FD recently offered some interesting tips on what the muslim world must do before they can be accepted into the civilized world:


freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

I have suggested what I think is lacking. It is the basics - like Muslims embracing freedom of speech instead of pretending to, but then siding against freedom of speech at every opportunity. It is working with the police instead of against them in rounding up would-be jihadis here in Australia and those funding them. It is admitting that what Muhammed did was a ghastly act of genocide, rather than proclaiming to the extremists that slaughtering people en-masse if they refuse to support your Islamic state is a noble example to follow.

I found the highlighted part most interesting here. FD raises an interesting issue regarding how beholden contemporary followers of a particular religion are of the examples or practices of revered or holy figures of their religious doctrines.

Here we have the episode of the mass execution of the military aged men of the Banu Qurayza for conspiring with an enemy that, at the time, was attempting to overrun and destroy the fledgling islamic state. I won't go into the rights or wrongs of the event, instead I will take it from FD's perspective that it was a horrible and unjustified genocide.

So the question is, can the religion of islam "move forward" into the 21st century, with this genocide cloud hanging over them? Or should, as FD suggested, muslims stand up and condemn the act by their prophet as an act of pure evil?

As soon as I saw this 'suggestion', I was straight reminded of another religion with another similar sort of cloud hanging over them. Its the account of the Israelites conquest of Canaan, after the exodus. We know that there was great slaughter in the land, as illustrated by the account of the fall of Jericho for example. We know that women and children were put to the sword - in the name of God - as specifically commanded by God in the book of Genisis.

Now, in the language of 21st century sensibilities, such an account as described above would without question be described as a great atrocity, war crime and genocide. Unlike the incident with the Banu Qurayza, this slaughter of Canaanites is specifically framed as part of biblical doctrine: God commanded that these people be slaughtered, and indeed it was a test of the Israelites faith - the more willing they were to slaughter babies, the closer they were to God. But I hasten to add, this is not to judge, but just to put this into context.

So the question I ask is could the Christian religion "move forward" into 21st century civilization with this cloud hanging over them? The answer is they can and they have. Of course the inevitable counter will be that of course Christians don't, or didn't go round slaughtering children en-masse in emulation of their ancient prophets in the first place. I counter by saying, well actually, yes they did. Christians made mass slaughter of men women and children an art form during many periods including Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony, the crusader's conquest of Jerusalem and much of Palestine during the first crusade, and of course the conquistador conquest of Central and South America. And thats not even going into the many interfaith wars post-reformation.

So we can see that in the case of Christianity, we have 1. a religion that has mass slaughter of men women and children enshrined in its holy book 2. examples throughout history of its adherents "emulating" their prophet(s) (as much as muslim terrorists can be said to be "emulating" their prophet). By the standards being applied to islam, this fits the criteria for a religion that cannot "move forward" until its adherents stand up and reject their doctrine as evil.

And yet they have not.

And yet Christianity has managed to (mostly) stop being a violent religion, and has embraced 21st century values.

By this logic, there is no reason why islam cannot do the same without the need for its adherents to stand up and condemn their prophet.

Fine, then just do it will you?

brumbie wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:37am:

Fine, then just do it will you?

You can’t possibly be serious.

Quote:

Of course the inevitable counter will be that of course Christians don't, or didn't go round slaughtering children en-masse in emulation of their ancient prophets in the first place.

The inevitable counter is "what would Jesus do" vs "what would Muhammed do". Muhammed took Islam back to the dark days of genocide - long after Jesus had preached forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and long after Jewish orthodoxy preached diaspora and the end of political Judaism. The world took one step forward. Muhammed took two steps back.


Quote:

So we can see that in the case of Christianity, we have 1. a religion that has mass slaughter of men women and children enshrined in its holy book 2. examples throughout history of its adherents "emulating" their prophet(s) (as much as muslim terrorists can be said to be "emulating" their prophet). By the standards being applied to islam, this fits the criteria for a religion that cannot "move forward" until its adherents stand up and reject their doctrine as evil.

Like you said, they can and they have. You simply left out the bit about their doctrine supporting them doing so, in contrast with Islamic doctrine doing the opposite.


Quote:

By this logic, there is no reason why islam cannot do the same without the need for its adherents to stand up and condemn their prophet.

Merely by admitting that Muhammed's actions were a ghastly act of genocide, you are condemning your prophet. That is why you now refuse to go into the rights or wrongs of it. There is much in Muhammed's story that must be condemned. I doubt there will be much left afterwards. There is a clear justification in Christianity, and even in Judaism for rejecting the ways of the old. In Christianity, it is Jesus, who undeniably brought about change for the better. In Judaism, it is the diaspora, which is why you now get Jews arguing against the mere existence of Israel on doctrinal grounds. Muhammed threw all this out the window and firmly locked Islam in as a political and military force.

Gandalf, this is why, even though you claim to promote reform within Islam, in practice all you do is preach Islamic victimhood to non-Muslims.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:46am:

You simply left out the bit about their doctrine supporting them doing so, in contrast with Islamic doctrine doing the opposite.

um no, thats what the whole point I was making. Listen to what I say this time:

slaughtering women and babies *IS* supported by christian doctrine - it is specifically ordained as an act that will bring followers closer to God. I'm not making this up, its all there in Genesis.

Islamic doctrine on the other hand doesn't even mention the Qurayza executions - and it is certainly not something that is in any way framed as an "islamic" thing to do. It is merely a historical event carried out by the historical Muhammad. Do you see the difference?


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:46am:

There is a clear justification in Christianity, and even in Judaism for rejecting the ways of the old.

Christians need to reject an act that is a specific part of their doctrine - an act that their God ordains as bringing them closer to God. This can't be easy, but they have done it. Muslims on the other hand are not even being asked to reject a part of doctrine - the actions of Muhammad as a political leader in a particular time and place is not islamic doctrine. He even said so himself - to follow him on religious guidance, but not on other matters.

Quote:

um no, thats what the whole point I was making. Listen to what I say this time

I heard you the first time Gandalf. I explained why you were wrong. You ignored that explanation and instead chose to repeat yourself.


Quote:

It is merely a historical event carried out by the historical Muhammad.

Ah, I see. Nothing at all to do with Islam then. Carry on.


Quote:

Do you see the difference?

Looks the same to me. In both cases you demand people ignore the example set by the person who founded the religion. You expect us to judge Christianity by ignoring Jesus, and you expect us to judge Islam by ignoring Muhammed. And surprise surprise, you make Islam look more benign by doing so. It is a typical Muslim trick, and hardly surprising given that Muhammed himself tried to reinvent both Christianity and Judaism, and got a bit upset when the Jews ignored and mocked his BS.


Quote:

He even said so himself - to follow him on religious guidance, but not on other matters.

Can you provide the quote? Doesn't the Koran say he is a perfect example to follow? We have debated about your interpretation of Muhammed's example plenty of times before. I have even accused you of being an 'anti-Muhammedan' Muslim. I do not recall you making this claim before. Did you forget this little detail?

Wouldn't that make Muhammed the first hypocrite?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

I heard you the first time Gandalf. I explained why you were wrong. You ignored that explanation and instead chose to repeat yourself.

I didn't ignore it, I didn't see this "explanation". After reading your post again I still haven't seen it. Would you mind pointing it out to me?


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Looks the same to me. In both cases you demand people ignore the example set by the person who founded the religion. You expect us to judge Christianity by ignoring Jesus, and you expect us to judge Islam by ignoring Muhammed. And surprise surprise, you make Islam look more benign by doing so. It is a typical Muslim trick, and hardly surprising given that Muhammed himself tried to reinvent both Christianity and Judaism, and got a bit upset when the Jews ignored and mocked his BS.

Just to be clear  - you can't understand the difference between a specific call by God himself to slaughter babies, and in doing so will bring you closer to God, written in the Holy Book - with a secular ruling carried out by a secular ruler, that is not justified in religious terms, and is not even mentioned in the religion's Holy Book?

Anway, I have no idea what you mean by "you expect us to judge Christianity by ignoring Jesus" - thats about the exact opposite of what I said - ie christianity succeeds because we *DON'T* ignore the positive things about Jesus. Even though we could turn it around and point out that Jesus told his followers to take up the sword in defense of the religion (for example). And similarly with Islam, we could also emphasise the fact that Muhammad said "Faith is a restraint against all violence, let no Mu’min (muslim) commit violence."

In short, I see no good reason why muslims need to condemn the actions of their prophet as a necessary prerequisite to embracing 21st century secular values.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

Christians need to reject an act that is a specific part of their doctrine - an act that their God ordains as bringing them closer to God. This can't be easy, but they have done it. Muslims on the other hand are not even being asked to reject a part of doctrine - the actions of Muhammad as a political leader in a particular time and place is not islamic doctrine. He even said so himself - to follow him on religious guidance, but not on other matters.

Christianity was founded under the rule of Rome. Its texts were written after the destruction of Jerusalem that marked the end (for 2000 years) of political Judaism.

Christianity could not have survived as a militaristic doctrine, hence the repudiation of the Old Testament in favour of the pacifistic New Testament (written after the fall of Jerusalem).

Mohammed's Koran was written not so long after Justinian's empire nearly threatened all of the arabian peninsula, so he lived in a time when uniting the Arabs was a strategic imperative for Arab autonomy to prevail over a revived Roman Empire. Under those circumstances, it is unsurprising that the new religion's founding doctrine included a war doctrine... Something the New Testament could not.

And yet there is no "war doctrine" in Islam's holy book outside the permissibility to fight in self defense. The "kill all infidels" doctrine, if it ever existed in islamic law, only existed from ahadith that were revealed two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The quran says the path to God is the path to peace (5:16). Why maintain the argument that this message can be ignored in favour of the 'kill all infidels" message, but not the other way around? Thats my point.

Also, the geopolitical context in which Islam arose was not the threat of a resurgent Byzantine Empire, but rather a power vacuum that emerged from the two powers in the region - the Byzantines and the Persians - exhausting each other through a devastating war.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

And yet there is no "war doctrine" in Islam's holy book outside the permissibility to fight in self defense. The "kill all infidels" doctrine, if it ever existed in islamic law, only existed from ahadith that were revealed two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The quran says the path to God is the path to peace (5:16). Why maintain the argument that this message can be ignored in favour of the 'kill all infidels" message, but not the other way around? Thats my point.

Then vive le reformation Islamique!

Quote:

I didn't ignore it, I didn't see this "explanation". After reading your post again I still haven't seen it. Would you mind pointing it out to me?

Jesus fundamentally changed the religion. You cannot reconcile your characterisation of Christianity by the old parts of the old testament with what Jesus taught.


Quote:

Just to be clear  - you can't understand the difference between a specific call by God himself to slaughter babies, and in doing so will bring you closer to God, written in the Holy Book - with a secular ruling carried out by a secular ruler, that is not justified in religious terms, and is not even mentioned in the religion's Holy Book?

I cannot understand your description of Muhammed as a secular ruler. I asked you to back this claim up last post.


Quote:

Anway, I have no idea what you mean by "you expect us to judge Christianity by ignoring Jesus" - thats about the exact opposite of what I said

Can you explain Jesus' involvement in the extract you used to characterise Christianity?


Quote:

Even though we could turn it around and point out that Jesus told his followers to take up the sword in defense of the religion (for example).

Plenty of others have explained this here to my satisfaction. All you have to do is quote the whole verse. It is the only Jesus quote that sounds like a call to arms, and if you quote the whole thing it sounds like the opposite. In my opinion, this is simply Muslims trying to misrepresent Jesus as being similar to Muhammed, when in fact he is pretty much the opposite. I am sure you know this by now.


Quote:

And similarly with Islam, we could also emphasise the fact that Muhammad said "Faith is a restraint against all violence, let no Mu’min (muslim) commit violence."

Sure, if you want to define your religion by a person who says one thing and does the exact opposite.

Why does it not simply say let no Muslim commit violence?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:15am:

FD recently offered some interesting tips on what the muslim world must do before they can be accepted into the civilized world: freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 5:01pm: I have suggested what I think is lacking. It is the basics - like Muslims embracing freedom of speech instead of pretending to, but then siding against freedom of speech at every opportunity. It is working with the police instead of against them in rounding up would-be jihadis here in Australia and those funding them. It is admitting that what Muhammed did was a ghastly act of genocide, rather than proclaiming to the extremists that slaughtering people en-masse if they refuse to support your Islamic state is a noble example to follow. I found the highlighted part most interesting here. FD raises an interesting issue regarding how beholden contemporary followers of a particular religion are of the examples or practices of revered or holy figures of their religious doctrines. Here we have the episode of the mass execution of the military aged men of the Banu Qurayza for conspiring with an enemy that, at the time, was attempting to overrun and destroy the fledgling islamic state. I won't go into the rights or wrongs of the event, instead I will take it from FD's perspective that it was a horrible and unjustified genocide. So the question is, can the religion of islam "move forward" into the 21st century, with this genocide cloud hanging over them? Or should, as FD suggested, muslims stand up and condemn the act by their prophet as an act of pure evil? As soon as I saw this 'suggestion', I was straight reminded of another religion with another similar sort of cloud hanging over them. Its the account of the Israelites conquest of Canaan, after the exodus. We know that there was great slaughter in the land, as illustrated by the account of the fall of Jericho for example. We know that women and children were put to the sword - in the name of God - as specifically commanded by God in the book of Genisis. Now, in the language of 21st century sensibilities, such an account as described above would without question be described as a great atrocity, war crime and genocide. Unlike the incident with the Banu Qurayza, this slaughter of Canaanites is specifically framed as part of biblical doctrine: God commanded that these people be slaughtered, and indeed it was a test of the Israelites faith - the more willing they were to slaughter babies, the closer they were to God. But I hasten to add, this is not to judge, but just to put this into context. So the question I ask is could the Christian religion "move forward" into 21st century civilization with this cloud hanging over them? The answer is they can and they have. Of course the inevitable counter will be that of course Christians don't, or didn't go round slaughtering children en-masse in emulation of their ancient prophets in the first place. I counter by saying, well actually, yes they did. Christians made mass slaughter of men women and children an art form during many periods including Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony, the crusader's conquest of Jerusalem and much of Palestine during the first crusade, and of course the conquistador conquest of Central and South America. And thats not even going into the many interfaith wars post-reformation. So we can see that in the case of Christianity, we have 1. a religion that has mass slaughter of men women and children enshrined in its holy book 2. examples throughout history of its adherents "emulating" their prophet(s) (as much as muslim terrorists can be said to be "emulating" their prophet). By the standards being applied to islam, this fits the criteria for a religion that cannot "move forward" until its adherents stand up and reject their doctrine as evil. And yet they have not. And yet Christianity has managed to (mostly) stop being a violent religion, and has embraced 21st century values. By this logic, there is no reason why islam cannot do the same without the need for its adherents to stand up and condemn their prophet.

I think the religion is very capable. It will take people like you to make it so  :)

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

You cannot reconcile your characterisation of Christianity by the old parts of the old testament with what Jesus taught.

Then why is the old testament still part of the bible? I've seen many discussions with christians, but this point has never been satisfactorily answered. They basically argue that christianity starts with the new testament - and yet the OT is still there, and the actions of the Prophets in the OT is definitely not rejected as not being ordained by God. The genocide of the Canaanites, while christians would prefer wasn't there, can never be dismissed as not something that was ordained by the same God they worship.


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

I cannot understand your description of Muhammed as a secular ruler. I asked you to back this claim up last post.

Now now FD, don't be telling fibs.That was the first time I used the term, and you asked no such thing.

Anyway... Muhammad was a secular ruler, thats a simple statement of fact. He ruled over a multi-faith city state, and clearly made worldly rulings and political decisions that really had nothing to do with what we now term islamic doctrine. Thats the context in which I see the sentence carried out on the Banu Qurayza. A regular secular ruler, ruling purely in the interests of his worldly secular state.


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

Can you explain Jesus' involvement in the extract you used to characterise Christianity?

He wasn't - obviously. But that doesn't reconcile the conundrum I outlined above of christians not cutting loose the OT from their doctrine.


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

Sure, if you want to define your religion by a person who says one thing and does the exact opposite.

Thats your opinion FD, which I'm obviously not going to change. But you have done a sterling job at avoiding the core question of the thread - what good reason is there to conclude that muslims cannot move forward without condemning the actions of their Prophet?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

the core question of the thread - what good reason is there to conclude that muslims cannot move forward without condemning the actions of their Prophet?

Because Mohammed is the root cause of all of Islam’s problems, first among many is its unreformability.

To say that the koran is an eternal, direct word of god (in 7th century Arabic, no less)  is astonishingly stupid. And there is no way to get out of it so whatever reforms you might think you are undertaking, the most stupendous falsehood at the heart of Islam is unchangeable.

To then have it revealed just in time to suit his personal and political purposes and then abrogate as necessary is astonishingly self-serving and is just one of the many impossibilities that flow from the first one.

Soren wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 5:45pm: the core question of the thread - what good reason is there to conclude that muslims cannot move forward without condemning the actions of their Prophet? Because Mohammed is the root cause of all of Islam’s problems, first among many is its unreformability.

Yet reformists like Gandalf would argue otherwise, Soren.  In fact, I suspect they would argue that Muhammad is the reason why Islam can be reformed - by, as Gandalf has eloquently IMHO argued that if Muslims returned to the core, central teachings of Muhammed, jettisoning all the baggage that has crept in, in the last 1400 years, Islam could be modernised.   The point is, most of what the Islamists claim is central to Islam isn't.  It is based on teachings, beliefs, decisions which are not in the Q'ran and which were not actually part of Muhammad's original message.

Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren?

Oh, that's right, they are exactly that, Muslims and in your mind that is their problem right away.  Perhaps they should all just convert to your version of Christianity?  Might save a lot of itme, right?    ::)

Address the point I made, THEN you can obfuscate, Brain.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren?

Bearing in mind that if the Islamic world is in the throes of a reformation Christian style, or embarks on one, then it can expect (at least) many decades of upheaval, including protracted periods of violent counter-reformation.

And there is no guarantee that what emerges, finally, will be enlightened liberal Islam. The end of internecine conflict within Christendom required the overthrow of its hegemony over the west by humanist enlightenment... Something the Vatican and the ardently Protestant world did not encourage. In fact, the Vatican waged religious hot and cold wars against modernism, the values of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

In all it took nearly 400 years to end Christendom's mandate over the 'soul of man'.

Islam may need that long (or more) to complete its reformation - If it ends at all.

Karnal wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:43am:

brumbie wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 1:37am: Fine, then just do it will you? You can’t possibly be serious.

Why not?

Soren wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

Address the point I made, THEN you can obfuscate, Brain.

I did, Soren.  Just 'cause you don't accept my point doesn't mean I haven't made one.    ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren? Bearing in mind that if the Islamic world is in the throes of a reformation Christian style, or embarks on one, then it can expect (at least) many decades of upheaval, including protracted periods of violent counter-reformation. And there is no guarantee that what emerges, finally, will be enlightened liberal Islam. The end of internecine conflict within Christendom required the overthrow of its hegemony over the west by humanist enlightenment... Something the Vatican and the ardently Protestant world did not encourage. In fact, the Vatican waged religious hot and cold wars against modernism, the values of the renaissance and the enlightenment. In all it took nearly 400 years to end Christendom's mandate over the 'soul of man'. Islam may need that long (or more) to complete its reformation - If it ends at all.

I agree there is no guarantee, just as there isn't one for anything in life.  You make your choices and you take your chances, as the old saying goes.   You're right to point out that the forces of conservatism waged their own war against modernity in Christianity.  Something that many of the Islamophobes conveniently ignore.  One suspects they would be happier if the old time, fire-and-brimstone days were back.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren?

Because what Mohammed said and did is the problem for Islam. But there is no reforming that.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren? Because what Mohammed said and did is the problem for Islam. But there is no reforming that.

However, it can be reinterpreted.  Afterall, Christianity reinterpreted Christ's message to allow it to undertake wars, genocide, theft and so on, now didn't it?   

As Gandalf has shown all too often what you claim and what your fellow Islamophobes claim about what Muhammad said and did isn't true.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren? Because what Mohammed said and did is the problem for Islam. But there is no reforming that.

That’s strange, because what Freud said and did was all about uncovering truth through patience and listening and paying attention to the details.

You gave all that up years ago to immerse yourself in your smug, self righteous campaign against the Muselman.

People rarely pay attention to their prophets, old boy. If you can forget the example of Freud in a couple of generations, you can hardly expect the allah-uabarers to be basing their lives on the actions of an eighth century desert mystic.

You don’t obey Freud, few Christians obey Christ, and most Muslims only obey Muhammed in the most shallow of ways.

What do you expect? Gud is great.

1st step would be NOT machine-gunning 100's of unarmed fellow muslims, with their hands tied behind their backs, in the head


::) :P :-X :-/ ::) :P  :-/ :'(

IGNORING Mohammed and the Koran is not reform or reinterpretation, Stupd 1 and Stupid 2.







Karnal wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren? That’s strange, because what Freud said and did was all about uncovering truth through patience and listening and paying attention to the details. You gave all that up years ago to immerse yourself in your smug, self righteous campaign against the Muselman. People rarely pay attention to their prophets, old boy. If you can forget the example of Freud in a couple of generations, you can hardly expect the allah-uabarers to be basing their lives on the actions of an eighth century desert mystic. You don’t obey Freud, few Christians obey Christ, and most Muslims only obey Muhammed in the most shallow of ways. What do you expect? Gud is great.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

IGNORING Mohammed and the Koran is not reform or reinterpretation, Stupd 1 and Stupid 2. Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 11:43am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren? That’s strange, because what Freud said and did was all about uncovering truth through patience and listening and paying attention to the details. You gave all that up years ago to immerse yourself in your smug, self righteous campaign against the Muselman. People rarely pay attention to their prophets, old boy. If you can forget the example of Freud in a couple of generations, you can hardly expect the allah-uabarers to be basing their lives on the actions of an eighth century desert mystic. You don’t obey Freud, few Christians obey Christ, and most Muslims only obey Muhammed in the most shallow of ways. What do you expect? Gud is great.

Recontextualizing the Koran in the modern world is the only hope we’ve got to live peacefully with a quarter of the world’s population.

Banning them, carpet-bombing them and forcing them to convert to Lutheranism is no hope at all.

The head-hackers are fundamentalist knuckleheads cast in your very own mould. Only the language and the choice of weapons are different.

Our only hope is preventing the spread of your toxic bullsht dogma. You and ISIL are lost. We need to work with the next generation.

So says Cameron, Obama, Abbott, and Muslim leaders from Indonesia to Turkey.

If they are, as you say, wrong, may Allah save us from the death-driven fundamentalist clutches of yourself and ISIL.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:46am: You simply left out the bit about their doctrine supporting them doing so, in contrast with Islamic doctrine doing the opposite. um no, thats what the whole point I was making. Listen to what I say this time: slaughtering women and babies *IS* supported by christian doctrine - it is specifically ordained as an act that will bring followers closer to God. I'm not making this up, its all there in Genesis. Islamic doctrine on the other hand doesn't even mention the Qurayza executions - and it is certainly not something that is in any way framed as an "islamic" thing to do. It is merely a historical event carried out by the historical Muhammad. Do you see the difference? freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 7:46am: There is a clear justification in Christianity, and even in Judaism for rejecting the ways of the old. Christians need to reject an act that is a specific part of their doctrine - an act that their God ordains as bringing them closer to God. This can't be easy, but they have done it. Muslims on the other hand are not even being asked to reject a part of doctrine - the actions of Muhammad as a political leader in a particular time and place is not islamic doctrine. He even said so himself - to follow him on religious guidance, but not on other matters.

gandalf,


Quote:

slaughtering women and babies *IS* supported by christian doctrine - it is specifically ordained as an act that will bring followers closer to God. I'm not making this up, its all there in Genesis.

You are making this up.

It is NOT all there in Genesis - i.e. 'slaughtering Gods enemies makes one holy'.




AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU, PREVIOUSLY - but you clearly forgot about that.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333935983/107#107

Quote:

gandalf, God's word, the bible, makes it clear that blood-spilling judgement [even enacted on behalf of God] is NOT [necessarily] associated with righteousness [in a man]. In the 1st instance, judgement [against the wicked], and in the 2nd instance, the righteousness of the righteous, are completely separate issues. Ah then, but what about God's command to the ancient Israelites to destroy all the people of nations, as per Deuteronomy 7:1-2 ? Weren't the ancient Israelites justified, in obeying God's command ? Yes the ancient Israelites were justified. But God's law makes it clear that those ancient Israelites, who would have exacted those judgements [commanded by God], would been [would still have made themselves] unclean, in God's eyes. And they would have had to cleanse themselves, before they could be welcomed back into the congregation of the Israelites. Leviticus 5:1-3 Numbers 19:11, 16, 19 And that nature of personal 'uncleanliness' [in the act of killing], is also demonstrated by God [in the bible], in the example of King David. e.g. During his life, King David had 'slaughtered' many of the men of surrounding nations who were troubling Israel and her people. And because King David had killed so many men, God disallowed David from building God's temple; 1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: 8  But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. 1 Chronicles 28:3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood. So, killing people, even righteously, makes us spiritually unclean.

Karnal wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

Only the language and the choice of weapons are different.

Yeah, I am not spouting Islamic slogans and have no weapons, have hurt no-one, nor do I threaten anyone who disagree with me. Otherwise it’s the same.



You are an idiot, PB.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: Only the language and the choice of weapons are different. Yeah, I am not spouting Islamic slogans and have no weapons, have hurt no-one, nor do I threaten anyone who disagree with me. Otherwise it’s the same. You are an idiot, PB.

You’ve been banging on about carpet-bombing Muslim civilians for aeons. You advocate violence against people for their religious beliefs. And not just their religion, but their level of development, or in your words; their "tintedness".

How is this any different to those Muslims who celebrated September 11? How is it any different to those who support ISIL?

I’m curious. I really am.

Karnal wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:58pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: Only the language and the choice of weapons are different. Yeah, I am not spouting Islamic slogans and have no weapons, have hurt no-one, nor do I threaten anyone who disagree with me. Otherwise it’s the same. You are an idiot, PB. You’ve been banging on about carpet-bombing Muslim civilians for aeons. You advocate violence against people for their religious beliefs. And not just their religion, but their level of development, or in your words; their "tintedness". How is this any different to those Muslims who celebrated September 11? How is it any different to those who support ISIL? I’m curious. I really am.

He's right, you are really an idiot!

I’ve posted here now for quite a few years, Caliph, and I’ve learned one thing.

Those who use the word idiot are, in fact, deeply hurt. Most have been dismissed and ignored as children. They then play this out in forums like this, hoping that expelling insults like idiot will, in some small way, remove the pain from themselves.

It never helps, of course, and you’re left throwing more insults out, and more, until you’re demanding entire groups of people be put to death.

You’re not an idiot, Caliph, you’re just hurt. My advice is to use your life to help someone, even if it’s just in a small way. This makes you feel less important, and you don’t take those insults hurled at you as a child so seriously.

Give it a go. You’ll develop more empathy and peace within yourself. No one is an idiot, least of all you.

Karnal wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

I’ve posted here now for quite a few years, Caliph, and I’ve learned one thing. Those who use the word idiot are, in fact, deeply hurt. Most have been dismissed and ignored as children. They then play this out in forums like this, hoping that expelling insults like idiot will, in some small way, remove the pain from themselves. It never helps, of course, and you’re left throwing more insults out, and more, until you’re demanding entire groups of people be put to death. You’re not an idiot, Caliph, you’re just hurt. My advice is to use your life to help someone, even if it’s just in a small way. This makes you feel less important, and you don’t take those insults hurled at you as a child so seriously. Give it a go. You’ll develop more empathy and peace within yourself. No one is an idiot, least of all you.

But sometimes an idiot is just an idiot. For example comparing jihadis to forum posters is just idiotic. It may  hurt your sense of self-esteem, PB, but more often than not you say simply idiotic things. What is more, you like saying idiotic things. You think it’s clever to talk gibberish and shite. But it isn’t. It’s just idiotic.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 9:09pm: I’ve posted here now for quite a few years, Caliph, and I’ve learned one thing. Those who use the word idiot are, in fact, deeply hurt. Most have been dismissed and ignored as children. They then play this out in forums like this, hoping that expelling insults like idiot will, in some small way, remove the pain from themselves. It never helps, of course, and you’re left throwing more insults out, and more, until you’re demanding entire groups of people be put to death. You’re not an idiot, Caliph, you’re just hurt. My advice is to use your life to help someone, even if it’s just in a small way. This makes you feel less important, and you don’t take those insults hurled at you as a child so seriously. Give it a go. You’ll develop more empathy and peace within yourself. No one is an idiot, least of all you. But sometimes an idiot is just an idiot. For example comparing jihadis to forum posters is just idiotic. It may  hurt your sense of self-esteem, PB, but more often than not you say simply idiotic things. What is more, you like saying idiotic things. You think it’s clever to talk gibberish and shite. But it isn’t. It’s just idiotic.

Karnal is just back ground static designed to distract.  Why someone would want to dedicate so much time and effort to posting soooooooooo much containing so little is a subject by itself.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 9:09pm: I’ve posted here now for quite a few years, Caliph, and I’ve learned one thing. Those who use the word idiot are, in fact, deeply hurt. Most have been dismissed and ignored as children. They then play this out in forums like this, hoping that expelling insults like idiot will, in some small way, remove the pain from themselves. It never helps, of course, and you’re left throwing more insults out, and more, until you’re demanding entire groups of people be put to death. You’re not an idiot, Caliph, you’re just hurt. My advice is to use your life to help someone, even if it’s just in a small way. This makes you feel less important, and you don’t take those insults hurled at you as a child so seriously. Give it a go. You’ll develop more empathy and peace within yourself. No one is an idiot, least of all you. But sometimes an idiot is just an idiot. For example comparing jihadis to forum posters is just idiotic. It may  hurt your sense of self-esteem, PB, but more often than not you say simply idiotic things. What is more, you like saying idiotic things. You think it’s clever to talk gibberish and shite. But it isn’t. It’s just idiotic.

And yet, you’ve just avoided the question. Again.

How are calls for carpet-bombing the tinted races any different to calls for terrorist attacks?

Idiotic or not, I’m still curious. What makes your calls to violence, death and destruction superior to any others?

Soren will have two obvious answers, I predict.

1. Because it is he, representing the righteous calling for the destruction and death of the Musselman, Karnal.

2. Because he isn't a Musselman and you should stop being a spineless apologetic by implying that him calling for the carpet bombing of Musselmen can be compared to their calling for Terrorism to be conducted against the West.   ::)

What is holding the islamic world back?





gandalf,

Holding the ISLAMIC world back?

From accomplishing the aims of ISLAM ?

Nothing.

Every day, in every way, the moslem is getting closer and closer to his 'perfection'.

It is as plain as the nose on your face, gandalf.

Surely you must see that ?







http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/pics/large/731.jpg

Fouad Belkacem, a peace loving moslem - Belgium



Quote:

Belgium: Jihad Mega-Trial Begins by Soeren Kern October 6, 2014     "If you want to land in hell like all unbelievers that is your problem. ... We do not have an ounce of respect for you, infidels, nor for the way you live. Our religion and way of life are superior to yours." — Fouad Belkacem.     Belkacem called for violence against the West and said that becoming a jihadist was the greatest act of submission to Allah.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4757/belgium-jihad-trial






+++



Quote:

Cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance





An example of the moslem mind, and, the cognitive dissonance that is resident therein....

e.g.
"ISLAM rejects terror.       ISLAM promotes peace and harmony in society.'

AND then, there is ISLAM....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:10am:

Soren will have two obvious answers, I predict. 1. Because it is he, representing the righteous calling for the destruction and death of the Musselman, Karnal. 2. Because he isn't a Musselman and you should stop being a spineless apologetic by implying that him calling for the carpet bombing of Musselmen can be compared to their calling for Terrorism to be conducted against the West.   ::)

I beg to differ, BR. I predict Old Boy will have two obvious answers:

1. Mendacious, deceitful, twisted, lying PB.

2. Idiot.

Food for thought, eh?

QUESTION;
What is holding the islamic world back?


If you have watched this movie [below] you may realise what the answer is, to that question.              ;D




IMAGE...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XFiSkFbdb6U/TNXLt_35uHI/AAAAAAAABag/6UlPkOgClVM/s1600/832Four_Lions_2010_720p_B.png

"Allah akbar!!!"             ;D



IMAGE...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Four_Lions_poster.jpg

Four Lions (2010)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/

Karnal wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

And yet, you’ve just avoided the question. Again. How are calls for carpet-bombing the tinted races any different to calls for terrorist attacks? Idiotic or not, I’m still curious. What makes your calls to violence, death and destruction superior to any others?

You cravenly,  mendaciously and yes, lyingly misrepesent me.


We were talking about war and response to enemies. I used the example of Germany (not tinted) and Japan (slightly tinted).
I said we should not get into any war unless we are prepared to kill the enemy until it knows it is beaten. 
There is no point of going to war in order to spare the enemy. If we beat them and they have an election and choose a government that continues to be our enemy, then they are clearly not thinking that they are beaten and so a war will again ensue and the  killing can be resumed IF we want to beat them. .

Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat.

This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice.
It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria.

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat.

How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing?


Quote:

This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria.

Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm: And yet, you’ve just avoided the question. Again. How are calls for carpet-bombing the tinted races any different to calls for terrorist attacks? Idiotic or not, I’m still curious. What makes your calls to violence, death and destruction superior to any others? You cravenly,  mendaciously and yes, lyingly misrepesent me. We were talking about war and response to enemies. I used the example of Germany (not tinted) and Japan (slightly tinted). I said we should not get into any war unless we are prepared to kill the enemy until it knows it is beaten.  There is no point of going to war in order to spare the enemy. If we beat them and they have an election and choose a government that continues to be our enemy, then they are clearly not thinking that they are beaten and so a war will again ensue and the  killing can be resumed IF we want to beat them. . Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria.

Sorry, old chap, are you saying we shouldn’t carpetbomb Iraq, Iran, Labia and Syria?

That’s news to me.

Admirable restraint, old chap. I agree.

Carpetbombing should have an objective of some kind - preferably military. It’s not just something to - what was the word you used?

Satisfaction. Yes, it’s not a tool to satisfy our old boy instincts.

Good to see we’re on the same page, old chap. Thanks for the clarification.

You don’t want to carpetbomb the Muselman.Jolly good.

Now, onto the tinted races - would you like to retract your statements on them as well?

|dev|null wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:52pm: Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing? Quote: This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria. Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

That’s when you want to contain them or when yiu are supporting puppets.
But if you want to win, you go for unconditional surrender. That means beating them until they know they have lost. Unconditional surrender, that’s what happened with the nazis and japan.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:52pm: Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing? Quote: This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria. Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

True. It didn’t work on Mother England either. You’d think the Krauts among us would remember that.

It’s not that they’re idiots or anything. They just have such awful memories.

I blame senility.

What do you blame, old boy?

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

That means beating them until they know they have lost. Unconditional surrender, that’s what happened with the nazis and japan.

Ah.

Karnal wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 7:46pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 3:55pm: Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:52pm: Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing? Quote: i This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria. Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D True. It didn’t work on Mother England either. You’d think the Krauts among us would remember that. It’s not that they’re idiots or anything. They just have such awful memories. I blame senility. What do you blame, old boy?

I blame your idiocy.

England evidently wasn’t beaten into surrender by Germany. Yet you come up with your usual gibberish because that’s all you can do.

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 7:46pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 3:55pm: Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:52pm: Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing? Quote: i This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria. Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D True. It didn’t work on Mother England either. You’d think the Krauts among us would remember that. It’s not that they’re idiots or anything. They just have such awful memories. I blame senility. What do you blame, old boy? I blame your idiocy. England evidently wasn’t beaten into surrender by Germany.

Evidently.

Pity about unconditional surrender, eh?

Karnal wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 8:01pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 7:46pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 3:55pm: Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:52pm: Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat. How can they "tap the mat" if they are all dead and the mat has been destroyed by your bombing? Quote: i This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice. It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria. Funny about that.  Didn't work in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia or Chechenya either.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D True. It didn’t work on Mother England either. You’d think the Krauts among us would remember that. It’s not that they’re idiots or anything. They just have such awful memories. I blame senility. What do you blame, old boy? I blame your idiocy. England evidently wasn’t beaten into surrender by Germany. An idiotic PB is alway just an idiot. He tries to cover it up but an idiot is just an idiot. Evidently. Pity about unconditional surrender, eh?

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm: And yet, you’ve just avoided the question. Again. How are calls for carpet-bombing the tinted races any different to calls for terrorist attacks? Idiotic or not, I’m still curious. What makes your calls to violence, death and destruction superior to any others? You cravenly,  mendaciously and yes, lyingly misrepesent me. We were talking about war and response to enemies. I used the example of Germany (not tinted) and Japan (slightly tinted). I said we should not get into any war unless we are prepared to kill the enemy until it knows it is beaten.  There is no point of going to war in order to spare the enemy. If we beat them and they have an election and choose a government that continues to be our enemy, then they are clearly not thinking that they are beaten and so a war will again ensue and the  killing can be resumed IF we want to beat them. .

Excellent thinking, Soren except of course you have forgotten what the key function of war is, in the modern world.  As Karl von Clausewitz suggested so succinctly in his seminal work, On War, "war is but politics by other means."   The function of war is not to kill your enemy but rather to force a political decision in our favour.  Indeed, killing people tends to be counter-productive.  As the examples of both Germany and Japan in WWII, waging total war, giving no other means of surrender than unconditional meant that they dug their heels in, until we saw the horrors of atom war unleashed.  Millions died unnecessarily in whole cities razed to the ground by fire and blast.

Modern war is not total war, modern war is fought for limited objectives, intended to force a political decision, Soren and your obvious misunderstanding of it reflects more about your personality than you might be comfortable revealing to us.  Increasingly I see little or no difference between you and the Islamists you oppose.  You are their mirror image.


Quote:

Carpetbombing means killing the enemy until it taps the mat.

"Carpetbombing" is a nonmilitary term which is meaningless.  It is hyberbole.


Quote:

This is what happed with Germany and Japan and Serbia and now they are playing nice.

No it was not.  What happened in German was that brave Russian soldiers fought the Germans to a standstill on the Eastern Front at the gates of Moscow and then drove them all the way back to Berlin.   Strategic bombing as practiced by the USAAF and the RAF actually had little real effect on the German being able to wage war.  Were you aware that German aircraft production actually increased until the last few months of the war, despite the strenous efforts of the Western Allies to stop it?  How?  Because the Allied bombing actually released labour by destroying all the civilian industries and that enabled the Germans to actually redeploy those workers to military industries.   In Japan's case, it was the US Navy's unrestricted submarine warfare which defeated Japan, not the USAAF's bombing campaign.  By the time the two atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was starving, there was insufficient food for the population, no fuel for industry or the military and no raw materials for industry.  The A-Bombs forced the Japanese Government recognise their precarious position but even then, the militarists still wanted to fight on until the Emperor's personal intervention.


Quote:

It did not happen with Iraq, Iran, Labia, Syria.

"Labia"?  A Freudian slip?   ;D

"Syria", "Iran"?  I wasn't aware that the West had yet intervened there in either nation nor made any attacks against them.  Obviously they are non-starters as an example, Soren.   ::)

There were simply not the targets to justify such a bombing campaign, Soren, in Iraq. So we didn't see it attempted.  Also, Iraq was not a total war but a limited war, with limited objectives - although, as we saw, even those limited objectives proved too ambitious for the US and its coalition of dupes.    ::)

There are many examples of where strategic bombing has failed as a means of winning a war, Soren.  Others have mentioned them.  Unfortunately for the Douhetists, airpower alone cannot win a war.  "Boots on the ground" are needed, with an extended occupation usually, to reinforce the message of defeat.  Clever means also of winning the civilian population over are also required but you'd just prefer to exterminate them all, now wouldn't you, Soren, particularly if they are Musselmen.   ::)

Waffle, Brain, waffle.

Germany's unconditional surrender was set as a political aim by the US and UK in Casablanca in 1943. Japan's unconditional surrender was confirmed as the political aim of the Allies in Potsdamin July 1945.
In February 1945 Japan did not accept the terms unconditional surrender. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did.

Political aim were achieved in both cases by uncompromising military force. The Germans and Japanese tapped the mat.

You can set any political aim, whether unconditional surrender or any other, the point is that you have to drive your enemy to accepting it. And he will accept it if he has no other choice. If forcing his hand requires war, rather than diplomacy, then you enter war with the aim of inflicting as much damage as necessary to make him see that he has no option but to accept your terms.

This is why you must not be frivolous about your aims or if you realise that your aims were unrealistic (dragging the Muslim middle east into the modern, democratic world) you need to adjust your aims.

But you do not start a war unless you are prepared to win, which means forcing the enemy to accept YOUR terms, which means hurting him until he surrenders to your terms, whatever they are. If you are not prepared to do whatever is necessary to win, do not start a war.

The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word?

Mendatious.

Cunning, no?

Soren wrote on Jun 24^th, 1974 at 12:16pm:

But you do not start a war unless you are prepared to win

Ah.

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no?

You are, of course, lying, PB.

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB.

But of course. Mendatious, innit.

When you say we are at war with the Muselman, we have always been at war with the Muselman, always absolutely never ever - you really mean yeah-but-no-but, sometimes, maybe, not always, etc, etc, etc.

But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win.

What happens then, old chap?

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 9:17am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB. But of course. Mendatious, innit. But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win. What happens then, old chap?

You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think?

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:41am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 9:17am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB. But of course. Mendatious, innit. But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win. What happens then, old chap? You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think?

I see. Is that a little bit like what’s happening in Iraq?

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:44am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:41am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 9:17am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB. But of course. Mendatious, innit. But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win. What happens then, old chap? You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think? I see. Is that a little bit like what’s happening in Iraq?

This war has been going on since Mohammed died. Our involvement in the region  since 2002 has been about the same thing  - to kill them over there so they do not come here to kill us. Ee are not in Sudan because there is no tgreat from them to come to the west to commit atrocities. The Arab Muslims, on the other hand, are keen on inflicting pain on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:49am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:44am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:41am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 9:17am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB. But of course. Mendatious, innit. But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win. What happens then, old chap? You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think? I see. Is that a little bit like what’s happening in Iraq? This war has been going on since Mohammed died. Our involvement in the region  since 2002 has been about the same thing  - to kill them over there so they do not come here to kill us. Ee are not in Sudan because there is no tgreat from them to come to the west to commit atrocities. The Arab Muslims, on the other hand, are keen on inflicting pain on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

I see. So do we only need to bomb the Arab Muslims until they unconditionally surrender?

How about the Persians? The Taliban? What about your favourite never-ever Muselman, PBs?

I’m just trying to get it right, old boy. I wouldn’t want to be, you know, mendatious.

We know that lurking within that empty corpse of yours is a heart, beating for all humanity.

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 2:20pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:49am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:44am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 11:41am: Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 9:17am: Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 8:44am: The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word? Mendatious. Cunning, no? You are, of course, lying, PB. But of course. Mendatious, innit. But pray tell what happens when your enemy isn’t prepared to let you win. What happens then, old chap? You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think? I see. Is that a little bit like what’s happening in Iraq? This war has been going on since Mohammed died. Our involvement in the region  since 2002 has been about the same thing  - to kill them over there so they do not come here to kill us. Ee are not in Sudan because there is no tgreat from them to come to the west to commit atrocities. The Arab Muslims, on the other hand, are keen on inflicting pain on the Great Satan and the Little Satan. I see. So do we only need to bomb the Arab Muslims until they unconditionally surrender? How about the Persians? The Taliban? What about your favourite never-ever Muselman, PBs? I’m just trying to get it right, old boy. I wouldn’t want to be, you know, mendatious. We know that lurking within that empty corpse of yours is a heart, beating for all humanity.

The rot set in with letting the mullahs get away with taking American diplomats hostage in 1979. Since them it has been endless concessions and limited engagement and bringing democracy to the primitive natives. A lot of it with misguided good intentions, most of it out of cowardice. Carter embodies Western pusillanimousness.  When you bugger up like that it is hard to climb back into a position where you are taken seriously. America has not been taken seriously since then (or possible since 1968 or 1956).
Having a bigger army than the next 10 guys combined but being the most unreliable friend ever is not the way to be taken seriously.
Bush tried to be principled but it is too late. 8 years is too short to reverse decades of credibility loss. Then along comes Obama and Carter looks like a guy who at least made some vague gestures.

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Waffle, Brain, waffle. Germany's unconditional surrender was set as a political aim by the US and UK in Casablanca in 1943. Japan's unconditional surrender was confirmed as the political aim of the Allies in Potsdamin July 1945. In February 1945 Japan did not accept the terms unconditional surrender. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did.

Only just, Soren.  Militarists wanted to fight on and even attempted to intercept and destroy the recording of the Emperor's message before it was broadcast.  They still believed that their nation could fight on.

The problem was that by demanding "unconditional surrender" it immediately made it impossible for the Axis nations to even consider surrendering as all possibility of negotiation was removed from the table.  Both the Nazi and Japanese government attempted to start negotiation but were rebuffed.  Indeed, because of language difficulties, the Japanese weren't even sure what "unconditional surrender" meant and their efforts to find out were either ignored or rebuffed.

"Unconditional surrender" was designed for the consumption of the Allied populations.  It was an easy quip but the reality was, it caused more problems than it solved.  Caused more deaths than people it saved.  It backed people into a corner where they believed they had to fight on, rather than surrender.


Quote:

Political aim were achieved in both cases by uncompromising military force. The Germans and Japanese tapped the mat.

And how many millions on both sides lost their lives bring that conclusion about?

Further, that was under conditions of total war.   Total war is, has not, occurred since.  Limited war with limited objectives has been the order of the day ever since.  Only antediluvian dinosaurs which haven't been paying attention believe otherwise.   ::)


Quote:

You can set any political aim, whether unconditional surrender or any other, the point is that you have to drive your enemy to accepting it. And he will accept it if he has no other choice. If forcing his hand requires war, rather than diplomacy, then you enter war with the aim of inflicting as much damage as necessary to make him see that he has no option but to accept your terms.

No, you enter it attempting to cause the least amount of damage, the least amount of casualties, Soren.  You have it arse about.  Sun Tzu summed it up best when he declared, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”


Quote:

This is why you must not be frivolous about your aims or if you realise that your aims were unrealistic (dragging the Muslim middle east into the modern, democratic world) you need to adjust your aims.

Or you modify you method, Soren.  Strategic over-reach, setting unnecessary and impossible objectives is a problem but creating democracy in the Middle East or even in South-West Asia (which is where Iraq and Afghanistan is) is not impossible, it's just the USA chose the wrong methods to achieve it.   Bush could not set one objective and stick to it, with the consequence he forgot (or perhaps never knew) one of the major lessons learnt since Clausewitz, "unity of purpose".


Quote:

But you do not start a war unless you are prepared to win, which means forcing the enemy to accept YOUR terms, which means hurting him until he surrenders to your terms, whatever they are. If you are not prepared to do whatever is necessary to win, do not start a war.

Determination is important but the methods by which you achieve victory are not limited to death and destruction, Soren.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

The problem was that by demanding "unconditional surrender" it immediately made it impossible for the Axis nations to even consider surrendering as all possibility of negotiation was removed from the table.

No sh.t?!?


Quote:

Indeed, because of language difficulties, the Japanese weren't even sure what "unconditional surrender" meant and their efforts to find out were either ignored or rebuffed.

ridiculous nonsense.


Quote:

Further, that was under conditions of total war.   Total war is, has not, occurred since.  Limited war with limited objectives has been the order of the day ever since.  Only antediluvian dinosaurs which haven't been paying attention believe otherwise.   ::)

And who said that the aim of every war must be unconditional surrender, Brain?


Quote:

No, you enter it attempting to cause the least amount of damage, the least amount of casualties, Soren.  You have it arse about.  Sun Tzu summed it up best when he declared, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

No you enter to win. Whether you want to minimise casualties or not doesn't alter the aim of winning.


Quote:

Or you modify you method, Soren.  Strategic over-reach, setting unnecessary and impossible objectives is a problem but creating democracy in the Middle East or even in South-West Asia (which is where Iraq and Afghanistan is) is not impossible, it's just the USA chose the wrong methods to achieve it.   Bush could not set one objective and stick to it, with the consequence he forgot (or perhaps never knew) one of the major lessons learnt since Clausewitz, "unity of purpose".

It is impossible without electing a new people, to quote Brecht.



Quote:

Determination is important but the methods by which you achieve victory are not limited to death and destruction, Soren.

No. But there is no war without death and destruction - on both sides. If you have no appetite for that,  don't start a war. Do something else, like sanctions or give concessions to your enemy as an opening gambit.

The really stupid thing about Japan's surrender was that the US spilled so much blood insisting on an unconditional surrender, but in the end got a conditional surrender anyway. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

The really stupid thing about Japan's surrender was that the US spilled so much blood insisting on an unconditional surrender, but in the end got a conditional surrender anyway.

Really ?

I missed that part [in my high school history class],       ...where Japan threatened to fight on, unless the USA accepted Japan's terms for surrender.

They didn't.

The US decided themselves the 'condition' of allowing the Japanese to retain the emperor - a condition they had previously rejected outright. They probably decided to wrap things up as quickly as possible to avoid having the Japanese surrendering to the Soviets, who at the time were sweeping through Japanese territory.

So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back?

Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is?

MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is?

I'd say its many things.  Islam itself, with it's resistance to modernity, the sword-shakers reinforcing that aspect of the religion, poor education supporting the sword-shakers and also Western interference which sees profit and advantage in making such that compliant political elites are installed and kept in power to allow exploitation of, in particular Middle-Eastern Muslim nations to ensure cheap and accessible oil, which the Western economies are so dependent on.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is?

What is holding the islamic world back is the knuckleheads on both sides - the muslims who insist islam belongs in the 7th century stone age, and the non-muslims who insist these muslism are right - and do their bit to shut out efforts at reform (such as the example in the OP).

|dev|null wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:03am: So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is? I'd say its many things.  Islam itself, with it's resistance to modernity, the sword-shakers reinforcing that aspect of the religion, poor education supporting the sword-shakers and also Western interference which sees profit and advantage in making such that compliant political elites are installed and kept in power to allow exploitation of, in particular Middle-Eastern Muslim nations to ensure cheap and accessible oil, which the Western economies are so dependent on.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

There was no western interference in Syria and  it's still a basket case?Same for Somalia, Iran etc etc etc. Maybe Muslims like war?

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 11:17am:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:10am: MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:03am: So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is? I'd say its many things.  Islam itself, with it's resistance to modernity, the sword-shakers reinforcing that aspect of the religion, poor education supporting the sword-shakers and also Western interference which sees profit and advantage in making such that compliant political elites are installed and kept in power to allow exploitation of, in particular Middle-Eastern Muslim nations to ensure cheap and accessible oil, which the Western economies are so dependent on.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D There was no western interference in Syria and  it's still a basket case?Same for Somalia, Iran etc etc etc. Maybe Muslims like war?

There has been Western interference in all three nations you name.  Are you really that ignorant of the history of the region?

The Assad regime of Syria has been supported by first the USSR and now Russia for decades.  Iran had the Shah forced on it by Western interference when the democratically elected Mossadeq government was overthrown by Western intelligence agencies.   Somalia had Western interference in it's civil war and ongoing civil dislocation stretching back decades.     ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:17am: |dev|null wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:10am: MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:03am: So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is? I'd say its many things.  Islam itself, with it's resistance to modernity, the sword-shakers reinforcing that aspect of the religion, poor education supporting the sword-shakers and also Western interference which sees profit and advantage in making such that compliant political elites are installed and kept in power to allow exploitation of, in particular Middle-Eastern Muslim nations to ensure cheap and accessible oil, which the Western economies are so dependent on.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D There was no western interference in Syria and  it's still a basket case?Same for Somalia, Iran etc etc etc. Maybe Muslims like war? There has been Western interference in all three nations you name.  Are you really that ignorant of the history of the region? The Assad regime of Syria has been supported by first the USSR and now Russia for decades.  Iran had the Shah forced on it by Western interference when the democratically elected Mossadeq government was overthrown by Western intelligence agencies.   Somalia had Western interference in it's civil war and ongoing civil dislocation stretching back decades.     ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Crap. Don't blame the west for their problems. American has meddled in most of the worlds governments and they aren't chopping off heads. Islam's problems are sectarian, education, poverty, primitive ideologies, lack of scientific advancement, limited female presence in government and society, tribal, liking war, hate, looking at the afterlife instead of this life etc etc etc.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 12:24pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:17am: |dev|null wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:10am: MumboJumbo wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 11:03am: So gandalf, let's hear your thoughts on the subject of the thread: what is holding the islamic world back? Freediver says it's islam itself. I say it's the sword-shakers. What do you say it is? I'd say its many things.  Islam itself, with it's resistance to modernity, the sword-shakers reinforcing that aspect of the religion, poor education supporting the sword-shakers and also Western interference which sees profit and advantage in making such that compliant political elites are installed and kept in power to allow exploitation of, in particular Middle-Eastern Muslim nations to ensure cheap and accessible oil, which the Western economies are so dependent on.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D There was no western interference in Syria and  it's still a basket case?Same for Somalia, Iran etc etc etc. Maybe Muslims like war? There has been Western interference in all three nations you name.  Are you really that ignorant of the history of the region? The Assad regime of Syria has been supported by first the USSR and now Russia for decades.  Iran had the Shah forced on it by Western interference when the democratically elected Mossadeq government was overthrown by Western intelligence agencies.   Somalia had Western interference in it's civil war and ongoing civil dislocation stretching back decades.     ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Crap. Don't blame the west for their problems.

I'm not.  I am however pointing out it's a contributing factor which you seem to want to ignore or diminish to nothing.  You claimed there was "no interference", I pointed out there has been substantial interference.  In Iran, if the West hadn't overthrown a democratically elected government and installed the Shah and maintained his brutal autocratic regime in power, then the Ayatollahs wouldn't have come to power, now would they?


Quote:

American has meddled in most of the worlds governments and they aren't chopping off heads.

No but invariably they end up in bloody revolution overthrowing those US installed dictatorships.  All that bloodshed which could have been avoided if the US actually did what it claimed it believed in!


Quote:

Islam's problems are sectarian, education, poverty, primitive ideologies, lack of scientific advancement, limited female presence in government and society, tribal, liking war, hate, looking at the afterlife instead of this life etc etc etc.

All contributing factors without a doubt but you really cannot discard Western interference and shoring up the most oppressive regimes because it makes exploitation of their natural resources easier.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

We can blam the West for a good percentage of these problems. Your example of Iran is the reason Iran had a revolution and took an isolationist path. Iranians have every reason to blame the West.

Iranians also blame their own government. The protests against Ahmadinijad in Tehran preceeded the Arab Spring. Iran very nearly became a democracy again - as it was before the US backed their coup and installed the Shah.

Quote:

Colonisation Changed Everything, Including Sharia The advent of modern colonisation, starting with the British East India Company (EIC) and the Dutch entering India and Indonesia in the late 16th and 17th Centuries, would eventually lead to some pretty drastic changes in how Sharia was practised and understood.  With the arrival of the colonisers in predominantly Islamic communities came the concept of the nation-state — and with it, codifying (translating and writing down) laws.  The colonisers viewed Islam as a threat to the system and civilisation they understood, and began thoroughly remodelling Islamic legal systems. Started by the Governor of Bengal Warren Hastings in the 1770s and followed by the Dutch in the 1880s, western powers began separate projects to translate, write down and convert the Sharia — as they understood it — into written law.  In doing so they turned Sharia’s fluidity rigid, and hollowed out the interpretive core that Sharia law depended on. Islamic law became unable to do what it needed to do to function. What’s more, this process actually wound back progressive aspects of Islamic law to conservative Western standards. Sharia and Islamic law had bestowed women with rights and privileges that were advanced and equalising; when the laws were translated into colonising languages, those nuances were removed and the patriarchal colonising culture prevailed, writing the rights women had enjoyed under Sharia out of the system entirely. The “Sharia” notion that a man is the head of the family to be obeyed without question was a post-colonial inclusion that completely changed the original intention of the Islamic ruling, and Governor Hastings, along with his counterpart Governor-General of India Charles Cornwallis, felt like Islamic law allowed criminals to escape punishment too easily, complaining that Sharia was “founded on the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed”. Given Islamic law’s current reputation, this is kind of ironic. Read more at http://junkee.com/junk-explained-heres-everything-jacqui-lambie-doesnt-know-about-sharia-law/42598#gxiVhjvtzgM39o7s.99

The British also influenced the caste system in India. Under the British, hundreds of castes, kinship groups and family trades became remodelled into the new system of four castes, from.Brahmins to Shudras (and a fifth, the untouchables).

While this model predated the British in India, it was all the British could understand. They only gave administrative jobs and military posts to the upper castes. The British understood the caste system and used it to their advantage.

If it was up to the Freeeedom.advocates here, we’d have a similar model in Australia.

Yadda wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 10:22am: The really stupid thing about Japan's surrender was that the US spilled so much blood insisting on an unconditional surrender, but in the end got a conditional surrender anyway.  Really ? I missed that part [in my high school history class],       ...where Japan threatened to fight on, unless the USA accepted Japan's terms for surrender.

Then your high school history teacher was remiss or you were inattentive, Y.

The Japanese did unconditionally surrender in the end but before doing so, requested clarification from the US as to the meaning of "unconditional surrender" and if they could retain the Emperor as HoS.   The US ignored their request on both counts.  It prolonged the war by several months which enabled the US to use the atomic bombs to destroy Nagasaki and Hiroshima.   The Japanese militarists even then did not want to surrender and a coup was attempted, which failed (thankfully) to prevent the Emporer's message being transmitted.

Karnal wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 12:15am:

The British also influenced the caste system in India. Under the British, hundreds of castes, kinship groups and family trades became remodelled into the new system of four castes, from.Brahmins to Shudras (and a fifth, the untouchables). While this model predated the British in India, it was all the British could understand. They only gave administrative jobs and military posts to the upper castes. The British understood the caste system and used it to their advantage.

Just same old story with European colonies. We should never forget the Belgians propping up the hutti-tutsi divide in Rwanda, and we all know where that led to in 1994.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 5:56pm:

Quote: Colonisation Changed Everything, Including Sharia The advent of modern colonisation, starting with the British East India Company (EIC) and the Dutch entering India and Indonesia in the late 16th and 17th Centuries, would eventually lead to some pretty drastic changes in how Sharia was practised and understood.  With the arrival of the colonisers in predominantly Islamic communities came the concept of the nation-state — and with it, codifying (translating and writing down) laws.  The colonisers viewed Islam as a threat to the system and civilisation they understood, and began thoroughly remodelling Islamic legal systems. Started by the Governor of Bengal Warren Hastings in the 1770s and followed by the Dutch in the 1880s, western powers began separate projects to translate, write down and convert the Sharia — as they understood it — into written law.  In doing so they turned Sharia’s fluidity rigid, and hollowed out the interpretive core that Sharia law depended on. Islamic law became unable to do what it needed to do to function. What’s more, this process actually wound back progressive aspects of Islamic law to conservative Western standards. Sharia and Islamic law had bestowed women with rights and privileges that were advanced and equalising; when the laws were translated into colonising languages, those nuances were removed and the patriarchal colonising culture prevailed, writing the rights women had enjoyed under Sharia out of the system entirely. The “Sharia” notion that a man is the head of the family to be obeyed without question was a post-colonial inclusion that completely changed the original intention of the Islamic ruling, and Governor Hastings, along with his counterpart Governor-General of India Charles Cornwallis, felt like Islamic law allowed criminals to escape punishment too easily, complaining that Sharia was “founded on the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed”. Given Islamic law’s current reputation, this is kind of ironic. Read more at http://junkee.com/junk-explained-heres-everything-jacqui-lambie-doesnt-know-about-sharia-law/42598#gxiVhjvtzgM39o7s.99

SO what happened in one part of India 250 years ago has so influenced Middle Eastern Arab Islam that they have not been able to overcome it.

But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence. 

It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism (what have the Romans ever done for us, eh?) but ignore completely all the stuff that Islam is doing now and has been doing since independence, deliberately and consciously against Western secular influences.

Soren wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.

Well if you really want to go down that path, you could say that the wahabists in Saudi Arabia were empowered by the western colonialists in order to overthrow the Ottomans and gain access to Arabia's oil. Without western sponsorship, the wahabists would probably have remained the irrelevance they were before.


Soren wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism

Yes it is, but equally tiresom is to completely dismiss the role it did play in the current mess.

Soren wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 5:56pm: Quote: Colonisation Changed Everything, Including Sharia The advent of modern colonisation, starting with the British East India Company (EIC) and the Dutch entering India and Indonesia in the late 16th and 17th Centuries, would eventually lead to some pretty drastic changes in how Sharia was practised and understood.  With the arrival of the colonisers in predominantly Islamic communities came the concept of the nation-state — and with it, codifying (translating and writing down) laws.  The colonisers viewed Islam as a threat to the system and civilisation they understood, and began thoroughly remodelling Islamic legal systems. Started by the Governor of Bengal Warren Hastings in the 1770s and followed by the Dutch in the 1880s, western powers began separate projects to translate, write down and convert the Sharia — as they understood it — into written law.  In doing so they turned Sharia’s fluidity rigid, and hollowed out the interpretive core that Sharia law depended on. Islamic law became unable to do what it needed to do to function. What’s more, this process actually wound back progressive aspects of Islamic law to conservative Western standards. Sharia and Islamic law had bestowed women with rights and privileges that were advanced and equalising; when the laws were translated into colonising languages, those nuances were removed and the patriarchal colonising culture prevailed, writing the rights women had enjoyed under Sharia out of the system entirely. The “Sharia” notion that a man is the head of the family to be obeyed without question was a post-colonial inclusion that completely changed the original intention of the Islamic ruling, and Governor Hastings, along with his counterpart Governor-General of India Charles Cornwallis, felt like Islamic law allowed criminals to escape punishment too easily, complaining that Sharia was “founded on the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed”. Given Islamic law’s current reputation, this is kind of ironic. Read more at http://junkee.com/junk-explained-heres-everything-jacqui-lambie-doesnt-know-about-sharia-law/42598#gxiVhjvtzgM39o7s.99 SO what happened in one part of India 250 years ago has so influenced Middle Eastern Arab Islam that they have not been able to overcome it. But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.  It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism (what have the Romans ever done for us, eh?) but ignore completely all the stuff that Islam is doing now and has been doing since independence, deliberately and consciously against Western secular influences.

Its coz Annie is a man, but clearly, she he hasn't come out of the closet yet.             ;)

And she he has all of that info [all the stuff that Islam is doing now] in another 'box', so that info is unconnected and irrelevant....           ;)


Mark Gungor - Men's Brain Women's Brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulP6f9zXtTs

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

Soren wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:19am: But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.  Well if you really want to go down that path, you could say that the wahabists in Saudi Arabia were empowered by the western colonialists in order to overthrow the Ottomans and gain access to Arabia's oil. Without western sponsorship, the wahabists would probably have remained the irrelevance they were before. Soren wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:19am: It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism Yes it is, but equally tiresome is to completely dismiss the role it did play in the current mess.

Have the Muslims ever come up with anything on their own? Are Muslims fully responsible for anything? Other than Hizballah, Hamas, the Islamic State, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, Quatar, Turkey, Labia, Egypt, Pakistan?

Gandy,  ENOUGH of all your 'it's nuffin' to do with Islam' bollocks. There is over a BILLION of you. You cant's hide behind 10 million Joos and 300 million Americans for ever.  You are responsible for Islam.
Gandy, read it slowly, sounding out each letter.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ISLAM. MUSLIM like you foocked it up, YOU fix it.

I am not responsible for Islam's bad reputations. YOU are.

Exsctly. And the old boy is responsible for Danish.

Miam miam, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

Soren wrote on Oct 12^th, 2014 at 9:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:39am: Soren wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:19am: But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.  Well if you really want to go down that path, you could say that the wahabists in Saudi Arabia were empowered by the western colonialists in order to overthrow the Ottomans and gain access to Arabia's oil. Without western sponsorship, the wahabists would probably have remained the irrelevance they were before. [quote author=soren2 link=1412435705/75#75 date=1412903974]It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism Yes it is, but equally tiresome is to completely dismiss the role it did play in the current mess.

Have the Muslims ever come up with anything on their own? Are Muslims fully responsible for anything? Other than Hizballah, Hamas, the Islamic State, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, Quatar, Turkey, Labia, Egypt, Pakistan?

Gandy,  ENOUGH of all your 'it's nuffin' to do with Islam' bollocks. There is over a BILLION of you. You cant's hide behind 10 million Joos and 300 million Americans for ever.  You are responsible for Islam.
Gandy, read it slowly, sounding out each letter.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ISLAM. MUSLIM like you foocked it up, YOU fix it.

I am not responsible for Islam's bad reputations. YOU are.

I somehow doubt Gandalf is any more responsible for the entirety of the Muslim world and what every Muslim says/does/thinks, Soren.

So, you're a Christian, are you responsible for all the kiddie-fiddling that goes on within Christian organisations, secular and religious?   When are you going to do something personally about it, Soren?

Its that level of thinking.  Gandalf is only responsible for his own beliefs, his own views - exactly as you are for yours.  He seems quite willing to take responsibility for his are you for yours?  Appears not, you duck and weave and attempt to evade anything that smacks of responsibility for your bigotry and religious persecution of Muslims.   You're a grade A hypocrite.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2014 at 11:58pm:

I somehow doubt Gandalf is any more responsible for the entirety of the Muslim world and what every Muslim says/does/thinks, Soren. So, you're a Christian, are you responsible for all the kiddie-fiddling that goes on within Christian organisations, secular and religious?   When are you going to do something personally about it, Soren? Its that level of thinking.  Gandalf is only responsible for his own beliefs, his own views - exactly as you are for yours.  He seems quite willing to take responsibility for his are you for yours?  Appears not, you duck and weave and attempt to evade anything that smacks of responsibility for your bigotry and religious persecution of Muslims.   You're a grade A hypocrite.   ::)

Islam is not a private language where everyone has his own meaning for every word. Islam is made up of Muslims. That's what religion is - people bound together by common beliefs.   Islam does have a massive influence on how Muslims behave. To pretend otherwise is dishonest - that's why you re instantly onto that particular bandwagon, Brain.

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:58pm: I somehow doubt Gandalf is any more responsible for the entirety of the Muslim world and what every Muslim says/does/thinks, Soren. So, you're a Christian, are you responsible for all the kiddie-fiddling that goes on within Christian organisations, secular and religious?   When are you going to do something personally about it, Soren? Its that level of thinking.  Gandalf is only responsible for his own beliefs, his own views - exactly as you are for yours.  He seems quite willing to take responsibility for his are you for yours?  Appears not, you duck and weave and attempt to evade anything that smacks of responsibility for your bigotry and religious persecution of Muslims.   You're a grade A hypocrite.   ::) Islam is not a private language where everyone has his own meaning for every word. Islam is made up of Muslims. That's what religion is - people bound together by common beliefs.   Islam does have a massive influence on how Muslims behave. To pretend otherwise is dishonest - that's why you re instantly onto that particular bandwagon, Brain.

So you DO approve of Paedophilia?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

What's holding the Islamic world back is that too many of them have silly polluted minds.

Soren wrote on Oct 13^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 12th, 2014 at 9:19pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:39am: Soren wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:19am: But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.  Well if you really want to go down that path, you could say that the wahabists in Saudi Arabia were empowered by the western colonialists in order to overthrow the Ottomans and gain access to Arabia's oil. Without western sponsorship, the wahabists would probably have remained the irrelevance they were before. [quote author=soren2 link=1412435705/75#75 date=1412903974]It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism Yes it is, but equally tiresome is to completely dismiss the role it did play in the current mess. Have the Muslims ever come up with anything on their own? Are Muslims fully responsible for anything? Other than Hizballah, Hamas, the Islamic State, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, Quatar, Turkey, Labia, Egypt, Pakistan? Gandy,  ENOUGH of all your 'it's nuffin' to do with Islam' bollocks. There is over a BILLION of you. You cant's hide behind 10 million Joos and 300 million Americans for ever.  You are responsible for Islam. Gandy, read it slowly, sounding out each letter.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ISLAM. MUSLIM like you foocked it up, YOU fix it. I am not responsible for Islam's bad reputations. YOU are.

Stirring words S... at least they would be if they weren't so hypocritical.

You tell me here to fix it, yet whenever I campaign for a more tolerant and peaceful islam I get mocked and ridiculed - by you especially.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Soren wrote on Oct 12th, 2014 at 9:19pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:39am: Soren wrote on Oct 10th, 2014 at 11:19am: But wait! Didn't they come up with salafisms? Wahabism? Muslim Brotherhood? All completely untainted by any Western influence.  Well if you really want to go down that path, you could say that the wahabists in Saudi Arabia were empowered by the western colonialists in order to overthrow the Ottomans and gain access to Arabia's oil. Without western sponsorship, the wahabists would probably have remained the irrelevance they were before. [quote author=soren2 link=1412435705/75#75 date=1412903974]It is really tiresome when people come up with the victim narrative on the basis of colonialism Yes it is, but equally tiresome is to completely dismiss the role it did play in the current mess. Have the Muslims ever come up with anything on their own? Are Muslims fully responsible for anything? Other than Hizballah, Hamas, the Islamic State, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, Quatar, Turkey, Labia, Egypt, Pakistan? Gandy,  ENOUGH of all your 'it's nuffin' to do with Islam' bollocks. There is over a BILLION of you. You cant's hide behind 10 million Joos and 300 million Americans for ever.  You are responsible for Islam. Gandy, read it slowly, sounding out each letter.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ISLAM. MUSLIM like you foocked it up, YOU fix it. I am not responsible for Islam's bad reputations. YOU are. Stirring words S... at least they would be if they weren't so hypocritical. You tell me here to fix it, yet whenever I campaign for a more tolerant and peaceful islam I get mocked and ridiculed - by you especially.

I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam?
I don't mock you, Gandy, I just do not believe that you reject any part of the Koran or Mohammed's example. What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds..
That is not a reform.

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam?

I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head.

As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time.


Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds..

Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 6:25pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam? I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head. As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time. Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds.. Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here.

So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran?

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Islam is not a private language where everyone has his own meaning for every word.

Actually it is.  Islam, like all religions really is an intensely private relationship between the believer and their God(s).  Indeed, Islam much more than Christianity, without it's panoply of saints, it's churches and their hierarchies and it's holy trinity, obscuring the central figure of God.   As a consequence, in their private conversations with God, each believer makes their own interpretation of the things they are told to believe in, Soren.

That you appear unable or unwilling to recognise this merely indicates how much of a bigot you are.


Quote:

Islam is made up of Muslims. That's what religion is - people bound together by common beliefs.

Yes but each believer has their own interpretation.  One only has to compare Moses and Yadda's and Sprintcyclist's to see how much individual Christians can differ, Soren, yet according to you, all Muslims think the same, believe exactly the same thing, interpret everything in exactly the same way.  What a fool.   You're presented with the glory that is God and you stop and say, "Mmm, I wonder what Abdul is experiencing and thinking?"    ::) ::)


Quote:

Islam does have a massive influence on how Muslims behave. To pretend otherwise is dishonest - that's why you re instantly onto that particular bandwagon, Brain.

Of course Islam has a massive influence on how Muslims behave but every Muslim's Islam is different.  Remember, there is no one between the believer and Allah, the Prophet merely delivered the message, it is up to each individual Muslim how they interpret, Soren.   Influence does not mean control, every Muslim is an individual, naked before the gaze of God, Soren and must account for their actions, just as are Christians, Hindus, etc.  Each Muslim hopes they've got it right.  Some obviously do, some don't and most just muddle along.   You however, have them all under the direct control of Muhammad.  Acting as if they are automatons.  You erect this strawman, completely failing to understand the nature of religion, of Islam, Soren.    ::) ::) ::)

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

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam? I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head. As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time. Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds.. Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here. So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran?

So, how do you turn a blind eye to the murderous bits in The Bible, Soren?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 7:14pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam? I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head. As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time. Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds.. Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here. So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran? So, how do you turn a blind eye to the murderous bits in The Bible, Soren?   ::)

There are no murderous bits in the NT and consequently nobody is beheading, raping, selling into slavery anybody while quoting Jesus or Paul or the rest of them. Have you really not noticed this huge difference between the followers of Jesus and Mohammed?

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

So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran?

Come on Soren, at least make some effort.

We can go through specific passages, as I have done painstakingly many times before, if you like. But please don't insult my intelligence with such absurdly loaded questions.

Soren wrote on Oct 15^th, 2014 at 8:07am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 8:30pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 7:14pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam? I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head. As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time. Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds.. Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here. So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran? So, how do you turn a blind eye to the murderous bits in The Bible, Soren?   ::) There are no murderous bits in the NT and consequently nobody is beheading, raping, selling into slavery anybody while quoting Jesus or Paul or the rest of them. Have you really not noticed this huge difference between the followers of Jesus and Mohammed?

I said, Soren, "The Bible".  The Bible consists of more than just the New Testament.

Unfortunately for you, you're also wrong about the New Testament.  Forgotten?

Romans 1:24-32

::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2014 at 8:07am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 8:30pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 7:14pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: I have asked you many times - which parts of the Koran and hadiths do you reject for a more tolerant and peaceful Islam? I went to quite a lot of effort to outline my position on the ahadith in a recent dedicated thread. I'm a little insulted it seems to have flown over your head. As for the Quran, I don't reject any of it. I only reject interpretations that insist we must be murderous raping bastards to be good muslims. I have also been hammering home that point for a long time. Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 2:37pm: What you are campaigning for is that the embarrassing bits be ignored - but without any explanation as to why those bits and on what grounds.. Its comments like this that leads me to believe I am completely wasting my time here. So how do you interpret the murderous bits of the Koran? So, how do you turn a blind eye to the murderous bits in The Bible, Soren?   ::) There are no murderous bits in the NT and consequently nobody is beheading, raping, selling into slavery anybody while quoting Jesus or Paul or the rest of them. Have you really not noticed this huge difference between the followers of Jesus and Mohammed? I said, Soren, "The Bible".  The Bible consists of more than just the New Testament. Unfortunately for you, you're also wrong about the New Testament.  Forgotten? Romans 1:24-32 ::)

It doesn't say cut their heads of and their hands. It says they deserve death.  Deserving death - we all die, Brain.


Is that all you have to balance out all the instructions to kill the Jews and the unbelievers in the Koran? Pathetically dishonest, Brain.

So, advocating death for non-believers is not a "murderous" passage in the bible?  Really?  As usual, you've been hoist by your own petard!  Your own holy book lets you down Soren.  So, how do you turn a blind eye to all the murderous passages in the Bible (in total)?  It's YOUR holy book.  Why aren't you CARRYING OUT IT'S INSTRUCTIONS?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

it's been done to death, but here goes for the lying apologists

Christ overturned the murderous bits of Mosaic law 2014 years ago


Quote:

Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it. Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

As for the tired old apologist carping **but it's still in the bible**

Of course it is how would anybody know what Christ and the early founders were talking about if there is no copy to show what has been annulled or superseded?

However the real issue facing the world today is:

There is no reform coming to islam ever, the simple reason being:

muslims who eat live and breathe the iniquitous literal version of islam, allah, muhammad the qur'an and hadi'th are quiet happy with the terrorism rape torture and mass murder, contained in this aggreation of evil. (they love it, because allah loves them to be a degenerate human being)

Those muslims who would like the atrocities to have no bearing on the cult, lack what it takes to criticize and condemn, as unfit for 21st century civilization, the commands, teachings and verses which unconditionally extol murder malevolence and hatred  as the higher path for muslims.

The apologist also  utterly rejects any criticism of islamic doctrine.

The situation right now, today 2014 is:

1/. The muslim terrorist torturer rapist and mass murderer, is absolutely correct according to the doctrine of the cult, their pagan god and phophet, their supposedly sacred writings.


2/. The malevolency is fully supported by all muslims who refuse to condemn the doctrine which encourages the hatred and atrocities.

3/. Apologists also confirm the terrorist is absolutely correct, by always trying to downplay the islamic dogma as no worse than any other belief

The Old Testament is an intrinsic part of the Bible.

Keep making excuses Moses.  It's not like you follow what is said in the New Testament anyway.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

So, advocating death for non-believers is not a "murderous" passage in the bible?  Really?  As usual, you've been hoist by your own petard!  Your own holy book lets you down Soren.  So, how do you turn a blind eye to all the murderous passages in the Bible (in total)?  It's YOUR holy book.  Why aren't you CARRYING OUT IT'S INSTRUCTIONS?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

There are no instructions for murder in the OT for all future generations. It is much more of a history book than an instruction manual when it comes to the wars between the Jews and their enemies.
Even you, mentally negligible as you are, should realise that much.

Mohammed, being the last of the messengers of Gawd, is instructing all future Muslims on the way to the final solution triumph of Islam.



Get this, Bad Breath - nobody is murdering anyone every day on the basis of what's in the OT.

There is bloody mayhem and murder and degradation of innocents every day on the basis of what's in the Koran.

But Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin', yeah?  Bring on the uncomprehending swivel eyes.

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

There are no instructions for murder in the OT for all future generations.

Been a long time since you've read The Bible, isn't it, Soren (if at all).

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

    You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Father

    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

    If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.  (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

    A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets

    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord."  When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.  (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

    But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Note, none are in the past tense, all are instructions, Soren.   ::)

As I said, a history book. The society it speaks of does not exist any more. What is a crucial difference when compared to Islam, that long-vanished society is not going to be revived. There is no Jewish or Christian project for the return to biblical social norms and conduct.
The return to Koranic society is a clear and defining aim of Islam. It is called sharia.

Brian Ross,

Surely you realise that those religious laws [and punishments] in the first books of the OT applied to members of the Hebrew nation, because they were 'in covenant' with their God.


Quote:

Kill Hebrew People Who Don't Listen to Priests     Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) Kill Witches     You should not let a Hebrew sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB) Kill Hebrew Homosexuals     "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Kill Hebrew Fortunetellers     A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) Death for a Hebrew Hitting Father     Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB) Death for a Hebrew Cursing Parents     1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)     2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) Death for a Hebrew committing Adultery     If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.  (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) Death for a Hebrew priests child committing Fornication     A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) Death to Hebrew Followers of Other Religions     Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB) Kill Hebrew covenant breakers     They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

AS PER....

It was the Hebrew nation which was in covenant with their God.

Those religious laws [and punishments] applied to members of the Hebrew nation, because they were 'in covenant' with their God.



AS PER....

Exodus 19:8
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.



Leviticus 20:22
Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
23  And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
....
....
26  And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

Excuses, excuses from our resident Christian apologists.  Tsk, tsk, always trying to divert and obscure criticism of their murderous religious instruction manual!  They use smoke and mirrors to try and lie their way out of taking responsibility for what their religion says!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Here's your big chance HB I challenge you to prove that the N.T. does not annul the ancient 3414 years old Mosaic Law of the Hebrews

Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it.

Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Prove any of the above verses do not replace the law with a new covenant

Or are you simply lying as per the usual fashion of the apologists for islamic terrorism?

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 7:15am:

As I said, a history book. The society it speaks of does not exist any more. What is a crucial difference when compared to Islam, that long-vanished society is not going to be revived. There is no Jewish or Christian project for the return to biblical social norms and conduct. The return to Koranic society is a clear and defining aim of Islam. It is called sharia.

Yet we have Christians, one on this very forum, whom are fond of quoting from The Old Testament and for all we know, enjoy following the instructions they find there.

Soren, the reality is that until Christianity jettisons The Old Testament, Christians will continue to find inspiration there.  "An eye for an eye," and so on.

You keep denying it, but the rest of the world knows you're just bullshitting.   ::)

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Excuses, excuses from our resident Christian apologists.  Tsk, tsk, always trying to divert and obscure criticism of their murderous religious instruction manual!  They use smoke and mirrors to try and lie their way out of taking responsibility for what their religion says!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

It's sad, HB.  Christians claim to be morally superior to Muslims but as we see all too often here, it's a case of the pot telling the kettle it's bum is black.    ::)

moses wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 4:19pm:

Here's your big chance HB I challenge you to prove that the N.T. does not annul the ancient 3414 years old Mosaic Law of the Hebrews Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it. Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Prove any of the above verses do not replace the law with a new covenant Or are you simply lying as per the usual fashion of the apologists for islamic terrorism?

Yet the Christian churches keep publishing The Old Testament, Moses as a part of The Bible, despite your claim of irrelevancy.

Further, this still does not explain away Romans 1:24-32, which are a part The New Testament...    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

moses wrote on Oct 17th, 2014 at 4:19pm: Here's your big chance HB I challenge you to prove that the N.T. does not annul the ancient 3414 years old Mosaic Law of the Hebrews Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it. Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Prove any of the above verses do not replace the law with a new covenant Or are you simply lying as per the usual fashion of the apologists for islamic terrorism? Yet the Christian churches keep publishing The Old Testament, Moses as a part of The Bible, despite your claim of irrelevancy. Further, this still does not explain away Romans 1:24-32, which are a part The New Testament...    ::)

It is not irrelevant, idiot, it is history.  Is history irrelevant?


I think you are stupid on purposes - you know your arguments are stupid, yet to put them forward with a sense of idiotic defiance.


There is no Christian terrorism. There is no Christian State being established through blood.
There is Islamic terrorism, there are Islamic terrorists murdering and establishing an Islamic State.

You can squirm all you like Brain, but Islam is present in the world as a murderous threat.



.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

Christians claim to be morally superior to Muslims

Link?

Brian Ross wrote
Quote:

Yet the Christian churches keep publishing The Old Testament, Moses as a part of The Bible, despite your claim of irrelevancy.

Of course it's published as a record of the covenant between Y.H.W.H. and the Hebrews.

There were no Christians on the earth 3414 years ago when the O.T covenant was established.

How would Christians know what Christ was actually replacing if there is not a copy of what is to be superseded?


Quote:

Further, this still does not explain away Romans 1:24-32, which are a part The New Testament...

O.K. lets play your silly games

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

States that the **wrath of God is revealed against unrighteousness**

Romans 1:24-31 then give a list all iniquitous deeds unrighteous men will perform, pretty straight forward.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Again very straight foreward:

**The judgment of God** will be on Judgment day.

There are two verdicts on the day God judges men 1/.eternal spiritual life or  2/. eternal spiritual death.

The crucial difference between islam and Christianity is:

1/.islam unequivocally states that muslims must judge then torture and murder non muslims, on this earth.

2/. Christianity leaves the judging of men to the last day and the judgment of God

keep apologizing for islamic atrocities Brian, it suits you

"Deserving of death" means "put to death" by Christian believers, Moses.

You obfuscate and tap dance around the reality that The Bible contains instructions for killing non-believers.    ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2014 at 9:25pm:

It is not irrelevant, idiot, it is history.  Is history irrelevant?

History can never be irrelevant but as an historical document, it contains instructions which present day Christians all too often take to heart, Soren and act upon.   As much as you keep running from the facts, Christian Terrorists take heart from The Old Testament and have for thousands of years.  To them, it is God's instruction book.    ::)


Quote:

I think you are stupid on purposes - you know your arguments are stupid, yet to put them forward with a sense of idiotic defiance.

I rather think the only one being stupid is yourself, Soren.  You keep tap dancing around, being an apologist for Christianity.   I am merely applying the same logic which you use to condemn Muslims.  If it's good enough for you,  why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?  Mmmm?    ::)


Quote:

There is no Christian terrorism.

Christian Terrorism.  Documented and recognised as such by Governments, Soren.    ::)


Quote:

There is no Christian State being established through blood.

Joseph Cony might disagree with you, Soren.   ::)


Quote:

There is Islamic terrorism, there are Islamic terrorists murdering and establishing an Islamic State.

Which is being condemned by the majority of Muslims, Soren.    ::)


Quote:

You can squirm all you like Brain, but Islam is present in the world as a murderous threat.

I don't doubt some interpretations of that religion are but they are not and cannot be considered mainstream.  They are extremist fringe elements.  No matter how you try and paint them as mainstream, intelligent observers know you're bullshitting, Soren.    ::)

I've noticed in all your apologies for Islam, Brian, you have never once defended Muhammad.  Why is that?

Bubba Zanetti wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

I've noticed in all your apologies for Islam, Brian, you have never once defended Muhammad.  Why is that?

Perhaps because I never apologise for Islam or Muhammad?    ::)

What is holding the Muslim world back is ... religious saturation of every aspect of public and private life. It is stultified by loyalty to religious precepts of the 7th century.

It is by far the most important factor in militating against their advancement towards a state of civilisation in terms of democracy, personal freedom, and secular politics.



   

I wrote 'apologise' for Islam. I wrote 'defend' for Muhammad. The sovereign of Islam never seems to appear in any of your dissertations. Why is that?

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

"Deserving of death" means "put to death" by Christian believers, Moses. You obfuscate and tap dance around the reality that The Bible contains instructions for killing non-believers.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Prove this verse does not refer to the **judgment of God** and spiritual death on the day of judgement.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims.

Bubba Zanetti wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:

I wrote 'apologise' for Islam. I wrote 'defend' for Muhammad. The sovereign of Islam never seems to appear in any of your dissertations. Why is that?

I follow the advice of L.P.Hartley, Bubba.   Perhaps you should as well?   ::)

moses wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 2:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote: Quote: "Deserving of death" means "put to death" by Christian believers, Moses. You obfuscate and tap dance around the reality that The Bible contains instructions for killing non-believers. Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Prove this verse does not refer to the **judgment of God** and spiritual death on the day of judgement.

I don't have to, Moses. You have to prove that it does.   I will be following the example you have set with Islam.   Off you go, now.    ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims.

Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::)

What?? You also want sharia law?

Soren wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 4:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::) What?? You also want sharia law?

Strawman.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 3:49pm:

Bubba Zanetti wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:02pm: I wrote 'apologise' for Islam. I wrote 'defend' for Muhammad. The sovereign of Islam never seems to appear in any of your dissertations. Why is that? I follow the advice of L.P.Hartley, Bubba.   Perhaps you should as well?   ::)

So Brian what you are saying is you are the 12 year old boy who inadvertently causes a tragedy through his ignorance of the complexity of adult relations. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Adamant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 11:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:49pm: Bubba Zanetti wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:02pm: I wrote 'apologise' for Islam. I wrote 'defend' for Muhammad. The sovereign of Islam never seems to appear in any of your dissertations. Why is that? I follow the advice of L.P.Hartley, Bubba.   Perhaps you should as well?   ::) So Brian what you are saying is you are the 12 year old boy who inadvertently causes a tragedy through his ignorance of the complexity of adult relations. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

No, Adamant.  Obviously you're proudly parading your ignorance yet again for all to see.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2014 at 4:42pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::) What?? You also want sharia law? Strawman.    ::)

You are a a dishonest coward, Brain.

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 12:08am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::) What?? You also want sharia law? Strawman.    ::) You are a a dishonest coward, Brain.

Please provide a single quote where I have advocated the imposition of Sh'ria law, Soren.  If you can.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 12:12am:

Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:08am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::) What?? You also want sharia law? Strawman.    ::) You are a a dishonest coward, Brain. Please provide a single quote where I have advocated the imposition of Sh'ria law, Soren.  If you can.    ::)

Please give us a single quote where you opposed sharia, Brain.   Being a dishonest, evasive bastard is not sufficient, Brain.

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 12:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:12am: Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:08am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 4:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2014 at 2:40pm: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - mainstream enough for you, Brain? - wants sharia law in Australia. In my view anyone who wants sharia law in a Western liberal democracy like Australia is not a moderate Muslims. Oh, that makes it alright then, does it, Soren?  The proves it beyond a doubt?  Your opinion?   ::) What?? You also want sharia law? Strawman.    ::) You are a a dishonest coward, Brain. Please provide a single quote where I have advocated the imposition of Sh'ria law, Soren.  If you can.    ::) Please give us a single quote where you opposed sharia, Brain.   Being a dishonest, evasive bastard is not sufficient, Brain.

There is no need to make such a statement, Soren.  It would be like demanding I make a statement that I don't believe the sky should be allowed to fall.   Your Islamophobia prevents you from recognising that it will never happen in Australia.  The Muslims advocating it will never have sufficient numbers to implement it.   ::)

You are an evasive,  dishonest lurker, Brain. That is all you are

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 12:31am:

You are an evasive,  dishonest lurker, Brain. That is all you are

Again, prove I am dishonest in what I have just said, Soren.

Simply because someone does not agree with you does not make them dishonest.

Throwing such ad hominem claims just shows you've lost the debate, Soren.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 12:42am:

Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:31am: You are an evasive,  dishonest lurker, Brain. That is all you are Again, prove I am dishonest in what I have just said, Soren. Simply because someone does not agree with you does not make them dishonest. Throwing such ad hominem claims just shows you've lost the debate, Soren.    ::)

You support sharia.

Brian Ross


Quote:

moses wrote:[quote]Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Prove this verse does not refer to the **judgment of God** and spiritual death on the day of judgement.

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

I don't have to, Moses. You have to prove that it does.   I will be following the example you have set with Islam.   Off you go, now.

[/quote]

It's good to see you twisting and turning Brian, desperately trying to say that a verse which designates the Judgment of God as the adjudicator, doesn't refer to the Judgment of God.

Keep on lying boy, keep on lying, that's all muslims and their apologists have fraudulence and dishonesty.

Your deceit makes the job of exposing islam as a cult of killers, easy.

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:31am: You are an evasive,  dishonest lurker, Brain. That is all you are Again, prove I am dishonest in what I have just said, Soren. Simply because someone does not agree with you does not make them dishonest. Throwing such ad hominem claims just shows you've lost the debate, Soren.    ::) You support sharia.

I do?  I challenged you to quote one statement of mine where I had advocated it. You admitted you were unable to.  Lets see if you can admit your failure again?  Quote one statement which shows I support Sh'ria, Soren.    ::)

moses wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

Brian Ross Quote: moses wrote:[quote]Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Prove this verse does not refer to the **judgment of God** and spiritual death on the day of judgement. Brian Ross wrote:[quote]I don't have to, Moses. You have to prove that it does.   I will be following the example you have set with Islam.   Off you go, now.

[/quote]

It's good to see you twisting and turning Brian, desperately trying to say that a verse which designates the Judgment of God as the adjudicator, doesn't refer to the Judgment of God.

Keep on lying boy, keep on lying, that's all muslims and their apologists have fraudulence and dishonesty.

Your deceit makes the job of exposing islam as a cult of killers, easy. [/quote]

I see a reference to the "judgement of God".  I assume it must be delivered by the "hand of man".   How many witches have Christians killed over the centuries, Moses?  How many Gays and Lesbians?  All through delivering the "judgement of God."   Case proved.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 5:53pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 9:30am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Oct 19th, 2014 at 12:31am: You are an evasive,  dishonest lurker, Brain. That is all you are Again, prove I am dishonest in what I have just said, Soren. Simply because someone does not agree with you does not make them dishonest. Throwing such ad hominem claims just shows you've lost the debate, Soren.    ::) You support sharia. I do?  I challenged you to quote one statement of mine where I had advocated it. You admitted you were unable to.  Lets see if you can admit your failure again?  Quote one statement which shows I support Sh'ria, Soren.    ::)

Let's see if you can say you do not support sharia.

Easy.

Say it, Brain, 'I do not support sharia law'.

You will not do it because you would have to set yourself against Islam if you did.

Say it, Brain.

I do not support sharia law.


Say it.

You will not.

I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren.  It will not happen in Australia.

Tell us, Soren, do you support genocide?  Appears so with your comments denying The Stolen Generations' existence in the face of all the evidence.   ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

There are no instructions for murder in the OT for all future generations.

Lies


Quote:

It is much more of a history book than an instruction manual when it comes to the wars between the Jews and their enemies.

Lies.  Why do Christians have a history of the Jews in their holy book, if they don't believe the God of the Old Testament is the same as the New? 


Quote:

Even you, mentally negligible as you are, should realise that much.

Ooooh, look, some more ad hominem from a bigot and now it seems a liar.  No matter how many excuses you make, the Bible contains instructions to it's readers as to what they should do to non-believers!  Kill, rape, pillage, enslave them!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Seems Christianity has nuffin to do with nuffin. All that death in the name of Christianity wasn't?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 10:36am:

No matter how many excuses you make, the Bible contains instructions to it's readers as to what they should do to non-believers! Kill, rape, pillage, enslave them!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Hot Breath,

Clearly, you are a stubborn and stiff-necked student, who refuses to be instructed by the Holy Bible.....i
Yadda wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

The commandments and statutes of YAHWEH are embodied, in THE EQUAL TREATMENT [in law] OF EVERY MAN WHO DRAWS BREATH. Torah law.... Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him... Exodus 23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger... Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34  But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself... Leviticus 25:47-49 [these verses clearly speak of [and reveal that it was entirely 'lawful'] for Hebrews [themselves] to become bond servants [slaves], to prosperous strangers living among the Hebrews.] Deuteronomy 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Deuteronomy 10:17-19 For the LORD your God... loveth the stranger, ...Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Deuteronomy 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge: 18  But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. Deuteronomy 27:19 Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger...

Yadda wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 10:56am:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 10:36am: No matter how many excuses you make, the Bible contains instructions to it's readers as to what they should do to non-believers! Kill, rape, pillage, enslave them!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Hot Breath, Clearly, you are a stubborn and stiff-necked student, who refuses to be instructed by the Holy Bible.....

No, I refuse to imbibe of that Opiate as I refuse to imbibe of all Opiates of the Masses.  I take my instruction from Mr. Marx, not some mythical creature in the sky or his supposed son who never existed.   If you want to, go right ahead but don't try and force me to follow you or your filthy religion.

Christianity, justifying rape, murder, enslavement, pillaging for 2000 years!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 10:56am: |dev|null wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 10:36am: No matter how many excuses you make, the Bible contains instructions to it's readers as to what they should do to non-believers! Kill, rape, pillage, enslave them!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Hot Breath, Clearly, you are a stubborn and stiff-necked student, who refuses to be instructed by the Holy Bible..... No, I refuse to imbibe of that Opiate as I refuse to imbibe of all Opiates of the Masses.  I take my instruction from Mr. Marx, not some mythical creature in the sky or his supposed son who never existed.   If you want to, go right ahead but don't try and force me to follow you or your filthy religion. Christianity, justifying rape, murder, enslavement, pillaging for 2000 years!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Which Marx brother. I like Groucho personally. :)

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

I see a reference to the "judgement of God". I assume it must be delivered by the "hand of man".   How many witches have Christians killed over the centuries, Moses?  How many Gays and Lesbians?  All through delivering the "judgement of God."   Case proved.

You assumed Brian?

Many many men over the millennia have assumed lots of things, however the important thing is, what did Christ say on the matter?

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Iniquitious people assume falsly to teach commandments of men as the doctrine of Christ.

They are rejected by Christ.

Your case has been disproved doctrinally.

Bubba Zanetti wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 11:11am: Yadda wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 10:56am: |dev|null wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 10:36am: No matter how many excuses you make, the Bible contains instructions to it's readers as to what they should do to non-believers! Kill, rape, pillage, enslave them!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Hot Breath, Clearly, you are a stubborn and stiff-necked student, who refuses to be instructed by the Holy Bible..... No, I refuse to imbibe of that Opiate as I refuse to imbibe of all Opiates of the Masses.  I take my instruction from Mr. Marx, not some mythical creature in the sky or his supposed son who never existed.   If you want to, go right ahead but don't try and force me to follow you or your filthy religion. Christianity, justifying rape, murder, enslavement, pillaging for 2000 years!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D Which Marx brother. I like Groucho personally. :)

So do I but I prefer the message of Harpo!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

moses wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote: Quote: I see a reference to the "judgement of God". I assume it must be delivered by the "hand of man".   How many witches have Christians killed over the centuries, Moses?  How many Gays and Lesbians?  All through delivering the "judgement of God."   Case proved. You assumed Brian?

Yes, on the basis of 2,000 years of example of how Christians treat those they disagree with, Moses.  Once they get the upper-hand, watch out, they'll have you nailed to a tree or burn you alive!   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 12:06am:

I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren.  It will not happen in Australia.

You neither support nor oppose differential treatment of men and women, Muslims and nonMuslims, the mutilation and execution, the punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, the suppression of freedom of conscience, religion, speech, association?

Just peripheral issues you are happy to have no view on?? 
You love this immoral, spineless apologetics dressed up as squishy PC non-judgementalism, don't you?

You out on day release again, Soren?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 12:06am:

I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia.

Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P




Some moslem disagrees with your opinion brian !!!

Australian Islamist: We Will Establish a Caliphate, Instate Shari'a, Make Arabic Official Language
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAFbH5Zkrxo

Soren wrote on Oct 21^st, 2014 at 11:16am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren.  It will not happen in Australia. You neither support nor oppose differential treatment of men and women, Muslims and nonMuslims, the mutilation and execution, the punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, the suppression of freedom of conscience, religion, speech, association? Just peripheral issues you are happy to have no view on??  You love this immoral, spineless apologetics dressed up as squishy PC non-judgementalism, don't you?

A woman has more balls than the Brian/HB bot


Quote:

“It would be big step for Muslims to say ‘yes, I’m a Muslim, but no, I do not accept sharia law’, but that’s a step we need to take,” she says. “A lot of Muslims don’t want sharia law, they don’t live under sharia law and when it is imposed on to them, they flee. “I think that it’s in this kind of dynamic that people will say, ‘I am OK with my identity as a Muslim but I object to sharia law.’ “Nice pious Muslims who join Twitter campaigns in the West to say ‘not in my name’ need to be more specific,” she adds. “They need to say ‘hashtag no sharia law’ ”. Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Yadda wrote on Oct 21^st, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia. Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P

No, my opinion won't matter, any more than yours does, Y.

The Australian majority won't accept it.  It would require a referendum of unimaginable proportions, overturning everything from the Constitutions down.  Considering the track record of referenda not being approved, it is impossible that such a massive change could get up.


Quote:

Some moslem disagrees with your opinion brian !!!

I don't doubt they do but that doesn't necessarily mean their viewpoint will prevail, Y, any more than yours will.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21^st, 2014 at 11:44pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 12:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia. Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P No, my opinion won't matter, any more than yours does, Y. The Australian majority won't accept it.  It would require a referendum of unimaginable proportions, overturning everything from the Constitutions down.  Considering the track record of referenda not being approved, it is impossible that such a massive change could get up.

That's right, Brain. The Islamic State was established because they won the constitutional referendum.

And if it ever came to a referendum,  would YOU support sharia or would YOU oppose it?

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 8:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 11:44pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 12:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia. Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P No, my opinion won't matter, any more than yours does, Y. The Australian majority won't accept it.  It would require a referendum of unimaginable proportions, overturning everything from the Constitutions down.  Considering the track record of referenda not being approved, it is impossible that such a massive change could get up. That's right, Brain. The Islamic State was established because they won the constitutional referendum. And if it ever came to a referendum,  would YOU support sharia or would YOU oppose it?

S,

You can't ask B a question like that!

For B to answer [honestly], THAT WOULD BE, TELLING!

:)

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 8:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 11:44pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 12:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia. Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P No, my opinion won't matter, any more than yours does, Y. The Australian majority won't accept it.  It would require a referendum of unimaginable proportions, overturning everything from the Constitutions down.  Considering the track record of referenda not being approved, it is impossible that such a massive change could get up. That's right, Brain. The Islamic State was established because they won the constitutional referendum. And if it ever came to a referendum,  would YOU support sharia or would YOU oppose it?

This was only possible for the so-called "Islamic State" in the midst of an all out civil war, Soren.   Even now that the world's back is no longer turned, they are finding all their easy gains have dried up.   The local population is now resisting and they are backed by the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen.

Now, are you seriously proposing that a population of ~1.5% of the total, over 50% of which are concentrated in the one city would be wise to try and engage in some form of armed rebellion against the other ~98.5% of the population?   Really?

How many Muslims do you think would interested in engaging in such an endeavour?  10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 90%? 100%?

I know you obviously already have a low opinion of the intelligence of most Muslims but this is even stretching things for your bigotry, Soren.    ::)  ::)

In Australia, the only legal means to effectively change our legal system to Sh'ria would be via the political process, Soren.  That means a massive referendum or series of referenda.  So, do you serious believe a majority of voters in the majority of States would vote in favour of such a proposition?  Particularly with your sort of scaremongering and bigotry against them, scaring the voters?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 6:22pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 8:17am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 11:44pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 12:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2014 at 12:06am: I neither have to support nor oppose it, Soren. It will not happen in Australia. Won't you allow 'it', in Australia brian ?             :P No, my opinion won't matter, any more than yours does, Y. The Australian majority won't accept it.  It would require a referendum of unimaginable proportions, overturning everything from the Constitutions down.  Considering the track record of referenda not being approved, it is impossible that such a massive change could get up. That's right, Brain. The Islamic State was established because they won the constitutional referendum. And if it ever came to a referendum,  would YOU support sharia or would YOU oppose it? This was only possible for the so-called "Islamic State" in the midst of an all out civil war, Soren.   Even now that the world's back is no longer turned, they are finding all their easy gains have dried up.   The local population is now resisting and they are backed by the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen. Now, are you seriously proposing that a population of ~1.5% of the total, over 50% of which are concentrated in the one city would be wise to try and engage in some form of armed rebellion against the other ~98.5% of the population?   Really? How many Muslims do you think would interested in engaging in such an endeavour?  10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 90%? 100%? I know you obviously already have a low opinion of the intelligence of most Muslims but this is even stretching things for your bigotry, Soren.    ::)  ::) In Australia, the only legal means to effectively change our legal system to Sh'ria would be via the political process, Soren.  That means a massive referendum or series of referenda.  So, do you serious believe a majority of voters in the majority of States would vote in favour of such a proposition?  Particularly with your sort of scaremongering and bigotry against them, scaring the voters?    ::)

The ENTIRE point of Islamic terrorism is to NOT TO WORK within the established constitutional framework.

You are considerably stupider than I or any other sane person could have imagined. Just eyewatering.