|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 0:15:04 GMT -5
A backlash against the Islamisation of the West is inevitable. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be a bloodbath, but clearly the generosity of the West to Islamic immigration has to end. It's not working for the immigrant communities, and it's not working for the host populations. The West was hardly "generous" to Muslims. For the most part, Muslims were brought in to handle menial work in Europe, beginning in the 1960s, nothing generous about it at all. Many immigrants were refugees, escaping countries turned into Hell-holes by their religion. Some have purposely come to the West as Jihadis: ![http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/Islamic-State-Smuggle-Fighters-Across-Border-555434.jpg](http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/Islamic-State-Smuggle-Fighters-Across-Border-555434.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 25, 2015 0:21:09 GMT -5
"There is a drive on the part of some extremists to re-establish the Caliphate" It's already been done. Surely you knew? It hasn't. You means ISIS's claims to be a caliphate? The caliphate is the entire Muslim world under a single leader, ISIS claims notwithstanding. It's unlikely to ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 0:55:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 1:14:39 GMT -5
This is a bit long, but it's very interesting and gives yet another viewpoint. It is a complex problem.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 25, 2015 8:14:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 25, 2015 9:02:22 GMT -5
Snow, there simply are not adequate words of gratitude for your courage posting this video.Thank you, yknot.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 25, 2015 9:18:48 GMT -5
Wonderful article What Hat. A question passed through my mind as I read the article (I truly hope that I offend no one): - I wonder if that article would have appeared in this morning's paper had different choices been made by different people starting late afternoon of September 11, 2001? - A recurring question that haunts my conscience. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 25, 2015 9:24:31 GMT -5
This is a bit long, but it's very interesting and gives yet another viewpoint. It is a complex problem. "I have no Israel" - poignant
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 25, 2015 10:50:49 GMT -5
Thanks snow, for that link to excellent excellent presentation. Courageous people. I plan to share it with family living in Muslim country and interact and live with Muslims. It is so refreshing and enlightening to hear these "visitors of the future........... NAME the problem, and have these difficult conversations in such a civil way. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 13:04:00 GMT -5
Snow, there simply are not adequate words of gratitude for your courage posting this video.Thank you, yknot. I found it last night and was up until 12:30 am to finish it. It really hit home for me just how complex the issues really are and how important it is to address them in a firm but compassionate way. I was so grateful for the Muslim in the group and his courage to speak out. I loved his comment about 'spreading the risk', meaning if more Muslims had stepped up to support him when he went on BBC and said that cartoons did not matter, it would lesson the risk for those other Muslims that want to speak up but are scared to. There are so many facets to this issue.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 13:04:57 GMT -5
Wonderful article What Hat. A question passed through my mind as I read the article (I truly hope that I offend no one): - I wonder if that article would have appeared in this morning's paper had different choices been made by different people starting late afternoon of September 11, 2001? - A recurring question that haunts my conscience. Thanks The "invasion" of Afghanistan and Iraq gave folks in those countries an opportunity to escape tyranny and share in the blessings of the modern world. It's far better to use military power to deal with the bad guys and give the people of those countries freedom, than to have millions of refugees trying to get into the Occident.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 15:02:44 GMT -5
So great to read good news. Thank you What hat
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 15:59:52 GMT -5
This is a bit long, but it's very interesting and gives yet another viewpoint. It is a complex problem. Thanks for this Snow - I watched it right through and I think it frames the problem and what needs to be done very well. It presents a really good argument for not restricting free speech.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 18:31:03 GMT -5
This is a bit long, but it's very interesting and gives yet another viewpoint. It is a complex problem. Thanks for this Snow - I watched it right through and I think it frames the problem and what needs to be done very well. It presents a really good argument for not restricting free speech. I agree, it makes total sense why we must talk about it. I still think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't put those we need on our side on the defensive. We need the moderate Muslims and we don't want to alienate them further. They need us too in the sense that they know we support them. It is going to be dangerous for them to speak out, at first at least. But the more that take that step the more power they will have.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 19:09:28 GMT -5
I agree, it makes total sense why we must talk about it. I still think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't put those we need on our side on the defensive. We need the moderate Muslims and we don't want to alienate them further. They need us too in the sense that they know we support them. It is going to be dangerous for them to speak out, at first at least. But the more that take that step the more power they will have. Yes, if we avoid the subject we are making it harder for the moderates to speak out. By speaking out they are risking their lives because the nut-jobs consider them to be anti-Muslim and traitors, deserving death. An interesting point was made that the Left has abandoned its former support for the Enlightenment and freedom.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 25, 2015 21:35:04 GMT -5
This is a bit long, but it's very interesting and gives yet another viewpoint. It is a complex problem. Thanks for the link! The solution offered at the end is the best future, but the question is how soon? Here is a present look into what's it's like to be an ex-Muslim today. Islam is like hotel California? youtu.be/Ck6bTyquVd4
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 25, 2015 22:42:12 GMT -5
Here is a present look into what's it's like to be an ex-Muslim today. Islam is like hotel California? youtu.be/Ck6bTyquVd4Some of the comments are interesting...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 23:02:03 GMT -5
I agree, it makes total sense why we must talk about it. I still think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't put those we need on our side on the defensive. We need the moderate Muslims and we don't want to alienate them further. They need us too in the sense that they know we support them. It is going to be dangerous for them to speak out, at first at least. But the more that take that step the more power they will have. Yes, if we avoid the subject we are making it harder for the moderates to speak out. By speaking out they are risking their lives because the nut-jobs consider them to be anti-Muslim and traitors, deserving death. An interesting point was made that the Left has abandoned its former support for the Enlightenment and freedom. Yes I thought that was interesting too. That they had too much invested.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 26, 2015 3:29:18 GMT -5
It starts way back with a supreme being telling a father to kill his son. Or telling an army to kill every living thing. When there is no limit to what people will do for god, killing yourself is a short step. Without adversely affecting "the drift" of the conversation, I would like to "pop" in again. Rational, I understand your two important roles here on this board, as both a skeptic and spokesperson for rational reasoning. For the following question, I would like you to assume your rational reasoning role (not the role of skeptic). OK? Begin with the premise that the context of human experience has not always been a constant. Suppose for the purposes of this brief conversation that there was a time (for argument's sake, let's say 1500 BCE) when most inhabitants of the planet lived without TV, radio, cell phones, newspapers, magazines and other means of interactive technologies that grace our present day societies. It has been suggested that societies in that era were organized around and enjoyed what today is called an oral tradition, they told each other stories. These stories were told for fun, they were told for instruction, they were told to establish codes of conduct et cetra. The Greeks for example told stories about gods who did funny things, and strange things, happy things and sad things. Some of these stories have come all the way down through history (Homer's stories for example) and are read and studied by very learned persons in very austere and revered institutions called University Classics Departments. From these stories of those ancient days we learn many things, some of those things we find useful even today in our everyday lives 3000, 4000 even 5000 years later. The Greeks would sit around together and tell stories, for example, about Phonoi that were male spirits of murder, killing and slaughter. It was normal for them to do so. That was how they thought, that was how they learned, that was how they taught, that was how they interacted one with another. Responsible (and I submit rational) people can sit around and read these stories today, they can reflect on these stories, they can speculate and wonder how these stories might or might not relate to their lives and experiences. But these responsible people generally do not feel the need to act out the literal interpretation of these stories. So my question to you, rational, is not about your personal assessment of the oral traditions of ancient peoples but about the conscious and willful acts of our fellows in this day and age, on this earth, at this time. Arguing from a rational perspective, why is it that the apparently illogical interpretations and presumably anti-social actions of some the basis for ridicule of all who choose to reflect on the "wisdom literature" of ancient peoples? To reduce the ridiculous to the absurd, if individuals were to commit ritual murder in the name of Dionysus would you feel compelled to ridicule all classicists or would you exercise more personal judgment and comment on the behavior of those committing the acts of murder? The line of argument used by many anti-Muslim commentators is that the Koran contains a "smoking gun", the sword verses, indicating that the entire religion and all its adherents are violent. A common response is that the Bible contains similar verses and we don't conclude all Christians are violent. If it is possible that some or most Christians not literally apply these stories, the same must hold for Muslims. And indeed many Muslims offer a non-violent interpretation of the 'sword verses'. It's entirely reasonable though to look at a group like ISIS and see how religious ideology plays into their violent conduct. Many people object to the extrapolation of those effects to the Muslim population at large.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 26, 2015 3:44:55 GMT -5
I'm on a low bandwidth connection so will have to view the video later.
Yknot, I don't understand the question about 9/11. Could you elaborate?
Fixit, I don't believe we can or should 'emancipate' the Muslims through military action. They're going to have to find freedom without the benefit of a foreign invasion. I don't object to military action against Boko Horam or ISIS, but because of an imminent threat to many innocent lives, not out of any over-arching long term goal to free Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 26, 2015 4:47:46 GMT -5
I'm on a low bandwidth connection so will have to view the video later. Yknot, I don't understand the question about 9/11. Could you elaborate? Fixit, I don't believe we can or should 'emancipate' the Muslims through military action. They're going to have to find freedom without the benefit of a foreign invasion. I don't object to military action against Boko Horam or ISIS, but because of an imminent threat to many innocent lives, not out of any over-arching long term goal to free Muslims. None of us has a crystal ball but I think Assad should have been stopped from barrel bombing his own people. The "Arab Spring" demonstrations started off strictly non-violent and Assad should have been stopped when he first started firing on the peaceful demonstrators. I realise that free countries can't solve every problem in the world but I think more could have been done to stop the misery in Syria and foster a peaceful regime change while preventing the power vacuum that was exploited by ISIL. There's a moral dilemma: use military force to save innocent populations from bully leaders or do nothing and watch hundreds of thousands get killed and millions become refugees. Unless the free world becomes more involved we're going to see vast numbers of refugees trying to get into Europe. ISIL wants to overwhelm Europe with refugees and send Trojan Horse jihadis in with them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 26, 2015 4:55:28 GMT -5
The line of argument used by many anti-Muslim commentators is that the Koran contains a "smoking gun", the sword verses, indicating that the entire religion and all its adherents are violent. A common response is that the Bible contains similar verses and we don't conclude all Christians are violent. If it is possible that some or most Christians not literally apply these stories, the same must hold for Muslims. And indeed many Muslims offer a non-violent interpretation of the 'sword verses'. It's entirely reasonable though to look at a group like ISIS and see how religious ideology plays into their violent conduct. Many people object to the extrapolation of those effects to the Muslim population at large. I doubt there are many "anti-Muslim" commentators. I think most commentators are anti the behaviour of Muslims rather than anti the Muslim faith. The Imams and leaders who preach anti-Western and anti-Jewish propaganda, killing apostates, cutting off limbs, crucifixion, the subjugation of women, etc are perverting the "religion of peace" and should be spoken out against.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 26, 2015 9:55:37 GMT -5
The line of argument used by many anti-Muslim commentators is that the Koran contains a "smoking gun", the sword verses, indicating that the entire religion and all its adherents are violent. A common response is that the Bible contains similar verses and we don't conclude all Christians are violent. If it is possible that some or most Christians not literally apply these stories, the same must hold for Muslims. And indeed many Muslims offer a non-violent interpretation of the 'sword verses'. It's entirely reasonable though to look at a group like ISIS and see how religious ideology plays into their violent conduct. Many people object to the extrapolation of those effects to the Muslim population at large. The point I was trying to make was in response to the original post regarding why your people would choose to kill themselves. It doesn't matter whether the religion teaches violence or not. It is not so much a matter of what the members believe but the fact that these stories/myths are presented to children as positive tales and the participants as role models. At the end of these 'morality' tales the protagonist finds favor with god and is in a better state than when the tale began. This predisposes young followers to be willing to sacrifice themselves. And there are the radical members who take advantage of this predisposition to gain recruits for terrorism. Remember Samson. He called on God and then it was recorded that he killed more for his god in his death than he had killed in all his life. Now there is a role for children to aspire.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2015 17:56:51 GMT -5
The line of argument used by many anti-Muslim commentators is that the Koran contains a "smoking gun", the sword verses, indicating that the entire religion and all its adherents are violent. A common response is that the Bible contains similar verses and we don't conclude all Christians are violent. If it is possible that some or most Christians not literally apply these stories, the same must hold for Muslims. And indeed many Muslims offer a non-violent interpretation of the 'sword verses'.It's entirely reasonable though to look at a group like ISIS and see how religious ideology plays into their violent conduct. Many people object to the extrapolation of those effects to the Muslim population at large.
Thank you, What Hat.
Yes, there are these bible verses of Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."Luke 12:51
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
Now, I would say that most Christians today do not literally apply those verses to how they behave.
So why should we believe that ALL Muslims would literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 27, 2015 1:23:22 GMT -5
The line of argument used by many anti-Muslim commentators is that the Koran contains a "smoking gun", the sword verses, indicating that the entire religion and all its adherents are violent. A common response is that the Bible contains similar verses and we don't conclude all Christians are violent. If it is possible that some or most Christians not literally apply these stories, the same must hold for Muslims. And indeed many Muslims offer a non-violent interpretation of the 'sword verses'.It's entirely reasonable though to look at a group like ISIS and see how religious ideology plays into their violent conduct. Many people object to the extrapolation of those effects to the Muslim population at large.
Thank you, What Hat.
Yes, there are these bible verses of Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."Luke 12:51
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
Now, I would say that most Christians today do not literally apply those verses to how they behave.
So why should we believe that ALL Muslims would literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave?
Does someone believe that all muslims literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 1:57:26 GMT -5
Thank you, What Hat.
Yes, there are these bible verses of Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."Luke 12:51
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
Now, I would say that most Christians today do not literally apply those verses to how they behave.
So why should we believe that ALL Muslims would literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave?
Does someone believe that all muslims literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 2:01:08 GMT -5
Does someone believe that all muslims literally apply those verses in the Qur'an to how they behave? It seems as though there are some people who are pushing that view, right here on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 27, 2015 5:18:23 GMT -5
I guess I must be weak-minded and weak-hearted...
The international military operation to free these women is not coming, because the peaceniks don't want to get involved.
|
|