Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 3:46 pm

Poll: Is world Islamifacation a problem
This poll is closed.
Yes
57.89%
11 57.89%
No
31.58%
6 31.58%
Splinters (undecided)
10.53%
2 10.53%
Total 19 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
World Islamifacation
#31
RE: World Islamifacation
(July 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm)bozo Wrote: In the UK we have a publicly funded television company, the BBC. In its wisdom, it recently showed 3 hourly programmes entitled " The Life of Muhammad " and the presenter was a respected media journalist Rageh Ommar. I forced myself to watch.....I found it hard going, to say the least. Ommar, in a preview to the series, was asked if he was a " practising muslim ". His answer was that he was a muslim. To me that means he's not totally convinced, but another muslim can perhaps offer an opinion on that.
It was filmed out in Arabia, desert landscapes, palatial mosques, mysterious sounding musak for effect and an ever so serious and deferential presenter.
It was also full of talking heads from the world of predominantly muslim academia but also British authors on the subject of his life ( nice publicity for them ) spouting their holy bullshit ad nauseam.
And, of course, the premise is that god exists, no doubt was expressed or evidence provided, the viewer was expected to take that for granted and also that Muhammad was his chosen " prophet ".
It told of his " revelations ", again, in such a way that no doubt was open to the viewer of the authenticity of these outrageous pieces of superstitious nonsense.
The height of absurdity for me was when some islamist holy man, commenting on the flight Muhammad is supposed to have made over extreme distance in no time to meet up with god and other prophets, offered this gem: " the fact that it is unbelievable is what makes us believe ".
In short, it was a pr exercise for islam, paid for by the British taxpayer. At the very least, it should have been the subject of some crtical appraisal . I'd love to think it will be followed up in such a way, perhaps with Richard Dawkins taking part.
Finally, what attraction there is in islam is beyond me. Dressing wierd, looking wierd, acting wierd..prostrating yourself 5 times a day in prayer, for fuck's sake if you sleep 8 hours a day this means praying every 3 hours! They're welcome to it, silly fuckers!

I think I watched bits of that documentary series when it aired on the ABC here in Australia some time back.

Anyway I wish the scholars would put the Qur'an under the pretty through scientific examination they have given to the bible. If that was done, people might start doubting if the Prophet Muhammad every existed at all.
undefined
Reply
#32
RE: World Islamifacation
Quote:1. There are mention of him by his friends, family members, caliphs/successors, AND historians.
2. If Muhammad didn't exist, then how did Islam start in the first place? Who did all the Muslims learn from?
3. I think it is more likely to be correct if a person says that Muhammad was not a "prophet" than saying that he was "non-existent."
4. So you believe that Muhammad is a fictional character (if you're being honest).


Rayaan.....( and glad to see you are back to Rayaan...the spider thing was creepy) the xtians use exactly the same line of "reasoning" for their boy.

Oh, there must have been a jesus/mohammad otherwise who would have given us the fucking word? But will you also concede that there was a real Zeus? Osiris?? Jupiter??? Shiva???? Marduk????? etc., etc. or is this going to be more special pleading? You believe in one god but man has invented thousands upon thousands of them? Did they all have a historical person behind them? I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the odds are that your angry desert god is just one more human invention among thousands and thousands of others.

Let's see...jesus comes complete with a whole made up family and circle of friends and "disciples" and "apostles" and miracles and wonders and historians of the time paid absolutely no attention to him at all. In fact, the gap is so fucking glaring that when xtians found themselves on Emperor Constantine's "friends list" they tried to go back and write a few references to their boy into the historical record. They weren't very good at it and scholars have detected the forgeries.

Independent scholars....i.e., those who aren't terribly worried about having a fatwa placed on their head by some fanatic...date the koran to about 100 years after mohammad's supposed death. Coincidentally, roughly the same amount of time it took xtianity to get cracking after the supposed death of its founder. The similarities are intriguing.

I imagine there were thousands of people named "mohammad" so I really don't have a problem with your point #3. It is not mohammad who cleaned up camel shit on the Mecca to Medina route that we are concerned with, after all. You want a specific "mohammad" just like the xtians want a specific "jesus" because that too was a pretty common name.

Again, pointing to your religious texts and shouting "THERE HE IS" at the top of your lungs is not very convincing. A single reference from a Byzantine writer about how mohammad's armies were ripping up commerce would be more impressive than all the phony shit that you and the xtians come up with.

And you don't have that.

#4. Yes. That's what I just said.

Reply
#33
RE: World Islamifacation
(July 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rayaan Wrote: This is what I posted in a different thread, which is:

1. There are mention of him by his friends, family members, caliphs/successors, AND historians.
2. If Muhammad didn't exist, then how did Islam start in the first place? Who did all the Muslims learn from?
3. I think it is more likely to be correct if a person says that Muhammad was not a "prophet" than saying that he was "non-existent."
4. So you believe that Muhammad is a fictional character (if you're being honest). But, I'll agree to disagree like I always do (though I can still talk about this if I want to). Smile

While I believe there was an "historical" Muhammad, like a "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. However like Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad's life story has been embellished with a lot of mythology which was built up in the centuries after this death. For example the earliest surviving biographies of Muhammad's life were written one to two hundred years after his death. Likewise the Hadiths were put together at roughly the same time. This all occurred after Islam had spread from the Atlantic to the Indus. The accuracy of any oral traditions which were passed down about Muhammad would have been embellished in a major way with all kinds of mythology. Not to mention the tradition of the Uthman ibn Affan destroying all copies of the Quran apart from the one he considered the authentic one.

In comparison when the Gospels of the New Testament were written down in the late 1st century, between 40 and 80 years after the death of Jesus. Also the Christian community was still pretty small at that stage with no more than several thousand in the whole community and being confined to a small number of communities in the Mediterranean basin, which are both conductive towards effective transmission of oral traditions. Not to mention that we have like thousands of different biblical manuscripts of the New Testament in various sizes dating as far back to the 2nd Century. Even in-spite of all that in my opinion we know relatively little about the historical Jesus.
undefined
Reply
#34
RE: World Islamifacation
Yes the BBC programmes were very well done. It surprised me how forceful the presenter was in proclaimming Islam to be peaceful, telling us what the Kuran said and then interviewing some ordinary Muslims who believed totally differently. Mohammed was a military leader yet the strong emphasis was on his major peaceful victory when he took over Mecca peacefully. Not surprising with his vast majority of force.
Reply
#35
RE: World Islamifacation
(July 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm)Rayaan Wrote:
(July 27, 2011 at 2:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mohammed said 'submit'. He meant you tho'.
Yeah, but he never said "kill them if they don't submit." See this: The Tolerance of the Prophet towards Other Religions
Except for this bit:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Sura at Tawba 9:5).

Where he clearly says slay the pagans (people of other religions) unless they become Muslim.

A classical interpretation by Ismail Ibn Kathir (A.D. 1301–1373 - a Muslim muhaddith, Faqih, historian, and commentator): Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.

Mohammed says: all will submit to Allah. Jesus says: you have a choice.

I think Mohhamed knew the power of a peaceful conqueror, as demonstrated by the Christian example, and used that as another way to gain power. You shouldn't discount his bloody destruction before that and try to say that's all he was tho', because that would be untrue.
Reply
#36
RE: World Islamifacation
I have to admit, I am a little creeped out by this thread. I believe what is really being said is, "Do you have a problem with terrorists moving into your countries," which is eerie, because the two questions are not interchangeable.

Have you ever thought that perhaps mixing cultures with Islam is actually a good thing? Just look at the difference between American Muslims and Middle Eastern Muslims, for the most part. One cannot be exposed to so much tolerance their entire lives and not be influenced by it. Therefore, you get Muslims who pray five (?) times a day, wear traditional Muslim clothing, but are polite to and tolerant of Americans who are not Muslim. I refuse to judge a group by the actions of even the majority of that group, unless that group is truly a hate group, such as Nazis or neo Nazis. My reason for this is that interpretation thing we're always complaining about. Some Muslims, whether they are correct or not, interpret the Koran differently than others. Take Rayaan for example. He sees a great deal of peaceful suggestions in the Koran precisely where extremists see excuses for violence. Some of us may think his interpretations are wrong, but that is neither he nor there. Either way, he is lending a peaceful voice to a religion that is thought of as violent. He is polite to Americans and Christians here. One day, he will have children and teach them to be the same way and so on.

Cultures mixing, blending, sharing, speaking and even fighting is a good thing. I find separation and invisible lines intolerable. Yes, make regulations to slow the spread of disease over borders and be careful not to collapse your economy, but don't close borders to a specific religious or ethnic group, which would be the only solution if World Islamification really were a problem. Hug a fucking tree and then work your way up to a person. It'll do you some good.
Quote:and now the US are going to let the Muslims build the ground zero mosque which will encourage the Islamifacation of the united states

Oh, and I have several points of contention with this.

A. The "US" let the Muslims build that mosque when they laid the groundwork for this country. To deny them the right to do so would be like taking a support beam out of a home. Eventually, it will all crumble if we remove that fundamental principle.

B. The "US" really shouldn't be making that decision. It should be something handled by local government and only as it pertains to building codes, etc. The "issue" should not be the religious nature of the building or it's location, which brings me to . . .

C. This has been mentioned, but I will reiterate, the "Ground Zero" mosque is not at Ground Zero. If you are familiar with the area, you will know that the only reason Manhattan seems so big is because it is a cluster fuck. It is, in fact, a smallish area. Manhattan is a less than 30 sq. mile island with more than 1.5 million people living on it. The smallest touristy island off Cape Cod, MA (Nantucket) is bigger than that. Two blocks away is a big frigging difference. I keep hearing that you will be able to hear the call to prayer from Ground Zero as well. Ha. I doubt they will play it loud enough to be heard over the thousands of fucking people and gridlock of cars that are incessantly on the streets of Manhattan.

D. Encourage the Islamification of the United States? You do realize that there are already Muslims here, right? Oh, and New York City, of which Manhattan is a borough, already has 140 mosques. Article is a little histrionic, but contains that fun fact ---> http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/07/ground-...esman.html Oh yeah, that one fucking mosque amidst a sea of churches and mosques is really going to be the undoing of the United States.
Reply
#37
RE: World Islamifacation
Well, probably a hardliner here, but I can't describe any of the abrahamic religions as anything more than hate groups. A pillar of their belief system is that they are cosmically superior, by divine edict of the lord almighty, and that the rest of the unwashed, those different from themselves, deserve (indeed will receive) damnation. Any Mosque, Church, Lodge, what have you that doesnt get built somewhere is a victory for basic human decency and goodness. That's just my two cents.

It's a troubling place to find oneself in, agreeing with those you otherwise despise. (Not you shell, the anti-mosquer's, and along entirely different lines than said nutjobs, of course)

You know the old saying, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose, for some odd reason, what with all the hellfire, I feel like religious groups long ago crossed the threshold where I would be willing to accept them being granted any rights in that regard.
(The whole freedom of speech vs yelling fire in a theater bit, I know, I know.)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#38
RE: World Islamifacation
(July 29, 2011 at 2:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Well, probably a hardliner here, but I can't describe any of the abrahamic religions as anything more than hate groups. A pillar of their belief system is that they are cosmically superior, by divine edict of the lord almighty, and that the rest of the unwashed, those different from themselves, deserve (indeed will receive) damnation. Any Mosque, Church, Lodge, what have you that doesnt get built somewhere is a victory for basic human decency and goodness. That's just my two cents.

See, I'm not antireligion, but I can see why some people are. I have a problem with assuming all adherents of certain religions actually adhere to their religions' teachings. Sure, their teachings may be what you outlined above, but some people simply interpret them the wrong way, which is often both a good and a bad thing. I don't think a mosque is enough for Islam to sweep across the nation. However, I am the kind of person who doesn't get angry about what people might do. Maybe that is a flaw because I have to wait for them to actually do it to react, but isn't that the basis of our legal system. The people building that mosque have done nothing wrong, legally and I think nothing wrong, morally.

There is a battlefield somewhere, I believe it is Turkey, where there are memorials for soldiers on both sides of the conflict. I think I am remembering this correctly, but if I am wrong, someone please correct me. I believe it was the Gallipoli campaign between Australia and Turkey and afterward, the survivors were so impressed by the other side's stamina and strength that Turkey respected their enemy on their own soil. I know the situations are different, but let us not forget that the World Trade Centers were not filled with white Christians.
Reply
#39
RE: World Islamifacation
You're right, of course, regarding the adherents of a religion having a tendency to have personal interpretations that are benign (by and large, people are decent). It's not that I wish to prevent them from doing what they might do, rather that I wish to prevent them from continuing what they as a whole (though perhaps not individually) have continually been doing. Sabotaging our very quality of life, preventing academic and social progress by skewing law and government in their favor, and demonizing any group which does not toe the party line, directly or indirectly. This is without even tallying up any amount of mortality involved in wars or persecution, I don't feel that I need any of that to make my point valid. I understand that individually the religious may not be actively participating in the combined effect or activities of the whole, but even if they do not participate, they do support the whole enterprise. It's authority derives from the supposed view of the masses. The religious are those masses.

To use a different example. There is a common line of disagreement, regarding the U.S. effect on third world countries. One of the many points of contention is that of the exploitation of minor children. One side of this issue contends that:

Many american products are produced by cheap offshore labor, sometimes child labor. I probably buy some of these products without knowing it, others I do understand are produced with child labor and I buy them anyway (for whatever reason). I may not be in support of this practice personally, but, as an american consumer, there is some level of culpability. Individually our levels of culpability may be low, but as a whole it is impossible to absolve ourselves on this issue.

I agree with that line of reasoning to a certain extent. It is difficult for me to understand how one could hold this position on something like child labor and responsibility, and yet opt out of it's application with regards to religion and responsibility. I also feel the need to mention that for many people, their ability to tolerate, or respect another's religion seems to depend heavily on the individual being "less religious about their religion". This is a strange sort of line for believers to need to toe, isn't it? Religious organizations ability and willingness to do the things I mentioned above, past and present, has been built one building at a time. I don't expect everyone to take the line I take on this, it's just my opinion on the matter.

(I chose child labor here because it's not black and white. The conditions are terrible, but these people do need incomes. Avoiding references to Nazis is crucial..lol)

In the end we'd probably agree to disagree, it's a good thing, I just can't give the innocent supporter a pass for the actions carried out by the devout fanatic using any authority, or funding, which has been provided by the innocent supporter. Keep in mind that the Martyr is bidding on real estate in heaven, which he has reason to believe exists, in no small part due to the support structure of his social group and their common belief in that piece of land at the very least.

I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#40
RE: World Islamifacation
Well, for me, it is not giving them a pass. It is allowing them to do what we allow loads of crazy Christians who drive their children to drugs to do every day. To me, it would be a pass, if we said, "We'll let you get away with one hateful poster." or "You can yell violent messages through your prayer speaker." Letting people build buildings following codes in a city is not really a pass, is it? Just like we can't make exceptions if a Christian hurts people. We can't make exceptions if a Muslim wants to build something. I refuse to take a position of a double standard. I would find it obscene to tell a group that they cannot build something that they are paying for. Fuck, they could be building a whorehouse and I wouldn't say no. If the building is up to code, they can build it. If later, they do something illegal, they will get in trouble. That is all there is to it and that situation really leaks out into the "World Islamification" thing. It is not a bad thing in and of itself. It could be a good thing for Islam. It could be a good thing for the world. Maybe one day I can make a real life Muslim friend and teach my kids (my hypothetical, never gonna happen kids) that is okay to be cool with Muslims and then go prove it to them. That sure beats teaching them to be afraid of a massive portion of the population who is misrepresented by a fraction of that portion. (Forgive me if I make no sense. Sleepy time she comes.)
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)