London Terror Attack

[lordraphael]

i think i should really start reading the koran. I read the bible and while the old testament is pretty barbaric for the most part, the new one is full of hope and tells what people can achieve if they believe in god.
Im curious what story the koran tells.

[Theodore]

I don't know where to begin in refuting this nonsense (above)- eastern religion encourages the development of a mindset from which desirable behaviours 'arise'- western religions encourage the behaviours in which to develop that state of mind- they both have roots in pre-zoroastrian and ascetic religions between Ur of the chaldees in modern day Iraq and mohenjo daro in modern day Pakistan.

Islam selectively uses text from the western tradition to bolster its own aims and the 'philosophers' you wiki'd all simply justify that- which is why pretty much no-one, including Muslims, has heard of virtually any of them.

You can indeed say that about Jesus- now go read the new testament and find where Jesus advocates beheading- pls get back to me on that one.

We talk about different points.

A) I have never said eastern religion encourages the development of a mindset from which desirable behaviours arise. I wasn't talking about any such thing. I have not said that about any religion. In fact you referred to Eastern religions and stated that "Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism have a very rich and meaningful overlap" while Islam is supposedly a pigsty. All religions are a pigsty, because it's made up belief systems mixing up everything that suits them. But not exclusively "Islam". And what people make of it is a question of interpretation. The "moderate, relatively liberal Christianity is a product of our time and interpretation, not the bible itself.

B) Some quotes from the New Testament which are definitely not a part of mainstream interpretation (or that need at least a lot of interpretation to make them fit):

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34-36

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up." Matthew 15:13

And of course, the "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers, John 3:36
Could be more peaceful, couldn't it? I'm not going in the Old Testament.

None of the above mentioned religions will be understood by just reading the holy texts. And, to give you a fair point: Some of the modern day interpretations of Islam are not enhancing liberal mindsets. But it is not "the Islam".

[rsy]

I don't know where to begin in refuting this nonsense (above)- eastern religion encourages the development of a mindset from which desirable behaviours 'arise'- western religions encourage the behaviours in which to develop that state of mind- they both have roots in pre-zoroastrian and ascetic religions between Ur of the chaldees in modern day Iraq and mohenjo daro in modern day Pakistan.

Islam selectively uses text from the western tradition to bolster its own aims and the 'philosophers' you wiki'd all simply justify that- which is why pretty much no-one, including Muslims, has heard of virtually any of them.

You can indeed say that about Jesus- now go read the new testament and find where Jesus advocates beheading- pls get back to me on that one.

Is this what u might be looking for?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
I searched the number of times the word kill is repeated in the Bible's verses: 452 times

I am really inclined to not argue with u considering ur previous posts

it is NOT bad to discriminate against something if that thing happens to be bad and Islam is a total pigsty of a religion by any measure- Judaism and Christianity share a conceptual link to eastern religions in terms of philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism have a very rich and meaningful overlap whilst Islam seems to ignore thousands of years of intellectual progress from religious and philosophical systems alike and is itself a mockery of religion and was entirely dependent on the expansion of the ummayid caliphate 661-750 ad which was based mainly on the jizra- which is basically a pyramid system of a franchised protection racket and when that failed- slaughter.

That's ur opinion bro...and would u mind using a bit more blunt words if you are not gonna show us your sources? U don't even use correct spellings, the word is jizya not jizra, which from my research was basically a tax for non-Muslims living in Muslim states which doesn't sound like a protection racket to me. And maybe u forgot or are ignorant about the Islamic Golden Age but I advise you to go research on it either way. Do u know what the Dark Ages were and how badly "intellectual progress" was hampered in those times? Do u know how many people were killed on account of being suspected to be witches? Did you know that thousands of women chose to sacrifice themselves as part of a religious tradition called 'sati' when they were widowed?

My point is that each religion has some accounts of unjust practices that make no sense and are simply cruel and by ignorantly pointing at one religion while being misinformed, you seem childish to me.

[InsectPoison]

Everybody here needs to calm down and have a donner kebab. The bills on me.

Doner kebab is fucking disguting lol, i would prefer a lamb shish please

Proof that our country is being culturally appropriated by the muzzies

Would you rather eat some dry fish and chips?

[oats13]

"oats13 wrote:
I don't know where to begin in refuting this nonsense (above)- eastern religion encourages the development of a mindset from which desirable behaviours 'arise'- western religions encourage the behaviours in which to develop that state of mind- they both have roots in pre-zoroastrian and ascetic religions between Ur of the chaldees in modern day Iraq and mohenjo daro in modern day Pakistan.

Islam selectively uses text from the western tradition to bolster its own aims and the 'philosophers' you wiki'd all simply justify that- which is why pretty much no-one, including Muslims, has heard of virtually any of them.

You can indeed say that about Jesus- now go read the new testament and find where Jesus advocates beheading- pls get back to me on that one."

"We talk about different points.

A) I have never said eastern religion encourages the development of a mindset from which desirable behaviours arise. I wasn't talking about any such thingI"""

I know full well you weren't saying that as it was plainly me who said that, to that end I quote myself above.

For the record Jizra is a common academic formulation and of no importance, but I do suggest you think seriously about how it operated and how rapidly it allowed for expansion.


I have been studying comparative religion for over 25 years- these are basic points- firstly the linked 'refutations': you have to be as specific as I am being- I said find me where JESUS advocates beheading or where the BUDDHA recommends violence. You just wiki'd something and then took it as truth- what I'm suggesting is that you go find out for your selves- I have done this and I now state my opinions.

I'll state now that if every member of this forum were to spend any reasonable amount of time investigating the source texts of all the major religions and major philosophical traditions and put together a comparative study of A. their base value, B. their relative influence internationally, C. evolution of those values from any 'modernity' based perspective then none would find barely any merit in the case 'for' Islam.

You know why I don't put links?- I don't want to get into a link war because I don't need any justification for telling the truth- I am in the room with the boxes and I know which box the cat is in-

Let me explain- I venture into a room with two boxes and I look in both boxes and see a cat sleeping soundly in one box, someone else comes into the room and asks me have I seen a cat come in here and I say that there is a cat in that box. The person then says how do you know which box the cat is in? to which I reply that I have looked in both boxes, one is empty and one has a cat in it- the guy starts talking some nonsense about how can I know anything or how can I trust my senses and I just say- "go look in the boxes yourself"- whenever you are ready come find me and we can talk about what is in the box with our own words, not some links.

I don't want to say more right now because Lord Raphael posted above that he might investigate the quran and I hope many of you do- I'd very much like you all to state your informed opinions (and when I say your informed opinions I mean literally opinions based upon you informing yourself).

This is not a childish matter - this is very adult.

[InsectPoison]

I have been studying comparative religion for over 25 years

Everyone on the internet has been studying comparative religion for 25 years

[Dolan]

Religious schools create ‘parallel societies’, report claims

The Vienna University study found 10,000 children aged between two and six attend a Muslim preschool. However, lead author professor Ednan Aslan has claimed some preschools could be responsible for producing the homegrown terrorists of the future.

Vienna has roughly 150 Muslim kindergartens and Mr Aslan believes at least a quarter have the backing of ultra-conservative groups.

"Parents are sending their kids to establishments that ensure they are in a Muslim setting and learn a few suras (chapters from the Koran)," Mr Aslan of Vienna University told AFP.

"But they are unaware that they are shutting them off from a multicultural society.”

However many are sceptical of Mr Aslan’s findings and have called into question his methodology.

One local magazine sent an undercover reporter to 14 Muslim schools and found no evidence to back up Mr Aslan’s claims.

However, a third of the schools visited were identified as “problematic” by the magazine and could be seen to be “cutting off or isolating children” from mainstream society.

Vienna officials have now commissioned a second report to verify the claims, which will be published later in the year.

[CelticCrusader]

Religious schools create ‘parallel societies’, report claims

The Vienna University study found 10,000 children aged between two and six attend a Muslim preschool. However, lead author professor Ednan Aslan has claimed some preschools could be responsible for producing the homegrown terrorists of the future.

Vienna has roughly 150 Muslim kindergartens and Mr Aslan believes at least a quarter have the backing of ultra-conservative groups.

"Parents are sending their kids to establishments that ensure they are in a Muslim setting and learn a few suras (chapters from the Koran)," Mr Aslan of Vienna University told AFP.

"But they are unaware that they are shutting them off from a multicultural society.”

However many are sceptical of Mr Aslan’s findings and have called into question his methodology.

One local magazine sent an undercover reporter to 14 Muslim schools and found no evidence to back up Mr Aslan’s claims.

However, a third of the schools visited were identified as “problematic” by the magazine and could be seen to be “cutting off or isolating children” from mainstream society.

Vienna officials have now commissioned a second report to verify the claims, which will be published later in the year.

There have been cases in the UK where this is happening . Undercover reporters exposed it.
See this

phpBB [video]

[Theodore]

@oats13 if after 25 years of studying comparative you come up with the conclusion that Islam is a "pigsty", it is hard not to see you as biased.

@Dolan Yes we should have education controlled by the state. That's why mandatory preschool free of any charges is a good idea in my opinion. Still, even the article you quoted found that there is no evidence backing up these claims. The heading of the article is way more interesting than the finding of a local newspaper that a third of the preschools "could be seen to be “cutting off or isolating children” from mainstream society". Which, if it were true, should lead to these facilities being shut down.

[CelticCrusader]

And another , fucking ridiculous that these schools exist, imagine they were catholic schools preaching this, the government would be on them like a tonne of bricks.

phpBB [video]

[Rikikipu]

Is there someone from the UK who can confirm to me that there are Sharia court in Great Britain ? I've heard this the other day in a geopolicatical debate on TV, but it seems so insane that I can not believe it actually. I mean does they really exist, are they legal ?

[WickedCossack]

Is there someone from the UK who can confirm to me that there are Sharia court in Great Britain ? I've heard this the other day in a geopolicatical debate on TV, but it seems so insane that I can not believe it actually. I mean does they really exist, are they legal ?

No.

I just did some quick research (thx google) and it seems there might be some informal groups of muslims judging each other as a group of people?

But absolutely nothing with legal backing.

[CelticCrusader]

More

phpBB [video]

[CelticCrusader]

Is there someone from the UK who can confirm to me that there are Sharia court in Great Britain ? I've heard this the other day in a geopolicatical debate on TV, but it seems so insane that I can not believe it actually. I mean does they really exist, are they legal ?

No.

I just did some quick research (thx google) and it seems there might be some informal groups of muslims judging each other as a group of people?

But absolutely nothing with legal backing.

Its not legally binding, but the fact that there is any sharia courts is a disgrace. Read about sharia law, and give me your opinion. The only laws here are british laws. They are being allowed to conduct aspects of their law to an extent. They will easily persecute women through these courts. Sharia law is barbaric and disgusting and the fact that its creeping into society is worrying .

[Theodore]

There is no such thing as a separate Sharia court system in Great Britain. There is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and Islamic Sharia Council which both offer dispute resolution, restricted to certain areas of law (e.g. family law, disputing neighbours). The rulings of the Islamic Counsel are not binding and not enforceable. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal operates under the Arbitration Act 1996 and under some circumstances the rulings may be enforced. As is an arbitration tribunal, you do not have to go there, it is voluntary. There is a so called "ordre public", that means if any of these rulings violate UK Law, they are void.

Even in regular courts, the Sharia may be applicable. The system is called "conflict of laws" or "private international law". These are the rules that figure out which law is applicable. So if a person from Spain and a person from the US have married in Morocco - which law is applicable? If they have married under a law using the Sharia, the Court in Great Britain will apply the Sharia but within the boundaries of UK Law. The ordre public constraints the effect of foreign laws. If you have married 3 women in a foreign country, this would not be recognised in UK.

[WickedCossack]

Is there someone from the UK who can confirm to me that there are Sharia court in Great Britain ? I've heard this the other day in a geopolicatical debate on TV, but it seems so insane that I can not believe it actually. I mean does they really exist, are they legal ?

No.

I just did some quick research (thx google) and it seems there might be some informal groups of muslims judging each other as a group of people?

But absolutely nothing with legal backing.

Its not legally binding, but the fact that there is any sharia courts is a disgrace. Read about sharia law, and give me your opinion. The only laws here are british laws. They are being allowed to conduct aspects of their law to an extent. They will easily persecute women through these courts. Sharia law is barbaric and disgusting and the fact that its creeping into society is worrying .

"allowed?"

If what ever they decree in their "court" is illegal in terms of british law then they will be dealt with as per our justice system dictates.

[CelticCrusader]

You would assume the authorities would deal with it, but in reality our government whether tory or labour has been failing to react to the problems. Its not just sharia courts, have you saw the epidemic of muslim rape gangs ? In the Rotherham case the police knew about it, but never said anything, they allowed it to happen . The council knew about and social services , but they allowed it to happen. Why? Because of political correctness.

phpBB [video]

[deleted_user0]

Sorry umeu you seem like a nice guy but I can't communicate with someone who shifts the ground whilst simultaneously introducing more variables.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se, we all discriminate between apples and oranges according to what we want- discriminating against something that deliberately and explicitly goes against all the norms and values that we all invest in is perfectly rational- if you really believe there is an increase in racial ideology at the moment I strongly advise you step back from the fray and take a bigger longer look.

Seriously are you actually a muslim? you have slated Christianity in this thread but state that religious discrimination is a bad thing- NEWS FLASH- it isn't

it is NOT bad to discriminate against something if that thing happens to be bad and Islam is a total pigsty of a religion by any measure- Judaism and Christianity share a conceptual link to eastern religions in terms of philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism have a very rich and meaningful overlap whilst Islam seems to ignore thousands of years of intellectual progress from religious and philosophical systems alike and is itself a mockery of religion and was entirely dependent on the expansion of the ummayid caliphate 661-750 ad which was based mainly on the jizra- which is basically a pyramid system of a franchised protection racket and when that failed- slaughter.

Mohamet fell down a well and banged his head and heard a voice, guess who's voice it was? well,well,well if it wasn't GOD- and guess what GOD told him? he told him to have as many wives as possible and if anyone disagrees then feel free to cut their head off, which is precisely the kind of thing an uneducated chauvinst would like GOD to tell him- get over the sensitivities- life's too short IMO.

you seem like a well-educated person who knows the subject matter. Which is why it's all the more baffling that you don't see how intellectually dishonest you are being here.

Don't come to me with the kindergarten argument that we discriminate between apples and oranges. You know very well in what context I'm using it. The narrow definition of discrimination is not the same as the wider one where you're just talking about observing or applying differences with your mental faculties. The discrimination is not in saying oh, we don't want people in our country who believe we should cut the hands off a thief, and beat our wives. The discrimination is in saying, oh everyone who is a muslim must necessarily believe that, and so we just kick out every muslim (well not every muslim, just those who look different, that's what it usually comes down to anyway), regardless of wether that person actually believes that or doesn't. But you know this already, stop trying to circle around it. Why do I even have to explain this?

Please tell me where I have slated christianity? Btw, I could slate christianity all I want, how does that even mean I discriminate, you discriminate against people... All I've done here anyway is ask Lejend a few questions about if he can explain why christian countries have by far the highest murderrate. He wouldn't come up with an honest answer. Maybe you can.

I'm well aware that muslim expansion was driven by military conquest. yet the way you talk about the quran doesn't even compare to how you talk about the bible, and i mean you can disagree with its content, but do it seriously atleast. and if you're so well aware of islam's history then sure you should know that they were at the head of the scientific/intellectual golden age of the 11th century. We talk about the fall of constantinople, but we ignore the fall of qurduba, which also released alot of knowledge and has contributed to the european renaissance which basically laid the foundation for this western culture you are talking about.

again, you and celticcrusader (lol the irony) I know you can't fathom that some people might not care about what other people believe or look like, and do not base their opinion on that, because that's so far from how your worldview is that it's your first reaction is to think that other people act out of the same motives as you do. NEWS FLASH - not everyone is as backwards as that.

[lejend]

Hello @Theodore, I'm just gonna address the parts I disagree with that are relevant to the topic, so we don't end up spending hours crafting each reply.

What you should also keep in mind is that Islamist terrorism targets mainly other Muslims not Christians.

They are generally not considered Muslim by the terrorists, so this is a bit disingenuous. Terrorists do not target Muslims for being Muslim. They do target infidels for not being Muslim, however.

Jihad may be a concept crucial to Islam, but again, it is a question of interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Current_usage

Indeed, however all the major Islamic authorities interpret offensive jihad as an essential duty for Muslims. Again, this is orthodox Islam, not a fringe minority.

I am not negating that Islamist terror is a problem and should be fought. I just don't see what you gain from your general assumption that Islam is inherently leading to oppressing woman and bombing innocent people. What we should do is not exclude all Muslims from our society but rather take the opposite route: Have a decent education, have jobs, have control over the theological studies (like it has been done with Christianity). If you really believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western culture, you do not need to have this discussion, because for you everything is settled then: Consequently, you must kick every Muslim out of Europe.

I believe the first step toward defeating the enemy, is to actually know the enemy and understand their goals, motivations, tactics, history and other aspects. And to ignore the elephant in the room that is Islam, seems to me to be like blaming Pearl Harbor on airplanes. Nobody declared "war on kamikazism" and banned planes. They declared war on Japan.

(And before Umeo gets her SJW panties in a twitch, nobody said anything about the internment of the Japanese)

In this case you're blaming "social and economic factors" as the cause of terrorism, which is ludicrously out of touch with reality, based on common sense and academic studies of terrorist profiles.



As a final note:

Christian doctrine wasn't changed by liberals, governments or anybody. Christianity was always "secular" and peaceful. For a period of time, however, European rulers used religion as a political tool, which went against the Bible, and predictably led to quite disastrous results. Modern "secularism" isn't a modified Christianity, it's a return to the original form of Christianity, as a personal religion rather than political ideology.

Many accomplishments that you attribute to defeat of Christianity, such as women's rights, were actually the work of Christians, based on Biblical principles of equality and human rights.

This is impossible to replicate in Islam, because, unlike Christianity, Islam was political from the start. It is impossible to return to any peaceful interpretation of Islam, because this clearly contradicts Islam's texts. So "moderate" or "reformed" interpretations are impossible.

[Theodore]

Hello @CelticCrusader

Christian doctrine wasn't changed by liberals, governments or anybody. Christianity was always "secular" and peaceful.

If you really stand by the claim that Christian doctrine wasn't changed over the past 500 years, I really don't know what to discuss anymore? How can a religion be "secular"? This is against the very concept of secularisation. And no, the concept of women's rights was not promoted by Christian churches. Neither was freedom of speech or religious freedom.

For a period of time, however, European rulers used religion as a political tool, which went against the Bible, and predictably led to quite disastrous results.

This is exactly what I consider the double standard I argue against. You are saying that all the evil things that happened or happen in the name of a Christian god (Ku-Klux-Klan, Crusades, Anti-balaka), because the religion was / is misused. Fair enough, I'm with you on that one, because as I have already stated, it is a matter of interpretation. The bible is a book compiled by men, it contains contradictions and in contains ambiguity. It is what the religious leaders make of it. Every other attempt will lead so some sort of Biblical literalism, claim that the world is not more than 6,000 years old and eventually fail. On the other hand, bad things happening in the name of Islam are because of Islam. Yet, you could say the very same, that Islam is misused for political reasons. Of course it is possible to interpret Islam in a peaceful way. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/you-dont-need-to-look-much-further-than-the-quran-for-proof-that-islam-is-a-peaceful-religion-a6847031.html Or from a lengthy article in the Atlantic:

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

This is exactly what I am referring to. Islamic terrorist have of course something to do with Islam. Like Nazis had something to do with Germany. But terrorism is not an inevitable logical conclusion from Islams sources.

They are generally not considered Muslim by the terrorists, so this is a bit disingenuous. Terrorists do not target Muslims for being Muslim. They do target infidels for not being Muslim, however.

You are right that the Islamists do consider every other interpretation of Islam as heresy. Otherwise even they could not justify their barbaric acts. Still, the vast majority of people affected by Islamist terrorists are Muslim. It doesn't matter what the terrorists think - it matters what the victims are. If they consider themselves Muslims, what else should they be? They will get caught between the lines: Bombed by Islamist terrorists and then made responsible for enhancing terrorism by people like you?


What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

[deleted_user0]

churist gud. muhumad, mad so bad. thread gg no re out.

[lejend]

-

[Snuden]

phpBB [video]

[Gendarme]

Hey! That's our national anthem!

[Theodore]

This doesn't lead to anything if you go to some website and copy bits of the Koran that are cruel. This will produce endless posts not proving anything but the fact that you can find archaic and brutal parts in it. Like you can go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, a "non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom." (LOL) and dig out the cruel parts. Then I can go to another website and dig out the nice parts in the Koran:

Sura 109:4-6: “To you be your religion, and to me my religion.”

or

Sura 2:256: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.”

Then, the very same can be done for Christianity. And it is fair to say that Christian belief in the past and to the present day was no obstacle when it came to committing violent or murderous acts. These comparisons will not help the understanding.

You find so many contradicting statements about Islam and peace or Christianity and peace (or any other religion) that it is quite obvious that in both systems there is a lot of interpretation going on to create a coherent system of belief. You can argue that you don't like interpretations of Islam which you think are in the majority. You will not even convince anybody by stating that the Bible is supreme and the Koran promotes exclusively violence. You can score with that in a right-wing filter bubble, but nowhere else. That's what I don't get - what is your goal here? Just like @deleted_user stated: "churist gud. muhumad, mad so bad. thread gg no re out." This is not a missionary forum. What is your plan of action and where are you going with your arguments?

Last point: Distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Even if everything you said were true, most people do not believe what you are stating about Islam. Otherwise we had 1.2 billion Muslims literally fighting everybody else. "Us" versus "them" rhetoric is not helpful by any means. Fight terrorists yes, reach out to the rest.