Reply to: Those nice tolerant Muslims

[TinTin]

Sectarianism

In Scotland/Northern Ireland, there is a lot of provocation that causes tension. Why would one want to walk around in a Celtic or Rangers shirt in the 'wrong' part of town other than get in a fight ?
Going back to the original posting, the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that the first one has evolved and the other has remained more or less entrenched in the 6th c AD. The other day, an Iranian cleric was trying to explain the Coran position on nuclear energy, like they knew about it all these years ago, ffs !

[privateeye]

Good Points Snaw

I would add that being a Catholic still makes you a second class citizen as far as some companies in the Glasgow area is concerned,I have experienced some blatant discrimination myself in this context.

I've had the same down south - been called a Fenian **** in the street a few times over the years.

[Mailman]

Why the feck would you tell them you are catholic for in the first place?

Mailman

[AlfredJPruffock]

Good Points Snaw

I would add that being a Catholic still makes you a second class citizen as far as some companies in the Glasgow area is concerned,I have experienced some blatant discrimination myself in this context.

[snaw]

Actualy, I am not sure it isnt Arabic. Does that amount to the same thing?

Arabic of the time was part of a set of languages that were almost identical including Aramaic.

The original language died out so scholars had to ask the bedouin for the meaning of some of the language of the Koran as their language was the nearest anyone could get.

One could say that today nobody actualy understands the Koran at all.

It's written in Arabic.

And tolerance is all a question of context - Islam was tolerant in medieval times when compared to Christianity - while we were busy burning women with warts at ther stake, instigating yet another pogrom on jews and killing people who suggested the world was round, Islam (The Caliphate) allowed non-muslims positions in government, encouraged intelectual studies (If it wasn't for them we would have lost all the works of the ancient greeks) and gave women status in law (They could divorce, own property etc).

Problem is they haven't moved on much so now it all looks antiquated and oppresive to us now.

Anyway - plenty of places in the old testament where people get sentenced to death and it wasn't so long ago in western countries where being gay was a crime, adulterous women got locked up in asylums and being black or catholic made you a second class citizen ...

[Mailman]

Xog,

From your rantings its quite clear that you are a politically incorrect racist biggot! Pitty there arent more people in power like you!

Mailman

[Dundeegeorge]

who will argue that Islam is a very tolerant religion.

But Xog, you're misunderstanding.

Islam is happy to tolerate anything islamic.
It's one of those mistranslatoin things again, like 'honourable friend' in parliament-speak would be 'fellow thieving lying bastard sharing trough' in citizen-speak.
Or the 'right reverend' in temporal-speak means '(as yet) undiscovered paedophile, peddling hogwash to the stupid' in citizen-speak.
Or 'freedom from oppression' means 'you're still oppressed but democratically'.

[The Lone Gunman]

Nice piece MCQ:

It appears to me that the world powers (and press) are avoiding some issues.

They seem to be trying to tell the world that Muslims have a choice when they dont. The Koran gives them their law. They can not ignore it nor can they change it. They have to obey it.
There are a couple of cop outs they can (and do) use which make them appear tolerant. The Koran says let the infidels live and be amongst you as long as they serve a purpose or give you profit (paraphrasing here guys) thus Islamic nations can employ Christians who have the expetise to extract oil for instance.
The Koran also says be good guests when in a non Muslim community. Do not give cause for the locals to hate you. It goes on to say that when Muslims have enough power they must strike down the infidels and create a Muslim state.

The Koran teaches peace and understanding, honesty in trade and fairness in all dealings, something the Muslims are fond of telling us.
What isnt said is that the above only applies to other Muslims for the Infidels it teaches that lies and subterfuge to confound and infiltrate your enemies (the infidels) are acceptable untill you have the means to overthrow them. It teaches that where Muslims are stronger they can take whatever they like as their possesion anything they have the power to take (includes women).

The upshot is that Muslims appear to be nice but will lie through their teeth to be accepted but they are (to a man) waiting for the day they can rise up and make a Muslim state and install Sharia law.

Our Government just imlemented a bill that would allow a Muslim PM to do this without going through parliament.

I may be paranoid.

[mcquiggd]

Western and Muslim worlds clash again

From a Reuters story:

Western and Muslim worlds clash again
Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:46 PM GMT

U.S. ups pressure in Afghan Christian convert case

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

ROME (Reuters) - Western political leaders and the media have reacted with mounting indignation to the news that a Kabul court threatened to impose the death sentence on an Afghan man who abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity.

Two months ago, political and religious leaders in the Muslim world were rounding on Western European media and governments for printing and defending caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that they considered blasphemous.

The cases are clearly different. Western leaders from President George W. Bush down have spoken up to save the life of a man whose religious freedom is a universal human right which his judges say is secondary to Islamic law.

In the cartoons case, demonstrators sacked Western embassies in Damascus and Beirut, lives were lost in unrest and Muslim leaders demanded apologies and curbs on Western press freedom.

Amin Farhang, the Afghan economy minister who lived in exile in Germany for 22 years before returning in 2001, illustrated the gulf between Western and traditional Islamic views when he tried to make a link between the two controversies.

"Following the row about the cartoons, which has cost so many lives, we should look calmly at things and work for a fair solution," he told the German daily Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger.

He said Kabul was trying to build democracy after a United States-led coalition drove the fundamentalist Taliban from power in 2001, but Afghanistan was a traditional Islamic society.

"Afghanistan cannot switch suddenly from one extreme to the other," he said, presenting the right to convert as too much for a country that upholds the Islamic punishment for apostasy.

A NORM, NOT AN EXTREME

The uproar sparked off by the case of Abdur Rahman, now on trial in Kabul for renouncing Islam, showed that Westerners saw religious freedom as a universal norm and not an extreme.

"It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another," Bush said on Wednesday.

Some critics suggested NATO states withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. A few even suggested that Western troops kidnap Abdur Rahman and bring him along when they leave.

"The case is more than deeply troubling, it's barbaric," wrote the New York Times. "If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States."

Among the strongest critics are evangelical Christians in the United States, a core constituency that has backed Bush so far on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians?" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council asked.

Another leading figure, Charles Colson, said: "If we can't guarantee fundamental religious freedoms in the countries where we establish democratic reforms, then the whole credibility of our foreign policy is thrown into serious question."

Canada's top Anglican prelate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchinson, said of the Islamic punishment for apostasy that Rahman faces: "I'm absolutely horrified to think that this kind of fanatical literalism would be applied in this day and age."

BITTER COMMENTARIES

European newspapers ran bitter commentaries. Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung said Kabul was "tolerant like the Taliban." Die Welt in Berlin wrote that Afghanistan faced "the dark ages of barbarity" if it executed Rahman.

"We have a duty not to cooperate in bringing back the burning of heretics at the stake," the Dutch daily Trouw wrote. Milan's Corriere della Sera said Western states helping Afghanistan should launch a movement to reform Islam there.

In Denmark, Jyllands-Posten, the daily that first ran the Prophet Mohammad cartoons, quoted Syrian-born member of parliament Naser Khader as saying: "If necessary, Danish troops should liberate Abdur Rahman and Denmark should offer him asylum.

"This matter underlines that sharia (Islamic law) must be fought wherever it exists," he said.

France's Marianne magazine made clear Western critics might not be satisfied if the Kabul court arranges to avoid the death sentence by declaring Rahman insane and unfit for trial.

"If he is not tried, he will probably end up in a psychiatric hospital, which for a man of sound mind is sometimes worse than death," it commented.

[xoggoth]

I don't know about 15th century Spain but I do know that today there are many Islamic authorities, just check the net, who will argue that Islam is a very tolerant religion. You just need to look a little more closely to discover that it is not quite what the rest of us would term tolerance.

[Joe Black]

The original language died out so scholars had to ask the bedouin for the meaning of some of the language of the Koran as their language was the nearest anyone could get.

One could say that today nobody actualy understands the Koran at all.

Sounds like one of those laws drafted by the Gov't/EU, where everyone goes away saying they got exactly what they want, though they want totally different things, simply because the law's so vague and open to interpretation that anyone can use it how they want....but then I guess that's what religion is all about.

[Mailman]

Where the Koran makes a statement it is the word of God and must be followed.
Where Mohammed made a statement or performed an act it is as good as the word of God.

Mohammed = the Joseph Smith of his times!

Mailman

[threaded]

Persian

I thought that was the point ... if you read it as if it was dictated by someone speaking Aramaic it supposedly makes quite a lot more sense.

[The Lone Gunman]

Actualy, I am not sure it isnt Arabic. Does that amount to the same thing?

Arabic of the time was part of a set of languages that were almost identical including Aramaic.

The original language died out so scholars had to ask the bedouin for the meaning of some of the language of the Koran as their language was the nearest anyone could get.

One could say that today nobody actualy understands the Koran at all.

[expat]

I think you have to read it in the original Aramaic though before you can appreciate it's real meaning

Persian