Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"FEAR INC" Explore the $57 million network fueling Islamophobia in the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Michele View Post
    Islam is the least appreciated religious group in the USA, actually:

    http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/h...igious-groups/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7036574.html

    Posting wrong information is really a point of pride for you, isn't it. I can quote more polls, if you insist.
    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      I'm more concerned with content than "source" and lately that which best fits the focus of my "Islam-Jihad-GWOT" has come from MEF.



      Your problem (one most often common to those heavily indoctrinated in Progressive Correct Think) is you fail to grasp the detail and content of what people say and present what you think they say. My focus and disagreement isn't with Muslims "in general" or "Islam, in general", it is with Islamic Scripture, specifically the Koran and Haddith and the passage in those texts used by Jihadis to justify, sanctify, and validate their barbarisms upon non-Muslims (all detailed in the above mentioned thread of mine).

      Strike those portions of Islamic Scripture out as invalid (since they are the words of Satan), nullify the parts of Sharia that violate Basic Human and Civil Rights, eliminate the honor and glory applied to Jihad- past and present, and there may be a start on a path where I don't see Islam as the worse excuse for a religion ever invented.

      I don't care what religions/delusions humans practice so long as;
      1) It's voluntary, of informed and free-will choice, by adults.
      2) It doesn't infringe on the Civil and Human Rights of others.
      3) It doesn't force it's dogmas, standards, or practices upon the rest of society (including one's spouse and children, family).
      4) It doesn't encourage sacramental harm to other species or the environment.
      5) It obey all just laws of society.
      6) It doesn't annoy me with it's proselytizing.
      7) More to follow when I think of them ...
      Groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, go against the true values of Islam, it is these groups whom attempt to implement the very inhumane laws you talk about. AL Qaeda, ISIL, Boko Haram, these groups want to instill their distorted version of Islam which is based on greed as well as a misunderstanding of Islam.

      The MEF is well funded, and was started by Daniel Pipes in 1990. Mr Pipes comes off as a intelligent man, well articulated in his arguments. I wonder though, why argue that even a portion of Islam, or part of the Islamic scriptures are bad. I find this approach to be intrusive to a beneficial relationship that many Muslims and non Muslims already have.

      I do feel that the MEF comes off as less offensive when compared to folks like Geert Wilders, or Robert Spencers Jihadwatch.org for example, or the Freedom Defense Initiative(also known as Stop Islamization of America) which is led by Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. The reason I say this is because after further research, there seems to be some pro Islam voices in the ME forum, such as Steven Schwartz.

      What I find to be troubling though is how the MEF has donated funds to Robert Spencers Jihadwatch.org website.

      That said if one looks at this MEF article,

      http://www.meforum.org/5224/malice-in-dallas

      The writer points out that some Muslims do not oppose the drawing of Muhammad for example. The trouble I find though is that the drawings that I saw that came from the recent Muhammad drawing contest in Texas depicted Muhammad as a wicked man, some of the pictures were also reported to be Anti Muslim in general pictures.

      Further, while the intent of Muhammad cartooning contests is to disparage the Prophet, in 14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new. The Muslim rulers of the past did not care what non-Muslims said about our religion unless they threatened us physically. And even in cases of self-defense, such as that in Bosnia-Hercegovina during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, Muslims fought for the right to live peaceably with those who did not share our faith.

      The writer of the MEF forum article is saying that in 14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new.

      ....

      Muslim doctrinaires at various times and places argued against the other religions, but such intolerance of difference based only on distinctions in theological opinion was equally rare. Muslims celebrate, but do not worship, Moses -- the religious figure cited most often in Qur'an. Muslims honor Jesus, but do not believe he was God's son, or that God can have a son. For Muslims, God is not a physical being capable of procreation. But Muslims believe that Mary conceived Jesus miraculously, as a virgin, and look to her as the greatest of all women. Muslims praise John the Baptist. And the name of God as Allah, so close to the Hebrew Elohim, is used by Arab and other Christians living among Muslims.

      With his loose-tongued [and illiterate] manner, Wilders told the assembled cartoonists, in his Dallas discourse,

      "Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one. I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one. We have got humor and they don't"

      That is absurd -- it is even funny, a joke in itself. Muslims are warned against jesting about religion, but cultures vary across the Islamic world. Bosnia-Hercegovina, where I was inspired to become Muslim, is a secular society, yet its believers in the faith of Muhammad tend to a conservative -- but not radical -- practice of religion.

      more,

      http://www.meforum.org/5224/malice-in-dallas

      Some background on Stephen Schwartz,

      Stephen Schwartz, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Michele View Post
        Islam is the least appreciated religious group in the USA, actually:

        http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/h...igious-groups/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7036574.html

        Posting wrong information is really a point of pride for you, isn't it. I can quote more polls, if you insist.
        I can't rep you again so soon.

        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          I can't rep you again so soon.

          Got it.
          Credo quia absurdum.


          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
            Got it.
            Thanks-Michele's been doing a heroic job lately.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #36
              Meanwhile the anti hero has been quite busy as well.

              Is he the most loathed person on the internet?
              Credo quia absurdum.


              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
                The writer of the MEF forum article is saying that in 14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new.
                Save that the writer is wrong. As usual for most what you post.

                In 14 centuries, of course, well-known cases of blasphemy were relatively rare. With good reason. The idea of freedom of speech did not exist in the seventh century outside of Islam either. People kept their mouths well shut because they knew what would happen otherwise, if they were within reach of religious authorities, or civil authorities who would support a religious one. And I am not writing "Muslim" authorities because that applied to all religious authorities.

                That of course does not mean that people kept their mouths shut if they were outside that reach. Dante Alighieri, and many painters, provide unflattering portraits of Muhammad and Islam in general - but they were outside the reach of the caliphs and emirs and mullahs and kadis and whatnot.

                So of course you don't get a long list of well-known blasphemous events in the history of Islam - exactly for the same reason that you don't see many Saudis abandoning Islam and converting to another religion, at least not publicly. People liked to keep living.

                And if someone had a slip of the tongue - well, we don't know a lot about trials of common thieves before the court of Baghdad, either. They'd be given a chance to repent, or be killed (not women; they would be detailed and beaten regularly, until they repented or died in prison).

                Things changed where and when worlds collided. And while we might think that this is "new", with globalization and all, it isn't. An example of colliding worlds is India, and it took me all of five minutes to come up with famous cases in which accusations of blasphemy were whipped up by Muslims; against none less than the Mughal ruler Akbar in 1581, for instance. In Karachi against Seth Naomal Hotchand in 1832. In 1924 against a publisher in Lahore, one Rajpal. A lawsuit was brought against him; the court finally acquitted him; and guess what happened? A Muslim fanatic murdered him. Oh, and the killer was hailed as a hero by like-minded rabid lunatics.

                Note we know about the 1581 case because Akbar was indeed the civil authority. He had the strength to oppose the mullahs. And did so. Had he been a beggar in the street... no blip on our screen.

                Globalization's fault is just to have exposed these fanatics to a world outside their narrow backyard. In that backyard, there is a (Muslim) state which more often than not enforces censorship and lack of freedom of speech with its own laws. And that's OK with them. But unfortunately for them, they can now hear and see what's going on outside the backyard, and sometimes they even live out of it. And out of the backyard, they take it upon themselves to go and commit murder.

                That is what's really new. The rest is not. Provided, of course, that by "new" we mean "after the Rushdie case" and, now that I know about it, "after the Rajpal case nearly a century ago".
                Last edited by Michele; 08 May 15, 11:55.
                Michele

                Comment


                • #38
                  A collective thank for all the reps, guys!
                  Michele

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                    Meanwhile the anti hero has been quite busy as well.

                    Is he the most loathed person on the internet?
                    As Golani has noted in the past, must be a slow day on Stormfront....
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I recommend reading the full article, especially to put the following excerpt into context. The author makes a case that this is more than semantics involved. The following excerpt relates to topics and posts (poster) of this thread
                      How Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Created ISIS

                      EXCERPT:
                      ...
                      How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

                      >>> Sounds like a few of the persons whom post here on this topic <<<

                      Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

                      Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
                      • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
                      • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
                      • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
                      • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

                      It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

                      And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
                      ...
                      http://humanevents.com/2015/05/07/ho...tm_campaign=nl
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        I recommend reading the full article, especially to put the following excerpt into context. The author makes a case that this is more than semantics involved. The following excerpt relates to topics and posts (poster) of this thread
                        How Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Created ISIS

                        EXCERPT:
                        ...
                        How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

                        >>> Sounds like a few of the persons whom post here on this topic <<<

                        Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

                        Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
                        • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
                        • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
                        • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
                        • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

                        It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

                        And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
                        ...
                        http://humanevents.com/2015/05/07/ho...tm_campaign=nl
                        Good post.
                        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          I recommend reading the full article, especially to put the following excerpt into context. The author makes a case that this is more than semantics involved. The following excerpt relates to topics and posts (poster) of this thread
                          How Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Created ISIS

                          EXCERPT:
                          ...
                          How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

                          >>> Sounds like a few of the persons whom post here on this topic <<<

                          Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

                          Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
                          • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
                          • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
                          • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
                          • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

                          It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

                          And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
                          ...
                          http://humanevents.com/2015/05/07/ho...tm_campaign=nl
                          Islamic scripture is not at odds with religious freedom. What we are dealing with irt the folks who shot up the Anti Muhammad cartoon contest, is a new thing.

                          From the MEF source,

                          14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new.

                          This is the type of stuff folks should praise. That is Muslims and non Muslims coming forth to talk about the tolerant history of the Muslims.

                          Have you ever linked to Mr Stephen Schwartz in any of your GWOT threads? I'm glad I took some extra time to explore the MEF for myself, and to see that there are at least some pro Muslim voices over in the MEF.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            ^ Thank you Jihad John
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              That is Muslims and non Muslims coming forth to talk about the tolerant history of the Muslims.
                              TOLERANT HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMS?

                              Ok, this BS and lying has gone on long enough, hasn't it. Someone needs to stop pretending that they are anything else other than a pro-islamist schill.
                              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                                TOLERANT HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMS?

                                Ok, this BS and lying has gone on long enough, hasn't it. Someone needs to stop pretending that they are anything else other than a pro-islamist schill.
                                Trolls gotta troll. Best to ignore them.
                                Credo quia absurdum.


                                Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X