Whose Islam?

Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by logicalview »

History months for everyone!
Tarek Fatah
By Tarek Fatah
Toronto Sun

Did you know we’re just completing what Canada’s Parliament has declared as “Islamic History Month”?

Yes, all Octobers in Canada shall be an opportunity for you infidels to learn from my people.

Learn about our often bloody history of conquest and enlightenment, including how we Muslims slaughtered our own Prophet Mohammed’s family, right up to modern times when we committed genocides in Bangladesh and Darfur and tried to kill innocent school girls like Malala Yousafzai.

It’s amazing how Canada is providing us Muslims the opportunity to reconcile the crimes and accomplishments of our forefathers, without us having to fear for our lives.

So, now that we have allotted October to Muslims, how about designating every month of the year as a “History Month” for all the religious (and other) groups in Canada?

Let us start with the Sikhs and designate November as “Sikh History Month”.

And what better month to designate as “Christian History Month” than December?

If Catholics and Protestants do not wish to share December, we can have a coin toss and the loser gets January.

We are now left with seven more months (February, as you all know, is already designated as “Black History Month”) to distribute to the other dozen or so religious communities of Canada.

Here is how I propose we should designate the remaining months of the year (and I am hoping some bright MPs in the House of Commons are listening):

January: Catholic or Protestant History Month, depending on who loses the coin toss

February: Black History Month

March: Baha’i History Month

April: Hindu History Month

May: Shinto History Month

June: Buddhist History Month

July: Jain History Month

August: Zoroastrian History Month

September: Rastafarian History Month

October: Well, we all know this month now belongs to my people.

November: Sikh History Month

December: Winner of the coin toss between Catholics and Protestants

So there you have it. And while we’re at it, let’s just change the names of the months and give them names of religions.

So, for example, today’s date would be 30 Islam, 2013 and Canada Day will fall on the 1st of Jain every year.

Wait a minute? Did we forget someone? Ah ha! The Jews!

Don’t they deserve a month to tell their history?

Nah! The Jews have Israel; they can blow their own trumpets over there.

Compared to us Muslims, who have only 54 countries to live in, yet apparently no place to call home, the Jews have it so easy.

Spirit of equality

But now we are still left with Cheondoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca, Seicho-no-Ie, Scientology, Eckankar, Raelism, Druidry and the good old LaVeyan Satanism from the Great Satan himself, just south of the border.

Perhaps we should add a few extra months to the year to accommodate all religious groups in the spirit of equality.

Indeed, the Ottawa police force is already a step ahead of me.

All this month they have been celebrating Islamic History Month with a banner strung up across their headquarters, declaring their partnership with Islamic groups.

I am told Chief Charles Bordeleau has gone out of his way to learn the history of Islam and the Muslim community.

Perhaps one question that should be asked during Islamic History Month is why so many Muslims leave Islamic countries to live among non-Muslims, while so few non-Muslims apply for citizenship in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran, the triad of countries that runs modern Islamdom?


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/29/hi ... r-everyone
Not afraid to say "It".
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by logicalview »

Islamists besiege two Christian villages in Syria; 13 people killed

By: Barnabas Aid

Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 7:48 (EST)

Islamists besiege two Christian villages in Syria; 13 people killed

(Barnabas Aid) Islamist rebels besieged two Christian villages in Syria, killing around 13 people and forcing thousands of families to evacuate their homes.

Militants from the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front stormed Saddad and Haffar on Monday last week (21 October). Until then, the villages had been relatively safe, and thousands of internally displaced families had sought refuge there.

A Barnabas Fund partner described the scene as 60 armed vehicles entered Saddad: "As the vehicles and armed personnel made their way through the streets, the shouting of “Allah Akbar” [“Allah is great”] and the touting of the Quran made it clear to both permanent and displaced that their time of relative tranquility was quickly coming to an end. As the armed groups began to set up sniper posts and a campaign of shelling, the day moved from bad to worse."

He said children were crying in fear as the militants took over the villages. It is thought that they were being used as a launching point for strikes against a nearby army base and arsenal. The villages are strategically located between the central city of Homs and the capital Damascus.

Around 13 people were killed, with many more wounded, and while many fled, thousands were held as a human shield.

Our partners helped Christian families to evacuate to neighbouring villages, Homs and Damascus. Barnabas sent funds to provide transport, blankets, food parcels and other essentials.

On Monday (28 October), government forces recaptured the villages, enabling people to return.

Our partner said on Monday: "My brother and 15 young persons were going back to Haffar and they were all crying of joy when they learned they could return. We are arranging for twelve minibuses to bring people from Damascus and Homs today to the two villages. Tomorrow we are arranging for two buses to bring people back from Damascus and will see how to support the return of the others. We are preparing to give [everyone] food parcels upon their return."

Saddad and Haffar are the latest Christian villages to be targeted by Islamist rebels in Syria’s civil war. The attacks follow raids on Saidnaya and the takeover of Maaloula; a version of Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is spoken in both places.


http://au.christiantoday.com/article/is ... /16394.htm
Not afraid to say "It".
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by logicalview »

Image

Two French journalists in their late 50's were kidnapped and murdered over the weekend by Religion of Peace activists in Mali..
Not afraid to say "It".
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by logicalview »

The Psychology of Islamic Culture
by EDWARD CLINE November 5, 2013


It is commendable that someone should address the psychological profile of Muslims - that is, of individuals born into the culture of Islam - and Nicolai Sennels does that in his Jihad Watch article of October 30th, "Cultural psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years." I began reading it with some eagerness. Over the years I have had nothing good to say about the psychology or mindset of anyone who was either born into the religion/ideology and never challenged it or attempted to escape it, or who had been converted to it.

Sennels has studied Muslims prisoners in Denmark and has a wealth of insights to offer, one of which is that, from my perspective, at least, Islam provides a purported "moral" base which especially Muslim criminals justify or rationalize their criminal actions. The New English Review published his May 2010 study, "Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences." I had already read that paper and discussed it in "Islam on My Mind" in May 2013.

Sennels' Jihad Watch summary, however, was disappointing. There were a number of statements in it with which I could legitimately quibble. Straight off, the very beginning of the article grated against my sensibilities. He began:


While almost all other cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and egalitarian societies, one culture managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. (Italics mine)

Sennels, apparently born and raised in socialist Denmark, might be forgiven for employing the highlighted terms. Democracy means "mob rule," or, the rule of the majority. What a majority may want and vote for is not necessarily rational or desirable by individuals who value their freedom to live their own lives unencumbered by a political or even the social consensus represented by majority rule. Numbers do not establish political or metaphysical truths.

A "democracy" is not what the Founders intended when they finished writing the Constitution. It was a rights-defending republic whose political structure was designed to stave off or frustrate all "democratic" legislation and collectivist popular sentiment. The American Constitution did not fail in that purpose. Its defenders in the person of our political leadership failed it.

Egalitarianism means the leveling of all to an ever-diminishing measure of "equality." Amendments IV, V and VI in the U.S. Constitution, for example, establish the "equality" of all men under the law, regardless of wealth or "social" status, and regardless of race, religion or gender. Egalitarianism, however, specifically aims to bring the best and the brightest, the ablest, and the exceptional down to a level of common mediocrity. Egalitarianism seeks to erase all measures of value, to reward the undifferentiated and the parasitical and to punish the distinguishable and the productive. One of egalitarianism's ends is to minimize "economic differences" to the point when there is more wealth in the looters' hands than in the hands of those from whom it was looted. This is called "social justice."

Egalitarianism is also altruistic. The most productive, the thrifty, and the virtuous living in an egalitarian society are expected to sacrifice themselves to the moochers, the spendthrifts, and the immoral. They are expected to defer to groups, gangs, and collectives acting in the name of the "public good," and to not complain when their lives have been abbreviated and their wealth expropriated or confiscated outright or by degree. This is the nature of such projects such as ObamaCare, in which the virtuous are expected to subsidize the medical insurance coverage of the least able, and to pay more for the "privilege."

The confusion about the meaning of democracy, and the benign misconstruing of egalitarianism, together have caused incalculable damage, which is why I have dwelt on those subjects here.

But, on to other reservations I have about his paper, keeping in mind that Sennels apparently is not well-versed in political philosophy.

Under the subheading of "Religion," Sennels writes:


One main factor is that while all other religions allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations.

Centuries of religious warfare in the West passed before Christian religions were diluted by Enlightenment ideas and subsequently leashed by secular law and forbidden to wage intramural jihad against members of opposing sects. Islam, however, as Sennels points out, cannot be leashed or similarly contained because its fundamental doctrine is one of conquest and submission.

Sennels under this same subheading reveals one contributing factor to the demonstrable irrationality of Islam and Muslims:


Together with massive inbreeding - 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) - this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.

The inbreeding factor can account for the epistemological myopia of Muslims, particularly Muslim criminals. An inability to think, to project, to employ common syllogisms, to formulate one's own personal values (and not submit to those of the Ummah or the tribe) are all direct results of inbreeding.

Sennels published a revealing article on Muslim inbreeding in May 2013 on Islam vs. Europe, "Serious consequences of Muslim inbreeding." Among those consequences are lower average intelligence and impaired health.


A rough estimate shows that close to half of the world's Muslims are inbred as a result of consanguineous marriages. In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins - children of siblings - and in Turkey the share is 25-30 percent.

Statistical research on Arabic countries indicates that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algeria are blood-related as are 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (the southern part of Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen. According to Dr. Nadia Sakati of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, 45 percent of married Arab couples are blood-related. The fact that many of these couples are themselves children of blood-related parents increases the risk of negative consequences.

Sennels reaches some disturbing conclusions that connect Muslims with terrorism.


The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a socially acceptable way of committing suicide in order to end mental torment.

Being physically handicapped or mentally *bleep* often leads to exclusion. Becoming a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some cases of Down's syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of 72 virgins to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true.

To return to the subject of Arabic translations of books:


Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.

Among those fewer books has been a translation into Arabic of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, precisely because of its virulent antisemitism and because the Nazi worldview is copasetic with the Islamic worldview. Only the "races" have changed, that is, Hitler trumpeted the racial superiority of the Germans, while Islam trumpets the superiority of Islam . Victor David Hanson noted as long ago as September 2006 that:


Hezbollah's black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile, consider Hezbollah's "spiritual" head, Hassan Nasrallah - the current celebrity of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the man's own self-confessed defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on record boasting: "The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death."

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor, maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to "wipe" Israel off the map.

The only surprise about the edition of Hitler's Mein Kampf that has become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title translated as "Jihadi" - as in "My Jihad" - confirming in ironic fashion the "moderate" Islamic claim that Jihad just means "struggle," as in an "inner struggle" - as in a Kampf perhaps.

Under the subheading of "Child rearing" in his Jihad Watch article, Sennels describes the method by which Muslim children are browbeaten into obeying and following the rituals and "truths" of Islam, a scare tactic no so dissimilar from what I experienced growing up in a strict Catholic household. He writes:


Together with the wide use of violence and even torture within Muslim families, the horrific amount of daily family executions of Muslim youth, this is enough to keep the vast majority from even considering escaping the way of the Sharia. The Qur'an's and the Hadiths' many promises of hellfire to those who go against Muhammad's orders and example scares many from leavin the culture that bring them so much suffering.

Precisely. My own childhood thoughts on the matter were: If you need to frighten me into being a "good" Catholic, where is the moral argument? For example, watching on TV the various productions of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol in my formative years, when I witnessed Scrooge being terrorized into becoming a "virtuous" man, simply buttressed my conclusion that there was no moral argument other than "we say so, and take it on faith." So I can imagine how fearful a Muslim would be to question the "say so's" of his imam, mullah, or the Qur'an.

Fear of retribution may be one factor contributing to a rank-and-file Muslim's reluctance to question his "faith." Delving a little more deeply into that psychology, I would think that it is more a matter of being comfortable with an ideology/religion that makes no demands on one's mind. All one need do is conform to the rituals and strictures and one is left is alone.

Under the subheading "Ethnic pride," Sennels drops the ball and does not elaborate on the fact that Islam is not a "race," but an ideology. I'm sure he realizes this, but it would have helped if he had mentioned it in passing. There are Arabic, Asian, black, Caucasian (converts), Chinese, and Indian and Pakistani Muslims, to name but a few ethnic or national groups.


Another cultural psychological factor enabling Islamic culture to remain unchanged in a globalised world with all its possibilities concerns Muslims' ethnic pride. No matter how ridiculous or embarrassing it may seem to the outsider, most Muslims are proud of being Muslim and a follower of Islam. According to Islam they are destined to dominate the rest of us, and we are so bad that we deserve the eternal fire.

Muslim spokesmen charging critics of Islam with "Islamophobia" imply or state directly that such a phobia is "racist." Too many Westerners fall for the fallacy and join in the wolf-pack howling to punish "Islamophobes," whether they write cogent books critical of Islam or leave a pig's head on the doorstep of a mosque. It makes no difference to the pitchfork-and-torch mobs.

Without quibbling about when the Dark Ages ended and the Medieval and Enlightenment eras began, Islam is product of the Dark Ages, of the 7th century, an enemy of knowledge, enlightenment, and freedom - if the Dark Ages can be described as a period in human history when superstition, ignorance, and slavery governed human existence.

Also, I don't know if many Muslims can say that they are "proud" of being Muslim. If there is any emotion at all, one can't imagine that it is anything other than a seething, repressed resentment of anyone who is not a Muslim, that is, of anyone who is not committed to a set of primitive rules that govern his existence and prohibit any kind of meaningful happiness. Pride, after all, implies a self that can take stock of one's virtues and one's relationship with existence and with other men. Islam, however, does its best to erase the notion of "self" from one's existence.

Islam is anti-life, anti-mind, anti-value, and anti-man. That is why it has been able to remain unchanged for 1,400 years. Its chief "strength" is its nihilistic nature, proof against all thought and life-affirming values. And there are just too many people - namely, Muslims - willing to surrender their minds to the suffocating comfort zone of "authority." Muslims don't have a corner on that "original sin" - the refusal to think - but their totalitarian ideology is an immediate peril to those who do choose to think.

I can't say I'm the first to say it: Islam is a mental illness. That's its fundamental psychology, the debilitating and crippling legacy of its founder transmitted through fourteen centuries of Muslim madness to its contemporary spokesmen, leaders, and rank-and-file.

The illness, however, is no defense against Islam's essential criminal character.


http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... ic-culture
Not afraid to say "It".
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36407
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by Glacier »

"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by maryjane48 »

I did not know promoting hate against a segment of the world population was Allowed On here
User avatar
Thinktank
Guru
Posts: 8954
Joined: Nov 5th, 2010, 6:21 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by Thinktank »

lakevixen wrote:I did not know promoting hate against a segment of the world population was Allowed On here


It's not. A few people do it anyway. It makes them feel good.
If you have to be persuaded reminded bullied pressured bribed incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished and criminalized, to gain your compliance- the thing is no good
User avatar
ifwisheswerehorses
Übergod
Posts: 1085
Joined: Jul 14th, 2010, 1:58 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by ifwisheswerehorses »

Where are you finding hate?
Islam is what it is. Those that believe are perpetuating hate against all others by their actions or lack there of in deference to their own beliefs. It is a belief of fear, ignorance and intolerance whose aim is to convert or decimate populations. That's hate.
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret.
User avatar
sobrohusfat
Guru
Posts: 5898
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2008, 12:42 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by sobrohusfat »

lakevixen wrote:I did not know promoting hate against a segment of the world population was Allowed On here


I'm sure that would be dealt with if it ever comes up.


"The biggest threat to freedom is the spread of totalitarian philosophy. I don't worry so much about the fanaticism of the enemy... I worry about the confusion on our side. That is the problem."
- Pamela Geller
The adventure continues...

No good story ever started with; "So i stayed home."
User avatar
Thinktank
Guru
Posts: 8954
Joined: Nov 5th, 2010, 6:21 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by Thinktank »

sobrohusfat wrote:I'm sure that would be dealt with if it ever comes up.





good one.

You know how things work.

It's not exactly fair.
If you have to be persuaded reminded bullied pressured bribed incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished and criminalized, to gain your compliance- the thing is no good
User avatar
Thinktank
Guru
Posts: 8954
Joined: Nov 5th, 2010, 6:21 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by Thinktank »

According to that Jewish guy in the video, people who are not Muslims
such as Jews and Christians are 'most violent' and 'apes and pigs.'

I know parts of the bible talks about slaying the enemy with the sword .

Now let's hear what the Talmud says to do with enemies, or what it ways about people who don't believe.

Sobrohusfat - tell us what the talmud says. So we would all know.
If you have to be persuaded reminded bullied pressured bribed incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished and criminalized, to gain your compliance- the thing is no good
User avatar
sobrohusfat
Guru
Posts: 5898
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2008, 12:42 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by sobrohusfat »

Ok TT, at the risk of getting blindsided by the forum linebacker for derailing this thread, here's how I understand the difference.

In the Torah, everything that was established as instructions from our creator was intended for our good - based on the premise that life is something sacred. This was meant to benefit all mankind. That's why the instructions were to include all non jews that lived amongst the israelites and why the temple priests had been instructed to include offerings on behalf of all people from all nations. (even though those nations were predominantly pagan at the time).

One of the things the scriptures consistently highlights is the importance of our humility and the value of others. The view presented in the Torah is to see others as having inherent value in the eyes of the All Mighty - even those we consider our enemies and who act in the most vile and hostile way towards us.

Jonah resisted going to Niniveh not because it was too far and he didn't feel like going on a road trip just then, it was because the Assyrians were actively hostile towards the people of Israel. But he was still supposed to go there with a genuine message of repentance and of God's mercy... to a hostile pagan enemy.

Those are consistent themes: Humility - Repentance - Forgiveness - Life.

I don't know much about the Talmud but I do know Rabbis have always debated and argued in endless detail over a lot of things. Even so, I'm confident those themes I mentioned will always be found there. And i'll bet If anyone tries to convince you otherwise, and you examine the source closely, you'll soon find a consistent theme with their writings too.

Regarding a blessing against the heretics and the wicked in the Amidah:
There were certain hooligans who resided in the neighborhood of Rabbi Meir, and they caused him much misery and anguish. Once, Rabbi Meir prayed for mercy regarding them, so that they would die.

His wife Beruriah said to him, "What makes you think that such a prayer is permitted? Is it because the verse states 'Let sinners [chataim] cease from the earth'? But is it written 'chotim'—sinners? No, rather it is written 'chataim' — that which causes one to sin, namely the evil inclination. Furthermore, the end of the verse continues, '…and let the wicked be no more.' Since the sins will cease, there will be no more wicked men!

"Rather," she concluded, "pray for them that they should repent, and there will be no more wicked people."

He did pray for them, and they repented.

The truth about the Talmud: http://talmud.faithweb.com/


...and from Proverbs:
"When your enemy falls, do not rejoice; when he stumbles, let your heart not be gladdened. Lest G‑d see, and it will be displeasing in His eyes, and He will turn His wrath from him to you."

If you still can't recognise the difference even with the scriptures, the rabbinic writtings and the whole wide world around you, oh well... and now supper's ready here so...

back on topic
The adventure continues...

No good story ever started with; "So i stayed home."
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by logicalview »

lakevixen wrote:I did not know promoting hate against a segment of the world population was Allowed On here


You and TT should consider a career in broadcasting in Norway...

If they’re thugs, then, it’s our fault. They may rob or rape or kill us – but even as they’re doing so, we’re still the bad guys, and they’re still the real victims.

Such is the argument advanced by these two NRK journalists. It’s clear enough what happened here: Arild and Elin, in their urgent quest to avoid thinking of themselves as “racists,” grasped onto their intruder’s claim that he and his buddy would never have committed such an offense if their asylum applications hadn’t been rejected. This allows Arild and Elin to suggest that if only all asylum seekers were allowed in, such transgressions would be a thing of the past.

The tiny little problem with this proposition is that Arild and Elin’s rhetoric bears virtually no relationship to reality. Repeated horror stories coming from the asylum centers – where stabbings and riots are frequent occurrences – only serve to underscore the fact that we’re not speaking here about gentle souls driven to violence by cruel circumstance; rather, we’re speaking about a systematic, reckless endangerment of the Norwegian people by authorities who share Arild and Elin’s immunity to the facts about the people they’re importing into the country and planting, like bombs, in previously peacable rural villages. And the facts are very much on the side of those who argue for locked asylum centers and for sending rejected applicants back home at once.

In recent years, violent felonies by asylum seekers have become an outrageously disproportionate part of Norwegian life. One morning in 2004, on the same tram that my partner took to work every day at almost exactly that hour, a Somali man stabbed five people, killing one, 23-year-old Terje Mjåland (who, being deaf, may not have heard his fellow passengers’ screams). Did he deserve it? Two years later, an asylum seeker from Algeria walked into the Oslo office of a remarkably kind, gentle doctor I knew, Stein Sjaastad, and stabbed him to death. Did he deserve it?

Arild and Elin have a proposal: “Why not open the borders and let them regulate themselves?” After all, they ask, what are international boundaries other than lines on a map that have been “constantly shifting all through history”? That being the case, how can we think we have the right “to refuse to let people cross the lines we have drawn around us?” Yes, they’re aware of Oslo’s current wave of robberies and burglaries (the overwhelming majority of which have been committed by “non-Western immigrants”), and they claim to understand the need to fight crime. But the most effective approach, they say, is to “fight the need to commit crime” by “helping the dreamers – illegal immigrants – who are standing helpless on the streets of Europe.” In other words, the solution to bloodthirsty lawlessness by non-Western immigrants is to bring in more of them. If Norwegians don’t do so, “we will only continue to get what we deserve.”

So ends Arild’s and Elin’s op-ed. Reading it online, I couldn’t wait to see the reader comments. Alas, at the bottom of the page I found this single sentence: “The comments section was clos ed on Saturday afternoon owing to several hateful and harassing posts.” Not only was it closed – the comments had been removed. Fortunately, the website document.no has reproduced them. There are hundreds, maybe thousands. I read a few dozen. They’re not “hateful and harassing.” They’re the reactions of Norwegians who have their heads screwed on straight and who’ve had it with the likes of Arild and Elin, whom they describe, variously, as “naïve,” “warped and indoctrinated,” and fiercely determined “to be politically correct.”

Indeed. For my part, I’m grateful to Arild and Elin for providing this illuminating glimpse into the psychology of political correctness. They describe their burglars as desperate to get home. But it’s Arild and Elin who, after their awful experience, were desperate to get “back home” – back home, that is, to the comforting certainties of their PC ideology.

And they did. What a stirring triumph! Their ideology came smack up against reality – and yet they found a way to cling to it nonetheless.

I look forward to their commentary on the country’s latest atrocity. On Monday evening, a rejected asylum seeker from South Sudan hijacked a bus in western Norway and murdered three people. He was living in a nearby asylum center that had been in operation for just three months ago. If the Progress Party had had its way, the center would have been locked – but of course that would’ve been inhuman. If the locals had had their way, according to news reports, the center would never have been there in the first place: it was forced upon them by county officials, who considered their opposition xenophobic.

The murder victims were the bus driver, a Swedish passenger in his fifties, and a 19-year-old girl who was identified as Margaret Molland Sanden, a chemistry and biotechnology student at the College of Oslo and Akershus whose Facebook page shows that she was a fan of Bob Dylan and of 24. Three unfortunate deaths, undoubtedly. But, after all, they got what they deserved. Right?


Full story here:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawe ... eserve-it/
Not afraid to say "It".
User avatar
Thinktank
Guru
Posts: 8954
Joined: Nov 5th, 2010, 6:21 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by Thinktank »

sobrohusfat wrote:In the Torah, everything that was established as instructions from our creator was intended for our good - based on the premise that life is something sacred.



Jeremiah 18 ( from the old testament Bible )

Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.

And the Talmud is even worse. There are parts in the Talmud that are really disgusting. ( supposedly - I never saw a Talmud in my life)

So I believe that Jewish goofball Robert Spencer is being deliberately dishonest when he speaks
at an event sponsored by the Jewish defense League. The Muslims Koran also has lots of nice
things just like the bible - but Spencer only picks out the dirty ugly parts of that religious book.
If you have to be persuaded reminded bullied pressured bribed incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished and criminalized, to gain your compliance- the thing is no good
User avatar
sobrohusfat
Guru
Posts: 5898
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2008, 12:42 am

Re: Whose Islam?

Post by sobrohusfat »

TT,

The only consolation i can think to offer you is that the text you quoted was referring to jews.

Jeremiah had desperately tried to help and warn his people.

They responded by trying to destroy him.

I doubt Jeremiah was happy that they consequently consigned themselves to what he described as their own inevitable demise.


Thinktank wrote:There are parts in the Talmud that are really disgusting. ( supposedly - I never saw a Talmud in my life)


'nuff said.
The adventure continues...

No good story ever started with; "So i stayed home."

Return to “Religion & Spirituality”