RE: Does Islam need a reform period?

RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 7:29:00 AM)
quote: Meatcleaver If a country has resources and another hasn't, that is tough and irrelevent as to whether one country is Muslim or not. With regard to places like Saudi Arabia it most definately is not irrelevent. Committed Muslims want the US out of there. Why ? Because they are considered infidels defiling the Holy Land. Then they could return to the primitive pristine life styles that they seem to desire so much. If the West develops alternative fuels hopefully they will get their wish lol Another point, it is not likely that places like Dubai and Quatar would be developing so fast were it not for Oil revenues and civil engineering expertise provided by the "wicked" West.

Marc2b -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 7:32:30 AM)
quote: The Vatican is recognized as a state not a nation. There are two thousand redsidents in Vatican city, none hold Vatican nationality. It is so small as to be pointless but even if the Pope held sway over all its members which it doesn't, many, if not most Catholics ignore papal edicts, Catholics wouldn't be the most powerful religious group. The most powerful religious group in the world at the moment are Christian fundementalists in the US. When the US has got them back in the box perhaps there is hope that the west can form a strategy against Islamic extremists that would help separate them from the Islamic masses. At the moment, US policy is giving the Islamic extremists sympathy amongst the Islamic masses. I’m not sure I can agree with the notion that U.S. Christian fundamentalist are the most powerful religious group in the world. They certainly wield a lot of influence in American politics but contrary to the fevered imaginations of some far left loons, even this influence is limited. The Fundies have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot, breaking ranks with the economic Republicans if the candidate isn’t "strong enough" on their issues (e.g. abortion). They certainly don’t have complete control of America (God – I’m aware of the irony – helps if they ever do) so their influence on the world stage is limited. The Vatican on the other hand wields enormous influence, not just spiritually but economically and politically. I don’t know that "most" Catholics ignore Papal edicts but even if that were the case there are still millions of people around the world who will cry out "how high?" if the Pope says "jump." Stalin once contemptuously dismissed the Vatican by asking, how many battalions the Pope had. He may have not been so contemptuous if had lived to see how Pope John Paul II used his power to help free Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe, and to bring down the Soviet Union. That kind of power alone warrants a seat at the table. Like the great man said, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Not that I regard the Vatican as an enemy but it is foolish to ignore power. The Latin word for Pope is Papum. If the Pope were to fall of his balcony and go splat on the ground below, leaving his blood smeared on the pavement, do you know what you would have? A Papum smear. Sorry.

cloudboy -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 7:35:02 AM)
Good points. These cyberdude threads are always Republican party masturbation material. Distorted facts, blaming opponents, and ignoring more relevant political and social agenda items: US adoption of torture as policy; exploding national debt; running an unfunded and failing war; the promotion of an ideological agenda over science, etc.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 7:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b He may have not been so contemptuous if had lived to see how Pope John Paul II used his power to help free Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe, and to bring down the Soviet Union. That kind of power alone warrants a seat at the table. Like the great man said, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Not that I regard the Vatican as an enemy but it is foolish to ignore power. Reagan also claimed to have brought the USSR down and Thatcher liked to claim her share of the of the glory too. What really brought the USSR down was that it was rotting from inside out from the day of its inception. East Europe was such a burden on the failing Soviet economy it was only a matter of when it would collapse. Pope John, Reagan and Thatcher just happened to be in place when it happened and there were people in place in the Kremlin that could see that Russia had to be reformed and couldn't go on like it had been. As PJ O'Rourke pointed out, 15 minutes spent in Moscow and one could see the Soviets couldn't organize a shopping trip never mind a war.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 8:01:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Meatcleaver If a country has resources and another hasn't, that is tough and irrelevent as to whether one country is Muslim or not. With regard to places like Saudi Arabia it most definately is not irrelevent. Committed Muslims want the US out of there. Why ? Because they are considered infidels defiling the Holy Land. Then they could return to the primitive pristine life styles that they seem to desire so much. If the West develops alternative fuels hopefully they will get their wish lol Another point, it is not likely that places like Dubai and Quatar would be developing so fast were it not for Oil revenues and civil engineering expertise provided by the "wicked" West. Your ordinary Saudi wants rid of the US because the US supports a regime that oppresses them and it is that situation that has created extremism. If the west is invited into a country to do business that is fine but when the west supports oppressive regimes to have access to resources, it gets what it asks for. Don't forget those small weak countries were created by Britain in the first place because Britain wanted oil rich weak countries it could control.

GoldStallion -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 8:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion Islam is one of the most extreme positions anyone can hold. The Koran, more so than other religious texts, is a madmans mandate for irrationality. They firmly believe that reality is miserable shite and paradise awaits. I am not so sure about that. I can point out some pretty gory aspects of irrational christianity (bible), and jew, (talmud) as well. I agree - I dont know the talmud at all, but the bible I have some familiarity with, as well as the Qu'ran. However, the Qu'ran was written by one lone nutter, whereas I believe the other texts required a collection of fantasists to write them. The Qu'ran is also much younger than any other religious text, except the "GuruGranseye" (my phonetic spelling) of Sikhism. I am of course talking about the "main religions" and if there are any eg scientologists or BDSM OTWists reading this.....no, your religions dont count. The fact it is one persons dictation, all on his own, up a mountain, from none other than Allah should have the red flags going up. It does make it pretty unique I believe.

Marc2b -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 9:01:31 AM)
quote: Reagan also claimed to have brought the USSR down and Thatcher liked to claim her share of the of the glory too. What really brought the USSR down was that it was rotting from inside out from the day of its inception. East Europe was such a burden on the failing Soviet economy it was only a matter of when it would collapse. Pope John, Reagan and Thatcher just happened to be in place when it happened and there were people in place in the Kremlin that could see that Russia had to be reformed and couldn't go on like it had been. As PJ O'Rourke pointed out, 15 minutes spent in Moscow and one could see the Soviets couldn't organize a shopping trip never mind a war. I’m not sure I want to respond to this because I know that claiming Reagan was anything other than a complete nincompoop, or the anti-Christ, or both, will bring out the fanatical, left wing loony Reagan haters. Still, I can’t just let it go. This is a case of not realizing how wrong you are in being right. Yes the Soviet system was rotting at it’s core (an inevitable consequence of Marxist policies) but few were the people who saw that either because of willful blindness or simple ignorance. Our policy of containment (which was failing) was based on fear. Don’t upset the Soviets, treat them with kid gloves, they’re very powerful, we don’t want to get them angry. People who grouse that Reagan deserves no credit because the Soviet Union was already weak and failing do not understand that in fact, he was amongst those few who saw that the Soviet Union wasn’t all that powerful. His policies were premised not on the need to weaken a powerful nation but to hasten the collapse of an already weak (but still dangerous) nation. His policies of economic isolation, military buildup, and moral posturing ("evil empire") were designed toward that end. Pope John Paul II definitely played a major role (and, in fact, he started before Reagan came to office) in this and the two often co-ordinated their efforts (he and Reagan met several times and often talked by phone). That enormous influence of the Vatican came into play whenever the Pope would visit eastern Europe. It must have galled the communist governments to have to stand by while he told their people to have faith in God (who in communist countries, officially did not exist) and to resist communism. His open support of Solidarity is almost certainly why they tried to kill him. The Right is distorting history (and engaging in myth making) when they claim that Ronald Reagan single handedly brought down the Soviet Union but it is an equal distortion on the Left’s part to say that he had no part in it and "just happened to be there when it happened." He and Pope John Paul II (with Maggie Thatcher in a supporting role) had a goal, devised a plan, and implemented it. Despite a few hitches, it ultimately worked. I’m surprised that you read P. J. O’Rourke, one of my favorite authors. I’d have thought that his individualist, free market stance would not sit well with you.

NorthernGent -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 9:07:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion The Islamic agenda in Europe is to establish a Caliphate. Feel free to put some meat on the bones of this one; how exactly have you arrived at this conclusion? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion We have a Muslim Council of Britain, which are consulted on policy What policy? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion There are also Shariah courts in every major city in the UK. They have no legal status and they do not respect UK law - whilst they are working underground at present, they are still not being shut down. Some more details on these courts will be useful; what jurisdiction do they have, and where are they? Specific towns and cities will be useful. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion Add that to the fact that you cant say boo to a muslim in the UK Really? What exactly do you mean "boo to a Muslim"? What is it that you'd like to say, but you feel you can't? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion the fact that mosques are getting planning permission left right and centre Can you qualify left, right and centre, and explain why British citizens shouldn't be allowed planning permission to express their ideas and individuality? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion And everyone should consider the coming religion initiated dark ages. Should they? Why don't you do your own thing with your views, and leave others to their's. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion The thing is, if I set up a place for children to come 5 times a day (and thats moderate islam) to be hypnotised and brain washed I think I would (rightly) be thrown in prison. Would you? I don't think so. Can you give some examples from past or present? 'Any precedent, here? England forged ahead on the back of religious tolerance, the only dark ages point of view here...is your view. I can't be bothered reading the rest.

NorthernGent -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 9:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FetishKytten Islam requires women to wear the "hijaab" No it doesn't. Come to England and you will see loads of Muslim women not wearing the hijaab; go to the Middle East and you'll see likewise.

Real0ne -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 10:10:08 AM)
Heh this is a really nice expose on religion that imo summarizes it quite well. skip the crappy intro and jump to 7:20 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331 after that its anything goes :)

cyberdude611 -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 10:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Good points. These cyberdude threads are always Republican party masturbation material. Distorted facts, blaming opponents, and ignoring more relevant political and social agenda items: US adoption of torture as policy; exploding national debt; running an unfunded and failing war; the promotion of an ideological agenda over science, etc. First off, no one is forcing you to read my threads yet you read them anyway. Second where did I ever distort any fact here? I will back up everything I said on this thread. Show me where I distorted fact. You are going to bash me then you better be armed with something more than simple-minded insults. Third I have not made a single thread justifying torture. I have constantly bashed both parties concerning the national debt and I have been very critical of the war. I am also agnostic and certainly have not ever stated an ideological agenda over science. You need to stop looking at politics as such black and white. Not every conservative is alike. Not every liberal is alive. There are people in this forum right here who are registered Republicans. Does that mean they are right-wing christian fanatics? I doubt it. You are making a huge stereotypical error by lumping all conservatives into one batch. And you will find very quickly that you are very wrong.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 10:57:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FetishKytten Islam requires women to wear the "hijaab" No it doesn't. Come to England and you will see loads of Muslim women not wearing the hijaab...... Thats because we are not subject to Islamic law.....yet. This point is ongoing and at the forefront of debate in IRAN. Move away from the main cities, same in Egypt, and the the true repressive nature of Islam becomes apparent. Remains to be seen which side wins. Not much doubt tho'. Hardly likely to be the progressive side is it ? .As for secularism, no chance whatsoever. I have seen reports of beatings handed out under Sharia rulings in the UK.

GoldStallion -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 11:22:28 AM)
Thanks for this post Northern, quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion The Islamic agenda in Europe is to establish a Caliphate. Feel free to put some meat on the bones of this one; how exactly have you arrived at this conclusion? Visit the website, the names a giveaway, its called Caliphate.eu (www.caliphate.co.uk) Its a muslim website and it has lots of details about how a caliphate would run. Is this just a hobby? Of course not. Europe is liberal and tolerant and doesnt know where to draw the line. Islam is preoccupied with conversion of infidels. (Thats means anyone non islamic). Would you deny this? Also check out this article http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1796 Its a short article, out of it I would ask one question. Why would anyone want to maintain high birth rates in the modern age in Europe? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion We have a Muslim Council of Britain, which are consulted on policy What policy? One example is Sharia Banking, thats a national government initiative. On a micro scale there was the scrapping by Bolton Council of Holocaust Memorial Day in response to Muslim Council of Britain objections, that was Jan 2007. I am sure you can check the press yourself for other examples of political influence by this organisation. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion There are also Shariah courts in every major city in the UK. They have no legal status and they do not respect UK law - whilst they are working underground at present, they are still not being shut down. Some more details on these courts will be useful; what jurisdiction do they have, and where are they? Specific towns and cities will be useful. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml Note the comment by an Islamic academic that he expects there to be a network of Sharia courts throughout the land. This is the intellectual muslim class talking about putting sharia law in place in the uk, albeit in parallel UK law at first. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion Add that to the fact that you cant say boo to a muslim in the UK Really? What exactly do you mean "boo to a Muslim"? What is it that you'd like to say, but you feel you can't? Well for one, living next door to a mosque I would like them not to park in my car park which seriously interferes with my business. There is very little parking round here. When asked not to park in my private car park on the grounds of my business (I am not talking outside on the street here) I would like to not be met with some post hypnotic dazed muslim telling me he had to because he needed to go to mosque. I would like not to receive complaints from the mates of said man when I tell him he has no right to park there. I would like to say "fuck you, fuck your mates and fuck your mates mates". However, that would place me in a pretty vulnerable position legally. I would also like them to not mill about on the road after church with no regard to the rest of reality, and I would like the mosque not to broadcast prayers at 9pm. That doesnt happen every night, but it shouldnt happen at all. Its the lack of regard for the rest of the society they live in that I would like to be able to point out without being labelled a racist. Its not even a racial issue. So, quite a lot. However, there are legions of muslims coming out of the mosque and you criticise one, its not like an internet message board, all civilised. I come from a middle class tolerant background, some of my best friends have been/are african, asian...even welsh. But I deal with a lot of people everyday from all backgrounds and in the last 5 years I am telling you attitudes have turned right around. In private the British non muslim community has had enough of pandering to muslim sensitivities. If I meet an individual muslim I am as polite as I would be to anyone else. I judge individuals on their merits. Or not. I am talking about the collective ethos that I have observed. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion the fact that mosques are getting planning permission left right and centre Can you qualify left, right and centre, and explain why British citizens shouldn't be allowed planning permission to express their ideas and individuality? http://www.salaam.co.uk/mosques/index.php Above is a link to a page with lots of mosques. A lot more than 10 years ago. British citizens shouldnt be allowed planning permission to express their ideas and individuality if it involves curtailing other peoples ideas and individuality. Islam is not tolerant, Britain is. You think Islam is tolerant? Check out any Islamic country and explain to me how that is tolerant? quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion And everyone should consider the coming religion initiated dark ages. Should they? Why don't you do your own thing with your views, and leave others to their's. Yes I believe people should wake up and take a look around their country and observe the changes occurring, without some woolly liberal view that "its all ok", because sometimes its healthy to say "Stop - this isnt OK". I am not stopping other poeple having a view, last time I looked. If you think I am then say so. Should I somehow keep a silence for your comfort? Its not pretty stuff to say, but sometimes in life one has to deal with ugly dirty things. quote: ORIGINAL: GoldStallion The thing is, if I set up a place for children to come 5 times a day (and thats moderate islam) to be hypnotised and brain washed I think I would (rightly) be thrown in prison. Would you? I don't think so. Can you give some examples from past or present? 'Any precedent, here? England forged ahead on the back of religious tolerance, the only dark ages point of view here...is your view. Then we differ on outlook - its only a view, and no I have no examples, or precedent. I agree religious tolerance is important, but religions are not tolerant and Islam is particularly intolerant when it gets a hold in a country, there are lots of examples of that across the Islamic world. Religious tolerance doesnt arrive by standing around letting extreme views promulgate unchallenged, just because they are becoming something we are getting used to. I can't be bothered reading the rest.

Politesub53 -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 11:44:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I think all religions should be outlawed. Outlawed is a bit much. But they could certainly do with less kissing up to. A good start would be to remove the Vatican from the General Assembly of the UN. It does not even begin to pass muster as a "nation". It's not a nation, just denomination, last time I checked. Z. PS: It's fundamentalists in all religions that make trouble, not the flavour of the fairy tales they tell. The UN is a collection of member states. The Vatican is a state but not a full member of the UN it is invited there as an observer State only. The main influence it holds is that of the Holy See over all Catholic faiths, therefore giving it a say via many different countries.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 11:47:55 AM)
quote: GoldStallion But I deal with a lot of people everyday from all backgrounds and in the last 5 years I am telling you attitudes have turned right around. In private the British non muslim community has had enough of pandering to muslim sensitivities. Such feelings and expressions go much further back than 5 years to my certain knowledge. What has changed in the last 4/5 years is that muted criticism is being expressed in the major respectable news media. Exactly the same outlook is expressed by "ordinary" people over the total failure of our political leaders to deal in any meaningful way with the breakdown in law and order. NG actually posted that there was no gun crime in Manchester. he he he he he he he

Zensee -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 12:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The Vatican on the other hand wields enormous influence, not just spiritually but economically and politically. I don’t know that "most" Catholics ignore Papal edicts but even if that were the case there are still millions of people around the world who will cry out "how high?" if the Pope says "jump." Stalin once contemptuously dismissed the Vatican by asking, how many battalions the Pope had. He may have not been so contemptuous if had lived to see how Pope John Paul II used his power to help free Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe, and to bring down the Soviet Union. That kind of power alone warrants a seat at the table. Like the great man said, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Not that I regard the Vatican as an enemy but it is foolish to ignore power. The Vatican certainly HAD a lot of power in WW2, (which it failed to use appropriately, but that's another issue...) but that does not argue for it retaining any special power asat the UN. Why that religion? Why any religion? The fact that the Vatican has a place at the table supports the delusions of other fundamentalists that they too speak with real authority, on behalf of god. The Vatican is a legal fiction. As long as the UN continues to recognise and granted real political power to only one religion, it's objectivity is questionable. Since including more religions, schisms, sects, denominations and what have you to the UN mx is impossible (Scientology anyone?), the fairest thing to do is to eject the only one presently enjoying that privilege. Ditto the observations that the Vatican did nothing substantive in the Soviet Union to bring about its demise. It doesn't matter how much power the Vatican actually has or how it uses it. It's a religious sect, not a nation state and has no place in formal international politics. Z.

GoldStallion -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 12:20:15 PM)
I would agree that these views go back further, but I have noticed it across the board, all classes, all races, and a greater political spectrum. Thats whats new to me personally. No gun crime in Manchester eh? Wow. NG you should get out more, you might notice the police in 3s and 4s all wearing bullet proof vests - why do you suppose they would they do that?

Politesub53 -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 12:33:53 PM)
I agree that the Vatican should lose its seat at the UN, but it is only there as an observer and doesnt have a vote on anything. Maybe they kept quiet in WW2 as they are based within Italy who were fighting along with the Germans.

Marc2b -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 1:34:16 PM)
quote: The Vatican certainly HAD a lot of power in WW2, (which it failed to use appropriately, but that's another issue...) but that does not argue for it retaining any special power asat the UN. Why that religion? Why any religion? The fact that the Vatican has a place at the table supports the delusions of other fundamentalists that they too speak with real authority, on behalf of god. The Vatican is a legal fiction. As long as the UN continues to recognise and granted real political power to only one religion, it's objectivity is questionable. Since including more religions, schisms, sects, denominations and what have you to the UN mx is impossible (Scientology anyone?), the fairest thing to do is to eject the only one presently enjoying that privilege. Ditto the observations that the Vatican did nothing substantive in the Soviet Union to bring about its demise. It doesn't matter how much power the Vatican actually has or how it uses it. It's a religious sect, not a nation state and has no place in formal international politics. All nation states are a legal fiction or, as my grandfather used to say, "there are legalities and then there are realities." The reality is, power brokers have to be dealt with. How could a religion that commands the loyalty of millions around the world not have a place in international politics? To pretend otherwise is to deny reality. The preacher of some fifty member, snake-handling, congregation in Backwater, West Virginia, cannot influence the lives of millions, the economy of nations, and the rise and fall of governments, with mere words – the Pope can. Whether you like it or not, he can. Mere bias is insufficient reason to pretend otherwise. As for the U.N. being objective, since when has any political organization been objective? I’m kind of bummed out that nobody laughed at my Papal smear joke.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Does Islam need a reform period? (10/5/2007 2:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 So how do you explain ww1 and ww2 ? Islam has always been different to the west and a lot of the times more tolerent. Well... In WWI, I think the Ottoman Turks aligned themselves with the Central Powers to run the Brits, French and Russians out of the Middle East, destroy Christian Armenia and The Christian Kurds and sure up their hold on South East Europe thus rebuilding their crumbling Islamic Empire And... Then in WWII I think Iraq joined forces with the Nazis and Italians to again kick out the French and English and destroy the Zionist movements with the hopes of and Arab Islamic Empire instead of a Turkish one. This is such a disingenous analysis if one can even call it an analysis rather than pure prejudice. The alignment of the Ottoman empire in WWI and the allying of some Arabs (by no means all) to the NAZIs was more to do with self preservation than any idea of Islam. The European powers along with the US had and have the biggest empires, no one calls them Christian empires, which they were and are. Just who is no one? Certainly The Ottomans called their enemies Christian nations, especially the Russians with whom they had feuded with for centuries. The Ottoman Empire viewed themselves as an Islamic Nation! It was one of the points Mustafa Atatürk (himself a Muslim) used to overthrow them and proclaim The Republic of Turkey a secular after the Ottoman Empire lost in WWI. The Arabs backing the Nazi's in WWII from Egypt to Iraq did so to wipe out the entire Jewish population in the region and to set up Islamic Republics (socialists republics I may add) and while eliminating the Jews also destroy the monarchies in the regions. The Baathist are fascists in the same manner as Franco or Il Duce. Hitler, himself a socialist was very comfortable with Arab Islamists exactly because of their overt hatred of Jews as well of his hatred for all things monarchies stood for. Not to even mention (with reference to your post that ww 's I & II were not religious wars) that the Japanese fought their war for the glory and betterment of not the Japanese people or nation but for their Emperor *GOD!*

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875