Carl Jung

Carl Gustav Jung (1875 – 1961) was the Swiss founder of analytical psychology. He created some of the best known psychological concepts and his work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, literature, and related fields.

"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god".

George S. Patton

George Smith Patton, Jr. (1885 – 1945 AD) was a United States Army officer most famous for his leadership commanding corps and armies as a general in World War II.

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing".


Mark Twain

Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 – 1910), well known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which has been called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. He is extensively quoted, and was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.

"That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters".


Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) was the third President of the United States, and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was one of the most influential Founding Fathers, known for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States.

"In reference to the Islamic slave trade of Americans and Europeans by the Barbary states, Jefferson asked Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. He answered:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise".

Jefferson later went to war with the Barbary states.


link

Gandhi:


Quote:

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

George Bernard Shaw:


Quote:

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

Bernard Lewis:


Quote:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’


Quote:

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.

:)

The proof is in the pudding, what is islam today?

The umbrella covering on a whole: the most backward, inbred, low I.Q., homicidal psychopaths who live to destroy each other's housing and health facilities, oppress women and work themselves into a maniacal trance screaming the islamic death chant allahua akbar, as they commit inhumane atrocities against their fellow man, because islam, allah, muhammad, qur'an tell them to.

moses wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

The proof is in the pudding, what is islam today?

moses: criticism of present day muslims is valid, and must be addressed. However it is a phase the great religion/civilization is going through - like all great civilizations go through dark times.

Thoughts on this very problem by Bernard Lewis:


Quote:

Islam over the last 14 centuries has brought dignity and meaning to millions of drab and impoverished lives. It has created a great civilization that has gone through several different phases in several different countries. It is now going through a major crisis, and it could go either way. It could descend into a fanatical tyranny, which would be devastating for Muslims and a threat to the rest of the world. Or they may succeed in developing their own brand of democracy. When we talk about the possibility of democracy in the Islamic world, it doesnt have to be our kind. Our kind results from our own history and institutions. Its not a universal model. They can, and I think will, develop their own brand of democracy, by which I mean limited, civilized, responsible government. And there are signs of that.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/08/19/seven_questions_bernard_lewis_on_the_two_biggest_myths_about_islam

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

Gandhi: Quote: I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life. George Bernard Shaw: [quote]“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

Bernard Lewis:


Quote:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’


Quote:

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.

:)[/quote]

:P

gandalf wrote:

Quote:

Islam over the last 14 centuries has brought dignity and meaning to millions of drab and impoverished lives. It has created a great civilization that has gone through several different phases in several different countries. It is now going through a major crisis, and it could go either way. It could descend into a fanatical tyranny, which would be devastating for Muslims and a threat to the rest of the world. Or they may succeed in developing their own brand of democracy. When we talk about the possibility of democracy in the Islamic world, it doesnt have to be our kind. Our kind results from our own history and institutions. Its not a universal model. They can, and I think will, develop their own brand of democracy, by which I mean limited, civilized, responsible government. And there are signs of that.

Well gandalf a reformation of islamic society / religion / politics would require you to question where islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an has positioned you today 2014.

You can stay in the 7th century quiet easily, by simply not acknowledging the many flawed evil verses, commands, teachings and tenets of the above aggregate.

Then again you can admit to the above flaws, of course this would mean the end of islam.

So you are between the rock and the hard place: keep lying to yourself, saying that islam / allah / muhammad / quran are perfect examples of teachings, commands, verses and tenets for mankind, then you stay in your barbaric 7th century islamic world.

Or

Admit to the faults and failings of islam, it's satanic deity, it's psychopathic founder, it's satanic verses: E.G. the collapse of islam.

moses wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

The proof is in the pudding, what is islam today? The umbrella covering on a whole: the most backward, inbred, low I.Q., homicidal psychopaths who live to destroy each other's housing and health facilities, oppress women and work themselves into a maniacal trance screaming the islamic death chant allahua akbar, as they commit inhumane atrocities against their fellow man, because islam, allah, muhammad, qur'an tell them to.

Not to forget, most of the illegals are from the islamic countries.
They are escaping to western capitalistic secular democracies.

yep, the proof of the pie is in the eating. And muslims are vomiting.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

moses wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 12:25pm: The proof is in the pudding, what is islam today? moses: criticism of present day muslims is valid, and must be addressed. However it is a phase the great religion/civilization is going through - like all great civilizations go through dark times. Thoughts on this very problem by Bernard Lewis: Quote: Islam over the last 14 centuries has brought dignity and meaning to millions of drab and impoverished lives. It has created a great civilization that has gone through several different phases in several different countries. It is now going through a major crisis, and it could go either way. It could descend into a fanatical tyranny, which would be devastating for Muslims and a threat to the rest of the world. Or they may succeed in developing their own brand of democracy. When we talk about the possibility of democracy in the Islamic world, it doesnt have to be our kind. Our kind results from our own history and institutions. Its not a universal model. They can, and I think will, develop their own brand of democracy, by which I mean limited, civilized, responsible government. And there are signs of that. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/08/19/seven_questions_bernard_lewis_on_the_two_biggest_myths_about_islam

Islam is an improvement only for the most savage and backward 6th century Arabians. Compared to savages, it is an improvement.

Compared to where the rest of the world has been able to progress since the advent of Islam, Islam must be seen as a strong force of regression and an oppressive break on human freedom, endeavour and flowering.

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Islam is an improvement only for the most savage and backward 6th century Arabians. Compared to savages, it is an improvement. Compared to where the rest of the world has been able to progress since the advent of Islam, Islam must be seen as a strong force of regression and an oppressive break on human freedom, endeavour and flowering.

Soren, islam brought an unprecedented level of scientific learning and philosophical thinking to the world, as well as reintroduced Greek philosophy to the western world. You even quoted a historical source some months back that argued that islam was the primary driver of the scientific golden age of the arab world.

The muslim world today is in a glut, just like all great civilizations go through at stages of their existence. But history has proven to us what islamic cultures are capable of - great enlightenment and great thinking. It is entirely inadequate to simply dismiss the islamic civilization as incapable of anything apart from death and destruction - because of its proven record. As Bernard Lewis argues, there is no reason why the muslim world cannot reclaim its greatness and establish more enlightened and democratic societies - certainly nothing in terms of islamic doctrine.

That much cited golden age of Islam was despite Islam. The proof of it is that it was ended by greater adherence to Islam. It was ended by Islam's Cultural Revolution which has lasted to this day.  Independent thought has been replaced by the following of religious experts. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

islam brought an unprecedented level of scientific learning and philosophical thinking to the world, as well as reintroduced Greek philosophy to the western world. You even quoted a historical source some months back that argued that islam was the primary driver of the scientific golden age of the arab world. The muslim world today is in a glut, just like all great civilizations go through at stages of their existence. But history has proven to us what islamic cultures are capable of - great enlightenment and great thinking.

Islam did not bring any scientific learning to the world,Al Ghazali and others decalared Ibn Sina was an atheist and apostate, al Razi you even conceded was not a muslim, all you have is al Haytham who wrote a book on optics while under house arrest and feigning madness because he feared a Caliph would have him killed.

The muslims like Biruni translated works from hindu mathematicians and passed them off as Islamic. ;D ;D ;D :D :D

Some famous Islamophobes -
themuslimissue.wordpress.com/islamophobes

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 3:37pm:

Not to forget, most of the illegals are from the islamic countries.

Ah yes, Islamic countries like the USA and Britain.

"THERE are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane."

"Figures obtained by The Advertiser from the Immigration Department and under the Freedom of Information Act show plane arrivals from the United States (5080) and Britain (3610) are near the top of the list of those in the country without a valid visa."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 12:43pm: moses wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 12:25pm: The proof is in the pudding, what is islam today? moses: criticism of present day muslims is valid, and must be addressed. However it is a phase the great religion/civilization is going through - like all great civilizations go through dark times. Thoughts on this very problem by Bernard Lewis: Quote: Islam over the last 14 centuries has brought dignity and meaning to millions of drab and impoverished lives. It has created a great civilization that has gone through several different phases in several different countries. It is now going through a major crisis, and it could go either way. It could descend into a fanatical tyranny, which would be devastating for Muslims and a threat to the rest of the world. Or they may succeed in developing their own brand of democracy. When we talk about the possibility of democracy in the Islamic world, it doesnt have to be our kind. Our kind results from our own history and institutions. Its not a universal model. They can, and I think will, develop their own brand of democracy, by which I mean limited, civilized, responsible government. And there are signs of that. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/08/19/seven_questions_bernard_lewis_on_the_two_biggest_myths_about_islam Islam is an improvement only for the most savage and backward 6th century Arabians. Compared to savages, it is an improvement. Compared to where the rest of the world has been able to progress since the advent of Islam, Islam must be seen as a strong force of regression and an oppressive break on human freedom, endeavour and flowering.

How marvellous. Shurely you’ll be converting, no?

I was just wondering kamel if its possible for you to contribute or can we expect most of your posts to be inane in this thread like elsewhere ?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Mark Twain [i]Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 – 1910), well known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which has been called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. He is extensively quoted, and was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.

"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be—a Christian."

- Mark Twain


"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory as it is...Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."

- Mark Twain

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

Gandhi: Quote: I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life. George Bernard Shaw: [quote]“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

Bernard Lewis:


Quote:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’


Quote:

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.

:)[/quote]

Ghandi from a Christian perspective would be termed a false prophet right along with mohammed so from that perspective their would be no surprises in his stamp of approval on another false prophet. It is interesting he also rejected Christianity citing Christians not Jesus as the fault but conveniently ignored every muslim on the planet  ;D . For him to embrace Christianity meant losing his status. To embrace Islam no such loss, old Ghandi wasn't dumb. Just like mohammed and his book couldn't embrace Christianity.

James Michener doesn't speak for all modern scholars for starters.

Bernard Lewis clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says.

George Bernard Shaw clearly writes as though he is a muslim and is ignorant to many of the facts of mohammeds life and islam.


Most claimed to have studied, most clearly cherry pick and ignore the full story and writings. Making a claim to have studied is not a right of passage until one has. Claiming to speak on behalf of all modern scholars is just ludicrous.

All one has to do is look at its fruits according to its core doctrine.

Abbott Lies wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:33am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:14pm: Mark Twain [i]Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 – 1910), well known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. Twain is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which has been called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. He is extensively quoted, and was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty. "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be—a Christian." - Mark Twain "There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory as it is...Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled." - Mark Twain

Religion is man made just like Islam bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory as it is...
"neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian" of course they are not they can't be. A follower of Christ is a Christian a true Christian follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and steadfastly follows his ways.

Imposters will fly religious banners and wolves in sheep clothing be everywhere giving all religions a bad name. The difference I guess is if the doctrine promotes violence. In this case Christianity which it does not as that is the teachings of Jesus Christ. Islam and mohammed and his book on the other hand is a whole other kettle of fish.

If your going to try and lay the boot in lets add some substance to the equation.

Abbott Lies wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:33am:

"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be—a Christian." - Mark Twain

"If Mohammed were here now there is one thing he would be doing — fighting jihad in Syria and Iraq."

- Soren

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 7:29pm: Islam is an improvement only for the most savage and backward 6th century Arabians. Compared to savages, it is an improvement. Compared to where the rest of the world has been able to progress since the advent of Islam, Islam must be seen as a strong force of regression and an oppressive break on human freedom, endeavour and flowering. Soren, islam brought an unprecedented level of scientific learning and philosophical thinking to the world, as well as reintroduced Greek philosophy to the western world.

The first part is overstated the second part is untrue.

But more importantly, why did they abandon such a splendidly and supposedly very Islamic enterprise?
Why have Muslims chosen to retreat from the pursuit of science and knowledge in favour of dogma and have been resisting a return to their golden age for 800 years?

In the sunni/shia rivalry and civil wars there is not one side that is enlightened and the other backward - they are fighting for the supremacy of their particular brand of backward dogmatism. Neither side is standing for a return to the supposedly unprecedented excellence of Islam all those centuries ago.

Why has this not been on the agenda for the two most significant branches of Islam for the past 800 years?

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:

James Michener doesn't speak for all modern scholars for starters.

Not all, but most. As he stated, no modern scholar accepts the simplistic "Islam spread by the sword" mantra.


Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:

Bernard Lewis clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says.

This just comes across as sour grapes.  Shaw is a leading western authority on middle eastern and islamic history.

I never meant this as a "my quotes are better than yours" exercise - but in a thread about what non-muslims think about islam, it is relevant to give the opposing views. Herb clearly intended this thread to be about how all "men of repute" throughout western history, agreed with his version of what islam and muslims are about. My point was only to say that they demonstrably do not - not even close.

But, since you bring it up...

You say Shaw "clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says" - which is extremely rich, since you imply that his views are somehow less authoritative than say George S Patton or Carl Jung. Tell me, do you think Patton (a military leader) or Carl Jung (a psychologist) had a better knowledge of what the Quran says than a pre-eminent historian of islam? Laughable.

If it comes down to knowledge and understanding of the Quran and muslims, my boys win hands down  :)

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

But more importantly, why did they abandon such a splendidly and supposedly very Islamic enterprise? Why have Muslims chosen to retreat from the pursuit of science and knowledge in favour of dogma and have been resisting a return to their golden age for 800 years?

Good question. There are various explanations - the logistic problems of running such a vast, centrally run empire, decadence that comes with so much wealth and prosperity, and the Mongol invasions. But ultimately, it comes down to what it always comes down to with these things - great civilizations have an expiry date. It lasted for some 500-600, which I reckon is about an average shelf life for great empires. Its about the current age of our own western civilization (in its current form), and few doubt that we are in irreversible decline - plagued by all the usual symptoms - decadence, inefficiency, debt and external threats and attacks.

Personally I think the time is ripe for a second islamic golden age to fill the vacuum.  :)

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:

Bernard Lewis clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says.

Quote:

Bernard Lewis, FBA (born May 31, 1916) is a British-American historian specializing in oriental studies who is also known as a public intellectual and political commentator. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Lewis' expertise is in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West, and is especially famous in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.[1]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis]

Matty you don't get to be an Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern Studies without at least a working knowledge of the Koran.  Your Christian bigotry has the better of your thinking but isn't unusual for you, now is it?   :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 4:16pm:

Personally I think the time is ripe for a second islamic golden age to fill the vacuum.  :)

Alas, you are not even far from setting the agenda.

People who have made Islam over the last 800 years into what it is today are continuing to set the course of Islam: bloody and hostile both inward and out.

Islam needs a new prophet, a new testament.

:)

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

Alas, you are not even far from setting the agenda.

We would be a lot closer to setting the agenda if non-muslim critics like your good self gave us some moral support rather than bagging us out all the time  :)

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17th, 2014 at 4:16pm: Personally I think the time is ripe for a second islamic golden age to fill the vacuum.  :) Alas, you are not even far from setting the agenda. People who have made Islam over the last 800 years into what it is today are continuing to set the course of Islam: bloody and hostile both inward and out. Islam needs a new prophet, a new testament. :)

What they need to do is see it for what it is and move on. A vehicle for one warlord to get what he wanted nothing more. The amount of poor people duped is astounding. The extremists still use them for support and getting the last laugh.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 8:07pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2014 at 7:55pm: Alas, you are not even far from setting the agenda. We would be a lot closer to setting the agenda if non-muslim critics like your good self gave us some moral support rather than bagging us out all the time  :)

Let me know when your next march is against Islamic fundamentalism and we will walk arm in arm.

Or why not start an anti-niqab/burqa campaign in Australia, like this guy in Britain.

"According to Dr Hargey, everyone in Britain, including Muslims, should oppose the insidious spread of the burka, which he says imprisons women, threatens social harmony, fuels distrust, has grave health implications and is a potent security risk"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695181/Why-I-Muslim-launching-campaign-ban-burka-Britain.html


Credibility, innit.

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17th, 2014 at 4:16pm: Personally I think the time is ripe for a second islamic golden age to fill the vacuum.  :) Alas, you are not even far from setting the agenda. People who have made Islam over the last 800 years into what it is today are continuing to set the course of Islam: bloody and hostile both inward and out. Islam needs a new prophet, a new testament. :)

I say, old chap, they could do a lot worse than your Martin Luther.

Perhaps you could translate the Koran into German. Got mit uns, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

I think this quote sums islam up.

Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes arc essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neophitonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics
and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also
an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed
some originality in mathematics and in chemistry—in the latter
case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches. Moham-
medan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and
in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent
speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must
not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern
European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Moham-
medans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy
required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization—
education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West
when it emerged from barbarism—the Mohammedans chiefly in
the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In
each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any
produced by the transmitters.

Bertrand Russell  "A History of Western Philosophy" pages 447 448.

no innovation during the islamic golden age?

Laughable.

Of course you'd think it sums Islam up.  Most knowledgeable historians know otherwise.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

Of course you'd think it sums Islam up.  Most knowledgeable historians know otherwise.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Whats up with your more powerful id socky sock sock ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

no innovation during the islamic golden age? Laughable.

Your comment adds nothing.

Who are you to question Bertrand Russell. All you are is a muslim.

I rarely comment here due to threats from the muslim mod

Adamant wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 6:41pm:

Who are you to question Bertrand Russell. All you are is a muslim.

Bertrand Russel was a great philosopher, but he was not a historian - let alone an islamic one. He was not in any way shape or form a qualified expert in anything islamic.

Who are you to question actual experts in islamic history like Bernard Lewis?

The list of innovations from the islamic world is endless. From advances in surgery to revolutionary discoveries in astronomy. The idea that muslim scholars during the islamic age were primarily translators and made no significant contributions in scientific innovation, is, as I say, laughable. Even if the claim comes from a great philosopher.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

I rarely comment here due to threats from the muslim mod

Please enlighten me sprint - preferably with evidence.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

Adamant wrote on Jul 18th, 2014 at 6:41pm: Who are you to question Bertrand Russell. All you are is a muslim. Bertrand Russel was a great philosopher, but he was not a historian - let alone an islamic one. He was not in any way shape or form a qualified expert in anything islamic. Who are you to question actual experts in islamic history like Bernard Lewis? The list of innovations from the islamic world is endless. From advances in surgery to revolutionary discoveries in astronomy. The idea that muslim scholars during the islamic age were primarily translators and made no significant contributions in scientific innovation, is, as I say, laughable. Even if the claim comes from a great philosopher.

We are posting off topic! I fear a ban! But to appease your insatiable appetite for the ridiculous I offer this.

History of Science: Setting the record straight. Thread is 80% LIES go check it out!

Algebra was invented by the Hindu for instance.

The thread was written by muslims for muslims to alter the history for muslims to lie to the dimmi.

Grandlaf reminds me of Dicky Knee  ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 18^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

Bertrand Russel was a great philosopher, but he was not a historian - let alone an islamic one. He was not in any way shape or form a qualified expert in anything islamic.

See, Gandy? Even with you, the modern, moderate Muslim, religious authority still trumps independent thought.

Taqlid trumps ijtihad. This is why Islam has been stagnant and backward for centuries.

Your right S - we definitely should not criticise individual thought...

unless of course its independent objective observers like Bernard Lewis, or anyone else who doesn't "tow the line"

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 25^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Your right S - we definitely should not criticise individual thought... unless of course its independent objective observers like Bernard Lewis, or anyone else who doesn't "tow the line"

Islam is one of the world's great religions. Let me be explicit about what I, as a historian of Islam who is not a Muslim, mean by that. Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world. But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/

Good article. S if you quote this article as someone who approves and agrees with it, then I am greatly encouraged.


Quote:

The movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail. But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves. And in the meantime we must take great care on all sides to avoid the danger of a new era of religious wars, arising from the exacerbation of differences and the revival of ancient prejudices.

food for thought?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 1:21pm:

Good article. S if you quote this article as someone who approves and agrees with it, then I am greatly encouraged. Quote: The movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail. But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves. And in the meantime we must take great care on all sides to avoid the danger of a new era of religious wars, arising from the exacerbation of differences and the revival of ancient prejudices. food for thought?

Oh, I think S will have a few problems with that one, G. In old-boy sprecht, avoiding religious wars is called cowardice.

The same applies on the home front. Being nice to the tinted neighbours is considered spineless. No one has the right to not be offended, you see, and all should be offended at every opportunity.

S, you see, is civilised. It’s what makes him superior to these awful apologist types who blather on about exacerbating differences and reviving ancient prejudices.

The tinted races are the enemy. The tinted races have always been the enemy. Always, absolutely, never ever.

It’s simple science. Correlation not causation, innit.

Allah Made Me Do It

September 29, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield 142 CommentsDaniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.2.7K216199 Print This PostStop me if you’ve heard this story before.A Muslim convert who recently became very religious beheads a woman while reportedly shouting Islamic phrases. The authorities rush to convince everyone in sight that it has nothing to do with Islam.I’m not talking about Alton Nolen in Oklahoma at the end of September, but Nicholas Salvador in the UK at the beginning of September. Salvador, a Nigerian Muslim convert, beheaded an 82-year-old European woman with a foot-long blade. Nolen killed a 54-year-old American woman with a 10-inch blade.The bios of both men are fairly similar to the beheaders of British soldier Lee Rigby. The perpetrators were Nigerian converts to Islam. Alton Nolen was a black convert to Islam. They had a history of criminal behavior followed by a conversion to Islam and the inevitable bloody ending.On his Facebook page, Nolen posted, “Sharia law is coming!!!” The killers of Lee Rigby had chanted for Sharia law in the streets of London. That is the same Sharia law of stonings and beheadings.It is the law of the Koran which states, “When you meet the unbelievers in Jihad smite at their necks until you have slaughtered many of them.” (Koran 47:4)Or as Nolen quoted after posting a gory beheading photo on his Facebook page, “Thus do we find the clear precedent that explains the peculiar penchant of Islamic terrorists to behead their victims: it is merely another precedent bestowed by their Prophet.”The quote underneath the beheading photo backed that up, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off of them.”(Quran 8:9-13)An unbeliever is anyone who isn’t a Muslim.This latest “Nothing to do with Islam” atrocity follows the Islamic State’s beheading of two Americans. These acts were admired by an Oklahoma City nursing home worker who was arrested for threatening a female co-worker with an ISIS style beheading on account of her being a Christian.Again, nothing to do with Islam. Much like the Islamic State beheadings which we have been told also have nothing to do with Islam.This sort of “Nothing to do with Islam” beheading pops up now and again.A decade ago Ariel Selloul was nearly decapitated in Texas by Mohammed Ali Alayed. Mo had recently gotten religion and become a devout Muslim. His victim was Jewish. Before Mohammed got serious about Islam, the two men had been friends.Again, it had nothing to do with Islam. At least that’s what the authorities said.Around the same time a Jewish disc jockey was murdered in Paris by a Muslim friend who announced, “I killed a Jew, I will go to paradise. Allah made me do it.”The Muslim killer, Adel Amastaibou, had threatened a Rabbi and a pregnant Jewish woman before. Instead the authorities decided that he was mentally ill.Nothing to do with Islam. Not a thing.And so we have a rash of mysterious beheadings and vicious stabbings that we know nothing about except that they have nothing to do with Islam. The more they obviously seem to have something to do with Islam, the more it has to be denied that they had anything to do with Islam.Alton and Adel, Mohammed, Mujahid and Ismail, the latter two being the Muslim names of the Lee Rigby killers, have nothing to do with Islam. Even the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam.And yet Alton Nolen decided that beheading had quite a lot to do with Islam. All he had to do to figure that out was open a Koran. Expecting to convince Muslims to believe that the Koran has nothing to do with Islam will be even harder than convincing them that beheadings and the Islamic State have nothing to do with Islam.You might as well argue that Islam has nothing to do with Islam.The CVE programs under Barack Obama keep promising to counter the Islamic narrative on Twitter, but instead Twitter is full of ISIS Jihadists displaying severed heads as trophies and quoting the appropriate verses from the Koran.Obama denounces ISIS as un-Islamic  for beheading people while leading a coalition against them which includes Muslim countries that use beheading as an Islamic punishment. The Saudis recently beheaded a man accused of sorcery. What’s the difference between the Islamic State and the Saudis? They both have lots of oil, terrorists and a penchant for beheading people, but the Saudis have better public relations.Maybe when the Islamic State starts funding chairs at Georgetown and UCLA, and donating to the Clinton Global Initiative, it’ll start getting better press.The Saudis can’t possibly be un-Islamic because the establishment’s official definition of Islam comes from them. Even the idea of denying that the Islamic State is Islamic is a Saudi strategy. But if Alton Nolen is un-Islamic then ISIS is un-Islamic and if ISIS is un-Islamic then Saudi Arabia is un-Islamic. And then Islam, whose holy book contains numerous verses calling for the brutal murder of non-Muslims, must also be un-Islamic.Perhaps then there really isn’t an Islam. Or rather there are two Islams.One is the oriental Unitarianism of the Western imagination whose practitioners are liberals with prayer rugs.

One is the oriental Unitarianism of the Western imagination whose practitioners are liberals with prayer rugs. The other is a grim relentless Jihad of murderous men who chant the Koran while severing heads. This is the Islam of the Arabian imagination. It is not always what it is, but to them it is the purity of what it should be.The convert to Islam rarely becomes a liberal with a prayer rug. To become devout is to become more certain, not less certain. And that certainty ends in Jihad. It ends in a murder commanded by Allah.The real Islam’s symbols carry powerful meanings. The beheading is the final and ultimate meaning. By killing non-Muslims in the name of Allah, its followers become Allah, they gain the power of life and death, to kill and enslave, to rob and rape; they become the murderous masters of creation.When they say that “Allah made me do it” what they really mean is that the part of them that wants to kill, to rob and rape, to burn and kidnap, made them do it. By submitting to Allah, the Muslim becomes Allah. When he kills, it is Allah killing. His religion is reducible to his will to kill. This is ISIS. This is Islam.It has nothing to do with the imaginary Islam of the liberal. It has everything to do with the real Islam.



It is completely unacceptable to say that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic beheadings. A complete lie.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

criticism of present day muslims is valid, and must be addressed. However it is a phase the great religion/civilization is going through - like all great civilizations go through dark times.

I'd guess that there are a great number of Muslims who would welcome the rise of a moderate Islamic doctrine... But this is one ideal where Islam and Christianity part company (in terms of a text's ultimate authority over temporal matters).

There is no place for a 'second prophet' within Islam - One who can reinterpret the founding text to the degree that is possible within Christianity.

This is why the Satanic verses is a fault line within Islam... The notion that if Mohammed was deceived (at least) once by Satan, who can say that he was not deceived elsewhere?

And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform.

Islamic reformers including myself believe that "reforming" merely means going back to how Islam was originally conceived - which was fundamentally a very personal spiritual doctrine, not the community and society wide set of restrictions and regulations that was only conceived long after the Prophet's death.

Quote:

And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform.

So your insistence that Muhammed's command to execute gay people, both the giver and reciever, is not actually a command to execute gay people, is not a form of reinterpretation?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Islamic reformers including myself believe that "reforming" merely means going back to how Islam was originally conceived -

That sounds exactly like what Muhammad Wahhab did, he did nothing innovative he purified Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform. Islamic reformers including myself believe that "reforming" merely means going back to how Islam was originally conceived - which was fundamentally a very personal spiritual doctrine, not the community and society wide set of restrictions and regulations that was only conceived long after the Prophet's death.

This is not really true if Mohammed’s last sermon is anything to go by.

[url][http://www.iqrasense.com/about-islam/the-last-sermon-khutbah-of-prophet-muhammad-farewell-sermon.html[url]

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

Quote: And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform. So your insistence that Muhammed's command to execute gay people, both the giver and reciever, is not actually a command to execute gay people, is not a form of reinterpretation?

What about the Bible's commands to kill gay people, men and women?   That Christians, well most anyway, don't do this, suggests what about the power of reinterpretation?   ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 3:33pm: Quote: And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform. So your insistence that Muhammed's command to execute gay people, both the giver and reciever, is not actually a command to execute gay people, is not a form of reinterpretation? What about the Bible's commands to kill gay people, men and women?   That Christians, well most anyway, don't do this, suggests what about the power of reinterpretation?   ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah, the power of reinterpretation known as the New Testament.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 3:33pm: Quote: And where I part with you North is in insisting that the Islamic texts must be reinterpreted in order to reform. So your insistence that Muhammed's command to execute gay people, both the giver and reciever, is not actually a command to execute gay people, is not a form of reinterpretation? What about the Bible's commands to kill gay people, men and women?   That Christians, well most anyway, don't do this, suggests what about the power of reinterpretation?   ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Yeah, the power of reinterpretation known as the New Testament.

Yet they still have the Old Testament in their holy book and as we have seen, fundamentalists such as Yadda love quoting it's teachings.   Funny how you keep disowning it yet he's the one who keeps quoting it.   You disowning his views on his religion?  Going to claim he isn't a "real Christian"?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D