mp3 - Islamic invasion of Germany

[Brant Gaede]

15 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Since when is it wrong to remove unwanted persons from one's property? 

Screw emotions.  What about   maintaining peace and order on one's turf? 

Not your property.

Not your turf.

This all goes through the government. What that is or will be is by those who control the government to the extent they can.

Your analogies are deficient for, like most analogies, they can't travel. Analogies are for illustration, not reasoning. In this case private to public doesn't follow. This is not to say a bridge of factual and philosophical reasoning can't do the job, only that analogies can't. Your questions are rhetorical and why therefore are you demanding answers?

--Brant

my first-class brain (what a wonder!)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not your property.

Not your turf.

This all goes through the government. What that is or will be is by those who control the government to the extent they can.

Your analogies are deficient for, like most analogies, they can't travel. Analogies are for illustration, not reasoning. In this case private to public doesn't follow. This is not to say a bridge of factual and philosophical reasoning can't do the job, only that analogies can't. Your questions are rhetorical and why therefore are you demanding answers?

--Brant

my first-class brain (what a wonder!)

The United States of America is collectively the owner of its territory.  The government administers the territory under law. Unwanted persons can be legally removed  just as trespassers can be removed.  Muslims born in the U.S.A.  are citizens by birth.  They cannot be  arbitrarily removed.  But non-citizens can be removed. I don't think we will have any problem with Muslims born and brought up in the United States.  Except for a few loony coo coo birds who become Jihadis  such folk are not a problem.  Recent immigrants both legally and illegal might be a problem.

 

The U.S. has fared better with Muslim immigrants  than the European nations.  

Now in Europe the citizens of the various nations collectively own the territory of their nation.  Also they have laws that are less protective of immigrants than the U.S. laws.  If the immigrants in Europe cause trouble I expect that their governments will eject them.   I don't see any problem with that.  Let the immigrants go back to the middle east from which they came. And if they won't go back they can be -sent back-. 

[william.scherk]

On 11/23/2016 at 6:51 PM, jts said:

Muhammad is to Islam as Jesus Christ is to Christianity and Ayn Rand is to Objectivism.

There is Christianity-lite, Universalism, Seventh-day Adventism, Unitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints.  There is a United Church and a Southern Baptist Convention, and a Unification Church.  In all of these Christ as God is tempered by particulars of latter-day prophecy and leadership. Even among this cohort of not-quite-fundamental and at least nominally Christian -- such as Adventists and Mormons -- the sects have split off 'true' and 'bedrock' versions:  the Mormons split off 'fundamentalists' on the issue of polygamy and prophecy. 

Islam, Jerry, is a large-tent term for the body of belief just as is Christianity.  Not all traditions 'match' the most fundamental schools of thought -- so a Shi'a Muslim of the Alawite version will hove to the Alawite tradition, celebrating Christmas and Easter as well as Eid, rejecting the veil. A Shi'a Muslim of the Bektashi current will follow an ancient syncretic tradition, modernized, and appear as a nominally-Muslim Alevi, rejecting the veil, rejecting common forms of Muslim worship, having their own distinct houses of worship and civil traditions.

Similarly, there are traditions within Sunni Islam that do not hew to fundamentalism (say, Wahhabi, Salafi), such as the modern synthetic Islam of Fethullah Gulen's organization.  You can have a cultish Sunni author/preacher like Adnan Oktar who utters prophecy and whose teachings  do away with supposedly rock-solid details of everyday shariah, setting aside the veil, aligning its general world-view with American Christian end-days, vamping the fuck out of it all on his TV channel.

There is a modern European nation that contains a population said to be ninety percent Muslim, Albania. Pure, sweet, Sunni, Halafi, and yet for all intents and purposes Muslim-lite, a society open to Jews, Christians, notwithstanding a certain weak 'revivalism' current.  It is a Muslim nation, but its laws are secular, and separate state and faith.  They even have a burgeoning Atheist movement.

Muslims!

You surely notice the various kinds of Muslims when you leave your bunker and head out in public spaces in Alberta, Jerry.  You will see nine kinds of hijab and a preponderance of Ismaili mosques, and even a 'Muslim' tech school funded by the Aga Khan.  You have Ahmadiyya Muslims, who count themselves as the best kind of Muslim, with a prophet and a kind of Pope.  You have an unapologetic brown-faced Muslim who clawed his way to power over your biggest city!

So ... this brief sketch opens up the Category Islam.  Check it out in Canada, Jerry. Canada has many more Islam-followers per capita than the United States.  Our constitution has no room for a state religion, and offers to our citizens religious freedom. That means, in practice, that there is no single pure sweet strain of Islam/Christitude in the land. All of our institutions allow free association, speech and assembly and add no extra fetters to a particular sect or group or stripe of faith.  

Officially, we don't give a fuck about your (absence of) religion until and unless you oppress or harm another individual above the criminal or civil bar. That is why shariah is routinely overruled when any idiot makes a claim of religious exception.  No, your fucking Muslim divorce is not ratified.  Get in line for divorce court. No, you cannot 'bring in' your other three wives. No, your touchiness does not mean The Joo is to be hobbled in his free expression. No, your call for holy war on ISIS's side is not protected religious speech, you fuck, because you actually helped send our kids over there to die for a death cult, which is a terror offence. 

No, your daughter does not have to cover her fucking hair if she doesn't care to. Yes, you get 'extra' jail-time for 'honour' killings, yes you can be prosecuted if you abuse anyone in your household. Yes, we can curb your movements if you conspire with Terror, Inc. No your religion has nothing to do with why you are going to jail, and why you will be under a security certificate for the rest of your life. Yes, we seized your passport. What did you expect, that Mohammed will float down and give it back?  You are no hero to Muslims in Canada, you are a stain. You bring shame and dishonour upon the concept 'Islam' by your cowardly actions. (yes, looking at you, dumbfuck convert with shit-for-brains, how is that afterlife working out for you)?

The problem with bigotry is not just due to its prickly fixity -- which can be mistaken for the prickly fixity of well-warranted but politically-unpopular conclusions. A bigoted opinion is insulated from correction.  A bigoted opinion devalues and rejects any notion that it could be mistaken. It has no reset button, no back-door, no over-ride, it does not 'update' itself.

-- personally, I am revolted in my atheist heart by almost every last expression and variety of Islam. With the exception of the Aga Khan and the Ismailis, some of the not-insane Ahmaddiya and the Sufis, the Bektashis and the quietists of Gulen, and especially the Alevis, well, with many exceptions I find the entire Muslim foundation irrational and totalitarian as thought/practice.

That there are secular Muslims does not in any way mean that I am unaware of the psychotic preachers and cult-leaders within, from the noxious medievalism in Saudi Arabia instantiated in religious dictatorship, to the chauvinist Islam of the Malaysian state, to the democratic-trappings religious dictatorship of Iran, to the royal sharia states of the UAE. I loathe the Shi'ism of Hezbollah, with its chauvinism and totalitarianism, its militarism and its fealty to false gods.  I loathe the Salafi trends, and I loathe the sectarian hatreds inculcated by Al-Azhar and other sites of clerical formation, Qom and Fallujah.

There is Islam and there are strands of Islam. Best we learn which are the 'worst' strands from an Objectivish standpoint, best we learn to discriminate among the strands. Best we do not lose our humanity and reason while rightly decrying inhumanity and irrationalism.

Jerry, identifying a giant blob Islam as Evil does no work. It doesn't even do "triage' ...  by your lights there are two kinds of Muslim, bad ones and good.  The 'bad' Muslims you claim do not follow 'real' Islam, and the 'good Muslims' do.  But it seems like there is no room for an individual mind or creative augmentation of tradition -- or sectarian evolution.  It seems like you see a horde, where others can see individual human beings, and numerous discrete faith-traditions apart from the Saudi-Salafist-Iranian blob.

Back to the Opening Topic. Jeff Rense's guest is a nutcase, in my considered opinion. If he is nutty enough to claim that all Germany will be microchipped next year, and that the microchips can control minds and stop hearts, then -- doesn't that add a bit of skepticism to what he says on any other subject, be it religious Blobberizing or not?

I don't have a lot of confidence that you can adapt to new or infilling information. As with your odd insistence that all of modern medicine is fraud and poison and destruction -- because some old dead remnant  of vitalism wrote a book in 1862 -- the attachment to reason is loose.

-- there is bigotry to behold in all quarters of opinion, whether the White Nationalist of the right to the Occupy medievalists of the left. From cultish silos of opinion and conclusion such as the StopTheWar coalition to the America-is-Evil-Empire at the Intercept. 

Ultimately, for me, it is the unsound generalizations that are the biggest 'fault' in your arguments against Islam.  You have omitted measurement of the very thing you seek to quantify:  all Islam is X.  X is bad. Bad is bad. Ipse dixit. 

Ignorance, malice and bigotry. A heady combination, a bitches brew, a toxic additive to Objectivist Living. 

Ladies and Gentleman I give you Turkey's second-biggest (Islamic) cult leader (after Gulen) Oktar, with his Islamic Kittens ...

 

+ a good if cynical investigative analysis of the cult  business and propaganda machinery, more chilling than my boring trudge above. Oktar is a crazy propagandist with a big reach, who has effectively lap-danced the Erdogan autocracy's bent for Islamism:

Combining creationism and breast enlargment: Meet the sexual muslim preacher Adnan Oktar!

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by william.scherk
Added video of religious nutcase Okhtar with his kittens; DISCO version; added extra verbosity in italics; link to article.

[jts]

Looks like the plan is to outbreed non-Muslims.

 

[william.scherk]

The same garbage video that you have posted before.  That video is full of mathematical hoohaw and hysteria.  Why do you repeat debunked buillshit and ignore cogent criticism?

جيري، إذا أردت يمكنك أن تأخذ من الوقت لقراءة المواد الحرجة - في هذه الحالة المواد التي مسروق هودجنز هو في الواقع في النزاع.

وبعبارة أخرى، كنت لا تولي اهتماما ل"الأطراف الأخرى" في المناقشة. هناك حقا وسيلة لتقدير معدل الولادة من المهاجرين المسلمين، وأنه فقط لا يتطابق مع الرياضيات هستيرية الواردة في غبي فيديو فظيعة سخيف.

قمت بسحب هذا المنتدى إلى أسفل مع هذا النوع من النفايات. كنت حق

[jts]

Vegan Gains employs the most powerful weapon against Islam -- telling the truth about it.

 

[william.scherk]

Deleted

Edited March 1, 2017 by william.scherk
Delete

[jts]

21 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Wow, a weight-lifting vegan who takes time out from his busy life and commerce to rag on Muslims. He doesn't want any more Muslims in Canada, since Islam is deadly. He is willing to die for his ... notion.

This is trolling behaviour, Jerry. I am going to call for an intervention.

What is your problem with his presentation?

a.  He lifts weights. Therefore everything he says is false?

b.  He is vegan. Therefore everything he says is false?

c.  This is not one of his usual topics (vegan diet, fitness, health, worst of the fitness industry, his own personal life). Therefore what he says on this topic is false?

d.  He tells the truth about Islam. Therefore he is a racist?

e.  Telling the truth about Islam is Islamophobia?

f.  Telling the truth about Islam might offend Muslims?

g.  Do you think his now and then vulgar humor and cuss language invalidate the facts that he presents?

h.  Telling the truth about Islam is bad because we must respect all religions no matter how bad they are?

i.  Islam is a religion of peace because Bush said so and anything a president of the USA says must be true?

j.  You heard "Islam is a religion of peace" so many times that mere repetition is enough to convince you?

k.  Freedom of religion should be extended to a religion that does not tolerate freedom of religion?

l.  It is a youtube video?

m.  Death to everyone who tells the truth about Islam?  

n.  See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil?

o.  Facts are not facts if you don't like them?

p.  Facts don't matter?

q.  Crimes committed by Muslims must be allowed, to avoid being Islamophobic or racist or intolerant of their religion?

r.  Talking bad about Islam is not politically correct?

......... ??

 

[william.scherk]

Deleted

Edited March 1, 2017 by william.scherk
Delete

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, jts said:

Vegan Gains employs the most powerful weapon against Islam -- telling the truth about it.

 

Kosher slaughter is legal in the U.S.  The animals are suspended by the rear legs and the main arteries and veins of the animals are cut swiftly with a very sharp knife in one stroke.  The blood quickly drains and the animal loses consciousness very quickly.  It is generlly agreed that kosher (and halal) slaughter are humane.  Vegetarians disapprove.  

[anthony]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Go spread your poison at Solopassion.
 

William, This is too serious to get angry about. There was actually nothing new here, the facts and the Pew survey have been out in public for long enough, and daily events bear them out. This guy did an honestly straight-forward presentation, bar his gratuitous, dumb dramatics. To address the growing problem, at first one has to separate the ideology from people (or the individual Muslims you know, as I do) and appraise it. The ideology is horrific and primitive - you know that. There is no ways one can practise Sharia faithfully and consistently without some sort of cost to others and to oneself - or else compromise one's faith, circumvent Sharia law. It looks to me that as time passes, less do assimilated (and non-assimilated)Muslims in the West want to make that compromise. And as long as they don't fully carry out the ideology against apostates, infidels, adulterers - etc. - we call them "moderates"? One is either "a radical" and a killer - or a good citizen? There is something wrong with these standards. The religion needs a reformation (at least in the West, to start) and being tolerant for it is detrimental to the courageous Musilms who are trying to do that.

[william.scherk]

[anthony]

Interesting, but basically - so what? There are only two moral rationales in order to associate with every fellow citizen, the one is individualistic, the other is to have equal rights under the law. Therefore, freedom for all, which is at stake here. No one should have to study their histories and theologies and make fine distinctions between the sects of Islam, or, make special allowances by these prior 'group divisions'. The fact isn't going away that large numbers of Muslims surveyed of the whole, regardless of sect, believe that implementing Sharia in their countries of origin and wherever they are in the West, will be the ideal.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Interesting, but basically - so what? There are only two moral rationales in order to associate with every fellow citizen, the one is individualistic, the other is to have equal rights under the law. Therefore, freedom for all, which is at stake here. No one should have to study their histories and theologies and make fine distinctions between the sects of Islam, or, make special allowances by these prior 'group divisions'. The fact isn't going away that large numbers of Muslims surveyed of the whole, regardless of sect, believe that implementing Sharia in their countries of origin and wherever they are in the West, will be the ideal.

Perhaps after the next outrage, the next "nine-eleven" you will not be so laid back.  Shariah is a doctrine mortally opposed to be every  liberty we have.  Fortunately it will never be legally implemented here in the the united states,  but when did a Jihadi  ever care about western legalities.  What they don't get by legal non-violent behavior  some will attempt to get  by  murder and war.  

Here is a vision to fall asleep by:  Ahmed, Faisal, Ibrihim and Usama are driving an 18 wheeler loaded to the brim with high explosives.  The cross the Hudson at the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour  and half  way through Ibrihim  yells   "Allah'hu Akbar"  and the detonation follows.   Pleasant dreams. 

PS.  The Washington Post and the New York Times blame Donald Trump for this outrage because  he upset Muslims with his executive orders concerning immigration and refuge. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by BaalChatzaf
correct spelling

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Perhaps after the next outrage, the next "nine-eleven" you will not be so laid back.  Shariah is a doctrine mortally opposed to be every  liberty we have.  Fortunately it will never be legally implemented here in the the united states,  but when did a Jihadi  ever care about western legalities.  What they don't get by legal non-violent behavior  some will attempt to get  by  murder and war.  

Here is a vision to fall asleep by:  Ahmend, Faisal, Ibrihim and Usama are driving an 18 wheeler loaded to the brim with high explosives.  The cross the Hudson at the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour  and half  way through Ibrimim  yells   "Allah'hu Akbar"  and the detonation follows.   Pleasant dreams. 

So for you, it comes down to Jihadi acts of terror. The tip of the spear. I go further, I maintain that even lacking those, the friction within a society will begin delimiting and dividing people increasingly. It's the enacted ideology of sharia with its implicit other-hatred, which has to be uncompromisingly opposed, no appeasement, no religious-cultural special 'toleration' and with no concern for causing outrage to some delicate feelings (and I consider the worst, a fear of "inciting" terror reactions). Done too, without compromise of personal liberties. This is the insidious thin edge of the wedge, and as far as I can see, no nation has been altogether excepted from that mistake, France the prime example to be learned from. Sweet dreams.

[BaalChatzaf]

25 minutes ago, anthony said:

So for you, it comes down to acts of terror. I go further, I maintain that even lacking those, the friction within a society will begin delimiting and dividing people increasingly. It's the enacted ideology of sharia with its implicit other-hatred, which has to be uncompromisingly opposed, no appeasement, no religious-cultural special 'toleration' and with no concern for causing outrage to some delicate feelings (and I consider the worst, a fear of "inciting" terror reactions). Done too, without compromise of personal liberties. This is the insidious thin edge of the wedge, and as far as I can see, no nation has been altogether excepted from that mistake, France the prime example to be learned from. Sweet dreams.

As long as there is one Jihadi alive on this planet,  it is nightmares from end to end. 

[anthony]

12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

As long as there is one Jihadi alive on this planet,  it is nightmares from end to end. 

Don't be silly, now you set an unreal expectation. There will *always* be "one Jihadi", who can only be handled on an ad hoc basis. What is much more critical is not to surrender one aspect of your way of life because of your fears.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Don't be silly, now you set an unreal expectation. There will *always* be "one Jihadi", who can only be handled on an ad hoc basis. What is much more critical is not to surrender one aspect of your way of life because of your fears.

Then there will always be nightmares, yes?

It all comes down to religion, which on balance has been a very bad thing for the human race.

Perhaps God made the heavens and the earth, but it was the devil who made religions, churches,  sects and cults.  All very bad for living together in some kind of co-operative and productive harmony. 

[william.scherk]

Islam is the enemy.

8 hours ago, anthony said:

13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

Interesting, but basically - so what?

Interesting?  Yes, at least to me. 'So what?' might require a long boring essay on differentia ... but basically, if we must assess the danger/evil of Islam  -- if Islam is an evil ideology, the 'enemy' of the Toronto vegan and the Edmonton fasting enthusiast -- then which among it are the most dangerous?

I perhaps should give a link to an earlier tirade: in which I spell out what I loathe about Islam.**

Quote

No one should have to study their histories and theologies and make fine distinctions between the sects of Islam, or, make special allowances by these prior 'group divisions'. 

I make distinctions between dangerous cults in the Christian tradition, and the broad 'Church.'  I don't suggest making special allowances, but rather to be informed about The Enemy. I don't give a fuck about the Ismailis or Ahmadiyya in Canada, or the 'as if' Muslims who are essentially secular, but may visit the mosque for weddings and funerals. I suggest zero allowances for a 'cultural defence.'‡ 

If Islam is The Enemy, I suggest figuring out which parts of Islam are the most dangerous of the Enemy formation. "Know The Enemy" would be shorthand. 

__________________________

** from further above in this thread.

On 11/27/2016 at 9:19 AM, william.scherk said:

Officially, we don't give a fuck about your (absence of) religion until and unless you oppress or harm another individual above the criminal or civil bar. That is why shariah is routinely overruled when any idiot makes a claim of religious exception.  No, your fucking Muslim divorce is not ratified.  Get in line for divorce court. No, you cannot 'bring in' your other three wives. No, your touchiness does not mean The Joo is to be hobbled in his free expression. No, your call for holy war on ISIS's side is not protected religious speech, you fuck, because you actually helped send our kids over there to die for a death cult, which is a terror offence. 

No, your daughter does not have to cover her fucking hair if she doesn't care to. Yes, you get 'extra' jail-time for 'honour' killings, yes you can be prosecuted if you abuse anyone in your household. Yes, we can curb your movements if you conspire with Terror, Inc. No your religion has nothing to do with why you are going to jail, and why you will be under a security certificate for the rest of your life. Yes, we seized your passport. What did you expect, that Mohammed will float down and give it back?  You are no hero to Muslims in Canada, you are a stain. You bring shame and dishonour upon the concept 'Islam' by your cowardly actions. (yes, looking at you, dumbfuck convert with shit-for-brains, how is that afterlife working out for you)?

‡ Loathing:

On 11/27/2016 at 9:19 AM, william.scherk said:

-- personally, I am revolted in my atheist heart by almost every last expression and variety of Islam. With the exception of the Aga Khan and the Ismailis, some of the not-insane Ahmaddiya and the Sufis, the Bektashis and the quietists of Gulen, and especially the Alevis, well, with many exceptions I find the entire Muslim foundation irrational and totalitarian as thought/practice.

That there are secular Muslims does not in any way mean that I am unaware of the psychotic preachers and cult-leaders within, from the noxious medievalism in Saudi Arabia instantiated in religious dictatorship, to the chauvinist Islam of the Malaysian state, to the democratic-trappings religious dictatorship of Iran, to the royal sharia states of the UAE. I loathe the Shi'ism of Hezbollah, with its chauvinism and totalitarianism, its militarism and its fealty to false gods.  I loathe the Salafi trends, and I loathe the sectarian hatreds inculcated by Al-Azhar and other sites of clerical formation, Qom and Fallujah.

There is Islam and there are strands of Islam. Best we learn which are the 'worst' strands from an Objectivish standpoint, best we learn to discriminate among the strands. Best we do not lose our humanity and reason while rightly decrying inhumanity and irrationalism.

Jerry, identifying a giant blob Islam as Evil does no work. It doesn't even do "triage' ...  by your lights there are two kinds of Muslim, bad ones and good.  The 'bad' Muslims you claim do not follow 'real' Islam, and the 'good Muslims' do.  But it seems like there is no room for an individual mind or creative augmentation of tradition -- or sectarian evolution.  It seems like you see a horde, where others can see individual human beings, and numerous discrete faith-traditions apart from the Saudi-Salafist-Iranian blob.

-- and another mini-screed:

On 10/4/2015 at 7:03 PM, william.scherk said:

I despise almost every last thing about Islam, all its sects, all its leaders (with the exception of Ismailis, Druze, Ahmadiyyas, and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi). I despise and suspect all mullahs, all Imams, and almost every single Muslim voice that preaches to the West. I despise the likes of Tariq Ali.

(about the only devout Muslims I don't suspect and in-my-heart disdain are the few like my Twitter-friend Mohammed Ghilan. He loves to labour over 'true' and 'perfect' Islam from his home in Victoria BC. I treat it as the same affliction suffered by any putative religious scholar.)

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by william.scherk
Despise, loathe, suspect ... edit

[anthony]

"...if Islam is an evil ideology..."

Hardly what I said and implied. You shot for the top, William.

What I said, simplified:  On paper, as it is written(a.) - sharia law(b.) - and when carried out(c.) - and in Western nations(d.) - will be and is inimical to western freedoms(e.) - and so Sharia is "evil".

The qualifiers, in which I don't recall citing Islam as a whole.

I take Islam to be 'a given' which will last ad infinitum. Okay, what to do, for the sake of the West and its future? Here, I have only concentrated on one (important) component of Islam, in what I've been saying. Sharia law is in itself, invasive, hard, cruel or brutally murderous (depending on the level and type of laws and penalties). It's anti-human. But of course, Muslims, being human, will always make compromises with laws they find too severe, avoid disruptions and go along to get along - secrets kept within a family, say, with a father's love for his daughter he won't see hurt - so for the most part it won't be carried out everywhere, exactly to the letter of the Law and with callous consistency.

However, as long as it remains de jure, untouched and unquestioned in the religion's 'Statute Books' it can be made de facto by any Muslim or mosque or community or sect, at any arbitrary stage. Then we'll have uncertainty, which is terrible by itself.

We may look at Muslim individuals we know and sympathize with, and appreciate or respect or like, and see only their decency.

But.

First, how accurately can one 'know' the mind of anyone else? Next, can't a good person change for the worse, i.e. become a hater? Lastly, he or she will have children some time who will follow their faith, and who knows what they - and their children in turn - will do with the Word of the Law, Sharia?

I said we have to look at and judge the laws ideologically, separate from specific people, at first. Then project forwards, to what these Laws will likely achieve one day in free, civilised society if not widely challenged and condemned now.

[Brant Gaede]

If evil is your thing you'll find your ideology.

--Brant

or drink a lot

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, Quoting William, Anthony said:

"...if Islam is an evil ideology..."

Hardly what I said and implied.

Truncquote!

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On 3/1/2017 at 5:35 AM, anthony said:

Interesting, but basically - so what?

Interesting?  Yes, at least to me. 'So what?' might require a long boring essay on differentia ... but basically, if we must assess the danger/evil of Islam  -- if Islam is an evil ideology, the 'enemy' of the Toronto vegan and the Edmonton fasting enthusiast -- then which among it are the most dangerous?

Re-iterated as ...

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If Islam is The Enemy, I suggest figuring out which parts of Islam are the most dangerous of the Enemy formation. "Know The Enemy" would be shorthand. 

Truncquote:

18 hours ago, anthony said:

You shot for the top, William.

I write for myself first, and then for The Reader.  I expect about half of the silent guests who read a post of mine will read the post a second time. If not, at least I know I have laid out my thoughts as clearly as I can.

I'd be happy to take an excursion into 'Islamic Law' as instantiated. I'd start with the most extreme places: Saudi Arabia, Iran, the ISIS black blot on the map.  Where would you start?

-- about halfway through our subsequent discussion of those realities, I'd re-introduce the question of (I've seen it written as) 'creeping Sharia,' which I would root in my own experience in Canada, that most liberal of liberal hellholes.  We have probably made many mistakes in dealing with the fears and actual danger of 'reasonable accommodation**.'

It could get extremely boring. Or informative. I wish The Reader over our shoulders might get a discussion going. If not an argument, if not a dispute. I don't think you and I have a dispute. 

Of course, at some point I will re-realize I am seeking a rational discussion in the Garbage Pile. Sometimes these things just have to die.

_______________________

** It sounds similar in French: "Accommodation Raisonable," and it is the thorny Quebec-based controversy over what could be said as 'creeping' in to civil society a kind of obeisance to religious observance. In a nutshell, where is the line drawn in Canada where public services and institutions are concerned? If there is a chapel at the university, is it sharia to make a prayer room? Are 'accommodations' made to, eg, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, Mennonites, and Muslims in the public sphere too much, against secular values, etc? What about full-face veils, sex-segregated public swimming pools, 'barbaric cultural practices'?  What about making a law that Quebec nurses, teachers, doctors, all effectively public service providers, do their job without 'conspicuous' religious attire (de-hijabing the public service)? 

I'm writing this as police investigate a fresh mosque arson in Toronto, and an uptick in anti-Jewish vandalism, and a campus-clearing anti-Muslim-accommodation bomb-threats at a public university (Concordia, in Montreal). And of course, within memory of the Quebec mosque attack. 

Maybe I am too much of a 'sensitive' in these times. How do you tolerate intolerance, unreason, an appeal to emotion, a whipping up of fear and loathing? How do you accommodate hate-preachers?

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by william.scherk
EPA-mandated clean-up. Waterways of Islam.

[anthony]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10007/france-death-spiral

A lesson on how not to do it.

[anthony]

On 2017/03/02 at 7:16 PM, william.scherk said:

Truncquote!

Re-iterated as ...

Truncquote:

I write for myself first, and then for The Reader.  I expect about half of the silent guests who read a post of mine will read the post a second time. If not, at least I know I have laid out my thoughts as clearly as I can.

I'd be happy to take an excursion into 'Islamic Law' as instantiated. I'd start with the most extreme places: Saudi Arabia, Iran, the ISIS black blot on the map.  Where would you start?

-- about halfway through our subsequent discussion of those realities, I'd re-introduce the question of (I've seen it written as) 'creeping Sharia,' which I would root in my own experience in Canada, that most liberal of liberal hellholes.  We have probably made many mistakes in dealing with the fears and actual danger of 'reasonable accommodation**.'

It could get extremely boring. Or informative. I wish The Reader over our shoulders might get a discussion going. If not an argument, if not a dispute. I don't think you and I have a dispute. 

Of course, at some point I will re-realize I am seeking a rational discussion in the Garbage Pile. Sometimes these things just have to die.

_______________________

** It sounds similar in French: "Accommodation Raisonable," and it is the thorny Quebec-based controversy over what could be said as 'creeping' in to civil society a kind of obeisance to religious observance. In a nutshell, where is the line drawn in Canada where public services and institutions are concerned? If there is a chapel at the university, is it sharia to make a prayer room? Are 'accommodations' made to, eg, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, Mennonites, and Muslims in the public sphere too much, against secular values, etc? What about full-face veils, sex-segregated public swimming pools, 'barbaric cultural practices'?  What about making a law that Quebec nurses, teachers, doctors, all effectively public service providers, do their job without 'conspicuous' religious attire (de-hijabing the public service)? 

I'm writing this as police investigate a fresh mosque arson in Toronto, and an uptick in anti-Jewish vandalism, and a campus-clearing anti-Muslim-accommodation bomb-threats at a public university (Concordia, in Montreal). And of course, within memory of the Quebec mosque attack. 

Maybe I am too much of a 'sensitive' in these times. How do you tolerate intolerance, unreason, an appeal to emotion, a whipping up of fear and loathing? How do you accommodate hate-preachers?

 

As far as dress goes, I'm of the opinion that it should be ignored as a minor issue. Personally I don't think burkhas and hijabs should be the central concern, dress is the tiniest matter when it comes to Shariah and its stealthful implementation in the West. It's a red herring - being cunningly used by some to cause conflicts and undermine liberties.

Wiki observes: "Islamic dress in Europe, notably the variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women, has become a prominent symbol of the presence of Islam in western Europe. In several countries the adherence to hijab (Arabic for "to cover") has led to political controversies and proposals for a legal ban"

It's pathetic and terrible that France in particular, with its proud past, could only make a fuss about clothing. Remember when it started about 10 years ago as girls wearing hijabs to school, and recently about Muslims' dress on beaches! La nudite est la mode Francaise - covering the body - Non! (some moral principle...) -- while backing down to and appeasing extremist, 'immoderate' muslims in every other way. Most French have abandoned any ideological resistance for fear of giving offense and seeming "Islamophobic" to other people. And so the hard right strengthens.

The dress 'symbolism' exhibiting Muslims' religious duty and ultimate submission, has been turned upside-down to be the most significant aspect, while Europeans cravenly acquiesce to more insidious, hate-filled demands. As usual, the complacently obedient westerners go by their feelings first and think no further.

Along with young girls in America making themselves into heroines for a day, by loudly proclaiming their right to wear hijabs, which you'll have seen video debates of, there are the two-faced Lefty feminists who praise and support them. Submission to males! Right!

I say we don't oppose their right to wear what they want, and ignore the "symbolism" and other associations.

Islam at large will continue its own way, but Islam in the form of creeping Sharia law in the West needs to be tackled objectively and rigorously with no compromise to 'multi-cultural tolerationism'. Those insignificant shariah laws e.g. in Islamic home life, lending money, diet, clothing, etc. should not distract us . I think western law makers should carefully separate the harmless laws from the harmful laws and forceful punishments meted out by any Muslims which would contravene western rule of law. Also, immigrant officials interviewing possible immigants may then have clear standards of admission or refusal to go by. "Do you believe a man has the right to beat his wife?" Etc. There can be only one rule of law, and to that all religious laws must indeed "submit". (In the manner of all other non-native groups, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc.) Freedom, love it or leave it. In this way, domestically and internally, a gradual reformation to modernize Islam by Muslims themselves is feasible, in some western nations at least.

[jts]

According to the woman in this video, the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to overthrow America from the inside. The video refuses to embed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u02rRtezF8

 

One way to win a war is to fight the war in such a way that the enemy does not know he is in a war and therefore does nothing. This seems to be what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing.

wiki article about the Muslim Brotherhood

According to the wiki article:

Quote

 

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".^[13] Its mottos include "Believers are but Brothers", "Islam is the Solution", and "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish".^[14][15][16]

 

What does death for the sake of Allah mean? Does it mean convert or die? Or something else?

If the Qur'an is the Constitution, then what do they do with the part of it that tells them to kill nonbelievers? That might not be good strategy at present, see below.

 

Quote

 

The Brotherhood itself claims it is a peaceful, democratic organization,^[27][28] and its leader "condemns violence and violent acts".^[29]

 

This seems to be in conflict with "death for the sake of Allah".

I suspect they are peaceful because currently peace is the best strategy. Anyone who is familiar with the game of chess knows that in chess you build up your position prior to attack like Morphy did. It's the same with war. Before you attack you build up a winning advantage. In war, as in chess, it is bad strategy to attack when the enemy is stronger. Right now they don't have the numbers. I suspect they will get violent as soon as they think they have a decisive advantage.

 

According to wiki, the Muslim Brotherhood has invaded many countries, including UK and USA. One clever strategy is to put Muslims in positions of political power. Perhaps Obama and Merkel and Canada's Justin Trudeau are examples.