only you would call them muslims or islamic crimes. partly due to an ignorance of islam. mainstream ordinary muslims recognise the unislamic crimes and takfiri actions of the terrorists.
no such thing as a distinct race in human species apart from the one we all belong to.
would you like another attempt at this?
i think you need to refer english law and read about all the red lines and limits to your freespeech.
sikhs are protected as are jews in english law. islam isnt.
Still didn't answer the question but as usual tried to deflect.
Is a Muslim attack on Christians a Christaphobic terrorist attack ?
Sikhs and Jews are classed as a race because of their distinct cultural traditions. Islam is not a race and a so called phobia of Islam is not a criminal offense.
Islamaphobia is a strange thing, a 'house muslim' who is trying to to 'moderate muslims' flying off to Syria and is demonized by some 'mainstream muslims'.
Because every week there is a new outrage.
This week there have been two.
The "flex" you want to see now, existed, it has been abused.
The EU is making more and more laws and people are seeing more and more loss of sovereignty.
Immigration is running at levels that will ruin life in this country for everybody unless it is drastically curbed.
Islam is killing people again and again and again all over the world.
People in this country and Europe were flexible, very flexible and what has it resulted in?
Nobody could have forseen what we are living with now thirty/forty years ago.
A serving soldier beheaded in the street in broad daylight?
To be honest, WTF did anybody expect?
That those who watch keep pretending that things are not getting worse?
We do have memories you know.
SS, your post is in effect an attempt to justify intolerance. I don't think anything justifies intolerance. If you have a problem with the government for their immigration policies, take it out on them either by contacting your local MP or ensuring you vote appropriately in future. I think most people know that to translate that anger and frustration and hatred onto immigrants is not a sensible idea. Peddling stereotypes about immigrants is not a sensible idea.
The problem you face is that there are people with flexible. And they're not "left-wing" as posters such as yourself seem to love to pour scorn against. They exist and they do post on here. Trevgo is strongly opinionated but we have a dialogue. He will take into account all the artifacts around a debate. Richard is another good example of that.
I'm afraid you speak for nobody but yourself SS. You aren't representative of a whole nation. Not even representative of a forum. I consider your views relevant to you alone. So when you talk about "people in this country" I consider that your opinion and one which I have a view which conflicts with it.
Most people continue to be flexible. But over the years those who were always inflexible continue to be so, only more vociferously. They try and silence those with opposing views, those they accuse of the very same thing they do themselves. Yet somehow they consider themselves in the right and all the others in the wrong.
This is the worst of the hypocrisy on this forum. And you're so far gone along you can't even see it.
SS, your post is in effect an attempt to justify intolerance. I don't think anything justifies intolerance. If you have a problem with the government for their immigration policies, take it out on them either by contacting your local MP or ensuring you vote appropriately in future. I think most people know that to translate that anger and frustration and hatred onto immigrants is not a sensible idea. Peddling stereotypes about immigrants is not a sensible idea.
The problem you face is that there are people with flexible. And they're not "left-wing" as posters such as yourself seem to love to pour scorn against. They exist and they do post on here. Trevgo is strongly opinionated but we have a dialogue. He will take into account all the artifacts around a debate. Richard is another good example of that.
I'm afraid you speak for nobody but yourself SS. You aren't representative of a whole nation. Not even representative of a forum. I consider your views relevant to you alone. So when you talk about "people in this country" I consider that your opinion and one which I have a view which conflicts with it.
Most people continue to be flexible. But over the years those who were always inflexible continue to be so, only more vociferously. They try and silence those with opposing views, those they accuse of the very same thing they do themselves. Yet somehow they consider themselves in the right and all the others in the wrong.
This is the worst of the hypocrisy on this forum. And you're so far gone along you can't even see it.
How about answering the points I raised rather than making personal remarks about me?
IMO, people were far more open minded and accepting some 30/40 years ago.
What you are complaining about is the result of experience.
You raised three areas, the EU, immigration and Islam.
I answered those points by pointing out what we have all experienced over the last few decades and the reasons why tolerance IMO has been stretched.
That is all.
The rest is projection on your part.
And as for suggesting that I don't speak for anybody but myself, well that's rich coming from you as I have lost count of the times you have instructed us about what being British means and how Britons should behave, plus your views on British culture.
It's become something of a meme in your posts.
You have a dialog with Trevgo?
Well whoop de whoop, not so much with the female posters on DS who oppose your views who all, at one time, were on your ignore list.
Do you think it hasn't been noticed?
You paint a good picture, unfortunately for you I'm not buying it.
USA: Discovery Of 9th Century Quranic Manuscripts Predate Columbus Travels By Five Centuries - See more
For centuries it was believed that Christopher Columbus was the first man from the Old continent to cross the Atlantic to the New World, but new evidence from a research team from the University of Rhode Island suggests Muslim seafarers might just be the first people to have settled on the shores of America, a possibility that could rewrite history as we know it.
Roslin chapel, just outside Edinburgh has carvings of plants indigenous to America, carved well before Columbus.
statistically speaking what is more likely to do you harm ? A Muslim or a car ? Harold Shipman was described as a good GP, would a fear of GPs be rational based on the ratio of maderous ones versus good ones ? How many catholic priests abused children versus how many would rather die than hurt an innocent ? What sound information would lead for a rational fear of every Muslims, GP or priest do you think ? Fear the extremes of course but is it logical in any of these cases to assume the majority has ever been proven to be a threat ? My daughter is arachnophobic yet she knows no spiders in this country can hurt her. Her fear is real but the rational isn't supported by any logic and she knows this. I have no time for Islam, I personally think it's time its rooted in the past and its outdated views have no place in the modern world but I know many Muslims who are not outdated in there personal outlook so I judge the book and the man (or woman) as I find. The Muslims I know are a world apart from some of the monsters we see on TV so it's hardly rational for me to view them with equivalence. it's just too broad a canvas, kinda like being scared of the weather because of what we see on the news in other parts of the world.
So I would condemn any attempt to restrict debate on Islam and its place in modern society but at the same time we do that debate no favours by muddying the waters as can happen.
It is not individual Muslims it is Islam that is being criticised. A Catholic priest abusing children can point to no scripture that excuses his actions, a doctor killing patients is acting against his training and his oath, a Muslim killing non Muslims can point to scripture and say here, here, here and here God hates non Muslims and if they misbehave we can kill them. The problem is Islam and it is not irrational to be critical of and to dislike the teachings of Islam because it clearly defines what a bad and vile person I am, my family is and other friends and relations are. It also indicates how we should be treated.
Islamophobia is used to label those who criticise Islam as hating Muslims and that is by no means the case it is the religion that is the problem. It is another label broadly used by 'the left' (not all of the left) to close down any debate
Anti-semitism is hatred of a distinct race, of course it exists.
Islam isn't a race, it's just an ideology that some people choose to follow.
The nonsense term "islamaphobia" is supposedly an irrational fear of this ideology.
Of course its pure gibberish to suggest that people who dislike an ideology have a phobia.
Indeed it is. That's why it would be wrong to suggest that people who simply dislike the teachings of Islam are Islamophobic. The term is more properly used to describe people who go much further than that, and for example see all Muslims as the enemy, or make offensive remarks about them.
islamophobes tend to live in a bubble where the only news is a muslim behaving badly and everything else is ignored. its why islamophobes have a weird and extreme world view, as weird as isis/alqaeda extremists.
The denial is legendary.
Islam is responsible for ongoing atrocities of the worst kind. Only Islam. Nothing else, at least not of the worst, foulest kind of atrocities of beheading and mutilation. It is Islam that is the driving force.
And yet to connect such patently obvious dots is "Islamophobic". The only people you are convincing with such idiotic rhetoric are fellow Muslims who are already so far gone there is no way back for them. Islam is a religion of hate because it spawns hatred of the worst kind, even against fellow Islamic practitioners. I am not indulging in some kind of meaningful analysis to post this. I am stating the most patently, openly bloody obvious fact I could.
How about answering the points I raised rather than making personal remarks about me?
IMO, people were far more open minded and accepting some 30/40 years ago.
What you are complaining about is the result of experience.
You raised three areas, the EU, immigration and Islam.
I answered those points by pointing out what we have all experienced over the last few decades and the reasons why tolerance IMO has been stretched.
That is all.
The rest is projection on your part.
And as for suggesting that I don't speak for anybody but myself, well that's rich coming from you as I have lost count of the times you have instructed us about what being British means and how Britons should behave, plus your views on British culture.
It's become something of a meme in your posts.
You have a dialog with Trevgo?
Well whoop de whoop, not so much with the female posters on DS who oppose your views who all, at one time, were on your ignore list.
Do you think it hasn't been noticed?
You paint a good picture, unfortunately for you I'm not buying it.
every week there is a new outrage
Untrue. Yet you want to present this as fact.
The "flex" you want to see now, existed, it has been abused.
The flex exists amongst millions of people in the UK. It existed 30 years ago and it exists now. What has changed is that those with harder views have become more vocal - on both sides.
The EU is making more and more laws and people are seeing more and more loss of sovereignty.
Whether true or not it has absolutely nothing to do with this story, or my point about posters on here yelling about other people and yet being inflexible in their own views.
Immigration is running at levels that will ruin life in this country for everybody unless it is drastically curbed.
Ruin? I don't think so. Cost will rise. Things may get crowded. But this alarmist word "ruin"? That's your personal opinion and I disagree. I advocate immigration control myself so I'm afraid you have no issue with me. You should seek other posters for that.
Islam is killing people again and again and again all over the world.
Islam is an ideology, it's not a sentient being, it isn't a person it isn't a group of people. It can't "do" much of anything. You might think this a play on words but it's perfectly factual. Think about what you're saying. You are actually talking about what Muslims do in the name of Islam. And the majority of those are not committing atrocities. That is not to deny that Islamic terrorism isn't an issue. That is something I can say and I know it's fact. Because otherwise Muslims would have all died by now through suicide bombings or wars.
People in this country and Europe were flexible, very flexible and what has it resulted in?
Nobody could have forseen what we are living with now thirty/forty years ago.
A serving soldier beheaded in the street in broad daylight?
To be honest, WTF did anybody expect?
That those who watch keep pretending that things are not getting worse?
We do have memories you know.
Yes we do have memories, don't we? I remember the people who made our lives a misery when we came here 30 years ago. I'll never forget them. Neither will I forget the majority who treated us kindly and with respect. Those are the people I care for, that I want to live with. I feel there are more living here who are flexible. Who don't blame Muslims or expect them to apologise or speak out against Islamic terrorism because they understand the value of living one's life amongst others. We need to unite to fight terrorism of any kind. Yet some want to stand apart and point and blame. So much for the great spirit of people like that.
Batgirl doesn't agree with my views in many ways yet I never ignored her. Same goes for Kimindex at many points early on. Over time I have come to have a great level of respect for both. There are others I've forgotten the names of, for which I'm sorry. So you want to make it about me having an issue with 3 women on here? I think everyone can see what you're trying to do. It's not very nice at all. I ignored many people who would mock me or insult me male and female. I've gone through that phase - I realise it's better to talk to everyone than to ignore the views of others. If only you knew (you probably do through plenty of PMs as you clearly intimated your awareness of three women) one of the three female posters you mentioned hasn't even been respectful enough to reply to a post of mine for 3 maybe 4 years now. As for Sutie....well she surprises me often so I guess I have a few things to learn from her still. I have no problem saying I could have dealt with those things better in the past. I think you have a problem with self-analysis in this same way. I consider your views to be quite rigid and inflexible. And last time I checked I don't believe that is personal. It's just how you come across when we talk about issues covering Islam or Muslims or immigration. I think your posts speak for themselves. As do mine, of course. As do all of ours.
The flex exists amongst millions of people in the UK. It existed 30 years ago and it exists now. What has changed is that those with harder views have become more vocal - on both sides.
Whether true or not it has absolutely nothing to do with this story, or my point about posters on here yelling about other people and yet being inflexible in their own views.
Ruin? I don't think so. Cost will rise. Things may get crowded. But this alarmist word "ruin"? That's your personal opinion and I disagree. I advocate immigration control myself so I'm afraid you have no issue with me. You should seek other posters for that.
Islam is an ideology, it's not a sentient being, it isn't a person it isn't a group of people. It can't "do" much of anything. You might think this a play on words but it's perfectly factual. Think about what you're saying. You are actually talking about what Muslims do in the name of Islam. And the majority of those are not committing atrocities. That is not to deny that Islamic terrorism isn't an issue. That is something I can say and I know it's fact. Because otherwise Muslims would have all died by now through suicide bombings or wars.
Yes we do have memories, don't we? I remember the people who made our lives a misery when we came here 30 years ago. I'll never forget them. Neither will I forget the majority who treated us kindly and with respect. Those are the people I care for, that I want to live with. I feel there are more living here who are flexible. Who don't blame Muslims or expect them to apologise or speak out against Islamic terrorism because they understand the value of living one's life amongst others. We need to unite to fight terrorism of any kind. Yet some want to stand apart and point and blame. So much for the great spirit of people like that.
Batgirl doesn't agree with my views in many ways yet I never ignored her. Same goes for Kimindex at many points early on. Over time I have come to have a great level of respect for both. There are others I've forgotten the names of, for which I'm sorry. So you want to make it about me having an issue with 3 women on here? I think everyone can see what you're trying to do. It's not very nice at all. I ignored many people who would mock me or insult me male and female. I've gone through that phase - I realise it's better to talk to everyone than to ignore the views of others. If only you knew (you probably do through plenty of PMs as you clearly intimated your awareness of three women) one of the three female posters you mentioned hasn't even been respectful enough to reply to a post of mine for 3 maybe 4 years now. As for Sutie....well she surprises me often so I guess I have a few things to learn from her still. I have no problem saying I could have dealt with those things better in the past. I think you have a problem with self-analysis in this same way. I consider your views to be quite rigid and inflexible. And last time I checked I don't believe that is personal. It's just how you come across when we talk about issues covering Islam or Muslims or immigration. I think your posts speak for themselves. As do mine, of course. As do all of ours.
Islam is responsible for ongoing atrocities of the worst kind. Only Islam. Nothing else, at least not of the worst, foulest kind of atrocities of beheading and mutilation. It is Islam that is the driving force.
And yet to connect such patently obvious dots is "Islamophobic". The only people you are convincing with such idiotic rhetoric are fellow Muslims who are already so far gone there is no way back for them. Islam is a religion of hate because it spawns hatred of the worst kind, even against fellow Islamic practitioners. I am not indulging in some kind of meaningful analysis to post this. I am stating the most patently, openly bloody obvious fact I could.
Worth reposting. I'm not familiar with the fellow, but what a clear, concise dismantling and exposing of the topic.
Muslims don't tend like Pat Condell as he speaks the truth.
Another interesting point from Robert Spencer about the recent school massacre in Pakistan.
Khorasani says: “The Mujahideen were instructed to only kill the older children. The Peshawar attack is in complete accordance with the Prophet’s teachings because when the Prophet killed the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qurayza, he put the same guideline, that only the children who have hair below their belly button (pubic hair) are allowed to be killed. Killing of women and children is also in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet. Those who object to this claim can refer to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Hadith 148.”
And his statement about pubic hair comes from this: “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4390)
For Western leaders continue to insist that Islamic jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Jihad terrorists, meanwhile, consistently and frequently invoke the Qur’an and Muhammad to justify their actions. When counter-jihadists point this out, they’re denounced as racist, bigoted “Islamophobes” and accused of “validating” the terrorists’ narrative. What we don’t see is any significant effort to refute that narrative on Islamic grounds. Instead, Islamic apologists such as Reza Aslan and Qasim Rashid crank out pieces claiming that massacres like this one have nothing to do with Islam, while ignoring altogether the passages Khorasani invokes to justify such massacres.
And so there will be more jihad massacres, and again they will be justified by their perpetrators on Islamic grounds, and again any call for serious reform and a genuine attempt to address this problem will be denounced as “Islamophobia
'Allahs Apostle' killed children who had reached puberty. The actions of the Taliban can therefore be linked directly to Islamic history, as the 'Allahs Apostle' is the most perfect man to walk the earth then is his actions are not questioned. Killing children is then legitimized by his actions and is used in the modern world.
Mentioning this fact and backing it up with Islamic history is of course 'Islamaphobic'. Muslims killing 36 Christians on a bus is seemingly not Christaphobic because only Islam is covered under phobias.
Khorasani says: “The Mujahideen were instructed to only kill the older children. The Peshawar attack is in complete accordance with the Prophet’s teachings because when the Prophet killed the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qurayza, he put the same guideline, that only the children who have hair below their belly button (pubic hair) are allowed to be killed. Killing of women and children is also in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet. Those who object to this claim can refer to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Hadith 148.”
It is odd how the only people who accept Taliban terrorists as religious authorities are Taliban terrorists and people who wish to tar all of Islam with the actions and beliefs of Taliban terrorists.
Anyhow I will look up the reference.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Hadith 148
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."
Also even if the quote said kill the children which it appears it does not at least not in first translation I found using google and even if it came from the prophet which it appears it does not, it still would not mean it was necessarily in accordance with Islam as the Quran (the revelations of God to the Prophet) takes precedence over Hadith (the life and times of the Prophet what he said and did) if the two contradict and in the Quran what is said later takes precedence over what is said earlier if it contradicts. So it would depend on if the Hadith is contradicted by what the Quran says one should do, and what the latter thing the Quran says one should do if that contradicts something earlier in the Quran. Unlike with Christianity and reading the New Testement in Islam there is a defined order of precedence.
Islam is responsible for ongoing atrocities of the worst kind. Only Islam. Nothing else, at least not of the worst, foulest kind of atrocities of beheading and mutilation. It is Islam that is the driving force.
And yet to connect such patently obvious dots is "Islamophobic". The only people you are convincing with such idiotic rhetoric are fellow Muslims who are already so far gone there is no way back for them. Islam is a religion of hate because it spawns hatred of the worst kind, even against fellow Islamic practitioners. I am not indulging in some kind of meaningful analysis to post this. I am stating the most patently, openly bloody obvious fact I could.
Worth reposting. I'm not familiar with the fellow, but what a clear, concise dismantling and exposing of the topic.
A very good clear post. I recommend members to read it - particularly those still having trouble understanding the issue.
Islam is responsible for ongoing atrocities of the worst kind. Only Islam. Nothing else, at least not of the worst, foulest kind of atrocities of beheading and mutilation. It is Islam that is the driving force. .
A great many Mexicans might disagree with you on that.
By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000. Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing
So yes there is a great amount of violence committed in the name of Islam but to suggest that is the only game in town is rather blinkered. People kill people alas, the excuses might change but the dance goes on.
A great many Mexicans might disagree with you on that.
So yes there is a great amount of violence committed in the name of Islam but to suggest that is the only game in town is rather blinkered. People kill people alas, the excuses might change but the dance goes on.
The problem some face on here is apart from one or two posters nobody on either side of the debate denies that Islam causing issues in the way some are interpreting it to an extremist scale and committing heinous deeds out of it.
I'd say there's 98% or so agreement on that.
The problem comes when you try to look at and discuss the other side of Islam and those that do not interpret it in an extreme way. Some of us recognize and accept that. Others wish this view not only to be mocked and ridiculed but nullified and silenced. One might suggest the desire to shut this line of thinking down is not because it is false (millions of Muslims prove this on a daily basis) but because it detracts and weakens a singular aggressive stance towards Islam and the application of it by Muslims that only panders to one half of the story and obsessively so.
islamophobes tend to live in a bubble where the only news is a muslim behaving badly and everything else is ignored. its why islamophobes have a weird and extreme world view, as weird as isis/alqaeda extremists.
I had to read that paragraph twice to check I hadn't misread it the first time. Unfortunately I hadn't misread it.
I think you'll find that the people living in their own bubble are the ones who are consumed by multiculturalism. They live in their own little multicultural bubble which is why they try to ignore the radical side of the religion of "peace". Nothing must threaten multiculturalism.
Or road accidents. I didn't say Islam was the only killer of men, LOL.
Yes, but I'm not about to act as apologist for Islam on the basis of the somewhat redundant generalisation that "people kill people".
No, you said it was responsible for the worst atrocities. Does what is happening in Mexico not count as that ?
So why is it redundant ?
Two men read a book. One man decides to kill the third man because he hasn't read the book. The second doesn't. Where you apportion the blame in that scenario ?
The book ? If so why didn't the second man follow the same path?
The first man ?
A combination ? Would the first still have acted the way he did without the book ? Impossible to tell if course, maybe he hates the third man and just wanted an excuse.
People DO kill people. no one asked you to be an apologist not am I trying to be one but unless someone is minded to carry out an action then it won't happen. Or, to coin a phrase, guns don't kill people - people kill people.
SS, your post is in effect an attempt to justify intolerance. I don't think anything justifies intolerance.
Justify intolerance?
If you want to talk about intolerance look no further than islam. Islam seems to create some of the least tolerant people in the world yet you bend over backwards to defend the religion.
There's a reason why we've never heard the phrases "Hindu-a-phobia". "Christianityaphobia" "Sikhaphobia" etc.
Justify intolerance?
If you want to talk about intolerance look no further than islam. Islam seems to create some of the least tolerant people in the world yet you bend over backwards to defend the religion.
There's a reason why we've never heard the phrases "Hindu-a-phobia". "Christianityaphobia" "Sikhaphobia" etc.
I really think you're not understanding this.
I consider aspects of Islam to be contrary to modern life. I and others have been saying that for some time. That never was even being questioned. You've come in without an actual valid issue under debate.
And I certainly don't "bend over backwards". I'm a Muslim who accepts there's improvements that can be made.
All you have done with your post is continue to show the deflection agenda of some to not accept that some of the language being used is not conducive to a cohesive society. If you are so much better than Muslims then PROVE it.
There is justified criticism of the religion and of the actions Muslims do, and then there's unjustified criticism. Can you even agree on that? This is how imbalanced some see it.
Islam is evil? Then I must be a messenger of evil. Yet I've never committed a crime and hope never to. This isn't a "look at me and how amazing I am" post. If what you and others say of Muslims is true then it's not just the Islamic terrorists causing havoc, there ought to be a good deal more going on. Why is it Anjem Choudry's groups are so small? Why don't they have millions of members? Why haven't I gone to Syria to fight?
No, the truth is there is as much intolerance in some people when it comes to attitudes towards Muslims as there is within the heinous deeds of Islamic terrorists themselves. This is the topic that you don't want to confront or even bring yourself to admit to.
Justify intolerance?
If you want to talk about intolerance look no further than islam. Islam seems to create some of the least tolerant people in the world yet you bend over backwards to defend the religion.
There's a reason why we've never heard the phrases "Hindu-a-phobia". "Christianityaphobia" "Sikhaphobia" etc.
The irony. Judging by your post that makes you islamic
It is odd how the only people who accept Taliban terrorists as religious authorities are Taliban terrorists and people who wish to tar all of Islam with the actions and beliefs of Taliban terrorists.
.
The word Taleban is a translation of "students". They studied islam, and nothing but islam.
Other famous experts on islam include the leader of ISIS (PhD in Islamic Theology) , Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com (arabic speaker and scholar banned from the UK because his knowledge of islam is too embarrassing), the Ayatollah Khomeini, Winston Churchill, and many, many others who all confirm that the Taleban have managed to read and understand islam's holy writ correctly.
It is odd how the only people who accept Taliban terrorists as religious authorities are Taliban terrorists and people who wish to tar all of Islam with the actions and beliefs of Taliban terrorists.
Islam has no religious authority and Sunni Islam is self interpretation of Islamic teaching.
Ahadith are words and saying of 'Allah's Apostle' and are classed as Islamic tradition. Bukhari is viewed as the most authentic source.
The hadith states to take to kill their warriors and take the children captive. The Taliban captured the school and held the children as hostages. Both are a result of hadith because Muhammad did in his life time.
The second hadith states
'They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed'. The companions were soldiers sent by Muhammad to examine the children and those who didn't reach puberty were killed.
So the first part legitimized the use of children as captives and the second gave permission for the Taliban to kill the older children. Both are examples of Muhammad actions which are used to condone violence.
If you want example of his action in progress.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had a man's hand cut off for (stealing) a shield whose price was a dinar or ten dirhams.
Cutting of hands of thieves. Used in Saudi Arabia to this day.
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A man committed fornication with a woman. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) ordered regarding him and the prescribed punishment of flogging was inflicted on him. He was then informed that he was married. So he commanded regarding him and he was stoned to death.
No, you said it was responsible for the worst atrocities. Does what is happening in Mexico not count as that ?
Did you expect me to list every global atrocity in my post to justify my "of the worst kind" comment? Come on. Islamics commit atrocities of the worst kind. You're entitled to think otherwise. I don't, irrespective of Mexican drug cartels and mafias around the world generally. The latter are arguably equally of the "worst kind" if they're beheading innocent people in the name of a fake god. Are they?
People DO kill people. no one asked you to be an apologist not am I trying to be one but unless someone is minded to carry out an action then it won't happen. Or, to coin a phrase, guns don't kill people - people kill people.
Assuming your point is "it's not the book, it's the people" then you're apparently sharing notes with 2+2. People read the idiotic texts, then go out and kill people. Both texts and people carrying out their vile dictats are to blame.
Comments
Explain?
Still didn't answer the question but as usual tried to deflect.
Is a Muslim attack on Christians a Christaphobic terrorist attack ?
Sikhs and Jews are classed as a race because of their distinct cultural traditions. Islam is not a race and a so called phobia of Islam is not a criminal offense.
Islamaphobia is a strange thing, a 'house muslim' who is trying to to 'moderate muslims' flying off to Syria and is demonized by some 'mainstream muslims'.
So how can a ' house muslim' be Islamaphobic ?
SS, your post is in effect an attempt to justify intolerance. I don't think anything justifies intolerance. If you have a problem with the government for their immigration policies, take it out on them either by contacting your local MP or ensuring you vote appropriately in future. I think most people know that to translate that anger and frustration and hatred onto immigrants is not a sensible idea. Peddling stereotypes about immigrants is not a sensible idea.
The problem you face is that there are people with flexible. And they're not "left-wing" as posters such as yourself seem to love to pour scorn against. They exist and they do post on here. Trevgo is strongly opinionated but we have a dialogue. He will take into account all the artifacts around a debate. Richard is another good example of that.
I'm afraid you speak for nobody but yourself SS. You aren't representative of a whole nation. Not even representative of a forum. I consider your views relevant to you alone. So when you talk about "people in this country" I consider that your opinion and one which I have a view which conflicts with it.
Most people continue to be flexible. But over the years those who were always inflexible continue to be so, only more vociferously. They try and silence those with opposing views, those they accuse of the very same thing they do themselves. Yet somehow they consider themselves in the right and all the others in the wrong.
This is the worst of the hypocrisy on this forum. And you're so far gone along you can't even see it.
How about answering the points I raised rather than making personal remarks about me?
IMO, people were far more open minded and accepting some 30/40 years ago.
What you are complaining about is the result of experience.
You raised three areas, the EU, immigration and Islam.
I answered those points by pointing out what we have all experienced over the last few decades and the reasons why tolerance IMO has been stretched.
That is all.
The rest is projection on your part.
And as for suggesting that I don't speak for anybody but myself, well that's rich coming from you as I have lost count of the times you have instructed us about what being British means and how Britons should behave, plus your views on British culture.
It's become something of a meme in your posts.
You have a dialog with Trevgo?
Well whoop de whoop, not so much with the female posters on DS who oppose your views who all, at one time, were on your ignore list.
Do you think it hasn't been noticed?
You paint a good picture, unfortunately for you I'm not buying it.
Roslin chapel, just outside Edinburgh has carvings of plants indigenous to America, carved well before Columbus.
It is not individual Muslims it is Islam that is being criticised. A Catholic priest abusing children can point to no scripture that excuses his actions, a doctor killing patients is acting against his training and his oath, a Muslim killing non Muslims can point to scripture and say here, here, here and here God hates non Muslims and if they misbehave we can kill them. The problem is Islam and it is not irrational to be critical of and to dislike the teachings of Islam because it clearly defines what a bad and vile person I am, my family is and other friends and relations are. It also indicates how we should be treated.
Islamophobia is used to label those who criticise Islam as hating Muslims and that is by no means the case it is the religion that is the problem. It is another label broadly used by 'the left' (not all of the left) to close down any debate
Indeed it is. That's why it would be wrong to suggest that people who simply dislike the teachings of Islam are Islamophobic. The term is more properly used to describe people who go much further than that, and for example see all Muslims as the enemy, or make offensive remarks about them.
The denial is legendary.
Islam is responsible for ongoing atrocities of the worst kind. Only Islam. Nothing else, at least not of the worst, foulest kind of atrocities of beheading and mutilation. It is Islam that is the driving force.
And yet to connect such patently obvious dots is "Islamophobic". The only people you are convincing with such idiotic rhetoric are fellow Muslims who are already so far gone there is no way back for them. Islam is a religion of hate because it spawns hatred of the worst kind, even against fellow Islamic practitioners. I am not indulging in some kind of meaningful analysis to post this. I am stating the most patently, openly bloody obvious fact I could.
Worth reposting. I'm not familiar with the fellow, but what a clear, concise dismantling and exposing of the topic.
Untrue. Yet you want to present this as fact.
The flex exists amongst millions of people in the UK. It existed 30 years ago and it exists now. What has changed is that those with harder views have become more vocal - on both sides.
Whether true or not it has absolutely nothing to do with this story, or my point about posters on here yelling about other people and yet being inflexible in their own views.
Ruin? I don't think so. Cost will rise. Things may get crowded. But this alarmist word "ruin"? That's your personal opinion and I disagree. I advocate immigration control myself so I'm afraid you have no issue with me. You should seek other posters for that.
Islam is an ideology, it's not a sentient being, it isn't a person it isn't a group of people. It can't "do" much of anything. You might think this a play on words but it's perfectly factual. Think about what you're saying. You are actually talking about what Muslims do in the name of Islam. And the majority of those are not committing atrocities. That is not to deny that Islamic terrorism isn't an issue. That is something I can say and I know it's fact. Because otherwise Muslims would have all died by now through suicide bombings or wars.
Yes we do have memories, don't we? I remember the people who made our lives a misery when we came here 30 years ago. I'll never forget them. Neither will I forget the majority who treated us kindly and with respect. Those are the people I care for, that I want to live with. I feel there are more living here who are flexible. Who don't blame Muslims or expect them to apologise or speak out against Islamic terrorism because they understand the value of living one's life amongst others. We need to unite to fight terrorism of any kind. Yet some want to stand apart and point and blame. So much for the great spirit of people like that.
Batgirl doesn't agree with my views in many ways yet I never ignored her. Same goes for Kimindex at many points early on. Over time I have come to have a great level of respect for both. There are others I've forgotten the names of, for which I'm sorry. So you want to make it about me having an issue with 3 women on here? I think everyone can see what you're trying to do. It's not very nice at all. I ignored many people who would mock me or insult me male and female. I've gone through that phase - I realise it's better to talk to everyone than to ignore the views of others. If only you knew (you probably do through plenty of PMs as you clearly intimated your awareness of three women) one of the three female posters you mentioned hasn't even been respectful enough to reply to a post of mine for 3 maybe 4 years now. As for Sutie....well she surprises me often so I guess I have a few things to learn from her still. I have no problem saying I could have dealt with those things better in the past. I think you have a problem with self-analysis in this same way. I consider your views to be quite rigid and inflexible. And last time I checked I don't believe that is personal. It's just how you come across when we talk about issues covering Islam or Muslims or immigration. I think your posts speak for themselves. As do mine, of course. As do all of ours.
Very eloquent and well put.
Muslims don't tend like Pat Condell as he speaks the truth.
Another interesting point from Robert Spencer about the recent school massacre in Pakistan.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/taliban-spokesman-the-peshawar-attack-is-in-complete-accordance-with-the-prophets-teachings
Khorasani says: “The Mujahideen were instructed to only kill the older children. The Peshawar attack is in complete accordance with the Prophet’s teachings because when the Prophet killed the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qurayza, he put the same guideline, that only the children who have hair below their belly button (pubic hair) are allowed to be killed. Killing of women and children is also in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet. Those who object to this claim can refer to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Hadith 148.”
And his statement about pubic hair comes from this: “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4390)
'Allahs Apostle' killed children who had reached puberty. The actions of the Taliban can therefore be linked directly to Islamic history, as the 'Allahs Apostle' is the most perfect man to walk the earth then is his actions are not questioned. Killing children is then legitimized by his actions and is used in the modern world.
Mentioning this fact and backing it up with Islamic history is of course 'Islamaphobic'. Muslims killing 36 Christians on a bus is seemingly not Christaphobic because only Islam is covered under phobias.
Anyhow I will look up the reference.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Hadith 148 http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Sahih_Al-Bukhari.pdf
So no killing of children ordered and the order to kill the warriors and take the women and children as captives came not from the Prophet but another person.
Also even if the quote said kill the children which it appears it does not at least not in first translation I found using google and even if it came from the prophet which it appears it does not, it still would not mean it was necessarily in accordance with Islam as the Quran (the revelations of God to the Prophet) takes precedence over Hadith (the life and times of the Prophet what he said and did) if the two contradict and in the Quran what is said later takes precedence over what is said earlier if it contradicts. So it would depend on if the Hadith is contradicted by what the Quran says one should do, and what the latter thing the Quran says one should do if that contradicts something earlier in the Quran. Unlike with Christianity and reading the New Testement in Islam there is a defined order of precedence.
A very good clear post. I recommend members to read it - particularly those still having trouble understanding the issue.
A great many Mexicans might disagree with you on that.
So yes there is a great amount of violence committed in the name of Islam but to suggest that is the only game in town is rather blinkered. People kill people alas, the excuses might change but the dance goes on.
The problem some face on here is apart from one or two posters nobody on either side of the debate denies that Islam causing issues in the way some are interpreting it to an extremist scale and committing heinous deeds out of it.
I'd say there's 98% or so agreement on that.
The problem comes when you try to look at and discuss the other side of Islam and those that do not interpret it in an extreme way. Some of us recognize and accept that. Others wish this view not only to be mocked and ridiculed but nullified and silenced. One might suggest the desire to shut this line of thinking down is not because it is false (millions of Muslims prove this on a daily basis) but because it detracts and weakens a singular aggressive stance towards Islam and the application of it by Muslims that only panders to one half of the story and obsessively so.
Or road accidents. I didn't say Islam was the only killer of men, LOL.
Yes, but I'm not about to act as apologist for Islam on the basis of the somewhat redundant generalisation that "people kill people".
I think you'll find that the people living in their own bubble are the ones who are consumed by multiculturalism. They live in their own little multicultural bubble which is why they try to ignore the radical side of the religion of "peace". Nothing must threaten multiculturalism.
No, you said it was responsible for the worst atrocities. Does what is happening in Mexico not count as that ?
So why is it redundant ?
Two men read a book. One man decides to kill the third man because he hasn't read the book. The second doesn't. Where you apportion the blame in that scenario ?
The book ? If so why didn't the second man follow the same path?
The first man ?
A combination ? Would the first still have acted the way he did without the book ? Impossible to tell if course, maybe he hates the third man and just wanted an excuse.
People DO kill people. no one asked you to be an apologist not am I trying to be one but unless someone is minded to carry out an action then it won't happen. Or, to coin a phrase, guns don't kill people - people kill people.
If you want to talk about intolerance look no further than islam. Islam seems to create some of the least tolerant people in the world yet you bend over backwards to defend the religion.
There's a reason why we've never heard the phrases "Hindu-a-phobia". "Christianityaphobia" "Sikhaphobia" etc.
Indeed a right load of rubbish.
I really think you're not understanding this.
I consider aspects of Islam to be contrary to modern life. I and others have been saying that for some time. That never was even being questioned. You've come in without an actual valid issue under debate.
And I certainly don't "bend over backwards". I'm a Muslim who accepts there's improvements that can be made.
All you have done with your post is continue to show the deflection agenda of some to not accept that some of the language being used is not conducive to a cohesive society. If you are so much better than Muslims then PROVE it.
There is justified criticism of the religion and of the actions Muslims do, and then there's unjustified criticism. Can you even agree on that? This is how imbalanced some see it.
Islam is evil? Then I must be a messenger of evil. Yet I've never committed a crime and hope never to. This isn't a "look at me and how amazing I am" post. If what you and others say of Muslims is true then it's not just the Islamic terrorists causing havoc, there ought to be a good deal more going on. Why is it Anjem Choudry's groups are so small? Why don't they have millions of members? Why haven't I gone to Syria to fight?
No, the truth is there is as much intolerance in some people when it comes to attitudes towards Muslims as there is within the heinous deeds of Islamic terrorists themselves. This is the topic that you don't want to confront or even bring yourself to admit to.
The irony. Judging by your post that makes you islamic
The word Taleban is a translation of "students". They studied islam, and nothing but islam.
Other famous experts on islam include the leader of ISIS (PhD in Islamic Theology) , Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com (arabic speaker and scholar banned from the UK because his knowledge of islam is too embarrassing), the Ayatollah Khomeini, Winston Churchill, and many, many others who all confirm that the Taleban have managed to read and understand islam's holy writ correctly.
Islam has no religious authority and Sunni Islam is self interpretation of Islamic teaching.
Ahadith are words and saying of 'Allah's Apostle' and are classed as Islamic tradition. Bukhari is viewed as the most authentic source.
The hadith states to take to kill their warriors and take the children captive. The Taliban captured the school and held the children as hostages. Both are a result of hadith because Muhammad did in his life time.
The second hadith states
'They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed'. The companions were soldiers sent by Muhammad to examine the children and those who didn't reach puberty were killed.
So the first part legitimized the use of children as captives and the second gave permission for the Taliban to kill the older children. Both are examples of Muhammad actions which are used to condone violence.
If you want example of his action in progress.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had a man's hand cut off for (stealing) a shield whose price was a dinar or ten dirhams.
Cutting of hands of thieves. Used in Saudi Arabia to this day.
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A man committed fornication with a woman. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) ordered regarding him and the prescribed punishment of flogging was inflicted on him. He was then informed that he was married. So he commanded regarding him and he was stoned to death.
Stoning people to death for adultery.
The list goes on and on.
Did you expect me to list every global atrocity in my post to justify my "of the worst kind" comment? Come on. Islamics commit atrocities of the worst kind. You're entitled to think otherwise. I don't, irrespective of Mexican drug cartels and mafias around the world generally. The latter are arguably equally of the "worst kind" if they're beheading innocent people in the name of a fake god. Are they?
Assuming your point is "it's not the book, it's the people" then you're apparently sharing notes with 2+2. People read the idiotic texts, then go out and kill people. Both texts and people carrying out their vile dictats are to blame.