[article]'fascist fanaticism and radicalism is now rife amoung our young'

IT Loser · 06-09-2006 9:23pm

Hello Frank.

I was referring to the doubling of the Islamic community in this State over the course of the last 8 years.

Vis a vis my "dramatics".....The Islamic Community in Ireland has effectively described members of its own youth in a colour which I find bears a distinct similarity to the histories of the 4 "men" who were "involved" on July 7th, 2005.

Diogenes · 07-09-2006 12:40am

IT Loser wrote:

Islam understands one thing and one thing only: Cast-iron, copper-bottomed, gilt edged RESISTANCE

What?. JUST WHAT has this Country done to warrant Islamic attack? What has this country done to Islamic youth that has so offended them.

What evidence do you present that Islamic youth want to attack this country?

The original post has been widely discredited.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 3:39pm

They have attacked:

Spain {on the flimsiest of grounds}

The UK {on the flimsiest of grounds}

The United States {on the flimsiest of grounds}

THEY HAVE PLANNED ATTACKS AGAINST

Germany {see above}

Spain {see above}

France

America {what? Again?}

And then when the Islamic leaders HERE suspect that their youth have fallen prey to the same tendencies as their UK equivalents...well...figure it out.

Why did Hitler attack Poland? Because it was there.

Why did Hillary climb Everest? Because it was there.

Why will Muslims bomb Ireland? Because we are here. And so are the Muslims.

Do you really expect me to accept arguments to the contrary? Why was a suspect package "accidentally" left behind in Dublin Airport on the VERY ANNIVERSARY of the 7/7 bombings?

Who left it behind? A Muslim. Such coincidence.They laugh at our very suffering.

The Gardai are pathetically unequipped. Criminal Intelligence is way out of touch- tied up as it is with the IRA, Drugs etc. The Media has the youth hoodwinked into thinking that there is no threat. We're all friends. John Waters knows where its at, everybodies a racist and you are too. 88% of the Country SAYS NO to the ICCL/Labour Party view of a Multi-Cultural Ireland and RTE barely even cover the story.

Put it all together: KA-BOOM

And..when it happens, expect Prime Time and John Boy Bowman to pore over Irelands foreign policy with a view to "forensically" determining what we did to offend the Muslims. Ate pork on a Friday? Didn't burn the Danish Embassy?

We have done nothing to warrant attack...but we have wackos like Khalid "St James Gate" Kelly telling us that we have it coming to us.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 3:45pm

Jackie laughlin wrote:

An Irish muslim medical Doctor said on Newstalk 106 (Orla Barry Show) this morning that militant anti-Western views are now commonplace among his patients.

Right.

All we have to do is do something which they find remotely offensive, like, I don't know, give pig farmers in Laois subsidies or grants, and you're looking at a coountdown to violence from these people.

Thats all they want.

A HINT of an excuse.

WHO DISPUTES IT?

RedPlanet · 07-09-2006 3:47pm

IT Loser wrote:

We have done nothing to warrant attack...but we have wackos like Khalid "St James Gate" Kelly telling us that we have it coming to us.

Not quite.
We are facilitating one party of conflict via their use of Shannon.
According to the rules of war, Saddam Hussien's Iraq (or parties thereof) would have every right to blow the piss out of Shannon.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 3:58pm

Perhaps....But Khalid "The Brewerman" Kelly IS NOT Saddam Hussein.

In fact, now that the preparatory aspect of the initial US advance into Iraq is over, and Husseins regime is gone, the "rules of war" argument is basically deflated.

But there is another "rules of war"...this Jihad crap.

As if America NEEDED Shannon.

The crimes of Islam against 10 million Copts in Egype FAR OUTWEIGH those of Ireland against Islam.

But hey, who the fvck am I.?

wes · 07-09-2006 4:06pm

So somehow the actions of the few fanatics is blamed on all Muslims?

So some Muslims speak out against extremism and saying it could be a problem and we are suddendly all out for blood (the Muslims).

Most of us you know have the cop on to know that killing innocent people is wrong, just because some Muslims don't, doesn't make us all as a group culpable for the actions of the extremists whom we have no control over, them being extremists and all.

Diogenes · 07-09-2006 5:14pm

Loser, I'm not even going to try and address most of your "points", merely point out if the British government operated on your thinking, every Irishman and woman would have been deported from the UK in 1971.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 8:11pm

Diogenes wrote:

Loser, I'm not even going to try and address most of your "points", merely point out if the British government operated on your thinking, every Irishman and woman would have been deported from the UK in 1971.

And the bombings would have stopped. And the wrong people WOULDN'T have been arrested. And because of that, the ass would have fallen out of the IRA and their recruitment campaign.

Now, I never said Deport Them All.

I merely said that a bombing is coming. And there's nothing, not a damn thing, that the "moderates" can or will do.

If there was, they'd have done it.

They figure that the damage to their flock is less in the event of a bombing than it is in the event of them shearing some of their flock. Thats if they even knew who to shear, which, by and large, they don't.

And when it happens, who's prepared to put money on the Imams failing to stand up and denounce it in forthright, unambiguous langauage. Cos they won't.

It'll be "ooohh Killing is Wrong"....etc. But nobody will stand up and say "Siddique Khan, Damn Him To Hell".

Pathetic.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 8:15pm

wes wrote:

So somehow the actions of the few fanatics is blamed on all Muslims?

So some Muslims speak out against extremism and saying it could be a problem and we are suddendly all out for blood (the Muslims).

Most of us you know have the cop on to know that killing innocent people is wrong, just because some Muslims don't, doesn't make us all as a group culpable for the actions of the extremists whom we have no control over, them being extremists and all.

Wes......I am prepared to admit that the Imams and Sheiks and what have you have little if any control over the general Islamic community.

But they had at one point.

Twenty-something Muslims don't fall out of the sky. They are born and reared.

We know who birthed them.

But who is rearing them?

Where is the intervention during those crucial childhood and teenage years.

IT IS ABSENT

WHY IS IT ABSENT?

WHY ARE PEOPLE COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY WITH THEIR NEGATIVE VIEWS OF THE WEST

STAY OUT OF HERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT

IF YOU COME HERE AND DON'T LIKE IT AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN YOU'LL GET YOURS

WANT A CALIPHATE? FINE. BUT NOT HERE.

IT Loser · 07-09-2006 8:27pm

wes wrote:

So somehow the actions of the few fanatics is blamed on all Muslims?

So some Muslims speak out against extremism and saying it could be a problem and we are suddendly all out for blood (the Muslims).

Most of us you know have the cop on to know that killing innocent people is wrong, just because some Muslims don't, doesn't make us all as a group culpable for the actions of the extremists whom we have no control over, them being extremists and all.

The fact that the leader of the Sup. Council addressed the issue is NOT why I am "out for blood" as you have put it {Most of the blood spilled in the West since 9/11 has been Christian, now that you mention it}

In fact, the leader of the SC should be commended. At least he has not trotted out the same old yarn of "no problem here.....why all the fuss" etc etc

What I am railing against is this: the fact that we have a problem...and the fact that we have a problem, here, in little Catholic Ireland, is because NO MATTER WHERE MUSLIMS GO A HARDCORE MINORITY WILL ACCEPT THE SOCIAL WELFARE CHEQUES AND THEN, OVER TIME, PARTICIPATE IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AGAINST THE PEOPLE, AGAINST THE STATE, AGAINST THEIR OWN ETHNIC PEOPLES AND AGAINST THEIR OWN RELIGION

And that is the bottom line.

IT HAS HAPPENED IN SPAIN {a particularly savage example, involving Moroccan Hashish, Moroccan business men, Moroccan perps...Christian Sympathisers, you name it}

IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE UK

IT HAS HAPPENED IN FRANCE

IT WILL HAPPEN IN AUSTRIA AND IT WILL HAPPEN IN GERMANY AND IT HAS HAPPENED IN MOSCOW

You Know what Shamil Basayev was? A computer salesman. Couldn't hack it so he found militant Islam.

Are you telling me that Siddique Khan, a teacher, an educated man, was just suddenly brainwashed into his suicide attack?

Are you telling me that he was sooooo enraged by the actions of HIS GOVT in Iraq, that he was driven to militant suicide and murder?

Nonsense, a man like that had it in him for a long long time. That was no over night change. He was bad from way back.

I'm not here to offend individual folk. I'm just saying....that I see a pattern and I am compelled to point it out.

Diogenes · 07-09-2006 11:37pm

IT Loser wrote:

And the bombings would have stopped. And the wrong people WOULDN'T have been arrested. And because of that, the ass would have fallen out of the IRA and their recruitment campaign.

Well thats hopelessly naieve. IRA members would find a way to make it to the UK they have travelled under false passports before and during that time period

Now, I never said Deport Them All.

I merely said that a bombing is coming. And there's nothing, not a damn thing, that the "moderates" can or will do.

If there was, they'd have done it.

I'm sorry that is literally the most tortured logic I've ever seen. You presume a bombing will occur, you presume that the moderates cannot or will not do something, and as evidence you present that theres nothing they have done.

That kind of false postive lunatic logic is bizarre, we know bombing will occur becuase moderates have done nothing to stop it

Warped dude, just warped.

They figure that the damage to their flock is less in the event of a bombing than it is in the event of them shearing some of their flock. Thats if they even knew who to shear, which, by and large, they don't.

Facts links evidence proof? Unless you start supporting this BS I'm just going to report you to Mods.

And when it happens, who's prepared to put money on the Imams failing to stand up and denounce it in forthright, unambiguous langauage. Cos they won't.

Because they haven't before? No wait they have, Consistently come forward and dennounced it but because an extremist gives a better sound bite thats the one the newspapers go with.

It'll be "ooohh Killing is Wrong"....etc. But nobody will stand up and say "Siddique Khan, Damn Him To Hell".

Pathetic.

Yeah that last word would sum up your contribution to this debate.

InFront · 10-09-2006 6:43pm

Sorry havent really been around lately so Im not sure what else has been said on this issue. But IT Loser, your ramblings are really hard to follow despite the dramatic one liners and are sincerely lacking in logic, calm rationality or measured conclusions. What exactly are you trying to tell us??

Wibbs in relation to your post on what you seem to perceive as the secret life of Muhammad p; what exactly are you trying to tell us? Muhammad p. was a bad man or encouraged violence? I don't think you can actually give that any credibility yourself, its an incredibly blurred vision.
We could go into it if you want but it seems rather pointless. i could start talking about the evils of pope John Paul, but to be honest Ive no interest in making any such defamations to explain the evil acts of Christians such as geroge W Bush or Tony Blair.

While most people seem to draw natural parallells between Muhammad pbuh, and the 9/11 or Madrid or London bombers, few people make similar parrallells in other religions, and I can never understand that. Anybody here associate fundamentalist Christians who want to kill gays with what regular Dublin churchgoers believe is God's word in the bible? Anyone here ever try to bundle in the fundamentalist with the Figlas catholic and think 'the bible is wrong'? No, you just accept that some people act outside of Christianity of course. So you must also accept that people, Muslims, act outside of Islam, and therefore not try and find an explanation in Islam or the action of Muhammad pbuh, as that is not where the fundamentalist action is springing from. Extremists dont really care about that.

I dont see the relevence in studying Muhammad pbuh to discover the motives of the suicide bombers, the militant mujihideen, when the true inspirators are much more worldly and present amongst us. That is, the world which everyone is respobsible for, not a holy Muslim prophet who died in 632. Its a bit late to be blaming Him.

Schuhart · 10-09-2006 8:51pm

InFront wrote:

I dont see the relevence in studying Muhammad pbuh to discover the motives of the suicide bombers, the militant mujihideen, when the true inspirators are much more worldly and present amongst us.

Indeed, it is simply ridiculous to lump the whole Islamic world together and equate what they stand for with the actions of terrorists in the same way as all Irish people can hardly be lumped in with our various paramilitaries.

Equally, there needs to be some appreciation that for most adherents Islam, like Christianity, is an inherited religion. Hence, the first reaction of an adherent to criticism of the faith is likely to be defensive. The first time I saw the phrase ‘the Pope is anti-Christ’ it seemed so utterly illogical that I could not understand what it meant. If your granny believed all this stuff, and she was a darling, it’s a bit of leap to accept others have a very different perception of the whole enterprise.

Is the person of Mohammed above question? It may well have to do with coming from a Christian background, but I’m not sure if that’s the whole story. Mohammed’s career does seem to involve an amount of bloodshed and battles with opposing groups. The bits about dividing up captive women among his followers sort of stick in my mind. The impression created is the guy was just using religion as a tool of statecraft. I don’t doubt his actions were par for the course at the time, but it makes a stark contrast to the brief career of Christ which consists of, as Douglas Adams puts it, being nailed to a tree for saying ‘lets be good to each other’. Certainly, its seems harder for a Christian terrorist to say ‘sure Jesus did much the same, he was a right gurrier’.

That said, Christianity certainly has a body count behind it as well. Hence, some do blame religion in general for a lot of trouble. As Richard Dawkins says

Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."

It can inspire people to do pretty awful things, just for the sake of some illusion. I think Dawkins overstates the case, but I agree that religion in general has at this stage become a barrier to further human (and humane) development. I’m afraid that means that, while I don’t hold Islam individually and primarily responsible for terrorism, I do feel it is a belief system worthy of criticism – particularly as the main faith does seem to share much of the look and feel of pre Vatican II Catholicism.

InFront · 10-09-2006 10:11pm

Schuhart wrote:

I agree that religion in general has at this stage become a barrier to further human (and humane) development. I’m afraid that means that, while I don’t hold Islam individually and primarily responsible for terrorism, I do feel it is a belief system worthy of criticism – particularly as the main faith does seem to share much of the look and feel of pre Vatican II Catholicism.

That is merely an extension of what Wibbs was saying earlier on, it amounts to the same thing, that Islam is somehow answerable for terrorism. Islam is not even remotely answerable for terrorism.
Where was Islam in the early 20th century? It was in Muslim India, in the middle east, in Africa, in East London... anywhere there were Muslims. It was always here with us, people just havent noticed it. Muslims were not always identified with violent extremism in the west, in fact it's not too long ago when Pakistani gentlemen would have been trusted with a gun far more readily than an Irishman.
And you are right, there has been no Mecca II, or whatever the Muslim equivalent might be if we were to somehow attempt to change Islam (a thing actually impossible). So then the answer must be, that Islam is not the problem here, it is an ancient religion, so what is causing this new problem? Politics. Simply bad politics.

That is not to say that normal Muslims are not responsible, just to say that normal Muslims, Sheikhs, clerics, teachers, parents are no more responsible for atrocities that you are. A Muslim has absolutely no reason to feel guilty over a terrorist attack more so than you (anyone) could have. There is no problem with Islam, there is a problem with some people in Islam, and with a Heck of a lot of people outside of Islam.

Mohammed’s career does seem to involve an amount of bloodshed and battles with opposing groups. The bits about dividing up captive women among his followers sort of stick in my mind. The impression created is the guy was just using religion as a tool of statecraft. I don’t doubt his actions were par for the course at the time, but it makes a stark contrast to the brief career of Christ which consists of, as Douglas Adams puts it, being nailed to a tree for saying ‘lets be good to each other’.

Well don't forget the importance of Jesus Christ, peace be upon Him, as a Muslim Prophet.
Whatever one thinks of Muhammad pbuh, that is probably his own perogative, and because this is a Humanities forum it's not really for a Muslim to change your mind, only to say that I disagree and think that the comparison of the life of the two prophets you mention is an obstructively facile one.
The point is, if one was inspiring such turmoil at the time, as you seems to suggest, why are the results only being seen now? The real trigger is not Islam, perhaps Islam is the firewood, but US foreign policy, and violent westernism is the match.

Wibbs · 11-09-2006 8:58am

InFront wrote:

But IT Loser, your ramblings are really hard to follow despite the dramatic one liners and are sincerely lacking in logic, calm rationality or measured conclusions. What exactly are you trying to tell us??

Was trying to figure that one out myself. Drop me a line if you come up with anything.

Wibbs in relation to your post on what you seem to perceive as the secret life of Muhammad p;

It's not the secret life. It's pretty much in plain sight and it doesn't square with the oft quoted stuff about Mohammed being a man of peace, certainly not in his later exploits when the early Muslims gained a foothold and power.

what exactly are you trying to tell us? Muhammad p. was a bad man or encouraged violence?

In his early ministry I would say that the compassion element was strong, but it seems there are two Mohammeds. The later one appears far more militant and aggressive. The "turn the other cheek" aspect is lacking when compared to other faith founders. As I've said before. Mohammed is pretty much the only faith founder that consistently took up arms against non believers and those who questioned or "mocked" his faith. The latter is very pertinent to the idea of deadly censorship in Islam. It gives succour to those loopers within the faith to kill in the name of it. After all if Mohammed himself asked others to kill in the name of the faith, it's not surprising that some of his followers will do it today.

I don't think you can actually give that any credibility yourself,

Yep I could.

i could start talking about the evils of pope John Paul, but to be honest Ive no interest in making any such defamations to explain the evil acts of Christians such as geroge W Bush or Tony Blair.

Different thing entirely. If jesus had ordered the deaths and assasinations of dissenters and enemies you might have a case. He didn't yet christians have done that throughout the history of Christianity. How much easier would it be to justify such actions if Jesus had done the same things?

While most people seem to draw natural parallells between Muhammad pbuh, and the 9/11 or Madrid or London bombers, few people make similar parrallells in other religions, and I can never understand that.

Simply because while there are violent fundamentalists of all hues and faiths, even violent "devout" Buddhists(which is a contradiction in terms) and humans are perfectly capable of violence even when it's against the precepts of their devoted faith, the backing for such actions from the founders of other faiths is significantly less.

Anybody here associate fundamentalist Christians who want to kill gays with what regular Dublin churchgoers believe is God's word in the bible? Anyone here ever try to bundle in the fundamentalist with the Figlas catholic and think 'the bible is wrong'?

No and similarly I don't regard 90% of Muslims as hellbent on sharia and stoning for blasphemy.

So you must also accept that people, Muslims, act outside of Islam, and therefore not try and find an explanation in Islam or the action of Muhammad pbuh,

That's the problem. As I've said in many ways these people are not acting "out of Islam". In fact some of them could argue that they're following the Prophet's life better than most(not in the killing of non combatants though. That wouldnt be approved by Mohammed).

That is, the world which everyone is respobsible for, not a holy Muslim prophet who died in 632. Its a bit late to be blaming Him.

Many would equally argue that maybe it's a bit late to be following some of his teachings and example.

Schuhart wrote:

Is the person of Mohammed above question?

It is to the vast majority of Muslims

It may well have to do with coming from a Christian background, but I’m not sure if that’s the whole story. Mohammed’s career does seem to involve an amount of bloodshed and battles with opposing groups. The bits about dividing up captive women among his followers sort of stick in my mind. The impression created is the guy was just using religion as a tool of statecraft. I don’t doubt his actions were par for the course at the time, but it makes a stark contrast to the brief career of Christ which consists of, as Douglas Adams puts it, being nailed to a tree for saying ‘lets be good to each other’. Certainly, its seems harder for a Christian terrorist to say ‘sure Jesus did much the same, he was a right gurrier’.

Exactly(and I'm no christian).

InFront wrote:

Islam is not even remotely answerable for terrorism.

No of course not. It may however be in some way answerable for a particular kind of Islamic terrorism.

if we were to somehow attempt to change Islam (a thing actually impossible)

That's a problem right there.

Well don't forget the importance of Jesus Christ, peace be upon Him, as a Muslim Prophet.

Which has little to do with the point at hand as Mohammed is the final say in the matter for Muslims. Otherwise Mohammed would have turned the other cheek and not started a religious empire. His kingdom was definitely of this earth.

only to say that I disagree and think that the comparison of the life of the two prophets you mention is an obstructively facile one.

Not really, the comparisons are interesting to say the least, regardless of the actions of subsequent followers.

The point is, if one was inspiring such turmoil at the time, as you seems to suggest, why are the results only being seen now?

Well the turmoil had been going on since early Islam spread from Arabia, from the violent deaths of the early Caliphs to the imperial expansion into non Muslim lands. Naturally as it was much an empire building tool as a religion. While I concede that many times the Islamic rule was preferable to Christian(Roman) rule at the time, militant Islam was there from the very beginning, led by the founder of the faith himself.

perhaps Islam is the firewood, but US foreign policy, and violent westernism is the match.

There is much in that. I would only say that people are the firewood, violent westernism may be the match, but Islam is the petrol.

InFront · 11-09-2006 10:47am

Wibbs wrote:

but it seems there are two Mohammeds. The later one appears far more militant and aggressive.

I think that is more than a bit unfair, to in obedience of the Qur'an, he fought those who fought him, and he was not an aggressor. Again, I don't see the point in trying to blame Muhammad pbuh, for 2006 politics, but if you can find an example of Muhammad p the aggressor then tell us.

The "turn the other cheek" aspect is lacking when compared to other faith founders.

Here is a problem, what do you mean faith founder? Muhammad pbuh, is not the founder of Islam, Allah founded Islam. Muhammad pbuh, is a the last prophet of that foundation, not the first. Perhaps he is what you might retrospectively now call "The first Protestant". The gentleness that you see in the Christian Jesus Christ pbuh is there in the Muslim Prophet Jesus Christ p as well. If you look at Muhammad pbuh it is there with him as well.

From PakistanLink.com, on forgiveness in Islam
The Prophet -peace be upon him- was the most forgiving person. He was ever ready to forgive his enemies. When he went to Ta’if to preach the message of Allah, its people mistreated him. They abused him and hit him with stones.

He left the city humiliated and wounded. When he took shelter under a tree, the angel of Allah visited him and told him that Allah sent him to destroy the people of Ta’if because of their sin of mistreating their Prophet. The Prophet -peace be upon him- prayed to Allah to save the people of Taif, because what they did was out of their ignorance. He said, “O Allah, guide these people, because they did not know what they were doing.” When he entered the city of Makkah after the victory, the Prophet -peace be upon him- had in front of him some of his staunchest enemies. Those who fought him for many years, persecuted his followers and killed many of them. Now he had full power to do whatever he wanted to punish them for their crimes. It is reported that the Prophet -peace be upon him- asked them, “What do you think I shall do to you now?” They pleaded for mercy. The Prophet -peace be upon him- said, “Today I shall say to you what Joseph (referring to Prophet Yusuf -peace be upon him- as mentioned in the Qur’an, Yusuf 12:92) said to his brothers, ‘No blame on you today. Go, you are all free.” Soon they all came and accepted Islam at his hands. He forgave even Hind who had caused the murder of his uncle Hamza -may Allah be pleased with him. After killing him she had his body mutilated and chewed his liver. When she accepted Islam, the Prophet even forgave her.

As I've said before. Mohammed is pretty much the only faith founder that consistently took up arms against non believers and those who questioned or "mocked" his faith.

When did he ever take up arms against non believers? never. As for mocking his faith can you give any examples in the sacred texts at all on that?

militant Islam was there from the very beginning, led by the founder of the faith himself.

Well no, because that wasnt what I would call militanitism, but self protection, and protection of Islam as was his call to do.

yes, there have always been Muslims who misinterpret Islam, and I daresay there always will be at least on this Earth as it is now. Im simply asking why you suddenly have British Muslims bombing their own people, which didnt happen until very very recently. It always annoys me when (and Im not talking about anyone here of course) when people say well we shouldnt have let so many Muslims in to begin with. The point is that people cant see beyond whats easiest to see and easiest to believe.
They conveniently forget the modern peaceful history of Islam in Britain and Europe - destroying the reputation of the generations of such Muslims that have already gone by confusing terrorism as an Islamic issue.
Why was there not trouble the early/ mid 20th century when Muslims arrived here in great numbers? Because Islam is not causing the problem, politics is causing the problem, political lunatics on both sides.

There is much in that. I would only say that people are the firewood, violent westernism may be the match, but Islam is the petrol.

I dont have a problem with that comparison either, the point is that Islam is being used as a tool, it isnt actually the one causing this trouble, simply a vehicle for extremists. Muhammad, peace be upon him, cannot be held responsible any more than Jesus Christ pbuh, or any ancient Muslim prophet.

Schuhart · 11-09-2006 12:05pm

InFront wrote:

if we were to somehow attempt to change Islam (a thing actually impossible).

I know this aspect can go around in circles, but the simple fact is Islam – like all faiths – has changed over time which is evidenced by the fact that, like all faiths, different branches do different things. Presumably all those branches come from the same root, but change has entered into the picture.

Anticipating a response of ‘but nothing central to the faith changes’, this is a borderline tautology as if I asked what was central to the faith you presumably would say ‘the bits that we think haven’t changed’.

InFront wrote:

A Muslim has absolutely no reason to feel guilty over a terrorist attack more so than you (anyone) could have.

No disagreement there.

There is no problem with Islam

That’s too dogmatic. I could not be comfortable with Islam as a doctrine until there was at least a clear consensus that its adherents could leave the faith if they wish. Otherwise, the doctrine is explicitly sanctioning the use of violence to intimidate. I know its hard to get out of the mindset of a religion. But alarm bells are rightly set off by a faith that demands only a simple profession of faith to join, but cannot permit someone to leave.

InFront wrote:

the comparison of the life of the two prophets you mention is an obstructively facile one.

Which you’ll understand reads to me like avoiding, rather than addressing, the issue. Mohammed’s career seems to be chiefly about his personal rise to power.

Wibbs · 11-09-2006 1:57pm

InFront wrote:

I think that is more than a bit unfair, to in obedience of the Qur'an, he fought those who fought him, and he was not an aggressor.

Well the obvious answer could be, why did he have to fight at all? I mean if the message is true and holy why does it need a sword to defend it? Jesus, Buddha, Krishna all have religions that have huge followings yet not one of them raised a sword in anger or defense. How big was Buddha's army?

Again, I don't see the point in trying to blame Muhammad pbuh, for 2006 politics, but if you can find an example of Muhammad p the aggressor then tell us.

How many battles did he fight? How many caravans did he plunder? How much of the spoils of war did he divide among his followers? How many people were killed or sold off as slaves or married to him or his cohorts just after their husbands had been killed by his followers? How many heads were lopped off on his orders? How many dissenters were assassinated? Islam in this respect was born of blood way earlier than any other modern world faith. It's a warrior's creed. Even the rewards of warriors falling in battle are spelled out. Where are the detailed descriptions of the rewards for women or non combatants?

Here is a problem, what do you mean faith founder? Muhammad pbuh, is not the founder of Islam, Allah founded Islam.

Eh from an objective historical perspective, yes he is.

If you look at Muhammad pbuh it is there with him as well.

Pretty much only in the early stage of his ministry.

The Prophet -peace be upon him- was the most forgiving person. He was ever ready to forgive his enemies.

Then why didn't he forgive those I mentioned before. The poets and others who apparently mocked him. Why did he send others to do his dirty work and kill them? Even giving permission to use lies and subterfuge to achieve this? This is a man that when a enemy was brought to him just before his execution, he asked Mohammed "what will happen to my children after I'm dead?" Mohammed's answer "They'll go to hell". Very forgiving and compassionate I think you'll agree.

When she accepted Islam, the Prophet even forgave her.

The clue is on the first part. When people "accepted" Islam with him as it's prophet he often changed his tune. I wonder what would have happened if she hadn't? Look at others who didn't and their fate, depending on his mood. Submit to Islam and you will be saved from execution seems to be the thread running through much of his dealings with his enemies. Might make the case for conversion pretty strong among his captured enemies.

When did he ever take up arms against non believers? never.

Are you serious? I mean really. The hadeeth read as one battle after another against the unbelievers

As for mocking his faith can you give any examples in the sacred texts at all on that?

If you're referring to the deaths of those who mocked him and the faith there are many and I've quoted them in this debate before.

Well no, because that wasnt what I would call militanitism, but self protection, and protection of Islam as was his call to do.

It's militantism if you were on the recieving end of Mohammeds crusade.

I dont have a problem with that comparison either, the point is that Islam is being used as a tool, it isnt actually the one causing this trouble, simply a vehicle for extremists.

A very accomodating vehicle by some interpretations.

Schuhart wrote:

But alarm bells are rightly set off by a faith that demands only a simple profession of faith to join, but cannot permit someone to leave.

Exactly. It also makes a hollow joke of the "no compulsion in religion" viewpoint often trotted out as evidence of a peaceful religion.

InFront · 11-09-2006 3:56pm

Schuhart wrote:

Anticipating a response of ‘but nothing central to the faith changes’, this is a borderline tautology as if I asked what was central to the faith you presumably would say ‘the bits that we think haven’t changed’.

I'm not saying that Islam as a human opinion or perception hasnt changed, it has changed in the human mind. Everything is altered by the mind in some way.
Islam is more than a religion or mindset it is in a way the entire human experience, the relationship with God, and God's law. Islam has never changed (been revised), just our dealings with it. How can it change? To say it changes (in that it would be revised) is to suggest Allah makes mistakes, which would be a pretty daft suggestion.
The apostasy laws, the fiqh, the English translation of the Qur'an we cannot say "yes this is the exact word of God this is what he meant", because it has come from man's interpretations. It has had to pass through him.
So, that is what we think Islam is at this moment in time, and of course it is liable to change, and has, and thus we see variation between Muslim administrations.

No disagreement there. That’s too dogmatic. I could not be comfortable with Islam as a doctrine until there was at least a clear consensus that its adherents could leave the faith if they wish.

Again, as you have seen with your own eyes, this is something on which debate has been allowed and engaged with pretty contructively (that Islamonline atrticle).
In fact, Muslims can and do leave the faith in real life. I know lapsed Muslims, Im sure most people do. I think the most anyone actually does is prays they will come back to Islam and ask them to do so. Even in Iran, there are no religious police to check that you are a good Muslim and adhere to the accurate prayer times, there are atheists of course. I really couldnt speak for Shariah Law Saudi Arabia any more than an atheist can speak for a Godless Communism.
The apostasy (niddah) argument is a difficult one overall, not least because it is so complex, and its hard to speak agaist it without appearing to reject the hadith, so I dont know. Because of its intricate nature, it's really something the educated people should speak on. While it is clear that Allah will not forgive the murtadd, what a human ought to do is prone to interpretation, and people do have different interpretations.
But to say that Muslims actually can't leave the faith is taking it quite far. In fact they do. Of course, it is still an important theological question.

Well the obvious answer could be, why did he have to fight at all?

Because he (Muhammad, pbuh) was defending his people from the Meccans, presumably it was that or become extinct.
You could draw parllells between GWB's wars and those started by previous Papal armies, but to be honest, like all of such arguments, it would be pointless and expired. The real drivers of the war are alive and well and amongst us.

Where are the detailed descriptions of the rewards for women or non combatants?

If you want to talk about detailed descriptions then take a look at the orders that Muhammad, pbuh, gave for the actions of his fellow Muslims. Do not kill women, children old people, do not kill a man in prayer (any worship), do not cause destruction of infrastructures, only fight against one who would fight against you, not to harm or molest women, do not kill one who has been already taken as prisoner... theres a great long list of conditions. Im sure American soldiers would do well to read, or be given, such detailed advice.
More comprehensive information here
You asked about the detailed descriptions of non vombatants. Of course, the reward of peaceful people who live just and innocent lives devoted to Allah decorates the entire Qur'an. There are already many passages as well as these in the hadith explaining this.

"Whoever suppresseth his anger, when he has it in his power to show it, God will give him a great reward."
"May God fill the heart of that person who suppresseth his anger with safety and faith."
"Give me advice," said someone. Muhammad said, Be not angry."
"He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger."
"No person hath drunk a better draught than that of anger which he hath swallowed for God's sake."

Are you serious? I mean really. The hadeeth read as one battle after another against the unbelievers

Im talking about taking up arms against the unbvelievers as you claimed he did. He took up arms against those who were destroying Islam and in self defense, whether they were believers or not is irrelevent. If a man comes towards you with a gun, you dont stop to ask him what he believes in.

Schuhart · 11-09-2006 4:24pm

InFront wrote:

So, that is what we think Islam is at this moment in time, and of course it is liable to change, and has, and thus we see variation between Muslim administrations.

Which effectively means you accept that Islam has and can change with the world.

InFront wrote:

I know lapsed Muslims, Im sure most people do.

But, you’ll appreciate, what’s on my mind is their formal status as regards their former faith.

InFront wrote:

The apostasy (niddah) argument is a difficult one overall, not least because it is so complex, and its hard to speak agaist it without appearing to reject the hadith, so I dont know. Because of its intricate nature, it's really something the educated people should speak on.

I find this circumlocution illustrates at least some of the problem that Dawkins might find with religion – it prevents decent people from acknowledging what they know to be right. You don’t need a scholar to tell you that killing an apostate is wrong and inconsistent with religious freedom. If that means you have to reject a Hadith, then clearly the Hadith is wrong. Then you have to cope with the idea of an apparently valid Hadith being found to be in error, and all that means.

InFront wrote:

But to say that Muslims actually can't leave the faith is taking it quite far. In fact they do. Of course, it is still an important theological question..

From what we can gather, most scholars agree that apostates should be killed – they seem happy to ‘take it quite far’. Its not an ‘important theological question’. Its simply an example of where mainstream Islam is out of step with generally understood concepts of human rights and needs to change. Its an example of Islam having a problem.

Wibbs · 11-09-2006 4:42pm

InFront wrote:

Because he (Muhammad, pbuh) was defending his people from the Meccans, presumably it was that or become extinct.

Unlikely and there exists debate as to whether it was purely defensive. Anyway if extinction of the faith is the issue, can Allah not protect his own message and followers without war in his name? Can Allah not thrive without the jackboot of conquest, slavery taxes for non believers and death? Other "God's" seem happy to do so.

You could draw parllells between GWB's wars and those started by previous Papal armies, but to be honest, like all of such arguments, it would be pointless and expired.

You could and all of them would be against the teachings of the guy they're supposed to follow and believe in. I don't think Jesus judging by his speeches would have approved of any crusade in his name. Do you? So it's a tad different.

If you want to talk about detailed descriptions then take a look at the orders that Muhammad, pbuh, gave for the actions of his fellow Muslims. Do not kill women, children old people, do not kill a man in prayer (any worship), do not cause destruction of infrastructures, only fight against one who would fight against you, not to harm or molest women, do not kill one who has been already taken as prisoner... theres a great long list of conditions.

Well there are enough instances in Hadeeth were prisoners were killed. The battle of the trench is a classic example where anything from 700 to 1000 men (who were selected as such by whether they had pubic hair or not) were beheaded after the battle, presumably to send a clear message to others. If by not harming or molesting women you mean selling them and their children into slavery or forced marriages. They would have been forced too as they would have likely seen or found their husbands dead. Not many would agree to marriage in that case except in cases of extreme distress. Didn't Mohammed himslef not take one of these war widows for a bride?

Im sure American soldiers would do well to read, or be given, such detailed advice.

They are and more. Dividing war booty and slave taking are not as far as I'm aware part of the list of allowed practices of even the most nutty of US commanders. To be fair, they might do better to take more of it on board I'll grant you.

You asked about the detailed descriptions of non vombatants. Of course, the reward of peaceful people who live just and innocent lives devoted to Allah decorates the entire Qur'an. There are already many passages as well as these in the hadith explaining this.

True and equally there are passages that suggest that the ultimate honour is to die for allah in battle.

"Whoever suppresseth his anger, when he has it in his power to show it, God will give him a great reward."
"May God fill the heart of that person who suppresseth his anger with safety and faith."
"Give me advice," said someone. Muhammad said, Be not angry."
"He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger."
"No person hath drunk a better draught than that of anger which he hath swallowed for God's sake."

When did he say those lines?

Im talking about taking up arms against the unbvelievers as you claimed he did. He took up arms against those who were destroying Islam and in self defense, whether they were believers or not is irrelevent.

When did he ever attack Muslims? The dire warnings to unbelievers in both the Quran and Hadeeth would be little comfort for non believers faced with an Islamic army.

If a man comes towards you with a gun, you dont stop to ask him what he believes in.

Which could be applied to Mohammed marching into mecca at the head of a conquering army. No wonder many converted.

IT Loser · 11-09-2006 7:21pm

Fair enuff. You can scrape people off the railways in 2 or 3 years. But get this doggies: Lara Marlowe and Buddies won't be around when it happens. More Muslims means a greater chance of a terror attack as 2 laws take their effect:

1. The Law of Averages

2. The {misinterpreted} Laws of the Koran which are used as an excuse to launch an attack on Civilian targets.

Perhaps I tread heavily.....but we'll see. One thing the liberal pinko brigade can always be trusted to do is hand the ball to animals like me. Enjoy.

{oh..and by the way....in case you hadn't twigged it...More Muslims do mean a greater chance of an attack, its just how it is. Lets say 9.9 Muslims in 10 are good. in 100,000 Muslims, 1000 are bad. Thats 100 terror cells of 10 persons each- Par for the course. Same rules apply for Fundies of all denominations. HINT: More than .1 in 10 of any group is Bad.}

Diogenes · 11-09-2006 7:54pm

IT Loser wrote:

Fair enuff. You can scrape people off the railways in 2 or 3 years. But get this doggies: Lara Marlowe and Buddies won't be around when it happens. More Muslims means a greater chance of a terror attack as 2 laws take their effect:

1. The Law of Averages

2. The {misinterpreted} Laws of the Koran which are used as an excuse to launch an attack on Civilian targets.

That simply isn't true, just saying if you have loads of muslims theres bound to be an attack there are countries with huge Muslim populations are no threat of terrorism.

Perhaps I tread heavily.....but we'll see. One thing the liberal pinko brigade can always be trusted to do is hand the ball to animals like me. Enjoy.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

{oh..and by the way....in case you hadn't twigged it...More Muslims do mean a greater chance of an attack, its just how it is. Lets say 9.9 Muslims in 10 are good. in 100,000 Muslims, 1000 are bad. Thats 100 terror cells of 10 persons each- Par for the course. Same rules apply for Fundies of all denominations. HINT: More than .1 in 10 of any group is Bad.}

So again if you were in charge of the Uk in the 1970s you'd have banned all the Irish? Y'know just in case........

wes · 11-09-2006 9:02pm

Well last I checked Hadith ain't set in stone and I disagree with a lot of things other Muslims say. I am no scholar and I have no intention of ever being one, but somethings are common sense and I think we should use it. Honestly I am very much a non-practising Muslim (or lapsed or whatever you prefer) and a lot of thing all religion says is silly and flat out don't make sense.

Kevster · 11-09-2006 11:28pm

IT Loser, your name is quite apt for indeed you are a loser and your views are based on ignorance. I abhor people like you.

Wibbs · 11-09-2006 11:42pm

Kevster wrote:

Edit: In fact, I wish great misfortune upon you because it is people like you that (partly) make my life miserable.

OT but I have to say; No, I'm sorry but you are the one with the power to make your life miserable or no, not IT loser or anyone like him. When you wish misfortune on another you've already lost.

amp · 12-09-2006 6:22am

Kevster wrote:

IT Loser, your name is quite apt for indeed you are a loser and your views are based on ignorance. I abhor people like you.

Let's stick to attacking posts and not users please. Further comments like this will get you banned.

Kevster · 12-09-2006 10:10am

I wouldn't mind if I got banned - It's no big deal - But I AM sorry for the post that I made. I'm just depressed and thank you for the words of the truth Wibbs. At the darkest moments it's hard to see that truth.

Take care,
Kevin.

fly_agaric · 12-09-2006 7:35pm

Diogenes wrote:

That simply isn't true, just saying if you have loads of muslims theres bound to be an attack there are countries with huge Muslim populations are no threat of terrorism.

What countries would those be? I can't think of any. The ideology that the terrorists believe in is a strain of thought (a meme I suppose) among muslims at the moment so it exists wherever they are.
You may not like it but he's (at least partly) right. The bigger the muslim population in Ireland - the more likely it is that we'll get sucked into this whole nasty business - either a direct attack here (perhaps on UK/US/Israeli/Jewish target) or much more likely we'll be used as a launch point somehow.
It is probably too late for us to clamp down on immigration and try to stay on the sidelines though.

IT Loser · 14-09-2006 3:41pm

Kevster wrote:

IT Loser, your name is quite apt for indeed you are a loser and your views are based on ignorance. I abhor people like you.

You had to edit a one liner?

IT Loser · 14-09-2006 4:19pm

Wibbs wrote:

OT but I have to say; No, I'm sorry but you are the one with the power to make your life miserable or no, not IT loser or anyone like him. When you wish misfortune on another you've already lost.

I don't want to make anybodies life miserable, especially some dude called Kevster.

Indeed, the entire argument, the entire scene, can get even abhorred SOB's like me down at times. I concede that it is easier to just float thru life without a care or concern. I used be a schoolboy without a concern.

But the sh!t has hit the fan, for whatever reason.

I advocate strong opposition to violent Islam, thru the Military Order of Malta, through our Standing Armies, thru politics, education...whatever it takes to, once again, turn them back.

If this means that Johnny Islam is picked up at the airport, turned around, and sent "home" on the next plane, then so be it.

If this means that the Clonskeagh Mosque is stormed by barefoot troops looking for a dissident Imam that shouldn't be here- so be it.

If this means that the certai beer brewing converts are assassinated in broad daylight, then so be it. DEUS VULT!

If this means that certain Journalists and certain Ex-Presidents are exposed {by any means} as being soft on terror- then so be it. I don't advocate acts like this, per se, but there is every chance that these people have information which we could, ahem, do with

If it means iron-clad oppostion to RTE, then so be it. RTE are obviously not concerned with hosting an open objective debate on the matter, and, given that they take millions in tax-payers money, this is a danger that must be confronted.

If it means that Christian heads have to roll because they are weak, prone to conversion, sympathetic, etc...then so be it.

All of this seems shockingly violent, but the most effective strokes against Islamic terror are really bloodless {to a degree} and straight forward.

We must, as an issue of National Security and Interest DISMANTLE our current socio-economic system in 3 distinct areas:

1. Energy.

The entire energy apparatus of Ireland is all wrong. Imports of Saudi oil must be curtailed in favour of domestic Bio-Diesel and Ethanol production. The Saudi regime is bent. It doesn;t have our interests in favour. It promotes terror indirectly and directly. The Irish Govt must seek to develop favourable energy schemes with friendly nations, Canada, Norway and Sweden in particular. The motor industry must be forced to adapt, just as the vintners were with the smoking ban. Indivuiduals should be encouraged to make their own fuels, with incentives provided to the individual for doing so, eg lower taxes on domestically produced alcohol or diesel

2. Housing

Housing is just too expensive. Period. It has curtailed the development and regeneration of our most precious resource: The family. The current efforts of the Irish people to raise and house their families has been nothing short of heroic, with one of the healthiest birth rates in Europe juxtaposed against a background of rip-off Ireland and exorbitant house prices. Can this continue in the current climate of rip-off Ireland and a general absence of social housing? Probably not for long.

3. Immigration.
So far, not too bad. 75% of the current influx can be safely passed off as having the interests of the State at heart. {50% Eastern Europe, 25% Ex-Pats} Islamic immigration must be minimised, if not entirely stopped.. Fewer Muslims may mean a tighter knit community but it also limits the chance of terror, alienation from within that community {one shepherd can mind only so many sheep} and simultaneously deprives terrorist elements of the sheer manpower they may need.

All of the 3 above factors, when arranged as I think they should be, are, in the main, opposed to the propagation of terror and fascism. Most Muslims would agree, if they could see past the fact that I will not Kow-Tow to them. Ever.

Diogenes · 14-09-2006 4:44pm

I advocate strong opposition to violent Islam, thru the Military Order of Malta, through our Standing Armies, thru politics, education...whatever it takes to, once again, turn them back.

I'm sorry the order of Malta?

If this means that Johnny Islam is picked up at the airport, turned around, and sent "home" on the next plane, then so be it.

So you randomly think people should be sent home, no matter how dangerous home is, because of their religion, when you have no evidence they want to commit terror?

If this means that the Clonskeagh Mosque is stormed by barefoot troops looking for a dissident Imam that shouldn't be here- so be it.

1. Why barefoot...

2. Do you have any evidence that there is a dissident Imam preaching there? Or do you think we should randomly raid the mosque on the off chance there will be dissident Imam there? Because if you do that often enough, every Imam will be a dissident Imam.

If this means that the certai beer brewing converts are assassinated in broad daylight, then so be it. DEUS VULT!

Seriously what on earth are you fúcking on about? Which beer brewing converts? And why should they be assassinated?

If this means that certain Journalists and certain Ex-Presidents are exposed {by any means} as being soft on terror- then so be it. I don't advocate acts like this, per se, but there is every chance that these people have information which we could, ahem, do with

WHO? Which journalists and ex presidents and what information they have?

If it means iron-clad oppostion to RTE, then so be it. RTE are obviously not concerned with hosting an open objective debate on the matter, and, given that they take millions in tax-payers money, this is a danger that must be confronted.

I'm sorry could you give examples of RTEs failure to have an "open honest ebate?"

If it means that Christian heads have to roll because they are weak, prone to conversion, sympathetic, etc...then so be it.

Are you adovacting murdering Irish people who convert to Islam?

You have to be a troll.

All of this seems shockingly violent, but the most effective strokes against Islamic terror are really bloodless {to a degree} and straight forward.

This ought to be good.

We must, as an issue of National Security and Interest DISMANTLE our current socio-economic system in 3 distinct areas:

1. Energy.

The entire energy apparatus of Ireland is all wrong. Imports of Saudi oil must be curtailed in favour of domestic Bio-Diesel and Ethanol production. The Saudi regime is bent. It doesn;t have our interests in favour. It promotes terror indirectly and directly. The Irish Govt must seek to develop favourable energy schemes with friendly nations, Canada, Norway and Sweden in particular.

What energy do Canada Norway and Sweden have that we could trade with? What could we offer? Norway and Sweden are building nuclear plants.

The motor industry must be forced to adapt, just as the vintners were with the smoking ban.

Yeah because revolutionary change to our entire transport infrastructure is on a par with a smoking ban

Indivuiduals should be encouraged to make their own fuels, with incentives provided to the individual for doing so, eg lower taxes on domestically produced alcohol or diesel

Do you know what you need to produce diesel? Crude oil.

2. Housing

Housing is just too expensive. Period. It has curtailed the development and regeneration of our most precious resource: The family. The current efforts of the Irish people to raise and house their families has been nothing short of heroic, with one of the healthiest birth rates in Europe juxtaposed against a background of rip-off Ireland and exorbitant house prices. Can this continue in the current climate of rip-off Ireland and a general absence of social housing? Probably not for long.

True but couched in language I dislike.

3. Immigration.
So far, not too bad. 75% of the current influx can be safely passed off as having the interests of the State at heart. {50% Eastern Europe, 25% Ex-Pats} Islamic immigration must be minimised, if not entirely stopped.. Fewer Muslims may mean a tighter knit community but it also limits the chance of terror, alienation from within that community {one shepherd can mind only so many sheep} and simultaneously deprives terrorist elements of the sheer manpower they may need.

Hard to know where to start creating Muslims ghettos will created tension, and sheer manpower? It took five boys from leeds to destroy the underground, you're having a laugh. What else do suggest, travel permits for Muslims going home, restrict their internet access?

Why not go the whole hog and make em wear Muslim crescent moons on their clothes

above factors, when arranged as I think they should be, are, in the main, opposed to the propagation of terror and fascism.

I would describe a large portion of the above is a blueprint for fascism.

Most Muslims would agree, if they could see past the fact that I will not Kow-Tow to them. Ever.

Stormfront is that way mate.

Wibbs · 14-09-2006 5:37pm

Diogenes wrote:

I'm sorry the order of Malta?

Yep I was wondering that too. Cue chainmail and tunics emblazoned with crosses....

So you randomly think people should be sent home, no matter how dangerous home is, because of their religion, when you have no evidence they want to commit terror?

It seems he does.

1. Why barefoot...

Probably wearing sackcloth and ashes to boot.

Seriously what on earth are you fúcking on about? Which beer brewing converts? And why should they be assassinated?

I have never typed this webism before. Ever. But I shot me tea out my nose and rotflmao after reading that one I can tell you. Beer brewers anonymous for Muslims. Muhhhahahhahhaha.

I'm sorry could you give examples of RTEs failure to have an "open honest ebate?"

Different topic...:D

Are you adovacting murdering Irish people who convert to Islam?

We're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy(if I may call you such for the purposes of....)

You have to be a troll.

Troll spelled I N S A N E. Up the dosage all round methinks.

What energy do Canada Norway and Sweden have that we could trade with? What could we offer? Norway and Sweden are building nuclear plants.

He's uninformed too.

Yeah because revolutionary change to our entire transport infrastructure is on a par with a smoking ban

It was for me I can tell ya.

Do you know what you need to produce diesel? Crude oil.

This is my only disagreement with you Diogenes. You can produce bio diesel from vegetable oil.

True but couched in language I dislike.

And soooo far off topic you would require the services of the Hubble to track it.

I would describe a large portion of the above is a blueprint for fascism.

You know, this level of thinking can snap around in weird ways. Don't be too surprised if he ends up converting himself after some road to damascus(or mecca) vision. The minarets will be twitching then.

Stormfront is that way mate.

Even they have their standards.

Diogenes · 15-09-2006 2:12pm

Wibbs wrote:

This is my only disagreement with you Diogenes. You can produce bio diesel from vegetable oil.

True but we're hardly classic soya bean growing land. What does he expect us to set up soya bean farms in our new affordable housing schemes, and then make vegetable oil from that, to run our cars? We use 64,094,000 barrels of oil a year. There are 41 gallons in a Barrel. It takes 41 pounds of soya to make a gallon of bio diesal. Meaning we'll need 107,742,014,000 pounds of soya beans. You can grow, I think, 10,000 pounds of soya on an acre of land in optimum growing conditions, (warm southwest United States) We have 1, oh sod it, I could go on, but this is just stupid. He has no idea what he's suggesting.

lostexpectation · 19-09-2006 10:39am

New body to represent Muslim leaders in Ireland

A new body has been set up to represent Muslim leaders in Ireland and promote their positive integration into Irish society.

The Irish Council of Imams will have the authority to speak on topical issues on behalf of Ireland's 40,000-strong Muslim community.

The organisation represents all 14 imams in Ireland, from both the Sunni and Shia traditions.

See the article in times by the alpha ireland guy who fears muslim will take over europe within a hundreds years....

he said clonsilla was the headquarters of fatwa council of europe, what does tha really mean?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-09-2006 11:30pm

IT Loser wrote:

I don't want to make anybodies life miserable, especially some dude called Kevster.

Indeed, the entire argument, the entire scene, can get even abhorred SOB's like me down at times. I concede that it is easier to just float thru life without a care or concern. I used be a schoolboy without a concern.

But the sh!t has hit the fan, for whatever reason.

I advocate strong opposition to violent Islam, thru the Military Order of Malta, through our Standing Armies, thru politics, education...whatever it takes to, once again, turn them back.

If this means that Johnny Islam is picked up at the airport, turned around, and sent "home" on the next plane, then so be it.

If this means that the Clonskeagh Mosque is stormed by barefoot troops looking for a dissident Imam that shouldn't be here- so be it.

If this means that the certai beer brewing converts are assassinated in broad daylight, then so be it. DEUS VULT!

If this means that certain Journalists and certain Ex-Presidents are exposed {by any means} as being soft on terror- then so be it. I don't advocate acts like this, per se, but there is every chance that these people have information which we could, ahem, do with

If it means iron-clad oppostion to RTE, then so be it. RTE are obviously not concerned with hosting an open objective debate on the matter, and, given that they take millions in tax-payers money, this is a danger that must be confronted.

If it means that Christian heads have to roll because they are weak, prone to conversion, sympathetic, etc...then so be it.

All of this seems shockingly violent, but the most effective strokes against Islamic terror are really bloodless {to a degree} and straight forward.

We must, as an issue of National Security and Interest DISMANTLE our current socio-economic system in 3 distinct areas:

1. Energy.

The entire energy apparatus of Ireland is all wrong. Imports of Saudi oil must be curtailed in favour of domestic Bio-Diesel and Ethanol production. The Saudi regime is bent. It doesn;t have our interests in favour. It promotes terror indirectly and directly. The Irish Govt must seek to develop favourable energy schemes with friendly nations, Canada, Norway and Sweden in particular. The motor industry must be forced to adapt, just as the vintners were with the smoking ban. Indivuiduals should be encouraged to make their own fuels, with incentives provided to the individual for doing so, eg lower taxes on domestically produced alcohol or diesel

2. Housing

Housing is just too expensive. Period. It has curtailed the development and regeneration of our most precious resource: The family. The current efforts of the Irish people to raise and house their families has been nothing short of heroic, with one of the healthiest birth rates in Europe juxtaposed against a background of rip-off Ireland and exorbitant house prices. Can this continue in the current climate of rip-off Ireland and a general absence of social housing? Probably not for long.

3. Immigration.
So far, not too bad. 75% of the current influx can be safely passed off as having the interests of the State at heart. {50% Eastern Europe, 25% Ex-Pats} Islamic immigration must be minimised, if not entirely stopped.. Fewer Muslims may mean a tighter knit community but it also limits the chance of terror, alienation from within that community {one shepherd can mind only so many sheep} and simultaneously deprives terrorist elements of the sheer manpower they may need.

All of the 3 above factors, when arranged as I think they should be, are, in the main, opposed to the propagation of terror and fascism. Most Muslims would agree, if they could see past the fact that I will not Kow-Tow to them. Ever.

Troll or not - that was entertainment.

InFront · 25-09-2006 3:11am

Was anybody reading the sunday world to-day? No, i dont usually buy it, (and if i did i wouldnt admit it!) I have it because of the interview with the Imam of the mosque at Clonskeagh Sheikh Hussein Halawa concerning the comments of Pope Benedict.

One page is an absolute load of tripe written by some (anonymous) journalist whose photograph is not even printed, and who vents his spleen on the entire Muslim community or 'pork dodgers' as it is referred to without balance nor reasonable measure.
I'm not sure how to get a link up but it was really stupid, distasteful stuff that im sure far too many gullible people will actually take in and accept as a sort of truth.

To see him lamenting and condemning the hopelessness of the Muslim community as a whole, and to then flick the page to see the Imam Sheikh Hussein Halawa advising that Muslims ought to accept the Pope's apology (as I for one do anyway), and move on, is almost funny. Im not sure if the editorial ayout was deliberate, but I for one thought it just made that city slicker guy look completely uneducated and unnecessarily sensationalist. Still quite an irritating read, though!

ahmadi-muslim · 27-10-2008 7:29am

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Does anyone know if there are Ahmadi Muslims in Ireland? I understand that they reject Jihad completely and are persecuted by other Muslims.

Yes there are few Ahmadi Muslims in Ireland.
Here is the offical website of ahmadiyya muslim.
www.alislam.org

thanks
bye

Bottle_of_Smoke · 29-10-2008 1:07am

Something about seeing your own post from 2 years ago makes you feel somewhat uneasy. A Jihad upon you Ahmadi-Muslim!

[article]'fascist fanaticism and radicalism is now rife amoung our young'

Comments