since I don't think you mean to be replying to me anyway seeing that I was questioning the same point :)

[ Parent ]
The arab's COPIED the numbers from the BUDDISTS! (1.00 / 2) (#314)
by dxh on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:29:51 PM EST

Buddhist inscriptions from around 300 B.C. use the symbols which became 1, 4 and 6.

One century later (200BC), their use of the symbols which became 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 was recorded.

The system was actually adopted by the Arabs in the 8th century AD, when they started to copy them from people of the Indian continent.

overwhelmed (3.00 / 2) (#315)
by carsamba on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:18:41 PM EST

I feel like the one eyed (whatever) in the country of the blind.
It's not the symbols for the numerals that's important. The numerals by themselves are called hindu-arabic, as they were invented in India and transmitted through Arabia. The discovery of `zero` denoting a `decimal` system, is what's important, when the roman numeration was prevalent. The roman numerals look quite noble as numbers, but they quite inhibit any arithmetic manipulation (try multiplying mcmdxii with, say, lxii for instance, you'll see). And I also do wish people were a teeny bit more knowledgeable, or had resorted to a bit of googling before typing in such stuff.
As another bone of contention, let me throw down another fukkin word: "algebra"

tbc..

[ Parent ]
How vain (1.33 / 3) (#330)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:45:02 AM EST

arab "algebra" was essentially some primitive methods to solve everyday problems with linear equations. I'm pretty sure that they stole that from the greeks. Everything from then on in algebra (and let me tell you, it's huuuuuge), is a western invention.

In other words, muslims stole everything and it spread to us by trade, and when we got it we developed it in ways that make the original look completely insignificant (a set with measure zero lol!)

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

I have a good memory of a muslim guy (2.50 / 2) (#324)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:43:41 AM EST

I discussed religion with a muslim on Usenet quite a few years ago.

That guy argued that:

  1. The Rushdie fatwa was OK -- it is forbidden for muslims to blaspheme.
  2. Islam is obviously true, since muslim scholars haven't published any proofs that the religion is wrong...
The fun part was that he didn't realize the problem with his argument.

(This was in email, when posting he was politically correct about Rushdie...)

ofcourse his logic is flawed (none / 1) (#328)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:35:00 AM EST

(1) Regarding the fatwa only Iran issued it and Iran is a special Muslim country, the talentless-Rushide book was a failure by design if wasn't for all this free publicity

(2) please understand that we don't think that scholars are above error, and that is the beauty of Islam, so many times scholars who lived in the same age or in different ages disagree, and we as Muslims are required to take the easiest to follow.
Unlike the church scholars who speak on behalf of God all time, only prophet Mohammed was entitled to this and his original teachings are available for interpretation.

Back to his argument I think you misunderstood him or he delivered it in a ambiguous way we certainly cannot conclude that Islam is right just because the scholars say so, but because of personal faith as the number one reason, I know many westerners who converted to Islam and what the scholars said had no influence or authority on their thinking prior to Islam.

[ Parent ]
How much is politically correct whitewash? (none / 1) (#333)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:00:38 AM EST

Given, the guy I argued with was an idiot -- but he had the brains to be politically correct in a public discussion with western people.

About Rushdie:
I believe that the common attitude in muslim countries is that the Quran proclaims war on apostates. (They are also promised to be put into Hell, etc.) The persecutions of translators, publishers etc of his book were not just done by Iranians. This seems to be contradicted when discussed in English!

Then we have the numerous cases of horrible antisemitism in state controlled/censored(!) media in the arab/persian world.

I have to wonder. How much of this nice image of Islam is political correct whitewash?

When you look at how the muslims act in reality, they torch embassies over cartoons!

The Xians don't exactly do that. To see something really blasphemous, look at this. Afaik, no Xian has murdered artists over that or similar...

It do look similar to communists or Xians arguing that mass murders and persecution isn't the true religion...

[ Parent ]

typical zero (none / 1) (#335)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:38:04 AM EST

PC is not that common in the middle east as you probably noticed.

Regarding Rushdie and why do Muslim jump to guns (not literally) and take more dramatic action than the cool headed westerns I will paste from my previous post:

The western culture divorced the church (rightfully IMHO), but in the east we still hold to our religious beliefs more strongly.
We don't consider Islam to be a human invention but a Godly intervention, so we cannot mock, question or insult God's words.

The church abused it's powers and thus shunned by the west, it is not the case with the east.

You are right about the Quran I will address this in the next or third story, "The Jihad Prophet".

Then we have the numerous cases of horrible antisemitism in state controlled/censored(!) media in the arab/persian world.
See I told you almost 0 PC, I also like to point out that Arabs are also semitic.

Regarding the stupid attack on embassies I am so disappointed the boycotting was the civil way and was much more effective, but again the Syrian regime is a retarded directorship.


[ Parent ]
*directorship=dictatorship (none / 0) (#336)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:40:06 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Wow... I am shocked (none / 1) (#341)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:41:38 AM EST

PC is not that common in the middle east as you probably noticed.
My specific question was -- how much of this humane and tolerant islam is real? How much is it a Potemkin village?

We don't consider Islam to be a human invention but a Godly intervention, so we cannot mock, question or insult God's words.

You approve of not allowing parody, humor and free speech regarding religion?

OK, I recognize this. It is exactly the same position the Xian churches had a few hundred years ago. It is hard not to just think of Islam as backwards and when human rights reach the Arab countries, they will become civilized.

[About Middle East media being full of antisemtic attacks worthy of Mein Kampf:]
See I told you almost 0 PC, I also like to point out that Arabs are also semitic.
The word antisemitic has a specific meaning. A large percentage of all words change meanings during history. To note that a word has some previous/other use is not a counterargument.

OK, so you are not shocked by flat out racism and hatred of other people and their religions -- if done by moslems?

It also sounds like you approve of killing people leaving Islam?

Uhm, well.. I lack words. :-)

[ Parent ]

as I said in previous posts (none / 0) (#345)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:51:57 AM EST

We don't hate the Jewish people, our problem is with militant zionists murdering people.

It is exactly the same position the Xian churches had a few hundred years ago. It is hard not to just think of Islam as backwards

Newer is not always better, instead of saying Islam is backward why not say the west lost it's faith over time ?

[ Parent ]
But don't you understand (3.00 / 2) (#347)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:58:30 AM EST

that losing religious faith is a good thing? We have science, and hope, whereas, you have a nutty death cult and a lot of rocks and sand.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
with all seriousness in the world (none / 0) (#349)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:09:02 AM EST

science is not the answer to everything, it only provides means to live comfortably nothing less or more.

I am not saying lets go back to the stone age I am saying that science alone is not enough.

[ Parent ]
better no answer than a nutty one (2.66 / 3) (#352)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:28:27 AM EST

science is quite nicely complemented by (secular) humanism. I suggest that you read up on that.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
Don't you understand or don't you want to answer? (3.00 / 2) (#351)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:24:47 AM EST

We don't hate the Jewish people, our problem is with militant zionists murdering people.
That is not a relevant answer. I gave a reference to denials of the holocaust, etc, etc. Check memritv.org/subjects.asp.

That is pure racism that haven't been seen in the west since Germany in the 1930:s.

(I have not seen any criticism of memri that claims any of the documented antisemitism is created in translation.)

Then, you have totally different standards for Israel's behaviour and e.g. Sudan or Libya's destabilization of West Africa. Both have resulted in the deaths of lots of black christians and muslims. Both cases make Israel look like a rounding errors, even using a Palestinian description of Israel.

There seems to be double standards at work here that are factors of ten in difference for jews and for muslims.

Based on those points, it is hard to have any other opinion than pure hatred of jews is the motivating factor for muslims regarding Israel.

Am I clear enough now?

[ Parent ]

oh that MEMRI TV (none / 0) (#357)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:35:25 AM EST

the well funded media outlet of the Mossad, honest people indeed I am sure that if someone farted towards Israel they will be reporting it "unbaised" as usual.

[ Parent ]
I am not going to get any answers (none / 1) (#407)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:19:45 PM EST

As I wrote, I have read the criticism of memri (*). All the instances of holocaust denial and pure hatred of jews are well documented in other places, too. Which contradicts your statement "We don't hate the Jewish people".

You still haven't commented on what you think of killing of apostates, by the way.

But I am obviously not going to get any answers.

(*) There seems to be two points of criticism of memri. It is jews that translate the arab/persian media and you can find minor translation errors if you look for them. Neither is serious, unless you are a fanatic that try a whitewash.

No one disputes that this is common in state controlled (and/or censored) muslim media:
Denial of the holocaust and shocking antisemitism worthy of nazi Germany. You can find the same in arab sources in the western world.

I am interested in seeing any other criticism, to update my world view. But I am frankly not holding my breath.

[ Parent ]

I will need to consult a scholar to (none / 0) (#408)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:31:16 PM EST

give you more accurate answers.

I will try to cover it in my next parts.


[ Parent ]
Even if MEMRI is funded by the Mossad.. (none / 0) (#433)
by Apuleius on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:32:44 PM EST

.. it is still telling the truth. Doesn't it suck to have the truth side against you?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Mossad? (none / 0) (#444)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:38:17 PM EST

The truth ? in one sentence ? you are extremely naive, don't you know that hand pick half truths and only carry extremists point of views so that they can justify to the world the thread of the Islamic terror.

Please speak the truth or shut up.

[ Parent ]
Well then... (none / 1) (#446)
by Apuleius on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:24:12 PM EST

If MEMRI's translations are skewed toward the unflattering side of the Arabic media, start your own service.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You are full of it (none / 1) (#452)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:50:00 PM EST

The truth ? in one sentence ? you are extremely naive, don't you know that hand pick half truths
I have already pointed to memritv's long list of transcriptions. Hardly half truths.

I have read the criticism and tried to discuss it with arabs.

You can get the original tv sequence from memri. If memri invented all those antisemitic tv discussions it would be known by now -- this because memri is something you muslims get to hear often in discussions.

Your only complaint is that jews do the translation. That is enough for muslims..?

[ Parent ]

Appealing to your integrity (none / 0) (#454)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:58:30 PM EST

..and reason.

Are you sure that the Mossad funded MEMRI TV will cover Islam in an unbiased manner? I've seen MEMRI they hand picked every extremist view and put it there.

Can you find me one tolerant Muslim talking in MEMRI ?

If we accepted MEMRI's point of view then all of the Muslim country are raging religious extremists who are out there to get the jews.

[ Parent ]
Media is state controlled in the middle east (2.66 / 3) (#456)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:18:55 AM EST

If we accepted MEMRI's point of view then all of the Muslim country are raging religious extremists who are out there to get the jews.
Media is largely state controlled and/or censored in the middle east.

So if something isn't popular with the regimes, it won't be shown.

Exactly that kind of antisemitism has also been found being sold in e.g. Swedish mosques...

[ Parent ]

You are mixing things now (none / 0) (#458)
by KingRamsis on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:29:48 AM EST

Did I reference arab media in anyway ?

Yes arab media is BS (Al jazeera maybe an exception).
The point now is MEMRI do you consider it a neutral source of information ?

Being associated with Mossad automatically disqualifies it as a reliable source.

[ Parent ]
No, YOU mix things (3.00 / 4) (#460)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:55:07 AM EST

I seriously think that you try to avoid the subject.
Yes arab media is BS
[...]
The point now is MEMRI do you consider it a neutral source of information ?
Translations are easy to check, since you can get the originals from memri.

That means that I DO trust that the long transcriptions from tv with antisemitism.

Otherwise, you could easily find lots of sources showing they faked them. It is obviously enough for muslim's that jews say something to disqualify it.

Again, media are state censored or outright controlled in the Middle East.

The point is that we consider attacks on people because of race, religion, etc bad in the west. Such things are obviously allowed in middle eastern media.

And muslim's doesn't seem outraged. They do react over some cartoons, instead...

(What is allowed in the west is to attack people's opinions in quite a savage way. Experience has shown that it works better.)

[ Parent ]

Oh boy (none / 0) (#461)
by KingRamsis on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:37:44 AM EST

Even if I accept that MEMRI is accurate in the translation (which is questionable by your own admission earlier) my point is MEMRI are emphasizing on radicals and extremists ONLY.

Their coverage IS NOT BALANCED.

Not any amount of Arab media bashing will remove the stench of Mossad.



[ Parent ]
Answer the POINTS some DAMN time! (3.00 / 3) (#466)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:58:26 AM EST

my point is MEMRI are emphasizing on radicals and extremists ONLY.
As I have written:
  1. Memri is a source for some of the most respected newspapers in the world like NY Times and Washington Post.
  2. If memri lied about some of all the long translations with antisemitism, we would know about it. No critics of memri publish anything like that.
  3. TV is generally state controlled or actively censored by the dictators, so no extremists would get tv time without approval.
  4. The general muslim population don't exactly burn down tv stations like they were embassies...
  5. The elected president of Iran spouts antisemitism, etc. So do lots of muslim preachers -- even in the west.
  6. So we have to assume some facts about that the levels of racism and antisemitism in the muslim populations of the middle east.
  7. From the above points, it is hard not to think:
    (a) antisemitism is common among muslims
    (b) that you really don't want to discuss this.

Don't try to write of NY Times etc as American (you have almost literally argued that anything from USA and jews are bad). They seem to find more scandals in the US president administration than the rest of the world's media find in the rest of the world's governments. NY Times have lots of fact checkers hired to control anything published and have people around that knows arabic; memri has been checked.

Not any amount of Arab media bashing will remove the stench of Mossad.
Again:
If jews translate something you don't like -- you ignore it. Even though no criticism can be found. (For the tenth time -- If memri lied, it would be published everywhere.)

[ Parent ]
In case you really ARE honest... (3.00 / 2) (#467)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:45:29 AM EST

If you really don't get it (which I frankly doubt), here is the point.

What shocks westerners is that racism and antisemitism is allowed and approved of by the Middle East states -- and that the populations doesn't disapprove.

The easiest career ending move in most west countries would be for a public person to say that some people or some culture (e.g. muslims, black or jews) are evil, idiots, etc on TV.

In many places, it might result in jail time.

Claims that someone's ideas are evil, corrupt or idiotic happens every five minutes, though.

The racist contents of muslim media in the middle east isn't published much here in Sweden, probably just because it is too shocking. It would create very bad attitudes towards muslims in general if known.

[ Parent ]

Not so shocking (none / 0) (#472)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:33:16 AM EST

What shocks westerners is that racism and antisemitism is allowed and approved of by the Middle East states -- and that the populations doesn't disapprove.

Perhaps it is shocking in its ugliness, but it is not at all shocking in its existence.  Without bothering to check the thread to confirm, I am pretty sure you agree with the statement that almost all middle-eastern media is state controlled.

Given that, it is no surprise that the media is full of racism of various forms - it serves the purpose of the state to cultivate an "us versus them" mentality.  It keeps the "us" from realizing that the real "them" are the corrupt ruling elite.

When people are constantly exposed to that stuff, the majority inevitably accept it.  Its called the big lie - we do it here at home all the time, but instead of racism, the media uses threats of terrorism and WMDs to brow-beat the population into focusing on "them" who are outside the country and not the "them" who are actually fucking up the country from the inside.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but the muslim racism is so disgusting... (none / 1) (#474)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 08:47:47 AM EST

I agree with you that Islam is typical of the disgusting effects of dictators' needs for an "external enemy", but... this also seems relevant for the muslims in Europe!

I am disgusted with how easy it is to sell racism to muslims! It doesn't seem to need much to get muslims to hate very few jews on a very small piece of land...

Then, the way this guy tries to smooth over the racism, which he must be aware of... argh.

Of course, I realize that if you go back just a century, there were similar common attitudes in Western Europe. I probably should let my high levels of cynicism take over and not be so disgusted.

(By the way, we should discuss creationism with the muslim guy -- it is a common belief among the primitives both of the Bible Belt and of the Middle East.)

[ Parent ]

Their racism is uglier... (none / 0) (#508)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:03:01 PM EST

...our bombs kill more of their babies.

I think we've got the easy side, somehow.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Apples and hand grenades (none / 0) (#515)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:35:28 PM EST

It is hard to compare racism and deaths in wars.

Western armies just don't aim for babies, period. (Check this for an US-critical article to see some of the complexities of the issue.)

The same can hardly be said for the other side.

[ Parent ]

We do aim for babies. (none / 0) (#558)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:52:23 PM EST

If there's one terrorist hiding in a crowd of civilians, some of whom are holding babies, both Israel and the US will bomb that terrorist anyway.

It's well-documented.

We also bomb ambulances if we think they MIGHT hold the enemy.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Yup, it's one of the reasons I don't like (none / 0) (#559)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:23:16 PM EST

Interventionist foreign policy. USian (and probably UKian) armed forces and secret services have a record of disregarding civilian safety when taking out supposed terrorists with things like hellfire missiles.
<BR We ain't prefect in the west either.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#602)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 08:06:51 AM EST

but I'd still like the bastards who use civilians and babies as human shields to take a share of the rap.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I would like your argument better, if.. (none / 1) (#575)
by BerntB on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:50:35 PM EST

If there's one terrorist hiding in a crowd of civilians, some of whom are holding babies, both Israel and the US will bomb that terrorist anyway.

It's well-documented.

You didn't read my reference, I take it (there is a counter example with Mullah Omar, of all high priority targets.) That is such a generalization that it goes over the border to dishonest lie.

I would like that argument better if the bastards using civilians as shields were critizised a tenth as much as the bombing side for civilian losses.

[ Parent ]

They're fucktards. (none / 0) (#607)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 11:57:34 AM EST

Everyone agrees that those who brainwash young idiots into strapping bombs to themselves are vile, evil murderers.

I don't talk about them, because they don't need glorifying.

But when the authorities - those who we trust to find and punish those murderers - KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY SAVE, then they should be criticised for it.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Still a blanket statement (none / 0) (#631)
by BerntB on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:24:43 AM EST

Everyone agrees that those who brainwash young idiots into strapping bombs to themselves are vile, evil murderers.
Strange, then, that many local political debaters here in Sweden have never critizised some terror groups, but always support them. But ok, it might be different in your area.
But when the authorities - those who we trust to find and punish those murderers - KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY SAVE, then they should be criticised for it.
Everyone (except Bin Laden, Hamas and supporters) thinks that civilians shouldn't be targets. If they are killed needlessly in military action, people should get fired or jailed.

You make a blanket statement, again. Just a milder one.

How about if a dictator takes his own civilians hostage? Say, he makes certain children or other groups are hit hardest by international sanctions. Even though he has resources to keep everyone healthy. Like Saddam Hussein.

There are laws to be followed, here. See my reference. It is critical of US behaviour, from an European perspective.

[ Parent ]

It takes two to tango. (none / 0) (#689)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:47:45 PM EST

If a dictator or a terrorist hides behind civilians so that incoming bullets, bombs or sanctions fall on them, he is committing a crime against humanity. But so are the people who fire the bullets, drop the bombs or impose the sanctions.

Both parties are complicit in the act of brutality that results in misery and death for those between them. Both are equally guilty.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

You are in high school? :-) (none / 0) (#696)
by BerntB on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 03:44:40 PM EST

If a dictator or a terrorist hides behind civilians so that incoming bullets, bombs or sanctions fall on them, he is committing a crime against humanity. But so are the people who fire the bullets, drop the bombs or impose the sanctions.
How nice. I thought the same when I was in high school.

I would love being a dictator if you led the neighboring country. I'd strap a few childs to every tank and roll over the border... To consolidate power I'd start by shooting the old political top level (including you and your relatives). Then I'd raise a stone over you, with "Thanks!" inscribed... (I'd also write in the history books that your country started the war.)

I am no psychopath -- that is, more or less, standard procedure how it was done historically.

Your error is that you apply the normal moral rules that apply inside a modern society with working police force to international conflicts.

There is no police force between countries (except USA, and they only spend tens of billions of dollars to right wrongs when they have money or safety riding on it.)

Relations between countries are more like a clan society without a police force. Read up on the subject -- revenge, murder, theft, looting, etc, etc. If you live in a clan society, the only safety you have is that your relatives and allies will revenge you. If you don't revenge your relatives, no one will revenge you. Means a short life...

Try reading a book on game theory.

If that doesn't make you think, consider:

  • Read the reference I gave. What is your problem with that kind of discussion?
  • The "standard" way of thinking about a population's responsibility is that at least a large minority must support a dictator or he will get kicked out. (What made me believe this was the fall of Easter Europe; almost at once it was clear that no Soviet tanks would do a Hungary/Chech invasion, the communists went out the window).


[ Parent ]
A large minority? (none / 0) (#697)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:04:26 PM EST

what do you mean by a large minority I think the term is a contradiction? and where was that large minority when Baghdad fell within 24 hours?

As much as I hate Saddam I don't think he will go as far as to fabricate an artificial shortage of life sustaining drugs for children and the elderly because people will get angry and riots from within will open an unnecessary internal resistance front, as a matter of fact I think it was in the best of interest of Saddam that the Iraqi people remained content as much as possible, not out of kindness of his heart but to foster stability and focus his armies on the invasion coming from outside Iraq.

[ Parent ]
'Large Minority' (none / 0) (#699)
by Parity on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:32:25 PM EST

A large minority is a number less than half the population, but not very much less than half. So in that way it is not a contradiction. It is a large number, but not large enough to be the majority.
(You may also hear 'substantial minority' from time to time, which might be smaller than a 'large minority' but not by much. Very vague terms, of course.)

As for fabricating shortages of drugs, I haven't studied the Iraq situation that closely, but it is certainly true in other countries that corrupt officials intercept humanitarian shipments of drugs and retail them on the black market for personal profit, leaving the children they were destined for without. It is alleged that Saddam allowed such a thing to happen in his country, knowing that he could blame the shortages on U.S. interference and increase anger against the United States.

I coudn't say for sure whether there were such shortages, or why exactly they happened, but it is plausible either way. Naturally, I would hear it the way I did living on this side of the fence, vested interests in the west being what they are, but that doesn't make it true - nor does it make it untrue.


[ Parent ]

Are you serious?? (none / 0) (#703)
by BerntB on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:06:07 PM EST

My discussion wasn't specific for Iraq, but ok.

(The definition of "large minority" has already been provided. It is also standard tactics to change to guerilla war when an army is beaten, which the Iraqi did.)

As much as I hate Saddam I don't think he will go as far as to fabricate an artificial shortage of life sustaining drugs for children and the elderly because people will get angry
That is possible to blame on an external enemy. Perfect!

What is the moral difference from having jails which torture and murder civilians?

Besides, Saddam even used chemical weapons on his own civilians!

What exactly would the Bath party in Iraq not do??

I don't really have that much of an opinion on the sanctions, since I don't know enough about how well they worked in limiting Saddam's behaviour. They were obviously not liked by the Iraq regime, though.

  1. During the years of sanctions, there were news reports of lots of children dying from lack of medicine.
  2. The suffering of children was the best argument for getting the international community to lift the sanctions
  3. It was well known that the regime earned lots of money from smuggling (even before the UN corruption was known)
  4. The suffering of the children was probably exaggerated (the more suffering -- the larger chance of removal of the sanctions)
  5. The resources got from smuggling was hardly used to get extra food and medicine.

(Of course, the extra mortality for children might have been just lies. That would invalidate my argument.)

I think it was in the best of interest of Saddam that the Iraqi people remained content as much as possible
There were sanctions for quite a few years before that second war was even on the horizon. So they were probably separate issues. I think you have a point; the Iraq goverment made promises and tried to bring up morale when the war became a real threat.

I think dictators want problems and external enemies they can blame them on. Like the Middle Eastern dictators and Israel.

You won't comment on why you think state supported racism is ok, by the way?

Personally, I believe Mugabe and others planned it -- people trying to get food for the day doesn't try to overthrow an oppressive government.

There might be an updated Machiavelli being read these days...

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#522)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:47:35 PM EST

I am disgusted with how easy it is to sell racism to muslims! It doesn't seem to need much to get muslims to hate very few jews on a very small piece of land...

You do realize the irony of your statement, right?

I don't know any muslims in Europe, but the ones I know in the USA, including some who are first generation immigrants from the middle-east, aren't so prone to anti-semitism as you make out.  I have noticed a predlilection for conspiracy theories, but within the bigger picture no more so than the average white guy in the USA either, they are just focused on different topics.

[ Parent ]

Let us hope you're right (none / 0) (#526)
by BerntB on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:40:43 PM EST

You do realize the irony of your statement, right?
Potentially funny, yes. :-) I was quite outraged after trying to get the KingRamsis guy to realize what was wrong with state sanctioned racism...

The muslim attitudes seem so like the 19th century churches. Or even earlier. No different than any other totalitarian teachings that insist on having a total solution for life. Shudder.

[ Parent ]

Because we consider it progress (3.00 / 3) (#365)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:26:12 AM EST

When we stopped blindly obeying the senile rantings of fanatics written down 2000 years ago and more and started trying to live according to reason.

Blind faith to a book written by human hand (even if you do believe it was somehow dictated by a god) is medieval.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
you got what you wanted (1.20 / 5) (#369)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:59:09 AM EST

it is called the west, wealthy yet spiritually deprived, people who don't consider anything sacred or taboo, everything is for sale, they shamefully parade the "Piss Christ Jar" and call it art, they let their daughters and sisters sleep with men without marriage and call it sexual freedom.

Sky rocketing crime, if it wasn't for the armed law enforcment the people their will probably kill each other overnight, I still remember the footage of the police officer who was stealing from Walmart during Katrina.

remember my words to you once a nation loses morals you can kiss it good bye.

The undeniable corruption of politicians in the white house is another sign.

[ Parent ]
You betray your objectiying of women (3.00 / 6) (#373)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:40:16 PM EST

Your deep sexism and one of the major flaws of your culture/religion.
...let their daughters and sisters sleep with men...
This is a very good 'tell' about your oppressive attitudes. We don't 'let' our sisters and daughters do anything - they make their own choices, just like the males.

As for the rest - if you're trying to point out my ignorance of the islamic world by coming across as supremely ignorant of the western world then you succeeded. Your propagandists have clearly done their job well.

Why is it that you fucked up religious types all think that without the belief in some sort of overlord who will beat you with a bloody big stick if you step out of line people would go around murdering each other? Perhaps you should keep your religion, you must all be sociopathic underneath it all.

And, by the way, I'd much rather have a skyrocketing rate of vandalism and robbery than have a society where murder of women for offences against some sort of notion of honour is considered acceptable.

There is no honour in murder.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I am sorry I stand corrected (2.50 / 4) (#376)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:46:41 PM EST

They also let their brothers and sons have sex with women without marriage and call it sexual freedom.

[ Parent ]
What's with the "let"? (3.00 / 6) (#379)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:57:55 PM EST

There is no let, we do what we choose as fully human sentient individuals.

And what's this obsession with marriage? You seem to think it is some sort of self-evident truth that people having sex without getting married is a bad thing. Marriage is an artificial human social construct, your god (and the xtian one) says he likes it, so fucking what? Perhaps at some time in the distant past when sex more often resulted in children (due to lack of contraception) and a woman pregnant outside of marriage would not be able to support herself, then we might have a compelling reason for marriage.

I have respect for those that want to do it willingly and in this day and age in the west because they are declaring their love publicly. BUT I also know how much misery has been caused in the past by society forcing people into lifelong contracts and threatening them with everything from alienation to capital punishment for daring to be unsatisfied with a choice they made as a child (or even someone else made!!). This is especially dangerous in a context when people (as you obviously do) think of women as objects or property.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Also, on the white house (3.00 / 7) (#377)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:48:16 PM EST

I think the whitehouse is full of nutbags. Most likely corrupt (in a very grey area way, handing contracts to friends, getting large "campaign donations"), definitely crazy in terms of foreign policy, definitely not my government. I live in the UK where it is not so bad.

Note that it is northern Europe, not the US, which is most godless and (in general) most peaceful. Compare these places to the poverty, barbarism and repression of arab countries and if you don't see the advantages our secular society has brought then I suggest your god has blinded you.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
MOST stupid argument I've seen in years (3.00 / 10) (#410)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:41:19 PM EST

Sky rocketing crime, if it wasn't for the armed law enforcment the people their will probably kill each other overnight, I still remember the footage of the police officer who was stealing from Walmart during Katrina.
The Scandinavian countries are among the least religious countries in the west -- and are among the least corrupted in the world.

Bangladesh is a very, very religious muslim country -- and it is on the top three of the most corrupt countries in the world!

You can easily find more examples like that.

And regarding crime, let my just say that there is an overrepresentation of muslims in the local crime statistics...

You just got onto my list of stories:
"I saw this muslim guy on the internet that thought the west world was bad -- since we had more corruption!"

Seriously, this is on my top list of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen.

[ Parent ]

MOST Stupid counter argument also (none / 1) (#411)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:12:25 PM EST

if by corruption you mean a poor clerk in a third world country asking for a bribe to feed his kids because the US-backed dictator ruling his country is stealing all the money ... then yes the Arab world is *very * corrupt.

Tell me who got hurt by the corruption in Bangladesh except the natives there?

and FYI Bangladesh is not very very very religous as you claim.

on the other hand the corruption of Bush and the neocons is causing wars and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

let my just say that there is an overrepresentation of Muslims in the local crime statistics
Can you back this claim?

Seriously, this is on my top list of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen.

WOW I am SO happy for you. what other stupid things you collect?

[ Parent ]
And the neocons are allied with.....? (3.00 / 3) (#412)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:32:54 PM EST

Fundamentalist christians! Bush claims god speaks to him! And This is half the reason his red-state consituents vote for the republicans.

Religion = teh evil.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Not a relevant argument (3.00 / 4) (#427)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:11:22 PM EST

and FYI Bangladesh is not very very very religous as you claim.
If you compare to e.g. Saudi Arabia, I guess it is even worse.

I took Bangladesh as an example because I know people from there, so I have read up a bit. Compared to any country I've even heard of, Bangladesh is both an incredibly religious country and a terrible place.

Tell me who got hurt by the corruption in Bangladesh except the natives there?
You argued that western police and other groups had bad morals and were corrupt. I wrote that it is much less so compared to muslim countries. This is based on most everything I know and can find sources of.

That the local population is the one hurt by crime and corruption is true in all countries.

Frankly, it looks like you have no counter argument and is grabbing for straws.

let my just say that there is an overrepresentation of Muslims in the local crime statistics
Can you back this claim?
Local Swedish statistics, over the last fifteen years. There are lots of immigrants from Iran and Iraq. A factor of 3-4 per capita. Higher over representation for more serious crime. Yes, we are talking e.g. rape, here.

(Before you accuse the local media of lying -- they try to whitewash this to minimize outrage. Compare that to media in the Middle East with blatant racism...)

[ Parent ]

This was also totally wrong... :-) (none / 1) (#428)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:18:18 PM EST

if by corruption you mean a poor clerk in a third world country asking for a bribe to feed his kids because the US-backed dictator ruling his country is stealing all the money ... then yes the Arab world is *very * corrupt.
So you argue that muslem countries having trouble with the US should not be corrupt police states..? :-)

I am sorry, but Transparency International and HRW doesn't exactly agree with you.

[ Parent ]

no ! (none / 0) (#442)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:14:51 PM EST

Just because they are US-backed does not mean the relation is cozy all time, the number one example is : Saddam Hussien

[ Parent ]
You are a fanatic (3.00 / 6) (#453)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:54:02 PM EST

You claimed that muslim states are "better" than the western countries in humanism and less corruption.

I answered that the countries with lowest corruption and low crime are the post-religious scandinavian countries. Religious muslim countries like Bangladesh have really large corruption.

Now you claim that only muslim countries where the leaders never had support from USA are good.

That STILL is not correct!

  • Bangladesh is irrelevant to USA and has always been.
  • The regimes of Syria and Iran has never been supported by USA.
  • Pakistan was frozen out by the west after a military coup, but USA let them in after support was needed to overthrow the Taliban. That regime is the same before as after us support.
  • The talibans

All of those are places where the population just would prefer to leave...

What ideal countries would you recommend? The talibans -- with public executions? :-)

Which religious muslim countries are NOT pieces of s..t corrupt police countries??

I already know the answer -- the reason there are no muslim countries fulfilling your claim of being better than the western democracies, is USA.

Just explain the method USA used... :-)

You really has shown your true color here, fanatic.

[ Parent ]

Question + Note (3.00 / 4) (#434)
by nidarus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:56:23 PM EST

because the US-backed dictator ruling his country is stealing all the money

Like the US-backed dictator that runs your country? As in, are you a dissident? What's the likelihood of you going to jail for posting here?

Also, on a slightly more on-topic note:

Tell me who got hurt by the corruption in Bangladesh except the natives there?

This is an irrelevant question when dealing with corruption. "Corruption", at least in the sense of the parent comment, refers to how common bribes, protectionism and embezzlement are in a given country, especially in its goverment. You might mean "moral corruption" of some sort, which is a completely different thing.

[ Parent ]

Morals (3.00 / 7) (#415)
by Lacero on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:21:51 PM EST

people who don't consider anything sacred or taboo

Burning embassies is taboo, free speech is sacred. This is true to the point where people who disagree with it are allowed to participate in the debate.

Less faecitiously there are many little rules people follow, often without knowing they're following rules. Not talking to strangers on the underground is one, and in the UK you should never push in front of somoene else in a queue.

Sky rocketing crime, if it wasn't for the armed law enforcment the people their will probably kill each other overnight, I still remember the footage of the police officer who was stealing from Walmart during Katrina.

I think you should read more about Europe, and even Japan. Japan doesn't appear religious at all, and it's low crime rate has nothing to do with religion. It is religious, but certainly not in the way you mean.

remember my words to you once a nation loses morals you can kiss it good bye.

You seem to think rules governing behaviour can only come from a book and must be justified by the divine, this is completely wrong. Western society has many rules, they're just not unanimously agreed on and they're not written down.

We have morals, and they're different to yours.

[ Parent ]

You got it too and worse (3.00 / 11) (#419)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:43:30 PM EST

Sky rocketing crime, if it wasn't for the armed law enforcment the people their will probably kill each other overnight,

You seem to have an awfully ignorant view of the law enforcement in most middle-eastern countries.  They tend to be a lot more free with their weaponry and lot less accountable.

they shamefully parade the "Piss Christ Jar" and call it art,

Guess what - art is about generating an emotional reaction.  You just participated in the art of the "Piss Christ."  Feel dirty now?

they let their daughters and sisters sleep with men without marriage and call it sexual freedom.

Yet, in the the middle-east they let the men and boys sleep around don't complain about it at all.   The west believes in equality, for good and bad with the belief that in the long run the good of equality out weighs the bad.

remember my words to you once a nation loses morals you can kiss it good bye.

The undeniable corruption of politicians in the white house is another sign.

You are joking right?  Most of the governments of the middle-east are at least as corrupt as the US.  The only difference is that the US has at least some level of accountability.

My in-laws just finished Hajj safely, but we were worried for a while -- the whole slaughter of people at the ritual stoning is absolute proof of endemic corruption in the country.  That shit has been going on for years, if not decades and the people in charge still had the gaul to say, "there is nothing we could have done to prevent it."

The US has its share of fuckups, but we at least have accountability-feedback designed into the system.  New Orleans was a collosal fuck-up, but I guarantee that it will never happen again, nor will something like that happen in another US city because despite the low-level graft that occurs here, the public officials are still accountable to the public.

The house of saud doesn't give a shit all those people died during Hajj because they have no accountability to anyone outside the royal family.   That's why it keeps happening over and over again.  In most of the middle-east, in fact in most islamic countries, including the ones in SE asia,    we see exactly the same kind of lack of accountability.

So, for all its flaws, at least the west knows that power breeds corruption and we have social systems designed to deal with it.  Unlike most islamic countries were the only accountability is to other members of the same ruling class who all look out for each other as it is human nature to do so.

[ Parent ]

Crime isn't skyrocketing in the West. (3.00 / 5) (#420)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:47:05 PM EST

Not in the UK anyway. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

Some criminality (especially the synthetic 'drug-related crime') is rising, while other crime is falling. Media reporting of crime is skyrocketing, which is what gives rise to the mistaken impression that crime itself is much more of a problem than it was in past generations. It's not.

In 18th Century England, gun-armed robbers stalked the highways and preyed upon travellers. We haven't seen that kind of lawlessness in two centuries.

If I was president I would just blow up their fucking shitty island [Aruba] and be done with it - Acidify

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

I'd rather live here (3.00 / 4) (#478)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:14:43 AM EST

than in many a Muslim country. And yes, I do call it sexual freedom to sleep with the man I choose without my father's permission. If sexual freedom isn't making what happens to my own body my choice, then what is?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

You sound just like my grandfather. (3.00 / 2) (#510)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:05:52 PM EST

I suddenly understand at least one Arab Muslim a whole lot better. To me, you're the equivalent of an old codger who constantly complains about "indecent young women these days" and "crime is so bad, the country's going to hell" and "those bastards in Canberra (I'm an Australian, Canberra is our Washington DC) are all crooks".

Thanks! :D

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

ZING! (none / 0) (#573)
by tetsuwan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:41:13 PM EST


Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

The only interesting part of this is: (2.70 / 10) (#326)
by trhurler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:09:52 AM EST

The Quran will be discussed in detail, and I will explain why this book should be respected even if you do not believe in it, I will highlight the moral and ethical guidelines in the Quran, and explain the parts where Muslims are encouraged to kill infidels and frame it in the correct context.
How can you explain to me that I should respect a book that tells people things that I believe are fundamentally wrong?
I will also share with you the bigger picture where Judaism, Christianity and Islam fit and explain why the natural evolution of both faiths is Islam and stress the fact that they all came from the same God.
The only way this sentence even makes sense is if you are a Muslim already. Christians do not think of Islam as the natural evolution of their faith, and even if they completely understood everything about Islam, this would not change their minds. They believe things you do not believe, and vice versa. The same is true of Jews. And for those of us who are none of the above, the idea of a "natural evolution" among religions is almost without meaning.
About the end of this series I will discuss the controversial Jihad subject, and naturally the promised reward of 70 virgins. I will also discuss the accusations directed towards Mohammed for marrying a 9 year old girl and you will be surprised of the outcome, from this incident and others you will discover that the typical stereotypes of Muslim women is as accurate as the Hollywood portrayal of Soviets during the cold war.
I've heard this story before. Just as Christians twist their faith when dealing with outsiders in order to show them how great it is, but then behave differently among themselves, so do members of other religions, including Islam. The truth is, the rewards, behaviors, treatment of women, and so on under Islam are exactly what you'd expect from a man who grew up in a tribal society that treated women as property and in which life was primitive. Remove those two elements, and 99% of what's in the Koran doesn't even make sense.

By the way, Hollywood's depiction of Soviets as a bunch of power mad drunks actually turns out to have been mostly accurate if you're talking about their government.
Finally the troubled relation between Judaism and Islam, the origin of conflict and why I personally pity some of Jewish people for being fooled by the racist Zionist movement, and I will even refer to you honest Jews including rabbis who stood against Zionism knowing very well that true Judaism has nothing to do with it.
The origin of the conflict is that the Jews were there and the Arabs decided to engage in some jihad. By the time Islam came into existence, the Jewish people were long since peaceful and oppressed rather than oppressors. A bunch of bearded Arabs so obsessed with sex that they required women to completely cover themselves lest the men assault them in the streets decided that ancestral Jewish lands were actually their holy lands and proceeded to slaughter, enslave, or exile anyone who disagreed.

As for "Zionism," for most purposes, it doesn't even exist, if it ever really did. On the other hand, if you want to talk about racism, please explain why the Palestinians use Nazi anti-Jew propaganda as textbooks for school children.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Good and bad. (2.40 / 5) (#342)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:43:25 AM EST

A shame you mix some good points with some pig ignorance. Just take one sentence...

As for "Zionism," for most purposes, it doesn't even exist, if it ever really did. On the other hand, if you want to talk about racism, please explain why the Palestinians use Nazi anti-Jew propaganda as textbooks for school children.

To deny the existence of Zionism is just daft. Zionism is simply the belief that Jews should have their own state in the Middle East. If that opinion doesn't exist, where did the state of Israel come from? Did it just materialise out of this air?

Now your point about the education of Palestinian schoolchildren is a heavyweight blow. That question demands an answer.

As it is though, you've disarmed youself by mixing your good, valid points in with you opinionated hot air. I don't begrudge you the hot air - you've every right to your opinions. But surely you can see that you'd be more effective if you clearly separated them from your more substantive arguments?

Reading K5 is like watching a retard trying to tie his shoelaces. Entertaining, but also a little bit sad.
- Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand


intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

nice way (none / 1) (#370)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:05:28 PM EST

of not addressing any issues that he raised, faggot.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
sidekick thanks for proving all my points -nt (none / 0) (#371)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:15:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
LOL! The truth is... (none / 0) (#406)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:15:46 PM EST

DJ Allah lives in his Mom's basement.

Reading K5 is like watching a retard trying to tie his shoelaces. Entertaining, but also a little bit sad.
- Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand


intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

Nope (2.50 / 4) (#403)
by trhurler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:06:49 PM EST

To deny the existence of Zionism is just daft. Zionism is simply the belief that Jews should have their own state in the Middle East.
To be considered Jewish, you must either convert (they don't encourage it, but they won't stop you,) or have Jewish ancestry (which is not a single race, being as there are Jews all over the world.) Furthermore, there are non-Jewish people who have full citizenship in Israel. If Zionism only means a belief that Israel should exist, then it is not racist at all. However, when Muslims use the word "Zionism," they mean MUCH more than this, and all that extra crap just isn't true. This is what I meant by "for most purposes." (As an aside, compare freedom of non-Jewish citizens of Israel to the supposed freedom of non-Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia and so on. Aren't those "facts" pesky?)
Now your point about the education of Palestinian schoolchildren is a heavyweight blow. That question demands an answer.
I could as well ask why the Palestinian Authority still tells its people that Israel will be destroyed and they'll get to drive the Jews into the sea and rape their women and so on. They say one thing when speaking in English, and something entirely different when speaking in Arabic, and somehow they think we're too stupid to figure it out. Or I could ask why the "racist" state of Israel has full citizens who are Arab Muslims while all the theocracies and dictatorships that surround it basically deny any and all rights to anyone who isn't a native Muslim male, and who is really the more "racist?" I could go on all day, because the fact is, the non-Israeli parts of the middle east are run more or less as Europe was in the 1300s.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Where's Baldrson when you need him? (2.66 / 3) (#338)
by nlscb on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:49:04 AM EST

Baldrson vs. KingRamsis - round one ... FIGHT!

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

with all due respect (none / 0) (#339)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:04:10 AM EST

to Baldrson but I think we are totally different.
I disagree with him on alot of things, but I must admire his persistence.

[ Parent ]
AAAH! You used the words "admire" and (3.00 / 2) (#364)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:19:10 AM EST

"Balrdson" in the same two-sentence post! OMG!

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
And I... (none / 0) (#585)
by LodeRunner on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:53:26 AM EST

...admire those who bash Baldrson at every occasion.

There, I used it in the very same sentence!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

A New Beginning (2.50 / 2) (#340)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:34:36 AM EST

A report by the US Council on Foreign Relations, based on interviews with educated Egyptians and Moroccans. Interesting stuff:

A New Beginning: Strategies for a More Fruitful Dialogue with the Muslim World

"The news broadcasts are very biased to America; they even call the Iraqis "terrorists" not "freedom fighters."
--Moroccan woman's view of the US Government's Arab-language radio and TV stations.

Try my event calendar plugin for Wordpress.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus

Uh huh (1.75 / 4) (#346)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:45 AM EST

Meanwhile in London...

Another placard nearby said: "Britain you will pay -- 7/7 is on its way."

Another declared: "Behead those who insult Islam." Another said: "Free speech go to hell."

The mob met after Friday prayers outside Regent's Park mosque in central London and marched through the streets towards the Danish embassy on Sloane Street. Denmark was the first to publish the cartoons.

Shouts of "We adore Osama Bin Laden" rang out from a small section of the crowd along with "Denmark watch your back -- Osama's coming back."

Many in the crowd waved their provocative placards and screamed their hatred towards Europe. One read: "Europe -- take some lessons from 9-11", while another warned: "Europe you will pay."

Two children, aged about six, sat on top of a car with a placard saying: "Black flag over Downing Street."

In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Muslim leaders vowed revenge for the "blasphemous" cartoons. One preacher told worshippers: "We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible."

These are not the kinds of people you can establish a dialogue with. These are the kinds which you shoot to kill, and then throw some granades among, just to make sure.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

mean while (none / 1) (#348)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:02:01 AM EST

in the rest of the world 1 billion Muslims shook their heads feeling sorry for the small vocal minority giving us a bad name.

if the all the Muslims agreed on violence then i would start running if were you.

Lets thank God that the 1 billion don't share the same opinion.

Muslims if you are reading this BOYCOTT only, it is more effective.

[ Parent ]
pretty lame (1.50 / 2) (#350)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:21:25 AM EST

if they're such a small minority then why don't you just ZERG RUSH them? Allah willing, if that one billion had any sense left they would splatter those idiots all over the walls.

So what's going on?

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 1) (#448)
by codejack on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:28:47 PM EST

That's like asking why you don't "ZERG RUSH" the Southern Baptist Convention; They are equivalent. Or do you not consider bombing abortion clinics terrorism?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Silent Majority? (2.66 / 9) (#363)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:18:29 AM EST

...I decided to step out from the shadows of the silent majority...

Perhaps if this silent, so-called majority stepped out of the shadows and tried to deal with rot and extremism in side the muslim world then you wouldn't have to worry about western attitudes.

the whole problem with the dialogue situation is that yes, westerners are overreacting to a whole group of people (muslims) in an undesirable way BUT however much of an overreaction it is, it is not baseless.

We hear calls for punishment and death, flag burning and violent angry protest very frequently, and over what? Well this time some newspaper in a free country printed some cartoon.

Muslims take themselves and their religion far too seriously IMHO. Step back, have alaugh at the stupid infidels who are going to hell, and get on with your life.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
I know it's not your whole point, (none / 0) (#368)
by daani on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:52:11 AM EST

but is flag-burning and angry protest not free-speech of equal legitimacy to blasphemy?

Actual violence or incitement thereof is of course a different matter.

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, I don't suggest it be banned (3.00 / 4) (#374)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:42:29 PM EST

I just suggest it's a rather stupid reaction. Protest the newspaper, call for the journalist to be sacked, whatever. But boycotting a whole county over the actions of a small group is nuts - the government doesn't have control over them and neither does anyone else.

basically it gives away that muslims think that we should all be living under an authoritarian theocratic regime.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
commerical boycott is a form (3.00 / 4) (#378)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:52:38 PM EST

of political expression, it is like everyone in the world knows this fact except you !

The US -> Boycotting Cuba over one old guy called Castro

US -> Boycotting Iraq killing thousands of children because one guy called Saddam

Shafez plans to boycott the US and not sell it any oil ... POLITICAL EXPRESSION.

[ Parent ]
You really are retarded aren't you? (2.33 / 3) (#380)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:02:30 PM EST

US-> Cuba: Castro is a communist dictator. He runs the show. If you want to bring him down then take action against the country.

US->Iraq: Saddam, mass murdering dictator fuckhead.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXPRESSIONS OF A SINGLE NEWSPAPER ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PEOPLE OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE EDITOR AND CARTOONIST AT THAT NEWSPAPER IN A FREE COUNTRY?

Or do you object to the very idea of a free country where people can say what they like? Because you know that's why the pictures were republished all over europe and got masses more circulation than ever they would without your stupid boycott don't you?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
calling me names (none / 0) (#383)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:10:34 PM EST

is not going to make your silly whacky argument any better.

Who said that the people have nothing to do with it ? a recent poll showed that 81% of denmark people agreed with the cartoons.

and if you keep calling me names I prefer we don't discuss anything at all.



[ Parent ]
My silly argment? (3.00 / 2) (#384)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:15:10 PM EST

My silly argument that you don't hold an entire state responsible for the actions of a few men and their newspaper? That's silly is it.

So far in this and other conversations you haven't addressed any of the points I raised. Care to do that now? Or care to admit you haven't got anything?

To be honest, before this whole episode (the boycotts etc etc) I was willing to listen to the arguments that muslims were just maligned by the press, that we only ever hear about the extremists, that 'normal' moderate mulsims were ok. Now I'm beginning to think that the silent majority is only silent because eveything it wants said is already being said by the extremists, that dissent from islam is not to be tolerated and that the religion is trying to grab power and control over the behaviour of the entire planet.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
well duh (1.50 / 2) (#386)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:17:45 PM EST



The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
I will try hard (none / 0) (#387)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:21:31 PM EST

to believe that you are not a time-wasting troll

Regarding the point of why boycotting a whole country because of one news paper my answer is in the middle of the two lines showing below on your screen:
---------- ----- ---- ---
a recent poll showed that 81% of denmark people agreed with the cartoons.
--------- ---- --- ---


[ Parent ]
And this poll came out when? (3.00 / 3) (#388)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:23:45 PM EST

Before or after muslims started the boycott and protests and flag burning?

Because, frankly, I'm starting to agree with them as well, and it's because of this reaction to them.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
you have already (none / 0) (#389)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:25:16 PM EST

made up your mind before even talking with me, by all means agree with any side .... whatever makes you happy.

Have a nice day !

[ Parent ]
I try to engage you in argument (none / 1) (#390)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:27:24 PM EST

But you're clearly incapable of rational thought.

I shall be watching out for, and voting down, any further stories of yours.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
please do . that is the beauty of free speech [nt] (none / 0) (#391)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No, it's important that people realise themselves (3.00 / 3) (#393)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:33:49 PM EST

just how nutty these islams are. The more publicity the better.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
It's not like I read the queue that often anyway (none / 1) (#394)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:35:43 PM EST

Unless I'm really bored. But I take your point. I just think the guy is a propagandist, he posts his article and then refuses to engage in proper discussion about actions he supposedly supports.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but (none / 1) (#397)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:41:22 PM EST

western people, being the inquisitive infidels that they are, post questions to which he cannot find answer, or he ends up looking like some sort of barbarian from 1000AD.

Besides it's not like he'll convert anyone on K5. The very idea causes LOLs. Let him try though.

The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]

Boycotts are perfectly fine. (none / 0) (#512)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:19:29 PM EST

Trade EMBARGOS are what you're making a big fuss about. You know, the kind where you physically surround the target country and make sure its people can't buy or sell ANYTHING to ANYONE in another country.

Refusing to buy from a Danish supermarket in Beirut is hardly equivalent to physically halting the supply of, say, essential medical supplies to the hospitals in Copenhagen.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Points you haven't addressed (3.00 / 4) (#392)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:31:09 PM EST

  • Do you think the government should have the power to chastise anti-religious sentiment in privately owned newspapers?
  • Do you understand that the US actions you talk about were because of the regimes in those countries, not actions of private individuals? (By the way, I in no way support either the boycott of cuba or the war in Iraq, I'm british and a pacifist)..
  • Whether the agreement with the cartoons came before or after the boycott and other actions.
  • Why you hold marriage so venerable
  • Why you consider women to be property
  • Why you believe any of it
I'm beginning to think that lack of capacity for reasoned thought is a prerequisite for religion. Ah hell, I've thought that fo years and you're just another example.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
answers (none / 1) (#398)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:41:49 PM EST

- No, but religious figures of *ANY* faith is off limits, it is called self-censorship.
- Yes, but why punish the whole people if the entire regime is 0.001% of the population?
- I am sorry I don't understand rephrase
-why do you consider sex so casual ?
-I don't, Islam liberated women.
-I don't understand please rephrase that one.

ps. for a British your English is so french..

[ Parent ]
I learned a lot of french when I was young. (3.00 / 5) (#400)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:50:58 PM EST

1. Why? If I believe something to be ridiculous then why can't I say so?

2. I don't agree with those actions, I think the cuba boycott is terrible for the people of cuba and the invasion of Iraq is most likely criminal.

3. I was asking if you can tell me if the survey came before or after the boycott and protests? I ask this because people's opinions are bound to change when they hear about it. I also would like to know if the survey found that people agreed with the content of the cartoons or if they agreed that they should be published.

4. I don't, I consider sex to be a deeply emotional experience for those involved and not something to be entered into lightly. I do not, however, see the need for it to be regulated by religion or law. Why do you think it should be?

5. Islam liberated women? So liberated are they thatr they're free to choose if they want to wear dark blue or black head coverings? I don't buy it, especially when you posted this comment.

6. Why do you believe in any of it? Why believe in Allah? Why believe in what the Quran(spelling?) says, or what Mohammed (peace be upon him) says?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
answers 2 (none / 1) (#402)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:59:48 PM EST

1. If believe you are fat and ugly, should I just walk to you and tell it? hey it is freedom of speech !!

3.Survey came after boycott.

4.Because in the west women are used and then discarded for younger girl friends

5. I aslo posted this one why are you not fair ? or maybe you cannot use the K5 comment system?

6. I am free to believe in whatever i want.

[ Parent ]
Is that what you think? (3.00 / 4) (#405)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:12:09 PM EST

1. Yes, if you think I'm fat ugly and stupid then of course you can say so. I am free to not like what you say and not like your attitude, but I will not call for you to be executed over it, nor boycott the products of you entire country. It's trivial.

3. Well in that case I would say that the survey reflects the opinion that people have of the actions being taken, not preexisting sentiment. The actions make the attitude. It makes a lot of difference. I would also like to see the questions asked to know if the people support the message of the cartoons or the right of the papers to publish them.

4. do you really think so? Where do you get that from?
In the west people do get tired of each other, and when they do so they are free to leave their relationships. Women leave relationships for other men as often as men do for other women. Sometime couples split without anyone havbing another partner to go to, they just don't like each other any more. People are free to pursue what makes them happy. In the west we consider it archaic that people make the choice of one person and have to stick with them for the rest of their lives, even if enslaved, beaten and abused.

5. Yes, you did, when I called you on your prejudice. You would not have said it that way the first time if you did not have the prejudice. Sorry, but that's the way it is, you gave away how you feel.

6.Yes you are free to believe what you like, but I asked why you believe it. If there is no reason but that you have never examined the root of your own beliefs then I suggest you put some time aside to do so. If you have a reason then you don't have to share it, but just following blindly what you were indoctrinated with sinece birth is not really a good way to live ones life.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
What the HELL??? (none / 1) (#484)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:35:23 AM EST

Was that comment you linked to supposed to demonstrate that you think your approach to women is liberal or open-minded??

Sexual freedom is, quite simply, my right to sleep with, and not to sleep with, whomever I want. Not whomever my father or brother wants. If I make a mistake, taking the consequences of my actions is a part of my empowerment to make my own decisions. I'm not as delicate as you think.

It's my body, not my father's.

And are you seriously telling me that in cultures where women are required to cover their faces in public lest they be attacked for being forward, that wives are so revered that nobody ever leaves them for younger, tighter models?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Apologies (none / 1) (#485)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:37:08 AM EST

I misread that comment as the wrong way round. But the point still stands. Just as it is my body and my right to decide to whom I give it, it is a man's right to decide what to do with his body and to whom he gives it.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

In one respect perhaps! (none / 1) (#486)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:47:03 AM EST

How are you gonna know who's a younger model when you can't see them?

Lolz.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
You know (none / 1) (#493)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:07:40 AM EST

I once saw a couple of Muslim girls in jilbabs buying brightly coloured PVC thigh-high, spike-heeled boots. They were already wearing similar things when they entered the shop - I saw them when they started taking them off to try on the new ones. I turned to my friend and said, "What's the point? Nobody can see them." She replied, "Fetish underwear and that kind of thing is very popular in those cultures and countries, because the women don't have any other sexual outlet."  

I have absolutely no proof of this apart from this anecdote, and I'm not going to research this at work, but it would be interesting to know if it's true.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Islam liberated women - right (3.00 / 2) (#469)
by eramm on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:25:49 AM EST

so burying woman alive =  liberated women ?!?!

didn't a woman get buried alive for cheating on her husband  - liberated !!

didn't arabs used to bury thier daughters alive ??

also moslem men can marry anyones but moslem woman can only marry moslems - liberated ? right -- ooops allah said so

and what about the whole honor killing system.

[ Parent ]

I'm going to get in your face here. (3.00 / 4) (#483)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:30:44 AM EST

Let me make it clear that while I was at uni, I met many very intelligent, educated and friendly Muslim girls. Some of them wore headscarves with jeans, some did not wear scarves, it's all the same to me. I can't help noticing that I saw no jilbabs there.

I am a woman. It is liberating to have the right to cover my face, body and hair if I so choose. It is liberating to have the right to keep my face and hair uncovered and to wear a short skirt if I so choose. In other words, allowing me to do what I like with my body without threatening me with rape is liberation. Obviously, common decency forbids anyone to walk around naked, but let's be reasonable here.

How is it liberating to tell me what to do with my own body and to tell me whether or not I may show my hair and face?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Curiously, King R fails to answer... (none / 1) (#566)
by mr strange on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 05:08:24 PM EST

...the really difficult questions.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
He disappoints me. (none / 0) (#567)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 05:24:45 PM EST

I knew so many intelligent, articulate, educated and friendly Muslims at uni, who really were moderates. They prayed several times a day, some of the girls wore hijabs (I can't help noticing there were no jilbabs), they fasted on Ramadan and it was all fine. When King R came in claiming to be a moderate with nothing but olive branches, I really had hope.

Leaving k5 is the best PR move he could make right now.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No, he should stay. (none / 1) (#570)
by mr strange on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:04:07 PM EST

Both sides have things to learn.

I'm sure that he genuinely considers himself to be a moderate. Hopefully if he sticks around, he will learn how morally offended we are by some of his "moderate" views. I really think that people like him have trouble understanding that the average Westerner has morals. We do nothing but good by showing him how wrong that is, even if we can't hope to change his mind on anything.

Frankly, I believe we must bear much of the responsibility for his ignorance. We fail to hold our leaders to account for their own failings, and when they do evil, they do it in our name.

On the other hand, we learn just how backward[1] the average Saudi really is. We need to try a lot harder to promote human rights and freedom amongst people like him. I think somebody should start by explaining the history of women's liberation, and exactly why we are so repelled by women in headscarves.

[1] - I'm instinctively reluctant to use such a loaded word, but in this case I think it's justified. Nothing else expresses my horror at the primitive attitudes that my society held until relatively recently.

Reading K5 is like watching a retard trying to tie his shoelaces. Entertaining, but also a little bit sad.
- Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand


intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

see my answer above -nt (none / 0) (#577)
by KingRamsis on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 10:00:53 PM EST



[ Parent ]
sorry for answering late (none / 0) (#576)
by KingRamsis on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 09:59:27 PM EST

there just too much writing to be done, you mentioned that:

common decency forbids anyone to walk around naked

Our threshold is slightly higher than this, while you might find some Muslim girls not adhering completely to the Islamic dress code thankfully most do, the Islamic dress code is meant to prevent men from looking at women as sex objects.

When you wear a short skirt the message you are sending is "Look at my legs".



[ Parent ]
No, you don't understand. (none / 0) (#589)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:46:39 AM EST

And you are displaying your backwardness by assuming to know what women think and want.

Sometimes women want to be looked at sexually, and it is an important tenet of freedom that they are allowed to do so. If they should later regret it, accepting consequences for one's actions is also an expression of freedom, since it proves you have power over what you do. I am liberated, and if I want to wear a short skirt because I want men to look at my legs, I am entitled to do that, and rightly so. You may think I am unwise, and you may be right, but it is NOT LIBERATING FOR YOU TO DICTATE WHAT I MAY AND MAY NOT DO REGARDING MY OWN SEXUALITY.

And similarly, if I want to drape myself head to toe in a jilbab, I am empowered to do that as well.

Do not tell me what message I am sending by how I dress. I am not, as you imply, some delicate idiot who doesn't know better and needs to be told what to do by my male relatives. In this culture, even if I wear a short skirt and a cropped top, that is no defence for a man to rape me, and that is how it should be.

Liberation means me choosing what to do with my body, not having my father "let" me.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Are you sure? (3.00 / 4) (#414)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:09:05 PM EST

Do 81% of Danes agree with the message of the cartoons, or do they support the right to publish the cartoons?

There's a world of difference between those two things you know. Do you understand the difference? Can you explain it back to me?

Are you looking for CORBA training?

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

And if I could find that 81% of Muslims (3.00 / 4) (#481)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:26:09 AM EST

agreed with setting embassies on fire, killing the people who work there, and calling for people in my country who oppose Islam to be massacred, do I have the right to try to sabotage your livelihood?

Did the Danes agree that running the cartoon was a good idea, or did they simply believe that freedom of speech - which you expounded in your recent diary - should allow the cartoon to be published, albeit unwisely?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

What do you think you will achieve (3.00 / 3) (#480)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:23:54 AM EST

by trying to damage people who had nothing to do with that cartoon?

Boycott the paper if it's the paper you object to. But boycotting the country supposes the government controls the paper, and it doesn't. Nor should it.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

It isn't that simple (none / 1) (#521)
by ionajn on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:09:48 PM EST

I personally think that the cartoons are extremely shallow, and this hints that their main purpose isn't a test of respect for freedom of speech, but a test of patience and a demonstration of power.

'Denmark' isn't just the government that shouldn't control the paper, but also the culture which raised these people that openly demonstrate their disrespect for Muslim community's values.

Some of the Islamic population is lower in the hierarchy of needs and have more important concerns than freedom of speech, that make their perspective more realistic than yours. Especially when their way of life is under a threat which is rationalized by the West based on phoney arguments.

As an answer to your question; I don't know what they can achieve by doing this, but then again I don't know how they can achieve anything at all. I have to agree that they're better off leaving the will to shape their society based on your/our values.


[ Parent ]

The cartoons are stupid. (3.00 / 4) (#527)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:57:56 PM EST

They are insipid, childish and say more about the cartoonist than Islam in general. But I have to wonder at the number of people who think the cartoons cause more damage to Islam's PR than arson and shooting priests.

My feeling is that if you have a complaint with a company's action, you would do best to take it up with that particular company. Attempting to punish those who do not control it seems pointless.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

You may be right ... (none / 1) (#554)
by ionajn on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 10:18:34 AM EST

... about its pointlessness.

Nevertheless, if you're not suggesting them to incinerate the company building, then your suggestion won't do them any good either.

IMHO it is your (over)educated mind that degrades things to a matter of basic social conflict. It is not. It is a clash of civilizations. Your/our set of rules don't apply.

Drawing and making fun of Mohammed is like destroying something very sacred and beautiful for a Muslim. Imagine something central to your intellectual being destroyed by them. It doesn't matter if it's physical or not in this context.

Thus, it also is a symbol reminding that their values are under a continuous threat from the western world. This is 'real'. An arbitrary Danish company's freedom of press? That is only valid among the people who granted that right and enjoy it themselves.

About the PR: It might look bad from there, it looks pointless from here, but I'm sure it looks just right in many lands. Your press will show them as it desires, so PR to your world wouldn't be a concern.

Finally, I'd like to say that I couldn't care less about Islamic values. What I'm trying to stress is that you can't understand Muslim Arabs with your set of definitions, and you won't be just. But from an economic point of view, they seem to have accomplished something. I heard the boycotts will cost more than 1.5 bn. Euros per year to Denmark's economy.


[ Parent ]

No, I sure as hell am not (3.00 / 5) (#556)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:02:31 AM EST

suggesting they incinerate anything in protest.

I do understand the offence. While I'm not especially religious myself, I went to Sunday school as a child and did, at one point, find something very beautiful and holy in religion. I still find it on occasion but my respect for religion prevents me from calling myself a Christian, as I don't practise it anywhere near to the correct level. But I do know how hurtful I would have found it, in those days, to see nasty cartoons of Jesus. In fact, I did see them. My church saw them. And we were angry, and hurt, but we did not boycott entire countries or cause violent riots.

Now the values that the fanatics are fighting are indeed under threat from the Western world, and so they should be. I oppose the idea that religious critics should be killed. I oppose the idea of worldwide sharia law. I oppose state-imposed religious adherence. I'm aware that moderate Muslims oppose these too, and I'm assuming no moderates are firebombing embassies and shooting priests. Your point about them seeing their values undermined is irrelevant. The extremist values are indeed undermined, and they should be. The moderates are not. Religious criticism is legitimate.

Now you wax beautifully lyrical about the pain and hurt Muslims suffer from seeing a few stupid cartoons. But Muslims should be suffering a far greater pain from seeing their faith perverted into arson, murder and threats by those claiming to adhere to it. I cannot comprehend a mindset that takes more offence at a sodding cartoon than at murder and violence. If they are going to boycott anyone, boycott the countries wreaking this bloody havoc and show the rest of the world what you really think Islam stands for.

Writing to the newspaper in question, or holding peaceful protests outside embassies may not grab headlines, but I thought Islam was supposed to be about peace, not about attention whoring and violence. And if it's not, and if incinerating buildings is legitimate within it, then the cartoons were damn right and should have been printed even more widely. Right?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Damned straight! (nt) (none / 1) (#557)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:58:16 AM EST



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Of course you're right... (none / 1) (#569)
by ionajn on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:01:46 PM EST

But I can't plainly say that they have to change and get on with my life. They will suffer, either by becoming religious fanatics or becoming useless degenerates that will raise a new generation of idiots.

(Rest of this comment is a justification for my previous comments and may be ignored.)

I spent a good deal of my youth hating these fanatics. But now I'm looking for a common ground.

Most of the world today - including moderate Muslims - isn't familiar with our understanding of freedom of speech. Some people I know don't even know/understand that such a notion exists. Some hate it cause they can't have it or don't have a use for it. And I think when your country is under a foreign threat (mine is not), freedoms merely represent instruments fueling separatism. This is a major technical difficulty that I'm investigating for a way to overcome. A path of evolution must be developed with both sides preserving their good values - not replacing theirs with others'. This won't happen until we recognize that these fanatics are merely people that are intellectually stranded because their world is being crushed.

Thus I can't hate them anymore. And I blame everyone.


[ Parent ]

Their world is being crushed (none / 0) (#588)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:41:51 AM EST

by their own theocratic religious nutcase governments. I agree the cartoons should not have been published, but I can't argue the paper's right to do so, and if any Muslims have that serious an issue with it they're free to move somewhere else.

Sorry, when someone firebombs an embassy or commits murder, I hold them responsible and I don't go in for the wishy-washy "we are all responsible" bullshit. If someone wants to prove to me that the cartoons were false, they shouldn't set buildings on fire in retaliation and then tell me it's our fault. All this is doing is making me think the cartoons were more justified than I thought.

Now we're wandering off topic. You haven't addressed my point about arson and murder being a worse crime against Islam than a fucking cartoon, and you haven't explained to me how boycotting an entire country, which did not have control over the issue in question, does anything other than reinforce the prejudices that led to the cartoons being drawn.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

To clear things up... (none / 0) (#608)
by ionajn on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:31:28 PM EST

To address your point:
  1. I think that what they are doing is wrong and can be considered sinful according to Islam.
  2. What they are doing will reinforce the prejudices against Muslims, but give more practical results than boycotting the paper.
This discussion may conclude if you accept my humble answer.

But to clear my point:

  1. Judging the situation with our values is OK but doesn't provide a solution.
  2. Your democratic suggestion leads to nowhere. The problem remains unsolved, meaning that illustrating Mohammed is allowed to infidels. This is why the reaction is so delayed. They more and more realize that their understanding of religion has to change if these kinds of actions are permitted.
  3. This has nothing to do with the internals and meaning of Islam. It is about the question if anyone has the right to be a fundamentalist or not. Total freedom of speech is clearly incompatible with fundamentalism.
  4. I am not bullshitting. This is the point where we decide whether fundamentalism must be totally annihilated or not. USA clearly decided that this has to be done to achieve the new world order. Now, when I'm judging Arabs for their actions, I can't focus solely on them; this is why I seem so off-topic.
This discussion may also conclude if you accept that fundamentalism has to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Finally, we differ in our conception of reality.

  1. The issue is not limited to fanatics. They are only a side-effect. I agree that Arabs are backward, but there are much more Muslims than there are Arabs in the world. I know peaceful liberal moderate Muslims that has gone mad when they saw the cartoons - not because they are drawings of Mohammed, but because they think that the cartoons' sole purpose is to offend and assimilate the Muslim community.
  2. a) Declaration of war does not provide a license to kill, and the excuse of war is important. b) Instigating war and unrest is not just political interference. So, while we are arguing about arson and murder, I don't only consider liberal values, but also fairness. In this context the PR value of western world is so low (to me) that I can't be as serious as you while talking about the PR value of Islam.
  3. They are doing what they can do. They would do more if they could.


[ Parent ]
Answer (none / 1) (#632)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 06:12:51 AM EST

The boycott of Danish goods does not give a more practical result than boycotting the paper. It attempts to penalise those who had no control over the publication, and reinforces the stereotype of Arab Muslims as fanatic, rightly or wrongly. It is counterproductive. I'm not aware of any Muslim law that forbids boycotting, but certainly I'm aware that the moral majority of Muslims abhor the arson and murder. I just wish they'd be a bit louder about it.

I do indeed agree that complete freedom of speech isn't compatible with fundamentalism, but it's also not compatible with secularism. I am not allowed, as the recent British case of Abu Hamza demonstrates, to call for murder and violence. Nor should I be.

The fundamentalist outrage at non-Muslims depicting the Prophet implies a belief that non-Muslims must be bound by Muslim law, all over the world. I didn't see this level of outrage over Muslim values when hostages in Iraq were being captured and beheaded. I do understand the offence, but even by boycotting Danish products over it, these people are saying Denmark must be bound by Muslim law, and it shouldn't be. Another reason for the boycott being counterproductive. I would also have more sympathy if these countries didn't publish deeply anti-Semitic cartoons in their mainstream media frequently.

I am aware the issue is not limited to fanatics, and I am aware of the moral majority. But I do wish the moral majority would speak up louder. The cartoons should not have been published out of decency, but they were, and now the fanatics have put themselves in the wrong and messed up their chance to be the wronged victims. And while I'm aware of the vast majority of liberal, tolerant moderates, I would still like to see them more angry about the murder and arson than the cartoons - because murder is a worse crime than religious offence. I'm sure they ARE more angry about the violence - that's a much worse insult to Islam's name than the cartoons - but I really, really, really need them to scream blue murder about it.

Your final point 2) seems unnecessarily woolly to me and not firm enough on the stance of violence. Non-Muslims publishing cartoons is not a declaration of war and nor is it justification for murder and incitement to violence. A priest has been shot, embassy workers have died, and I am more concerned about the "fairness" of their right to live when they had nothing to do with this quarrel than mealy-mouthed faffing about who's to blame and so on.

In short: the boycott is counterproductive, both in terms of aiming at the proper target and dispelling the Western stereotype that these people are fanatics who want to impose Muslim law worldwide. It's also hypocritical, given the sort of cartoons that media publishes widely.

However offensive the cartoons were, they have now ceased to be the wronged party and have messed up their chance to be victims demonstrating how wronged they are. Because all they are doing is making the West think the cartoons had a point. You may say it's pointless judging them by our standards, but similarly it's pointless asking them to judge by ours - they are demonstrating that we shouldn't be allowed to live free of Muslim law.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Answering your answers (none / 0) (#633)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 06:59:10 AM EST

these people are saying Denmark must be bound by Muslim law

I don't know how did you reach this conclusion, so extending upon your idea both Britain and the US are now under the Islamic law because they didn't publish the cartoons?

Tell why did your prime minister and British press refused to publish it?

Why did CNN refused to publish it?

If people in Denmark believed in free press why did their prime minister apologized to Muslims?

could it be -God forbids- that their wallets hurt more than their urge of unnecessarily insulting and provocative free speech ?

You know when the Danish prime minister apologized I felt like puking my guts on his face on TV, because not only they provoked Muslims without any reason but they proved to be hypocrites looking at the bottom line financial profits.

Have he stood by his cause I might have respected his fight (while not agreeing a bit)

[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0) (#634)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:10:31 AM EST

these people are saying Denmark must be bound by Muslim law

I don't know how did you reach this conclusion

Well, I did explain it. A Muslim is not allowed to draw pictures of the Prophet, but I am not Muslim. Just as I am not bound by the laws of halal and circumcision, nor am I bound by the laws regarding what a Muslim may and may not draw. If you say I am, you are forcing your religion on me.

Tell why did your prime minister and British press refused to publish it?

First of all, my press is not controlled by my Prime Minister, and it's telling that you assume it is.

I suspect it's probably because they fear a violent backlash - we had about 500 Muslims the other day holding placards calling to "massacre the opponents of Islam" and so on. Possibly partly because they do not wish to offend Muslims. The cartoons should not have been published because they were needlessly offensive and offered nothing constructive, but free speech means that they may be - just as your mainstream media frequently publishes anti-Semitic images, indeed is about to go to town on Holocaust cartoons too.

In fact, many people are wishing the press WOULD publish the cartoons so we can at least see the evidence before reaching a decision about it.

Why did CNN refused to publish it?

See above. I'm British, I really don't know.

If people in Denmark believed in free press why did their prime minister apologized to Muslims?

A non-sequiter. One has the right to cause offence, and apologising for it may mean it was unwise to do it, but it doesn't mean there was no liberty to do it. And once again, you are assuming that "the people" are bound under the agreement of "the prime minister". They aren't. Chances are a lot of Danes don't believe he should have apologised.

could it be -God forbids- that their wallets hurt more than their urge of unnecessarily insulting and provocative free speech ?

Possibly. What's that got to do with it?

they proved to be hypocrites looking at the bottom line financial profits.

So you think your boycott worked and now you're pissed off about that. Right.

Have he stood by his cause I might have respected his fight (while not agreeing a bit)

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you. I think if the Danish prime minister had not apologised, you would be screaming with rage about that. If you didn't want an apology and an admission of wrongdoing, why did you boycott the country? And why don't you boycott Arab papers that publish far more offensive cartoons about Jews much more frequently?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I think I clearly (none / 0) (#636)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:21:03 AM EST

stated the common man point of view here, but one more comment:

If you didn't want an apology and an admission of wrongdoing, why did you boycott the country?

Because I love my prophet and I am certainly not going to give any penny of money to the people who insulted him, so that they can pay taxes to a government that failed to prevent hate speech that showed Mohammed as a womanizer and a terrorist, that mocked my beliefs just for the fun of it.

get it into your head HHD we love our prophet more than we love our sons, wives, and ourselves.

Please believe me on this I saw grown men who cried in tears when they saw the cartoons.

[ Parent ]
I don't mind that you love your prophet. (none / 0) (#637)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:28:24 AM EST

That's entirely your right. It's of absolutely no consequence to me.

But I, as a non-Muslim, am not required to love your prophet. If I want to draw pictures of him, then I may.

I am certainly not going to give any penny of money to the people who insulted him, so that they can pay taxes to a government that failed to prevent hate speech that showed Mohammed as a womanizer and a terrorist, that mocked my beliefs just for the fun of it.

Inane. So you would penalise the farmers who have to pay taxes to their government so you can penalise a government that didn't have anything to do with the cartoons and has since apologised for them. Inane.

Now please answer this: Why will you not be boycotting the Arab newspapers that frequently carry deeply anti-Semitic cartoons?

Please believe me on this I saw grown men who cried in tears when they saw the cartoons.

Do you know, I think the relatives of the innocent embassy workers murdered with petrol bombs are probably crying a lot of tears right now as well.

Does your anger over some cartoons drawn by people not bound by your faith match your anger over people murdering innocents in your faith's name?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

He already said he loves his prophet (3.00 / 4) (#643)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:59:18 AM EST

more than his family, I doubt the lives of a few infidels even register.

This is when religion is truly evil, when dogma becomes more important than peoples lives.


--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Those grown men clearly have problems (none / 1) (#645)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 08:26:43 AM EST

If their religion is not strong enough to withstand a little light-hearted criticism from the west.

Emotional and psychological problems too by the sounds of things, if they live so far into their fantasy world where their paedophilic misogynist warlord is transformed into some sort of pure and perfect prophetic godhead in their minds....

Ok, now I'm just trying to goad you. Though I have half a mind to republish the cartoons myself now and see what happens.

Did you know that the Danish newspaper that published the images had to evacuate its offices a couple of days ago becauuse of a bomb threat?

What a barbaric way to respond.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
To add to this (none / 0) (#647)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 08:51:01 AM EST

most people would regard murder and arson in the name of Islam as a worse insult to it than a few stupid cartoons by non-Muslims.

King R, do you?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Please publish them. (none / 0) (#708)
by Kal on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:11:30 AM EST

I'd love to see what all the fuss is about.

[ Parent ]
You aren't a moderate in any way are you? (none / 0) (#635)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:20:09 AM EST

What apology are you talking about? The one where the newspaper said it was sorry to cause offense but within its rights tyo publish, or the one where the prime minister said he would never apologise for the newspaper because it was a private institution?

The rest of your post is meaningless because of this.

Your religious zeal has blinded you KingRamsis, you no longer know how to think.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
You will be paint me as fanatic (none / 0) (#638)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:35:03 AM EST

no matter what I tell you, your repeated posts are identical in content I don't know about the rest of K5 but I am personally bored.

If I am a fanatic I will be probably be burning some embassies by now not posting on K5, so get your act together.


[ Parent ]
We will paint you as fanatic because (none / 1) (#640)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:42:33 AM EST

  1. you refuse even to look at evidence that challenges your world view, but yet will dismiss it and even become enraged by its existence (re:Protocols)

  2. you appeal to emotion rather than reason, for example when you tried to convince me that the freedom of speech to paint the Prophet should be forbidden because it made people cry

  3. you promote the restriction of free speech where it offends your religion but have yet to be drawn on the deeply anti-Semitic cartoons that appear in your mainstream media constantly

  4. you promote the restriction of free speech because you say the Danish prime minister should not have "let" newspapers print the cartoons and you ask me why my prime minister has not published the cartoons, as if he controls my press

  5. you apply twisted logic, for example boycotting people who had nothing to do with these cartoons, and then complaining because, you believe, the boycott actually had an effect and you got an apology

  6. you are intellectually dishonest regarding evidence, trying to convince us that it's wrong or irrelevant simply because it comes from MEMRI, rather than accepting it's true but not indicative of the Arab world. Effectively, you try to distort the evidence itself because of its source and have us believe it's something other than what it actually is

  7. we are seeing more complaints from you about some stupid cartoons than about murder and arson in response to it. To us, this says that you believe non-Muslims being rude about the Prophet is a greater insult to Islam than Muslims killing people over it.

Just clearing that up.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

not that I care what you think (none / 0) (#642)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:59:16 AM EST

but I am answering for the majority of reasonable people here:

1. How did you know that I didn't look at the evidence ? you mentioned that like a million times, did you plant a camera in my room?
or maybe you are such a zealot that you couldn't imagine not seeing your so called evidence and immediately and magically believing you, the protocols are controversial and it is pointless to even discuss them or consider them as I pointed out a to you before (are you slow?)

2. Emotions have reasons to back them up, normal humans are not cold robotic machines like you.

3. it is mostly anti-zionist or complains about murdering Palestinians in Israel so do your homework first.

4. I didn't say he controls it I am very aware of that fact that press is not controlled by government.

5.It is the receiving end (your brain) which is twisted not my logic which perfectly makes sense 1 billion cannot be all crazy and HHD is only sane person in the room.

6.No MEMRI is very accurate but it is a pity that it only hand picks radicals, I dared you before to find one moderate Muslim in MEMRI the respectful Mossad front.

7.I condemned arson before.


Keep posting the same stuff all over K5 and I will keep posting the same replies which I wrote before to you, it will not be long before people discover how fake you are.

[ Parent ]
The rule of emotion is no way to live (none / 0) (#644)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 08:10:17 AM EST

People are not emotionless, but laws need to be, society needs to be. Emotion clouds facts, if you let emotion rule you then you will start doing things that we already see all around and we decry - use only the evidence that supports your view and not take a balanced view of available evidence (our politicians do this a lot and we berate them for it.)

The priciples we adhere to in western democracy is to leave emotion out of things as much as possible. Emotion is for peoples personal lives, not politics.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0) (#646)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 08:42:26 AM EST

  1. Because you made absolutely no references to anything that I cited, not any of the obvious plagiarisms, nor evidence brought before the Russian courts, nor the evidence that governments had exploited the Protocols to demonise the Jews. You simply said "nothing has been proven" - with absolutely no substantiation - and proceeded to fling enraged insults at me. Do not dig yourself deeper into this hole of self-delusion and dishonesty. You did not look at the evidence and we all know it.

  2. You do not go into these reasons beyond "it made people cry and made me upset". You give emotion and religious faith as a reason in itself and these are not valid reasons to restrict free speech as you try to make us. I feel emotions but I try to act on reason.

  3. No. I have seen these images and many of them have little or nothing to do with Israel. They play on the Jewish conspiracy, as if by having their own sliver of land in the Middle East they are taking over the world, and they play on stereotypical images of Jews - not Zionists - as big nosed and sinister. These are anti-Semitic cartoons, not anti-Zionist, and you refuse to condemn them as you condemn the ones that offended you. And anyway, let's use your logic here. Those cartoons weren't attacking Muslims, they were attacking the violent actions of extremist terrorists. So you should take no more offence at them than any Jew should take at the images that appear in your media.

  4. If you are so aware that government does not control the press, you must realise there is no point boycotting a government over a newspaper, and there was no need to refer to my prime minister as having any control over the cartoons. So if you did realise government does not control press, you chose to ignore the fact, and that is even worse.

  5. Your logic is twisted and I explained why. Your rebuttal of this is merely "you're crazy",which is only reinforcing my belief that you are incapable of proper logic. You have admitted the government did not control the press, yet you would boycott innocent producers and farmers because they are obliged to pay taxes to a government you admit had no control over the press with which your complaint is. I repeat: your logic is inane, and you are fanatic.

  6. You are ignoring the point. When BerntB first tried to offer you some evidence, you tried to ignore it simply because it came from MEMRI, not because it was wrong or inaccurate. Your complaints about the agenda of MEMRI were irrelevant. You were being intellectually dishonest and trying to skew us away from perfectly legitimate information for no good reason.

  7. I want you to condemn arson at least as much as you condemn a few stupid pictures. I want you to leave aside your wailing about some people crying for wailing about murder and arson and how wrong it is. Right now you appear more upset about cartoons than about murder.

In short: you are a fanatic.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

here we go again (none / 0) (#648)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:08:08 AM EST

1. Still nothing has been proven, it is what I believe period any discussions beyond this is simply forcing what your believe down my throat.

2.So hypothetically If I claimed that the holocaust is over exaggerated and I laughed my ass out loud during the showing of "Schindler's List" should I expect people not to be offended because heck it is only feelings not reasoning? c'mon guys show me 6 millions skulls and I will believe you ?

3.You are beginning to sound like MEMRI highlighting what advances your point of view and burying what does not.

4/5.Could you then tell me why Iraq was boycotted and hundreds of thousands of eldery and children died because of lack of medicine? You do you realize that Saddam is a dictator and the people of Iraq have no control over him? bug me not with your hypocrisy and double standards.

HHD when the van comes for you please leave quietly.

6.Being a crazy conspiracy nut like you claim I will assume you are the official MEMRI speaker, you are pimping MEMRI in an ugly way going as far as to ask me to ignore the fact that MEMRI is a mossad front which is interested only in showing radicals but denying the moderate Muslim majority from ever appearing there, It is naturally that they are very accurate because the radicals showing there will say what the mossad likes to hear, and then present it to zombies like you who are incapable of forming an opinion on their own.

7.Ok I will paste the word "I condemn embassy arson" 1000 times and post it here for you.


You are extra strength crazy, please stop making an ass of yourself.

go away now...

slowly...



[ Parent ]
You still don't get it do you? (none / 1) (#649)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:23:11 AM EST

If you laughed your ass off during schindlers list you might
  • Be thrown out of the cinema because of the noise
  • Get into a heated argument with people that disagreed with you
  • hear a lot of muttering about how much of an asshole you are
You country would not be boycotted, you would not be thrown into jail, you would not be murdered by activists, you would be dismissed as a moron and a kook because you had shown yourself to be one.
BUT IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO IF YOU WANT! Nobody will stop you, they just won't listen to you. That's how it works/

On the rest:
1. You still haven't looked at any evidence have you ? Lolz.
3. Holly is pointing out your double standard, which you still refuse to admit. How can you be offended by the cartoons in the Danish newspapers and call for them to be banned if at the same time you approve of antisemitic cartoons in your own papers?
4. Because the country was being run by a dictator and the boycott was aimed at the regime. I have told you this before in several other posts. This is different toboycotting a country over a private citizen. And strange as it may seem not all of us approve of those boycotts! We don't live in a religious theocracy where every action of our government's is justified with reference to god, so we can feel free to criticse them! Wow!
6.Again, point missed - Holly made the exact point that you attack the source rather than refute the data. And here you do it again. Can you refute the data? No? Then STFU about where it came from.
7. Good. It's about time someone did, because continuing to shout about cartoons when people have been killed in the name of islam is insane.
I'm sorry my friend, but it's you that's looking nuts, not her.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
yes I will be thrown in jail (none / 0) (#653)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:41:40 AM EST

like this guy, and dozen more of secular atheists,Christians who dared to question the holocaust , so cry me a river wise one

1. I did look at the ridiculous evidence and guess what LOLZZZ I didn't nudge a bit, and you know what else I realized? that you people are a fanatics and extremisms of a new religion called "The hoax of the protocols".

3. I am sorry I read news papers and I do not see anti-semitic anything, only anti-Zionist or anti-Disraeli, unless you want to equate Zionism with semitism then STFU yourself.

4.So you are feeling sorry for the inconvenienced dairy farmers but your cold heart couldn't find any pitty for dead children, if this is your values and morals you my lady are lower than an animal to me.

6.Regarding the MEMRI dept.: I only showed radicals and didn't show moderates will you consider it balanced?, the information presented in MEMRI is only half the truth (as matter of fact 1% of the truth), very accurate and correct but it is not the whole spectrum.



[ Parent ]
You are a fanatic. (none / 0) (#655)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:52:15 AM EST

In Britain, it is perfectly legal to deny the Holocaust, although only Nazis and anti-Semites try to. And anyway, if this man is to go to prison for denying the Holocaust, your newspaper editors should go to prison for printing anti-Semitic cartoons.

You did not look at the evidence and you know it. You have made no references to anything in it. If you did indeed have an open, fair mind, you would submit to well-documented, explicit proof. You do not, because you are a fanatic.

You do not see anti-Semitic images? Clearly, because you don't wish to. You are a fanatic.

Your reference to dead children has absolutely no relevance. If you're trying to imply that boycotting Denmark is right because children are killed in Palestine, my response is that boycotting your country is fine because I ate rice for lunch.

And you still have not refuted the data provided, merely MEMRI itself. Have you ever tried looking at the evidence itself? Your response to Protocols suggests not.

You are a fanatic.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Checkmate ! (1.00 / 3) (#658)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:10:04 AM EST

although only Nazis and anti-Semites try to.

so anyone tries to question it is automatically a nazi and an anti-semities? Thank you for exposing yourself you Islamophobic maggot, checkmate !.

You did not look at the evidence and you know it. You have made no references to anything in it.

here is a reference: FAARTT !!! FAARTT !! more FARTS !!

You do not see anti-Semitic images? Clearly, because you don't wish to. You are a fanatic.

Tell more about the cult of the hoax of the protocols?
am I required to kill a holocausts denier to join in ?

MEMRI=Mossad, they state the obvious (big DUH) that there fanatics, and they brainwash the tiny brains of maggots.

I dared you to link to one moderate speaker on MEMRI but being the coward Nazi you are you ignored me.

[ Parent ]
No, you deliberately misunderstand (none / 0) (#659)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:17:12 AM EST

Blind fanatic that you are, you deliberately misread. It is pretty much always nazi's and anti-semites that question the holocaust, not that questioning the holocaust automatically makes you one. It does automatically put you under suspicion to most people though, and you've already proved in other places that you're pretty anti-semitic, so.....

Ah, childish insults, the last resort of those incapable of proper argument.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
we are getting somewhere ! (none / 0) (#660)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:20:27 AM EST

so you agree that a holocaust denier is not a nazi nor an anti-semites but the western society will face them with prejudice that they are ? and they will always be under doubt ?


Come on be brave and agree say yes so we can get out of this big mess.

[ Parent ]
As I said (none / 0) (#662)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:23:19 AM EST

denying the Holocaust is done only by people with an anti-Jewish prejudice, because it is simply impossible to look at all the evidence and come to any conclusion other than that it happened. The only people who would do so would do so out of an anti-Jewish agenda. Rather like those who would dispute that the Protocols are a hoax.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No. I don't agree. (none / 0) (#664)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:37:07 AM EST

because the evidence is so overwhelming that the only people that do it have an agenda. I face them with prejudice because they are wrong, plain and simple, it is one of the best documented events in recent history and it involves millions of deaths.

They will always be under doubt. This helps your argument how? It's not illegal to have prejudices here either. What is illegal is calling for the death of an artist over a dumb cartoon.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Aha ! (none / 0) (#668)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:49:02 AM EST

how did you know they were Nazis and anti-Semites ? did the shout "Heil Hitler death to jews" before the beginning of their speech ?

Have A Nice Day, enjoy your illusion of freedom and live happily ever after because ignorance is indeed a bliss, I felt you were sincere so here is an advice please close your browser and think honestly with yourself, is the west free as you claim ? Are you free to question historical facts regarding anything you want? It is ok for a man to deny God but not ok for a man to revise the numbers of people who died in a war ? I really don't want to know your answer, you answer to yourself if you are a moral person.


This has nothing to do with Islam or me personally, this is about making yourself a better person.

[ Parent ]
Right. (none / 1) (#669)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:54:02 AM EST

how did you know they were Nazis and anti-Semites ? did the shout "Heil Hitler death to jews" before the beginning of their speech ?

Yes, actually, very often they do. They are also linked to far-right movements and their literature is produced by companies that also produce much neo-Nazi literature. The only way anyone can look at the historical evidence (something you really should try some time) and conclude that the Holocaust did not happen is if they want it not to have happened because they hate Jews.

Are you free to question historical facts regarding anything you want?

Yes. In Britain it was even permitted in court when David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt. And in the process, it emerged that Irving had perverted, distorted and fabricated evidence, which was the only way to "prove" the Holocaust did not happen.

It is ok for a man to deny God but not ok for a man to revise the numbers of people who died in a war ?

It sure is. Not everyone believes in God and if you had so much faith that he exists and will judge us all you wouldn't get so upset with people denying that. After all, they'll get their comeuppance, right, if he exists?

And no, deliberately distorting and perverting historical evidence is dishonest and should not be allowed. But yes, you are allowed to deny the Holocaust if you like. But it's impossible to do so without being an intellectually dishonest fanatic. You would know that very well.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

A man can do anything he likes (none / 0) (#670)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:55:29 AM EST

And believe anything he likes. the moment he tries to convince me of it he'd better have some evidence though.

What is not free about that?



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
that people go to jail (none / 0) (#672)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:02:17 AM EST

for revising a historcal fact they felt is inaccurate?

[ Parent ]
You have a point there (none / 0) (#673)
by nilquark on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:09:37 AM EST

Just ignore the woman. Years and years of zionist propaganda... you know what I mean.

You said you'd have a new article by the seventh though. Where is it?

[ Parent ]

I don't know if you are serious or not (none / 0) (#674)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:12:17 AM EST

but I am behind schdule, I didnt expect that big number of comments.

Thanks for your interest and the rapid copy/paste hint.

[ Parent ]
No, no they don't!!! For god's sake.... (none / 0) (#678)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:35:19 AM EST

Not here, not in the US, and I've already said that not everyone agrees with it in the countries where it is illegal.

I've said that in other comments. You aren't reading them.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
so what are you doing about it ? (none / 0) (#681)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:39:56 AM EST

is your disagreement doing any good?

maybe it is legal in some countries but other countries like germany puts people in jail for it.

Express any signs of revisionism and you will immediately get death threats by phone and fax, believe it or not lady you are not in a free world.

[ Parent ]
STOP CALLING ME LADY! (none / 0) (#684)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 12:05:50 PM EST

I'm male! I'm not Holly!

And death threats ARE illegal, which is why some of your muslim brothers that were marching with death threats towards danish illustrators could well be seeing the inside of a police cell pretty soon!

And if you want to see what happens to holocaust deniers then check out baldrson's diaries.

I think you and he have more in common than I thought.



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
a male ? sorry my bad :) [nt] (none / 0) (#685)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 12:29:03 PM EST



[ Parent ]
As usual you're getting it completely wrong (none / 0) (#695)
by servies on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 03:26:34 PM EST

This has nothing to do with revisionism. The holocaust is a FACT that has happened and can't be denied. In Germany you can get imprisoned for denying it because they never want it to happen again. Somehow it's a little ironic... the only reason why there were almost no Arab victims by the Nazis is because they never got far enough into Africa/the Middle East... Probably Islam would have been eradicated if the Nazis had won the war... In their view you were all "Untermenschen" Death threats by phone or fax in Germany??? Don't make me laugh... it's not the Middle East around here... Death threats or real problems with the government you get when you want to establish a church in par example Saudi Arabia or Iran or other countries like that. And don't abuse the words "free world" as you obviously don't know what they mean.

[ Parent ]
You are a fanatic. (none / 0) (#661)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:20:59 AM EST

tries to question it is automatically a nazi and an anti-semities?

No, the only people who promote Holocaust-denying literature and give Holocaust denying speeches do it under the auspices of far-right race hate movements. I did not say it was anti-Semitic or Nazi to do it, I said the only people who did do it were anti-Semitic or Nazis. I realise English is not your first languague, but this is a very simple distinction. The real reason is that in order to deny the Holocaust, one has to distort and pervert obscenely an enormous amount of evidence, and nobody does it unless they have an anti-Jewish agenda.

here is a reference: FAARTT !!! FAARTT !! more FARTS !!

Thank you. You could not have demonstrated more perfectly that you are a fanatic who refuses to acknowledge explicit proof of anything that opposes you. I thank you deeply.

Tell more about the cult of the hoax of the protocols? <M/i>

With pleasure. Please take a look here , here and here. I ask you not to break wind too loudly.

am I required to kill a holocausts denier to join in ?

Thank you again for another obscene line that proves your fanatic thinking still further.

MEMRI=Mossad, they state the obvious (big DUH) that there fanatics, and they brainwash the tiny brains of maggots.

I thank you a third time for proving that you are unable to refute the evidence, but instead can only attack the political leanings of one of the funders, and not in any rational terms either.

I dared you to link to one moderate speaker on MEMRI but being the coward Nazi you are you ignored me.

That's rather rich, coming from the man who can say nothing but "farts" in response to evidence that Protocols is a hoax. But why should I do this? You have already proven you are a fanatic, and as such anyone I deem to be fanatic, you will probably deem to be a moderate (or perhaps you will just yell "farts, farts, farts"). The point is with the evidence. You could not refute it, you can only complain about the funders of the source.

I thank you, a fourth and final time, for making yourself look like more of an irrational, hate-filled, fanatic lunatic than I could ever have done. Thank you.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I see no free speech here (none / 0) (#663)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:36:39 AM EST

I said the only people who did do it were anti-Semitic or Nazis.

That is a very very dangerous concept, so how did you know they were Nazis and anti-Semites ? did the shout "Heil Hitler death to jews" before the beginning of their speech ????
What you are saying makes me sick, it is yet another witch hunt, at first I was fascinated by the freedom of the west, but as I took a closer look I was so disappointed to see the ruins of freedom instead.


Thank you. You could not have demonstrated more perfectly that you are a fanatic who refuses to acknowledge explicit proof of anything that opposes you. I thank you deeply.

I thank you back (FART) and I want anyone reading this to FART in the face of anyone who is trying to make you believe something you don't want to. Including me KingRamsis personally and including HHD precious reference, K5 let me hear your collective FARTS.

Regarding MEMRI I think I am going to pass because HHD is so stupid honestly I explained my views about MEMRI like 25+ times so far, so keep pimping your Mossad website.

I thank you, a fourth and final time, for making yourself look like more of an irrational, hate-filled, fanatic lunatic than I could ever have done. Thank you.

I think I will let K5 audience be the judge or do you rather provide us with irrefutable evidence that I am a fanatic that no can dare question or even doubt you almighty HHD ... FAARRTTT.

[ Parent ]
I think you are a very bad troll. (none / 0) (#665)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:40:23 AM EST

That post reads like one anyway. What do you mean by witchhunt?

Free speech means you can say what you like. YOU CAN DENY THE HOLOCAUST IF YOU LIKE. I AM FREE TO THINK YOU'RE A NAZI RETARD IF YOU DO. WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
He's not a troll, I wish he were. (none / 0) (#667)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:48:07 AM EST

No troll is this passionate and consistent. He is a fanatic loon and has condemned himself by his own words.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 0) (#754)
by Lacero on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:01:19 PM EST

Even if he is a troll I think it's good you've both argued it out with him.

I'm slightly worried that someone could easily do this purely to paint muslims in a bad light, and there's plenty of people who would, but whether he's for real or not there are 6 Billion other people in the world. As long as readers of the comments don't assume too much they should learn something.

[ Parent ]

You are a fanatic. (none / 0) (#666)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:47:28 AM EST

That is a very very dangerous concept, so how did you know they were Nazis and anti-Semites ?

Well, they belong to racist nationalist movements that promote the removal of anyone not white and non-Jewish from the country and hold race hate rock concerts where the audience members hold up their right hands and shout "Sieg Heil". But as I said, it's not denying the Holocaust that makes them Nazis, it's that it really is only racists who do it, because nobody else has the necessary agenda to overlook the mountain of evidence.

You may think you are making a point, but in fact you are just missing a very simple one.

I thank you back (FART) and I want anyone reading this to FART in the face of anyone who is trying to make you believe something you don't want to.

EXACTLY THE POINT!!!! Thank you!!! You don't WANT to believe Protocols is a hoax, because you are a fanatic. Thank you so very much for actually admitting this explicitly, I am delighted.

Now I don't want to believe that Denmark had no right to publish those cartoons. So please go away now.

honestly I explained my views about MEMRI like 25+ times so far

Yes, you did explain your views on MEMRI, but you didn't refute the cold, hard, accurate and real evidence put before you. We know you don't like MEMRI but we have no reason from you at all to suppose the evidence invalid.

I think I will let K5 audience be the judge

What a good idea. Let's read over the thread so far and see who is providing fair and reasonable commentary, with links for evidence, and who is screaming and yelling "farts".


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

funny ! (none / 0) (#671)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:59:23 AM EST

Thank you!!! You don't WANT to believe Protocols is a hoax, because you are a fanatic. Thank you so very much for actually admitting this explicitly, I am delighted.

No, but I said I don't accept your evidence, can you provide better evidence? until you do I will give you the benefit of doubt and remain undecided like I said many many MANY endless times.

but you didn't refute the cold, hard, accurate and real evidence put before you.

are you serious !! what cold hard accurate evidence are you talking about?
So there are fanatics in the ME, thank you for enlightening me wise one


Let's read over the thread so far and see who is providing fair and reasonable commentary, with links for evidence

please refrain from calling them evidence and call them by the correct name (FARTS).

[ Parent ]
You are a fanatic. (none / 0) (#675)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:14:20 AM EST

No, but I said I don't accept your evidence, can you provide better evidence?

I have provided you with explicit citations of where the Protocols was lifted from (a work of satire) and how it was exploited to demonise Jews, as it still is in your backward-thinking part of the world. Thank you for again proving you have not looked at it, and admitting that you don't want to accept it, and giving absolutely no reason for this. Thank you again for proving me right.

are you serious !! what cold hard accurate evidence are you talking about?

The one BerntB mentioned to you, but also the one for the Protocols. I'll tell you something your religious fanatic teachers in your land won't - just because you say evidence doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't, and just because you argue with the politics of a funding organisation doesn't make evidence non-existent.

please refrain from calling them evidence and call them by the correct name (FARTS).

I'll call them evidence because that's what they are. But please do continue to call them farts. It proves me right and proves you to be a fanatic lunatic.



I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I don't let people do (none / 0) (#676)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:24:53 AM EST

my thinking on my behalf, I question everything and analyze it to it's microscopic components, while you might prefer ready made home delivery ideas I go to unimaginable lengths to verify something, and from what I learned on my own not by media as most westerners do refutes your evidence, and YET ! being a fair person I decided to neutralize the protocols in my head, and give the likes of you the benefit of doubt.

You will keep calling me a fanatic as long as I don't agree with you completely aren't you?, I am sorry HHD the true fanatic here is you.

[ Parent ]
You are a lying fanatic. (none / 1) (#677)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:28:22 AM EST

If you questioned and analysed everything, you would look at the Protocols evidence and you would explain why the evidence quoted by BerntB is incorrect, rather than railing against its funders.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

because (none / 0) (#679)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:35:28 AM EST

I chose my own time to reply, and now is not the time.

Regarding the funder what is the Mossad official moto ?

do you know you what is it you crazy blind fanatic bitch?


"by way of deception thou shalt make war"


Enough said !

[ Parent ]
You are a lying fanatic. (none / 0) (#680)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:38:19 AM EST

If you start with an open mind and someone offers you overwhelming, court-sanctioned evidence to prove something, and you refuse to look at it and take offence and start screaming about Nazis and railing against the politics of irrelevant organisations, you are a fanatic.

That you claim to be open-minded and fair makes you a liar.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

why did you stopped talking about MEMRI ? -nt (none / 0) (#682)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:40:47 AM EST



[ Parent ]
You are a lying fanatic. (none / 1) (#683)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 11:42:29 AM EST

You are determined to believe an anti-Semitic piece of racist propaganda because you are an anti-Semite, and when confronted with proof to the contrary you scream and shout and refuse to look at it.

And you refuse to get off the subject of MEMRI and onto the subject of the damning evidence it brings. Your refusal to address this evidence to BerntB proves you can't refute it. You are a fanatic.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

That isn't my country (none / 1) (#656)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:02:31 AM EST

I can't speak for the germans, but in my country you won't be thrown in jail. A lot of people disagree with the stance germany takes on the issue. I can question the holocaust all I like. The fact is that MILLIONS of people were put to death during the holocaust so you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid and insensitive to do it. In no way does it equate to poking fun at religion.

1. Guess what - I never read Holly's evidence either! I must not be part of this religion because I don't know anything about the protocols of zion. It was _still_ obvious you hadn't read the link though, because you addressed nothing it could have brought up, you dismissed it.

3. I read the danish newspaper and I don't see anything anti-muslim, just anti extremist. Unless you want to equate islam with extremist violence the STFU.

4. I'm not a lady, I'm male, you replied to Have A Nice Day, not Holly. Plus I stressed I did not agree with all the sanctions on iraq that hurt the populace

5. Then show us the whole spectrum instead of just complaining.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
If you are interested (none / 0) (#657)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:08:41 AM EST

into the mechanisms of Holocaust denial, you might want to read Deborah Lipstadt's "History on Trial" about her court case against Irving. (I have an interest in legal matters and court cases.)

In order to deny the Holocaust, you have to dismiss papers stamped "Seen by the Fuhrer" as not really seen by the Fuhrer because Hitler was a busy man (no, I shit you not), consistent mistranslations of various words such as "field kitchens" instead of "field ovens" even after the translations were pointed out to the author to be incorrect, and meetings of German personell to be mixed around. At one point in a two-day meeting, Hitler said "There will be no need for that" on exterminating the Jews, but the next day goes back on that and sanctions it explicitly. Irving changed round the dates so that it looked as though the meeting ended on Hitler's opposing the idea. Then he actually told the court it didn't matter, since Hitler had indeed said it, and he didn't see how he had mispresented anything.

You should read it, really. It's like reading a Monty Python sketch. It's unbelievable.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I know from experience that pasting something (none / 0) (#651)
by nilquark on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:29:52 AM EST

a thousand times can be quite tedious if you aren't familiar with the tricks of crapflooding. So I offer help: first paste it five (5) times, then select that and paste it five (5) times again. Now you have twentyfive (5*5=25) copies. Paste that four (4) times, and you will have a hundred (25*4=100). Paste this another ten (10) times and you shall arrive at one thousand (10*100=1000) copies!

Those infidels will think you spent an evening pressing C-v and counting up to a thousand (1000), but with my help and your cunning you shall have defeated them! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!

[ Parent ]

You are a fanatic. (none / 1) (#652)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 09:30:51 AM EST

  1. Yes, things HAVE been proven. The exact citations in satirical works, which were recreated almost word for word in the Protocols hoax, as well as lots of other evidence that you will not even look at because you are a fanatic determined to believe the Protocols are real. At best, you are determined to ignore overwhelming evidence that they are a hoax, and this makes you not only a fanatic, but an anti-Semitic one too. You have not looked at the evidence but you dismiss it anyway. You are a fanatic.

  2. Have you heard of David Irving? He is a loud British Holocaust denier and while he currently sits in an Austrian prison, he was never arrested for it in Britain. Yes, you do have the right to laugh at Schindler's List. Yes, you do have the right to deny the Holocaust. (Are you denying it right now?) Now, why do we not have the right to draw a picture of your Prophet? Merely because it causes you offence? That is the price of free speech. You want to restrict free speech so your religion is not offended. You are a fanatic.

  3. Stop ignoring the point. These are anti-Semitic images of hook-nosed, world-dominating Jews. You do not counter this point by telling me I sound like MEMRI. Your country widely publishes anti-Semitic images, then screams blue murder about ones that criticise Islam. Why is this? Because you are a fanatic.

  4. /5) Saddam Hussein is not on k5, alas, and in any case this is handwaving irrelevance. If anything, your objection to this boycott should demonstrate to you the harmful and unconstructive manner of this type of protest. Answer again. Your boycott damages people who had nothing to do with the cartoons, and their government which also had nothing to do with the cartoons, and even apologised for it. You are determined to let your religious emotions cloud all decency and judgment. You are a fanatic.

  5. You are AGAIN IGNORING THE POINT. We do not say MEMRI picks a fair cross-section of Arab society, but we are offering you evidence that you must answer. You try to ignore the evidence and instead scream and scream about MEMRI. The evidence BerntB gave was correct. It was accurate. You are trying to get us to ignore it for no reason. You are intellectually dishonest and horribly biased. You are a fanatic.

  6. You could try doing that, yes. Or you could try complaining in your posts and your exposition at least as much as you have tried to relate sob stories about grown men crying over cartoons and how our freedom of speech should be restricted because you are oversensitive. You are a fanatic.

You are a fanatic.

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Did you even read that? (none / 0) (#641)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:50:13 AM EST

Because I have not mentioned the apologies before in any post. In fact I had to research them before I posted that. You, however, repeat your doctrine without addressing (or likely even reading) what you reply to.


--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
No, he is not a moderate (none / 0) (#639)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:36:37 AM EST

and nor is he rational.

Recently, I told him the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a well-known hoax and provided links to prove it, explicitly. He proceeded to call me a Nazi, take great offence and to shout that nothing was proven, without even looking at the links, and that it was still just a 50% possibility either way that they were real or not.

If you start with an open, balanced mind and you see explicit references showing exactly where the hoax was plagiarised from almost word-for-word, then you should accept that. If you don't even look at the evidence, you obviously don't want to admit it's there. If you get angered by the evidence, you obviously have an agenda.

And you are not rational or moderate.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I failed.... (none / 1) (#688)
by ionajn on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:16:52 PM EST

.... to communicate my thoughts to you. I suspect it is the limits of this medium (or myself of course). I have addressed all of your points before. I hope it won't go on this way. I'll try to be more direct.

You think I'm advocating violence. I'm not. You question what they are trying to achieve and suggest them to use civil methods. I think I understand what they will achieve. I also find your suggestion unwise, because it is not applicable - similar approaches have been tried and did not bring an acceptable outcome (for Muslims), which is a direct apology and/or ban. As there are things they can do in their land that you may find unacceptable enough to go and 'rescue' them from evil - killing everyone in your way - there are some things that you can do to offend them that far too. (you == western world)

I'll accept it if you suggest something that could solve the problem. My only suggestion is to obliterate their governments, put puppet regimes, enforce secular education and pump in erotic movies at daytime. It works.

Counterproductivity of the boycott:

You exaggerate the practical value of Muslim PR and prejudices against Muslims. The west clearly demonstrated that they could kill tens of thousands of them without excuse. Bad PR doesn't mean anything to fanatics, it is bad for moderates. My 'final point 2)' certainly was not about cartoons.

You undermine the consequences of the cartoons. Mohammed porn will doubtlessly follow. But that's not important - it's unacceptable now, it'll be unacceptable then. The violent activities WILL make people fear in the future. The boycott WILL make governments to act more persuasive to the press. Everyone's points will be well taken, Muslim stereotype will be violent and it will prevent certain things to happen.

Finally, everyone is bound to everyone's law at some degree. Peace is where the equilibrium is.

However offensive the cartoons were, they have now ceased to be the wronged party and have messed up their chance to be victims demonstrating how wronged they are.

It's a pity.

they are demonstrating that we shouldn't be allowed to live free of Muslim law

That's fundamentalism for ya...


[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#702)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:03:32 PM EST

I know you're not advocating violence, but you're not taking a firm enough stance against it - it reads as though you are just taking a woolly, mealy-mouthed approach to, blaming everybody and refusing to come out with "it is wrong and there is no justification for it, end of story."

Now there has been a direct Danish apology, but a ban will not follow because that is an infringement of free speech and an indication that a non-Muslim world must be governed by Muslim law. That is unacceptable and will not happen. As you said, we are dealing with fundamentalists. We cannot pander to them, or to terror, or they will simply get the message you are advocating - that violence is the way to get what they want. You could look to the intifada as an example. Yes, there are still suicide bombs, but considerably fewer than there used to be, because the Palestinian terror groups learned that Israel was not going to pander to terrorism. Obviously a boycott isn't anywhere near that in terms of damage, but the fact remains - it doesn't hit the culprit, it affects people who had nothing to do with it and it makes the Muslim world look irrational.

We are indeed all bound to a degree of law, and it's not unreasonable to say that a non-Muslim world should not be bound by Muslim law.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#755)
by ionajn on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:51:09 PM EST

It doesn't advance, and I don't want this nice discussion to become redundant. Moreover, we do not differ much in our opinion about the topic at hand, but in our intellectual disciplines.

Although I understand and embrace your protest of violence with all my heart, I'll fail to see an end to the story without first going through the justifications. I would act differently if my sister was raped (hypothetically) by a retarded person. When I'm arguing with someone over a silly parking spot, it would matter if I did slaughter his nephew or not, even if the spot was lawfully registered to me. What would matter is the issue here IMHO.

I will think on this subject until I find a suggestion that wouldn't make a fanatic laugh at me. Then maybe I'll come back and tell what happened. :-)


[ Parent ]

So Muslims aren't responsible for their actions? (none / 1) (#814)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 12:12:39 PM EST

That's the implication with comparing them to retarded rapists.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

This may be the funniest exchange (none / 0) (#817)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 01:41:18 PM EST

EVAR. Lolling in my office as I type.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
It is? (none / 0) (#825)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 05:09:18 PM EST

How so?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Sorry, my more twisted side was speaking earlier (none / 0) (#826)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 05:16:50 PM EST

But comparing violent muslim protest to how he'd feel if his sister was abused by a retard....

nah, ok, I'm not sure I'm seeing it any more either.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I guess.... (none / 0) (#832)
by ionajn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 04:32:40 PM EST

.... it's really funny if you take it that way... But no, I didn't mean that...


[ Parent ]
Responsible? Yes... (none / 0) (#834)
by ionajn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:06:27 PM EST

I gave you two examples, don't miss the second one; and of course they don't represent the current situation. My only intention was to show you that there may be reasons and justifications that you mustn't ignore (as you think that I must take a more solid stance). Ignoring them will not lead to a solution. You tend to ignore what's happening in general and tell fundamentalist Muslims - by implication - to turn the other cheek. "Killing people because of some stupid cartoons" might appear to be a clear violation of established values, but actually it's just the price of what is being done in order to weaken them. This time, it was just some stupid cartoons, next time it might be their right to govern themselves or right to protect themselves.

It would be easier if you admitted that you wish them to passively accept assimilation and become a part of the secular world. This is a very straightforward solution which will lead to a more stable environment for everyone. It will cost many lives though...


[ Parent ]

Sorry but (none / 0) (#836)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:04:19 AM EST

you are still effectively justifying it. Of course there are reasons for what they're doing, and they've made it quite clear what those reasons are, but simply because they have a reason does not justify what they are doing.

Please stop putting words into my mouth, as per your second paragraph. I do indeed want them to move on in a particular way, for example not threatening murder to people who offend their religions, and taking on more enlightened attitudes towards women, but I couldn't care less if anyone wants to pray five times a day, fast on Ramadan or choose to wear a hijab or burka. Your talk of this "costing many lives" assumes that I want us to enforce these changes by sending in the troops, rather than with the peaceful diplomacy so sadly lacking in many of these people.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I don't agree... (none / 1) (#867)
by ionajn on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 06:08:49 AM EST

simply because they have a reason does not justify what they are doing.

If reasons does not justify actions, then what does? It's reasons that must be investigated to find out how much of the action is justified and who is responsible. As I said before, I don't think they should resort to violence, but it's absurd to take an absolute stance against their actions without invalidating the reasons. If anyone asked me why the British sent troops to Iraq, I wouldn't say 'because they are atrocious bastards' and I wouldn't concede strict denial of justification.

And sorry about putting words into your mouth, but I really think that your way of thinking supports sending in the troops. You respect individualistic parts of the religion and do not accept it as a vision of world order - may it be women's rights or punishment system (cutting limbs, etc.); but whether you like it or not, there will be resistance against the assimilation that you are proposing (i.e. moving on).


[ Parent ]

Agreed, and I'm glad someone said it. (none / 0) (#511)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:15:34 PM EST

This includes a call for the Western silent majority to rise up and deal with our own loony minority which likes bombing innocent civilians, right? The one funded by about ten percent (figure pulled from ass, don't bother nitpicking) of our tax dollars? The minority we glorify in movies?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

see you in mecca (3.00 / 3) (#372)
by eramm on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:24:04 PM EST

you write: Tribes varied in their honor, on the top of the honor chain was “Korayish” the most honorable tribe because they held and maintained the “Kabah”, the ancient house of God built by the prophet “Abraham” (Ibrahim in Arabic) the father of Ismael also a prophet, in Islam we acknowledge and accept the prophethood of all of them including Jesus and Moses and believe they all came from the same divine source.

So if the “Kabah” was built by “Abraham” who you admit is a shared source by all religions why do you forbid non-muslims from going there ?

http://www.persecution.org/concern/2001/09/p1mecca-sign-w250.jpg

if the answer is becasue it says so (hint it does: "Oh you who believe! Truly the idolaters are unclean; so let them not, after this year, approach the Sacred Mosque...." (9:28). This verse specifically refers to the Grand Mosque in Mecca; later scholars have included Madinah in this ruling as well.) who are you guys to cut off the world from gods house built by the father of all religions ?

the truth is the jewish scholor maimonides a jewish scholor and friend to the egyption/muslim court said that the source of the “Kabah” was not abraham (sorry, but if he did not build anything in israel where it is well documented he lived i.e jerusalem, beer sheva, why would he shlep to mecca to build something) rather it is the "markolus" stone mentioned in the talmud as a way of idol worship.

and guess how they worshipped this idol ? basically it was a pile of stones (like the “Kabah” on big polished stone) and anyone who whished to worship it did so by throwing a rock at it. (does that sound like  al-Jamarat ? i bet it does.)

sorry. Mohammed just adopted the “Kabah” like he adopted jerusalem. it has no connection to him or islam except for squatters rights.


Allah instructed Abraham to build it (none / 1) (#375)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:44:36 PM EST

and Allah instructed Mohammed to keep non muslims away from it.

Regarding Talmud i am quoting the Quran:
40. O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. 41. And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. 42. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).

[ Parent ]
nana nana boo boo (3.00 / 2) (#396)
by eramm on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:40:52 PM EST

well can't argue w/ that. is that the answer to every challange ? allah said so ? am i expected to have the same simple faith as you ?

i don't see how you will proceed to have a discussion here if anytime you lack an answer you will say allah said so ?!?!

and to whom did allah say this to ? mohammed in his cave ? why do we need to beleive that ?!?! cause he said so ???? cause he convinced others that that is what he saw/heard ?

even the 10 commandments were given in front of all the jewish people at mt sinai. i.e. everyone saw it. not just one guy.

from the way you describe the arabs of those times , mohammeds plan seemes simple. approach the simple tribesmen, entice them that if they join him they will get the honor they so desire, and wallah you have a religion. trust me the writings came after the fact. many other regiemes have followed the same plan throughout history.

sheesh.

[ Parent ]

funny check this out (2.00 / 2) (#399)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:46:53 PM EST

everyone saw it. not just one guy.

did you see it personaly ?



[ Parent ]
still can't present a logical argument for islam (none / 1) (#416)
by eramm on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:29:58 PM EST

you stil can't present a logical argument can you ?

the bible counts how many jews were around at the time (it comes to 600,00) so while i didn't see it personally there were 600,000 who did. it makes for a stronger tradition.

Islam is a very shallow religion which is left to interpretaion by all those who embrace it.

[ Parent ]

Let me quote 'Snatch' on this one: (none / 1) (#424)
by New Me on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:02:37 PM EST

Just because it's written, doesn't make it so.

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

actually more than 600,000 (none / 1) (#447)
by PeacyKing on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:27:46 PM EST

Actually, it was only 600,000 adult men, the bible says "and their wives and children" and since early in the story we are told that the "children of Israel prospered and grew in number" I think it's safe to assume each family on average = 1 husband, 1 wife (some times more), 3 children (or more) = 5 * 600,000 = 3 million (I think rabbis estimate 4 million).

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#449)
by PeacyKing on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:31:29 PM EST

I saw it. I was there, as were all believers.

[ Parent ]
Who were you standing next to? (none / 0) (#690)
by topynate on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:48:09 PM EST

Also, I used to be a believer. Was I there?


"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
[ Parent ]
Gotta agree with the King here (2.66 / 6) (#426)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:11:05 PM EST

You can't start playing a game of "My Ancient Myth Is Better Than Yours", especially when yours is much more ancient.

Lets just agree that all holy texts are at best clouded and unreliable, and at worst blatant fabrications. When we've done that maybe we can all have a sensible discussion.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
yes you can (3.00 / 3) (#468)
by eramm on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:01:43 AM EST

you would be right if it were a discussion about secular vs religious sources.

but king want us to belive his the quaran is better and i am saying that compared to other religios texts the mohammad saw god story is a weak link in the belief chain.

[ Parent ]

Looking forward to the rest (none / 1) (#395)
by umrk on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:39:36 PM EST

Thanks. I'm looking forward to the rest of your series.

This is like LOTR (1.12 / 8) (#409)
by DJ Allah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:38:17 PM EST

and muslims are the Urukai, and Sauron = Allah. Except that it's all in your mind. Ramsy have you seen LOTR? There is just no other way to communicate the situation to you.

The real image of Islam!
thank you (1.66 / 3) (#417)
by RelliK on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:37:55 PM EST

Thank you for posting this, KingRamsis. I think what you're doing is important: there is a lot of misconceptions (among USians in particular) about history and religion, so it's always nice to see someone shed some light on it. Don't be discouraged by all the negative comments. I am disappointed at the general reaction to this story -- I thought kuro5hin community was generally more civil, enlightened and open-minded than that. Oh well. Looking forward to your next story.
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
Civil? (3.00 / 4) (#418)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:42:34 PM EST

Do you read the diary section?

And I consider myself quite open minded, just not when someone tries to argue (in a fairly incompetent way) that they see theocratic authoritarianism as the way forward. And considers women to be owned by men. And falls into the old trap of assuming the godless must be without morals. And one hundred and one other things that confrim to me that talking to this guy is almost exactly the same as talking to christian fundies except his views are more medieval.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
It's crazy to think... (3.00 / 2) (#423)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:00:15 PM EST

...that we're going to solve the World's problems here on K5.

KingRamises is giving us an insight into the thinking of educated middle class Saudi Arabians. I'm learning, but what am I learning?

Of course he's telling me about his opinions, what he thinks about current affairs and religion. That's interesting. But he's also revealing that he has some misconceptions about what we Westerners believe, and what life is like in England and America. That's what I find most fascinating. We're correcting him on his misconceptions, and he's learning. We too have misconceptions about him, and he's correcting us.

At the end of it all, we won't have solved any problems. We probably won't even be closer to agreement. But we will have cleared away a few misconceptions and learned to understand each other a little better. That's really valuable.

Reading K5 is like watching a retard trying to tie his shoelaces. Entertaining, but also a little bit sad.
- Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand


intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

It's ionteresting to learn of the misconceptions (3.00 / 4) (#425)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:06:00 PM EST

But I seem to be having my conceptions reinforced or even made worse by this. The guy doesn't comprehend western individualism, and I cannot comprehend the attitude that tells him he has to look to a higher power for guidance on what he is allowed to do, lest god (or more likely other muslims) take action against him.

It's scary that so many people live like that, with those attitudes towards women in particular.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
The need for guidance isn't the problem (none / 0) (#687)
by servies on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 12:47:19 PM EST

It's the people who 'give' the guidance... in this case the imams, ayatollahs and whatever they're called. Those people interpret the Islam in a way that's very convenient for themselves, with only one goal: how to keep the power/luxury/privileges to ourselves...

[ Parent ]
It's the people who 'give' the guidance... (none / 0) (#903)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:31:25 AM EST


You've missed the point; the guidance that imams, ayatollahs _is_ not binding (with the exception of a fatwa); its their interpretation of the Quran -- its the equivalent of a professor(scholar) expressing his opinion;  muslims actively read and interpret their own faith.  Its not like the Pope where u have to do what they say; and ultimately, you do what u want and god judges you, not other muslims.

There is one noteable exception to this; that is of the Shia branch; they are like the Catholics of Islam; they believe that without years of religious training, u cannot hope to understand the Resalah (Message);  so in that sense, their Imam's are the equivalent of conduits to the word of god.  Thankfully they are in the minority (guess which branch I follow) :)

[ Parent ]

Oh stop being such a dork... (none / 1) (#852)
by paulgrant999 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:51:49 PM EST

Individualism is a personality trait, not a way of life; people have it in differing quantities; and there's nothing wrong with being an individualist and religious, if that religion encourages you to interpret for yourself (which Islam does, in the major Sunni tradition, as does Protestantism).

As someone who is:
-Intelligent
-Individualistic
-Trilingual (Arabic & English being the relavant languages here)
-Studied in different theologies (Catholic School, Islamic School)
-Commited to the pursuit of knowledge and truth
-Trained in engineering
-Well-traveled to the middle-east
-Both American and Egyptian

you're comments are fairly stupid and typical of a person who has not spent a great deal of time contemplating how others may choose to view life or live their lives.

Look, its simple:
-> Either you are ignorant of something called "Islam" or you are not
 - if you are, somebody will tell you
 or
 - you will (eventually die) and be judged on your actions.

-> If you are aware of Islam, either u believe, or u don't believe (shihada)

-> If u don't believe and

   ->u leave them alone, thats fine;
     god (allah) will probably toast in you hell

   or

   ->continously fuck them or their faith,
     thats not fine;
     muslims will (eventually) toast you over
     a fire

---

Muslims (sunni tradition) don't really care what other muslims are doing; they figure its not of their business (between that person and god).  As to the whole treatment of women thing under Islam;  we don't have a divorce rate of 52% and rising;  so really wheres the basis for your point about the treatment?  


[ Parent ]

Lol! Using divorce rate to support your religion! (none / 0) (#869)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 07:12:38 AM EST

I happen to think that a rising divorce rate is a good thing. It means people aren't feeling compelled to stay together in case they get socially ostracised or stoned to death. The basis of my point about treatment is exactly that - women are forced (in various parts of the islamic world) to stay indoors, wear face coverings, stay with abusive partners, not work, not be educated...

That's the basis, women are treated as second class citizens, as property, as slaves and as livestock almost.

And you're right, I do not care to contemplate how the world looks from a misogynist, racist viewpoint. Fuck that, and fuck KingRamsis and his ilk.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
your outright lies will not hurt Islam -nt (none / 0) (#873)
by KingRamsis on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 10:52:31 AM EST



[ Parent ]
What lies? (none / 0) (#877)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:19:45 AM EST

Are you telling me that "adulterous" women are not stoned to death in some parts of the world under islamic law? That they were not denied education under the Taliban's sharia? That in Saudi arabia they are free to move around without the permission or escort of a male? or that there are not dress codes for women that involve covering their hair and which, if contravened, carry social and legal penalties?

What will (and already has) hurt islam is its new violent and irrational image.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
In all seriousness (and not sarcastically!) (none / 0) (#905)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:47:19 AM EST

has it ever occured to you to look at the history of the countries you are hilighting?

Almost every single one of them is heavily tribal, and all of them had harsher rules
for their womenfolk before Islam got there....

Why not examine some of the more liberal Islamic states in your review of "islam is (its) new violent and irrational image" that you are trying very hard to propogate?

Morroco , Egypt , Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Tunesia, Moritania, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey and others are fairly liberal states (and more, the list goes on)...

[ Parent ]

I'm not trying to propagate an image (none / 0) (#908)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:47:02 AM EST

The image is propagated by the muslims that burning embassies, shooting priests and threatening death to cartoon publishers. Sorry, but that has REALLY soured the attitude of pretty much everyone I know.

And I'm sure a lot of those countries did have worse rules before islam arrived. I'm just saying it might be time to have another look and maybe update them again? That perhaps islam did, however long ago it was, liberate women compared to the previous tribal societies but it did not go far enough and the religion seems to provide enough mechanisms to maintain the inequality and opression of women (in those tribal countries) whilst lookin somehow pious and holy.

I have been to morocco. Somebody stalked me on the streets of Marakesh. And the souk smelled bad and was too much effort to buy anything in. Other than that it was ok.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
good. (none / 0) (#932)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:10:49 PM EST

>The image is propagated by the muslims that burning embassies, shooting priests and threatening death to cartoon publishers. Sorry, but that has REALLY soured the attitude of pretty much everyone I know.

Maybe you will learn not to publish cartoon about Allah or Mohamed, and lampoon the Imams (which should have been your target from the first place).

>I'm just saying it might be time to have another look and maybe update them again?

I agree; I think its high time for an Islamic Goverment (theocracy) in the old caliph-style to be reinstituted in all those countries; maybe then the government corruption wouldn't be so rampant. Of course thats just my opinion :) we can agree to disagree on that last comment :P  

[ Parent ]

on the last point - agreed, we'll disagree! (none / 1) (#936)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:40:26 PM EST

But on the cartoons, I don't think it will teach us not to publish cartoons, it could even make it worse because of the reaction. It's not that we liberals (and really I am one) in the west are now afraid to stir the wrath of muslims, we see the reaction and that is what we see as islam. Not that I think that they are representative, but many of the less educated and less questioning will do. The reaction - especially when deliberately and cynically stirred up several months after first publication, is what has really tarred the image of your religion.

Yeah, the target was off, I'll give you that, it should have been aimed at the imams and leaders of oppressive islamic regimes, terror organisations etc etc. BUT in some ways it was. Consider this - what if the cartoons were not actually about islam or the prophet, but were actually about the image of islam that the violent extremists have in their minds?



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
we agree to disagree, and call it a day :) (none / 0) (#944)
by paulgrant999 on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 12:05:30 AM EST

>what if the cartoons were not actually about islam or the prophet, but were actually about the image of islam that the violent extremists have in their minds?

Might I suggest a simple rule:
Don't draw Mohammed
Don't draw Allah

You're in the clear :)

and trust me, in RL, I am a very open person who is willing to discuss just about anything :)
Sometimes even by Western standards.  And I do generally respect the comfort levels of those who I am discussing with; certes, I certainly don't see the point in ridiculing Jesus, or Yahweh for something I might disagree with about Christianity or Judiasm.

Anyway :) we agree to disagree then :P

[ Parent ]

A couple of comments... (none / 0) (#904)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:31 AM EST

>I happen to think that a rising divorce rate is a good thing. It means people aren't feeling compelled to stay together in case they get socially ostracised or stoned to death. The basis of my point about treatment is exactly that - women are forced (in various parts of the islamic world) to stay indoors, wear face coverings, stay with abusive partners, not work, not be educated...

--

not in my country mate.

And incidentally, all you need to get divorced in Islam is to say 3 times "I divorce thee".  As to social ostracism, I don't here you complaining about the Greeks ostracising citizens they deemed undersireable under democratic rule, so maybe your complaint isn't the ostracism per se, eh?  In Egypt (and several other more liberal Muslim countries), women don't do any of the stuff u mentioned above; they go out and work, have college educations, have the same protection that Western have against domestic abuse, etc.

Also incidentally, though it may boggle your mind to think it so, women have had to fight for the right to wear the full nekaba(that head-to-toe veil thing) in egypt.  Its not legal in Egypt because it conceals the face and we've had problems in the past with thieves (yes we have them too) trying to hide underneath a veil.

Or should I start looking up domestic abuse patterns in counties and states in the US?

Lastly, given that (Egyptian) women enjoy the same divorce rights as Western women (if not faster!), why would they choose to remain with their men if they were (as you put it) "forced (in various parts of the islamic world) to stay indoors, wear face coverings, stay with abusive partners, not work, not be educated..."  I think it is a telling point that our divorce rate is almost non-existent.  And lest u cry social stigmatism, get over it; we consider our families our top priorities in this life so its not a lack of social support...

[ Parent ]

A couple of things (none / 1) (#907)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:40:11 AM EST

I think, as is always the way, what the religion says and what the religious do is another matter entirely. I know there are liberal islamic states, I have visited Morocco for instance, and maybe I should be more specific.

My criticism is against states that enshrine islam in law and/or are ruled by a religious theocracy.

On to your points: I did not know that the greeks ostracised people they find undesirable. Is this current behaviour? If so I decry it, dependant upon the reasoning. Ostracism due to violent or predatory behaviour I find quite acceptable, ostrcism due to breaking of religious taboos on sex and marriage I find ridiculous. It was that way here in the UK perhaps as recently as 50 years ago, being divorced was a social stigma and would pretty much guarantee you being shunned by friend and stranger alike. I'm afraid I do cry social stigmatism still, though I mean the more tribal/fundamentalist countries. I can only imagine what would happen to women in Pakistan who tried to divorce their men - given that therte are repeated reports of women being raped over 'crimes' of honour, often not even comitted by them.

I don't find it that weird that women would fight to be able to wear a garment that is associated with their religion - it has been done here as well with respet to girls wearing them to school. I find several things wrong with the situation though - firstly that in europe these women consider themselves somehow virtuous for wearing the ridiculous clothes and look down on others, this leads to the converse, that arab men are the worst in the world for staring at and hassling european women who visit their countries and do not wear full head/body coverings. They assume that western women are all sexually available and like to be gawked at and groped. It really is quite horrible to see.

You can look up abuse patterns in the states if you like, frankly I doubt you'll find it as endemic as in places like Iran, pakistan, afghanistan and saudi, but it is still present. It is not acceptable in any form anywhere though, and I would speak out against any abuser.

Lastly, I'd like to say it's nice to converse with a muslim who addresses the points raised and doesn't simply rant. I can be a much calmer debate participant when not faced with ramsis and his ranting.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Women and abuse.. (none / 0) (#921)
by BerntB on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 10:05:22 AM EST

You can look up abuse patterns in the states if you like, frankly I doubt you'll find it as endemic as in places like Iran, pakistan, afghanistan and saudi, but it is still present.
My mother has been active in a Woman's House organization for decades. She has taken care of women/children, gone courses, etc.

You find it everywhere, but abuse is not accepted in Sweden. It is not only illegal, but despised. It was different, say, a hundred years ago.

The situation is worse with immigrant women, or rather immigrant men. A part of that is that emigration puts a family under stress. A stress factor is that a woman coming from outside Sweden gets lots more power here. She can take out divorce and will get help to get an apartment, education, etc. In practice, not only theory, she can go her own way if she want.

I think the antropological position is that the mediterranean countries has very large difference between men and women. (Southern Italy was quite bad for a long time, too.)

I talked with a muslim girl once and had troubles explaining how marriage and relationships works in the west. In the end I got her to understand by saying "there are no women in the west, only men. But half the men have breasts. The main difference is that if two people with breasts (or two without) want to marry, they can't do it in all churches." A bit simplified, but from her viewpoint, it was enlightening.

[ Parent ]

...more comments :) (none / 0) (#930)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:53:14 PM EST

>My criticism is against states that enshrine islam in law and/or are ruled by a religious theocracy.

to wit I pointed out that you should consider *ALL* cases of Islamic governments, including historical.  That clearly addresses your point.

>Ostracism due to violent or predatory behaviour I find quite acceptable, ostrcism due to breaking of religious taboos on sex and marriage I find ridiculous.

Sure, but here's something u may not be aware of; there are other cultures out their with different value systems than yours.  And they are the ones stuck dealing with it (and can change it if they like, or move out where possible); it's a simple concept, called "society"; and in a democracy, a "society" dictates what is acceptable; so if religous taboo's are in the majority, and call for ostracism, whether u find it ridiculous or not is irrelevant.

>hassling european women who visit their countries and do not wear full head/body coverings.

Oh I agree 100% on this; it has nothing to do with your original point, and nothing to do with my rebuttal.  Hence the reason for nekaba being so popular (in some countries), and male chaperones.  Your dissapproval however, is noted.  May I suggest you visit the bars, strip clubs (or brothels depending where you live) next in your respective country?

I believe the technical phrase is:
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[ Parent ]

I am commenting on problems now (none / 1) (#937)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:50:29 PM EST

And I agree that in the past things must have been different, the middle east was an enlightened land whilst ours was dark. Incidentally, do you know one of the major cultural features of our dark ages? Authoritarian religion.

Now, however, the countries ruled by islam are the ones in the dark.

"in a democracy, a "society" dictates what is acceptable"

Not ideally, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't enshrine in law that people are to be put to death over sexual misadventure as some places under islamic control do (Northen nigeria is the first to spring to mind). One of the most important, and difficult, things in a democracy is to protect the minority from the majority inn issues such as this.

Sorry, but comparing the fact that men in these countries gawk at and hassle ANY western woman, on the street, assuming she is sexually available to anyone is NOT the same in any way. It's a tiny minority of men visit strip joints, it seems to be the vast majority of muslim males have the bad attitude towards females. What, may I ask, has it got to do with if it's not a result of the clothing that a "virtuous" muslim woman is expected to wear?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
mixing 3 topics; treatment of western women by (none / 0) (#943)
by paulgrant999 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:59:50 PM EST

we're mixing three topics:
-treatment of adulterers under sharia
-treatment of western women by middle-eastern (predominantly muslim) men
-modesty being "imposed" on middle-eastern women

I'll treat them in that order.

>Not ideally, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't enshrine in law that people are to be put to death over sexual misadventure as some places under islamic control do (Northen nigeria is the first to spring to mind). One of the most important, and difficult, things in a democracy is to protect the minority from the majority inn issues such as this.

Sure, and Islamic code has the same exact goal in mind (protection of the minorities).  But if u break the law (and its proven), you pay the price; and sometimes that price is capitol punishment.  That is the same for any government.  I believe that is called, justice?  

Really if u want to boink somebody else, get a divorce; all u have to say is I divorce thee 3 times in public (and you're divorced).  I'm sorry, I happen to agree with the adultery thing -  I see no benefit to fucking around on your spouse.  Get a divorce, or don't get married around in the first place.  

Incidentally (I don't think you're aware of this), capitol punishment applies only to the married persons in the affair (and only if they are caught in flagrante delicto by a certain # of witnesses); the other party (which is not married) is guily of premarital sex and receives lashes.  And that Islamic sharia code only applies to Muslims; not non-Muslims.

>Sorry, but comparing the fact that men in these countries gawk at and hassle ANY western woman, on the street, assuming she is sexually available to anyone is NOT the same in any way.

Look, I take it you're not a guy :) I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying its deserved; but I do understand why it happens.

>It's a tiny minority of men visit strip joints, it seems to be the vast majority of muslim males have the bad attitude towards females.

change bad with natural, change muslim with Arab-Muslim (living in Middle-East), and I would agree.  Men like sex; women in the Middle-East don't put out (premaritarily). Western women do.  Its that simple.  It has far more to do with the prevalence (or lack thereof) of premarital sex than it does with how Muslim women dress.  Really, if we want to look at scantily clad women, porn is all over the internet hon :)

>What, may I ask, has it got to do with if it's not a result of the clothing that a "virtuous" muslim woman is expected to wear?

Muslim woman are modest by choice.  Hijab (which is the head scarf), is not mandatory in most Muslim countries; it is a choice a women makes when she is ready to wear it.  Nobody in my family has ever been forced to wear a scarf; I still have several female cousins who are _not_ currently wearing hijab (and several who are, by their own choice).  If u want to talk about Saudia Arabia as being representative of Islam, it is not - ask a Saudi about their nekaba (the full veil thing).  I do know that several women (in Egypt) want to wear nekaba (and have had to fight for that right).

Anyway, thats pretty much all I have to say on the subject - not being a woman, and beleiving (as most Sunni's do) that Hijab is a personal choice - its not that important to me.  And before you go off on a double standard, there are standards for what Men have to have cover up too :) also related to modesty.  

[ Parent ]

Well you haven't read the rest of the comments... (none / 1) (#948)
by Have A Nice Day on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 10:33:58 AM EST

Or yowould have seen the one where I told king ramsis to stop calling me lady. I'm male, that doesn't mean I don't think thatr the way women are stared at on the streets of 'liberal' muslim countries is acceptable. It doesn't happen to anywhere near that extent in the west and therefore I call bullshit on it being "natural". Of course men and women have sex drives, but that goes beyond.

I note with interest that since you've decided I was female you start being patronising in tone of you post.

"I see no benefit to fucking around on your spouse"

Well there is no benefit to fucking around on your spouse, the fact is that it happens and killing the adulteror is barbaric. Lashing the other party is also barbaric. Government has no place to legislate morality.

And as for modesty - I don't consider covering ones face "modest", but if those women genuinely do then that's up to them, frankly I think it's fucking weird.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I like this thread. (none / 1) (#421)
by mr strange on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:50:28 PM EST

Shame it didn't go Front Page.

Try my event calendar plugin for Wordpress.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus

It is a shame (none / 0) (#422)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:53:37 PM EST

It's generating a lot of comments.


--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
That's very interesting (none / 1) (#429)
by karjala on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:18:49 PM EST

That's very interesting. I'll be waiting for the next part before I express an opinion.

Wow, no ANTISEMITISM until your 5th paragraph (2.00 / 7) (#440)
by yermiyahu on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:06:22 PM EST

I started reading this hoping to read an enlightened muslim perspective; well I gotta say he lost me on the 5th paragraph when he refers to Zionism as a rascist movement (same body declared the star of David as rascist). Uggh, more typical Muslim antisemitic, anti-Israeli propaganda. Then he backs up his statement with a link to a UN 1953 declaration which a Muslim majority carried, which has since been repealed. For a fair definition of Zionism, see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism Wow, imagine that, Jews wanting a homeland after pogroms and the holocaust... His point on hollywood's portrayal of Soviets during the cold war, well let's just say I have Russian friends and a Rabbi who was imprisoned by soviets (that's how he learned Russian, in prison), so I think I actually have to disagree with this guy and side with hollywood on this one. Wow, I'm siding with hollywood on something. "also suffered from bad habits like killing their infant young girls (preferred boys) you're kidding right? Zionism is rascist because Jews want a homeland, and yet Arabs suffered from a "bad habit" like murdering innocent children. I think we might just be a lil' bit biased here? You think? I gotta close with one of my favorite quotes from the Q'uran: [9.30] "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" The 'Holy' Q'uran, 'The Immunity' ---------------- Yeah, may G-d destroy the Christians and the Jews, what a sweet thing to say. And people wonder why Jews and Muslims don't get along in that region, I guess it's the whole "May G-d destroy the Jews and Christians and send them to hell" attitude. But who am I to argue with the prophet Mohammed. cheers

the quoting game (3.00 / 2) (#471)
by ObjectNinja on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:22:33 AM EST

"While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women.  These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab.  Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people.  The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel."  So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor.  Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle.  When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly.  Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach.  So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died.  (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)"

24,000 people killed just because they worshiped another god?

I'm muslim, I've read the bible and it's plenty of examples like the above where the infidels are cursed and promised an eternal hell. Despite all of this I believe that the bible is a holy book and Moses is a prophet of God who merits all of my respect as do the virgin Mary and all the other prophets.

there are more similarities than differences between Mohammed and Moses if you look carefully and again both of them have more similarity than differences with Jesus, Abraham ... So if you call Mohammed a terrorist(considering only his deeds) you should call Moses a terrorist too and maybe Jesus a terrorist supporter for not condemning Moses.

What makes you call Mohammed a terrorist is simply your faith. You don't beleive in him, you think that when he fights or kills infidels then it's for his glory while it's different when Moses kills infidels then it's his duty toward the Lord.

if it's faith that helps you make the distinction, then you should not ask for logical arguments to prove that Mohammed is what he claims he is.

also pulling quotes like you did from the quran is misleading, so I did the same with the bible eventhough I know it's not representative of the book's spirit. the bible isn't a terrorist handbook or unholy just because it contains words like kill or slay.

[ Parent ]

King (1.66 / 3) (#441)
by cibby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:43:06 PM EST

I liked your article, and I think it's a great topic. However, some references would have made it stronger, and looking at your series, well, there's a huge number of articles.

Why not write fewer articles, but make each one longer?

yes I agree [nt] (none / 0) (#443)
by KingRamsis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:22:11 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Good job (2.00 / 3) (#450)
by codejack on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:33:00 PM EST

While my understanding of a few points differs from yours, you hit the nail on the head when you said "thats why it is called Faith". Please do not be discouraged by any negative comments posted here; As much as we