ChatterBank1 min ago
Can Islam be pursuaded to revise their position?
"Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39"
It seems pretty clear that Islam is the enemy of the world so how far will the "Infidel" let it get before reacting?
An entire group has taken on the rantings of a paedophile nutter and seem intent on imposing the parameters of this "religion"
Will it be much more difficult when we finally wake up? can we "nip it in the bud" now?
Do we have a "Chamberlain" moment happenning? Is there a threat?
It seems pretty clear that Islam is the enemy of the world so how far will the "Infidel" let it get before reacting?
An entire group has taken on the rantings of a paedophile nutter and seem intent on imposing the parameters of this "religion"
Will it be much more difficult when we finally wake up? can we "nip it in the bud" now?
Do we have a "Chamberlain" moment happenning? Is there a threat?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well AOG we have a lot of people like that who think there is no problem. At the point where even they realise there is will be too late. As usual innaction will make the innevitable "action" must more severe. QED WWII for example. Ladies and gentlemen I give you the 2 biggest causers of conflict, religion+Pacifism.
Something at least we can agree on - you might like Emile Zola's quote
"Society will not reach perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
Your idea of pacifism causing wars is too silly for words though - It wasn't really known until the 17th century and the period up to that wasn't exactly war free was it?
Try religion, imperialism and xenophobia
I'm trying hard to think of a war that wasn't caused by one of those three!
"Society will not reach perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
Your idea of pacifism causing wars is too silly for words though - It wasn't really known until the 17th century and the period up to that wasn't exactly war free was it?
Try religion, imperialism and xenophobia
I'm trying hard to think of a war that wasn't caused by one of those three!
In 1932, Churchill was derided as a nutter by the liberals for wanting to stop Germany rearming, the rest is history jake! It's the idea that you can prevent conquest by an agressor by being thoroughly nice and peacful. In the end when the agresor is coming up the garden path that even the most ardent pacifist must fight. By then much more strife is necessary, where as an early smack in the mouth and stern warning would have prevented further incursion. Even you must see that jake.
Such a high blood pressure of words Geezer matched by an anaemia of deeds, so what is your solution?
Churchill had a country and a head of state to aim at, and, by his own admission he loved war (he was a warmonger), in 1932 Churchill was about as popular as Osama Bin Laden at a Bah Mitzvah and deservedly so, he was so loved by the people that they kicked him out in 1945, only to bring him back later so could *** things up againonly to be replaced by Eden, another success!
I love this almost child like notion, get rid of these types of people get rid of those types of people and we'll all be ok.
The very idea that if all the good people got together and got rid of all the bad people we could all go and live in a happy place is unbecoming of adults.
Churchill had a country and a head of state to aim at, and, by his own admission he loved war (he was a warmonger), in 1932 Churchill was about as popular as Osama Bin Laden at a Bah Mitzvah and deservedly so, he was so loved by the people that they kicked him out in 1945, only to bring him back later so could *** things up againonly to be replaced by Eden, another success!
I love this almost child like notion, get rid of these types of people get rid of those types of people and we'll all be ok.
The very idea that if all the good people got together and got rid of all the bad people we could all go and live in a happy place is unbecoming of adults.
When is the last time you went to an 'Indian' Restaurant - chances are that they were Muslim owned and run.
Did any of them try to kill you or convert you to Islam?
How many churches have been burnt to the ground here?
How many people in this country have been killed because of Muslims? Compare that to the number of people killed by Christians, homophobes, or just feral youth.
You say that Germany was allowed to rearm in 1932 - which Islamic country do you think is going to arm itself for a war against us?
Did any of them try to kill you or convert you to Islam?
How many churches have been burnt to the ground here?
How many people in this country have been killed because of Muslims? Compare that to the number of people killed by Christians, homophobes, or just feral youth.
You say that Germany was allowed to rearm in 1932 - which Islamic country do you think is going to arm itself for a war against us?
well lets take them one at a time shall we:
"When is the last time you went to an 'Indian' Restaurant - chances are that they were Muslim owned and run".
no long ago and they did try and flush out my system with a Vindaloo. However round here they are mostly Hindu as far as I can tell.
"Did any of them try to kill you or convert you to Islam?" - Not yet, it's a slow process, they have no time limit.
"How many churches have been burnt to the ground here? " - None, yet!
"How many people in this country have been killed because of Muslims? Compare that to the number of people killed by Christians, homophobes, or just feral youth". - No idea but proportionately I'd say they are keeping their end up.
"You say that Germany was allowed to rearm in 1932" - which Islamic country do you think is going to arm itself for a war against us? - Different kind of war, Jake, breed faster, out number, use existing system to displace us, create new system when a majority.
"When is the last time you went to an 'Indian' Restaurant - chances are that they were Muslim owned and run".
no long ago and they did try and flush out my system with a Vindaloo. However round here they are mostly Hindu as far as I can tell.
"Did any of them try to kill you or convert you to Islam?" - Not yet, it's a slow process, they have no time limit.
"How many churches have been burnt to the ground here? " - None, yet!
"How many people in this country have been killed because of Muslims? Compare that to the number of people killed by Christians, homophobes, or just feral youth". - No idea but proportionately I'd say they are keeping their end up.
"You say that Germany was allowed to rearm in 1932" - which Islamic country do you think is going to arm itself for a war against us? - Different kind of war, Jake, breed faster, out number, use existing system to displace us, create new system when a majority.
Nothing hysterical about it, which bits do you feel are incorrect?
Politically we had no mandate for war, the public did not want it, not convinced?
Look at the crowds who greeted Chamberlain after the Munich agreement ("peace in our time"), still not convinced?
Look at France's treaty obligation to guarantee Czech borders, see how quickly they reneged on it, still not convinced?
Read Chamberlain's letters to his sister predicting the collapse of France if attacked, still not convinced?
Read Chamberlain's letters on how we needed to buy time and cross reference that with the date of the formation of the first Spitfire squadron, still not convinced?
We were not ready for a war in 1932, we were not ready for a war in 1939 or for that matter 1940 we were barely ready in 1941 and only started to find our feet in 1942, Churchill could not have taken us to war or tackle Hitler in 1932 as we had nothing to hit him with, we would have been viewed as the aggressor and the public would not have allowed it so soon after The Great War, still not convinced?
Read Hansard and Chamberlain's rebuttal citing "defiance and defence" hindsight is a wonderful when you can subtract the political climate in a social democracy at the time.
Politically we had no mandate for war, the public did not want it, not convinced?
Look at the crowds who greeted Chamberlain after the Munich agreement ("peace in our time"), still not convinced?
Look at France's treaty obligation to guarantee Czech borders, see how quickly they reneged on it, still not convinced?
Read Chamberlain's letters to his sister predicting the collapse of France if attacked, still not convinced?
Read Chamberlain's letters on how we needed to buy time and cross reference that with the date of the formation of the first Spitfire squadron, still not convinced?
We were not ready for a war in 1932, we were not ready for a war in 1939 or for that matter 1940 we were barely ready in 1941 and only started to find our feet in 1942, Churchill could not have taken us to war or tackle Hitler in 1932 as we had nothing to hit him with, we would have been viewed as the aggressor and the public would not have allowed it so soon after The Great War, still not convinced?
Read Hansard and Chamberlain's rebuttal citing "defiance and defence" hindsight is a wonderful when you can subtract the political climate in a social democracy at the time.
Did it fail entirely?
Hitler wanted war in 1938, he hoped for an alliance with Britain, in terms of buying time, Chamberlain's biggest failure was that he was unable to buy enough of it.
You have to add that the global recession did not help with the funding of rearmament especially after the chancellor of the exchequer took us back into the "gold standard", now who was that chancellor?
Oh yes, Churchill!
No wonder he was so popular....
Hitler wanted war in 1938, he hoped for an alliance with Britain, in terms of buying time, Chamberlain's biggest failure was that he was unable to buy enough of it.
You have to add that the global recession did not help with the funding of rearmament especially after the chancellor of the exchequer took us back into the "gold standard", now who was that chancellor?
Oh yes, Churchill!
No wonder he was so popular....
Geezer- Why do you twist words and the meanings of the verses or perhaps you picked these up as they suit you. Now this is the same verse,
Quran 2-193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
First of all these are war-time verses to uplift morale of few people, when 313 almost unarmed people (between them only 15 swords) were facing 1000 with all the war hardware possible at that time. Arabic word used there is “fitna” which means oppression, injustice etc. I have no idea where did you get “idolatry”. Usual word for that in Arabic is “shirk or mushrik”. Would you not fight someone who has oppressed you, or have been unjust to you for over 12 years? Still it says that if they cease then you should not cross the limits.
The only thing I would say that according to you no one has forced you into accepting Islam or killing you. So obviously not even 1% of 1.8 billion Muslims are doing what you think Quran asks them to do. Or perhaps they understood it better than you did and they do not have to kill you as you are not oppressing them.
I would let you decide.
Quran 2-193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
First of all these are war-time verses to uplift morale of few people, when 313 almost unarmed people (between them only 15 swords) were facing 1000 with all the war hardware possible at that time. Arabic word used there is “fitna” which means oppression, injustice etc. I have no idea where did you get “idolatry”. Usual word for that in Arabic is “shirk or mushrik”. Would you not fight someone who has oppressed you, or have been unjust to you for over 12 years? Still it says that if they cease then you should not cross the limits.
The only thing I would say that according to you no one has forced you into accepting Islam or killing you. So obviously not even 1% of 1.8 billion Muslims are doing what you think Quran asks them to do. Or perhaps they understood it better than you did and they do not have to kill you as you are not oppressing them.
I would let you decide.
Here is the 'same' quote again...
First from the Prophet of Doom (unsurprisingly, an anti-Islamic website):
“Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers.” - Quran 2-193
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam
And here from TalkIslam (pro-Islamic):
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.” - Quran 2-193.
http://www.prayertimi...wsId=18259&nCatId=340
So which one is true and why the different use of words?
I'm sure that pro-Islamists would explain the difference by pointing out that the first version is deliberately made out to make Islam look bad.
I would explain the dissimilarity in a different way...
First from the Prophet of Doom (unsurprisingly, an anti-Islamic website):
“Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers.” - Quran 2-193
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam
And here from TalkIslam (pro-Islamic):
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.” - Quran 2-193.
http://www.prayertimi...wsId=18259&nCatId=340
So which one is true and why the different use of words?
I'm sure that pro-Islamists would explain the difference by pointing out that the first version is deliberately made out to make Islam look bad.
I would explain the dissimilarity in a different way...
Continued...
Looking at the second quote, the word 'oppression' is the crucial word that needs to be defined in order to reveal the meaning of the quote...
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”
Oppression to most religious people means anything that unjustly (as they see it) opposes the goals of their religion. The Christian “Right” in America consider themselves offended / oppressed because they can't teach Creationism in science classes in schools. I think it's fair to say that Islamic societies are grossly offended (and therefore oppressed) by anything un-Islamic. This is because Islamists believe that Islam is the only religion into which each and every person on this planet must be subjected to. In Islam, this belief is backed up by scripture.
The only religion is the religion of Allah, Islam…16:52
Muslims (Islam) are the best of righteous people...3:110
Islam is the perfect religion; it will dominate all other religions...9:33
etc.
Looking at the second quote, the word 'oppression' is the crucial word that needs to be defined in order to reveal the meaning of the quote...
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”
Oppression to most religious people means anything that unjustly (as they see it) opposes the goals of their religion. The Christian “Right” in America consider themselves offended / oppressed because they can't teach Creationism in science classes in schools. I think it's fair to say that Islamic societies are grossly offended (and therefore oppressed) by anything un-Islamic. This is because Islamists believe that Islam is the only religion into which each and every person on this planet must be subjected to. In Islam, this belief is backed up by scripture.
The only religion is the religion of Allah, Islam…16:52
Muslims (Islam) are the best of righteous people...3:110
Islam is the perfect religion; it will dominate all other religions...9:33
etc.
Continued....
So if 'oppression' can be equated with 'anything un-Islamic', the second quote reads very differently...
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or [anything un-Islamic], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise [anything un-Islamic]”.
This is all semantics of course. Bearing in mind that Mohammed himself decreed that deceiving the non-believer is permissible, who do you believe? The Islamists. who promote Islam as a religion of peace. Or those non-Muslims like myself who see Islam for what it really is – a petty, violent, barbaric religion whose theology and maniacal propensity for medieval punishments and restrictive practises which has no place in the 21st century?
So if 'oppression' can be equated with 'anything un-Islamic', the second quote reads very differently...
“And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or [anything un-Islamic], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise [anything un-Islamic]”.
This is all semantics of course. Bearing in mind that Mohammed himself decreed that deceiving the non-believer is permissible, who do you believe? The Islamists. who promote Islam as a religion of peace. Or those non-Muslims like myself who see Islam for what it really is – a petty, violent, barbaric religion whose theology and maniacal propensity for medieval punishments and restrictive practises which has no place in the 21st century?
When Birdie asks 'who do you believe?' he is highlighting a fundamental problem with Islam, but perhaps a more relevant question is 'who can you trust?'. He is right in saying that within Islam it is permissible to deceive, but additionally it is permissible to break an oath. The Koran does not promote peace, Islam is not a religion of peace, and the Muslim's word is not his bond.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.