NationStates Jolt Archive

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja and Serge Trifkovic

The Fifteen Century War: Islam's Violent Heritage by Morgan Norval

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Ye'or

The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam by Bat Ye'or

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries by Paul Fregosi

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or

Note that 5 of these books are written by Jews.

And why would I not want anyone to read those? :D

Islam, like all religions, has had a bloody history. Some Muslim leaders are encouraging ignorant and uncivilized segments of the Islamic world to continue that violent behavior. Still, I think the majority of Muslims living in the west and exposed to western civilization and ideas are as peacefull as any other group of people. My hope is that we can fight terrorist Muslims both with weapons, and with Western culture. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Remember that many Muslims don't want to impose Sharia on you.

I don't think it should count that you've got eleven books by six authors.....you know those guys are just making the same points over and over in the separate books anyway.

By the way, I'm leftist, and I've read three of them.....still thought they were rubbish. I'll take the practical application of Islam of my close friends over the biased opinions of bigots any day :rolleyes:

Wow, thanks for informing me that I don't want people to read those books. In fact, I demand that they all be burnt!

I mean really, what's the point of this post? There aren't many people on the left who would deny the existence of religious fanatics inside every major religion. And if you think Muslims are some homogenous group with identical beliefs then I feel sorry for you.

Simonist']I don't think it should count that you've got eleven books by six authors.....you know those guys are just making the same points over and over in the separate books anyway.

By the way, I'm leftist, and I've read three of them.....still thought they were rubbish. I'll take the practical application of Islam of my close friends over the biased opinions of bigots any day :rolleyes:

Of course you do, leftists think everything that isn't politically correct is 'rubbish.' Also, notice that some of the authors are Muslims. And the books are also filled with quotations directly from the Koran.

Wow. You're original. I've NEVER seen anyone claim the Left was "hiding the truth about Islam" before. Congratulations.

Wow, thanks for informing me that I don't want people to read those books. In fact, I demand that they all be burnt!

I mean really, what's the point of this post? There aren't many people on the left who would deny the existence of religious fanatics inside every major religion. And if you think Muslims are some homogenous group with identical beliefs then I feel sorry for you.

I never said they were. I'm simply pointing out that Islam is a religion of violence, born through bloodshed, spread through bloodshed, maintained through bloodshed.

Wow. You're original. I've NEVER seen anyone claim the Left was "hiding the truth about Islam" before. Congratulations.

Leftists hide the truth about everything behind a veil of political correctness.

Of course you do, leftists think everything that isn't politically correct is 'rubbish.' Also, notice that some of the authors are Muslims. And the books are also filled with quotations directly from the Koran.
I think I'm a liberal, and I'm not PC at all. I just recognize the reality of the situation. Muslims are a group of people. In any large group of people there will be different factions with different political and moral beleifs.

I think I'm a liberal, and I'm not PC at all. I just recognize the reality of the situation. Muslims are a group of people. In any large group of people there will be different factions with different political and moral beleifs.

Liberal and left are not the same thing.

Of course you do, leftists think everything that isn't politically correct is 'rubbish.' Uh-huh. Because all leftists are exactly the same. :rolleyes:

This thread starts with a pretty silly premise. Why in the world would "leftists" not want people to read those books?

Liberal and left are not the same thing.
What's the difference?

Leftists hide the truth about everything behind a veil of political correctness.And rude people hide their desire to be rude behind a facade that claims PC is censorship...

And here I thought it was the right that censored books all the time. Silly me!

Interesting titles. I will have to add them to the never ending list of stuff to read......

I never said they were. I'm simply pointing out that Islam is a religion of violence, born through bloodshed, spread through bloodshed, maintained through bloodshed.

In contrast to peace-loving Christianity?
Better not mention the Crusades...

"The Left" usually DOESN'T want to censor anything...even if it is "harsh".

Islam has a bloody history, as does Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...and so on and so forth...

The only "bloodless" religion I can think of is Buddhism, and I might even be wrong on that one.

What's the difference?

There are many differences.

In contrast to peace-loving Christianity?
Better not mention the Crusades...

Who said I was a Christian? For all you know, I could be a Jew, a Hindu, a Molech-worshipping occultist, or whatever.

Leftists hide the truth about everything behind a veil of political correctness.

Really? Damnit I swear to God I'm not getting all my memos.

I really need to talk to the secretary of the International Communist Conspiracy. Somewhere along the line all this valuable information about our subersive operations is not reaching me. :rolleyes:

There are many differences. Name some.

Better not mention the Crusades...
Or the 30 years war.
Or the inquisition.
Or witch trials.
Or slavery.
Or the Teutonic knights.
Or the Reconquista.
If people were to judge religions by how bloody they have been...

Sense this is a joke thread about books this seemed fitting

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/landoverbaptizon.html

5 books the right wants you to read :D (joking)

And here I thought it was the right that censored books all the time. Silly me!

Interesting titles. I will have to add them to the never ending list of stuff to read......

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.

And rude people hide their desire to be rude behind a facade that claims PC is censorship...

Check and mate.

Liberal and left are not the same thing.

If you would read the books of Zangi, you would note immediately that most of the books you refer to are wrong.

The spreading of Dar al-Islam, by force, is not a requirement for Shi'is.

So, at one stroke, I can exclude a large number of Muslims from your little diatribe.

Then, I can exclude all non-militant Sunnis, and most of the Sufis. By the same Arabic source on the nature and obligation of jihad.

All I'm left with are militant Sunnis, who hardly comprise the majority of Muslims.

And if we want to start looking in people's holy books, to see what gruesome things are in there, let's start with the Old Testament, shall we?

What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child?

Correct answer: Stoning To Death

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:20-21).
"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10).
"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death" (Exodus 21:15).
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:17)."

They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.


I find it ironic to see a idealogical hack such as yourself ranting on about fact.

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.
lol 1) nice you have to be a parody right?
2) he did not say you were from the right

Just that its usualy the right that censors :p (or made a joke to that effect)

Of course you do, leftists think everything that isn't politically correct is 'rubbish.' Also, notice that some of the authors are Muslims. And the books are also filled with quotations directly from the Koran.
No, that has nothing to do with me being leftist. It has to do with the fact that I'm a theology student and I've been studying the main religions of the world INDEPENDENTLY for many many years. I studied Islam with a Muslim from Palestine. How do you figure I'm biased on this?

I think you're just another hate monger who refuses to see open-mindedness on the other side. Sad, really.

Name some.

Liberals favor capitalism, albeit regulated capitalism. They favor a free market, for the most part, but with some restrictions. They favor helping the needy, so long as they're willing to help themselves.

Leftists favor socialism. They favor pilfering the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. They favor robbing people with money blind via taxation, and giving it all to poor people, whether they work or not.

Most liberals are patriotic. But they are genuine patriots, the sort who support their country when it is right, and oppose it when it is wrong.

Leftists are internationalists.

Liberals favor equal treatment for all, be they black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever.

Leftists favor special treatment for minorities.

oh you do not belive that muslim is a violent type of religion i am an egyptian decended from the ancien egyptian which had all became christian before the muslim invasion. almost all muslims in egyp are decended from the invaders and almost all coptic orthodox christians are decended from the ancient egyptians. Our people were brutialy abused for over a thousand years till the french came simply because we would not become muslim. there are sections in the koran that say if you become christian or jewish you must be killed and it is your families responsibility to kill you and it still happens several times till this day. other section demand to use any means posible to convert people to islam so it is not a tolerant religion at all.

Who said I was a Christian? For all you know, I could be a Jew, a Hindu, a Molech-worshipping occultist, or whatever.
In that case, your religion's history would be just as bloody. Quit being such a thick-headed hypocrite.

Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15).

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).


Or, whose god orders the cruelest warfare?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all the men in the towns they invaded, enslaving only the women and children (who sometimes were to be slaughtered as well, along with every other living thing in sight.)

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Koran 47:4).

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deuteronomy 20:13-16).

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.

Omg, you are annoying.

WHy don't you tell us where you stand? What are you afraid of? It's obvious we can't correctly guess, so, for the prosperity of your thread, don't leave so many people in the dark?

But you sure hate muslims......don't ya? :sniper:

Leftists are internationalists.Hm? Last I checked the big blow to international leftists was WWI, because they chose to be patriots first and socialists second...

Simonist']No, that has nothing to do with me being leftist. It has to do with the fact that I'm a theology student and I've been studying the main religions of the world INDEPENDENTLY for many many years. I studied Islam with a Muslim from Palestine. How do you figure I'm biased on this?

I think you're just another hate monger who refuses to see open-mindedness on the other side. Sad, really.

Someone who shows the ugly side of something isn't a hate monger. If, say, a Muslim, were to show the dark sides of Christianity, would that make them a hate monger? Of course not. And for the record, I have nothing against Muslims as people. I have Muslim friends (granted, they aren't very devout ones, but they're Muslims, nonetheless). It's the religion that scares me.

Piekrom']oh you do not belive that muslim is a violent type of religion i am an egyptian decended from the ancien egyptian which had all became christian before the muslim invasion. almost all muslims in egyp are decended from the invaders and almost all coptic orthodox christians are decended from the ancient egyptians. Our people were brutialy abused for over a thousand years till the french came simply because we would not become muslim. there are sections in the koran that say if you become christian or jewish you must be killed and it is your families responsibility to kill you and it still happens several times till this day. other section demand to use any means posible to convert people to islam so it is not a tolerant religion at all.
Islam has had a longer violent period than most other religions, but it can be salvaged with exposure to Western culture, ideas and values. What has happened and is still happening to the Coptic people is a disgrace. When the west shames those Muslims responsible and uses political and economic leverage to hold them to account Islam will grow up.

Piekrom']oh you do not belive that muslim is a violent type of religion i am an egyptian decended from the ancien egyptian which had all became christian before the muslim invasion. almost all muslims in egyp are decended from the invaders and almost all coptic orthodox christians are decended from the ancient egyptians. Our people were brutialy abused for over a thousand years till the french came simply because we would not become muslim. there are sections in the koran that say if you become christian or jewish you must be killed and it is your families responsibility to kill you and it still happens several times till this day. other section demand to use any means posible to convert people to islam so it is not a tolerant religion at all.
We're not saying Islam (not "muslim", that refers to the people) isn't violent, we're saying that it's not EXCLUSIVELY violent and that it's really not much worse than the other religions of the world. Anyway, this post was more of a non-sequitur, because it's more about the "leftist censoring" than anything else, but thanks.

To Sierra BTP and the others:

Show me a post where I said I was a Christian, or a post where I said Christianity was a perfect religion.

Until then, shut up.

actually as someone who has studied the subject dispasionatly i've found islam to be on average more tollerent then most other religious groups.

note that this is on average.

some of the sultans and so on were psycos

but not more so then the christian or jewish equivilents over the years.

fanatics of all three of these religions (as well as others in other religions I have less knoledge of) have done some terrible things.

but the majority of all three religions are quite pleasent really

though I must say that in britain i've met more psyco christians and jews then muslims (and before any body goes on about it just as a procaution i'm jewish enough to get israeli citezenship (though I would not want to))

Someone who shows the ugly side of something isn't a hate monger. If, say, a Muslim, were to show the dark sides of Christianity, would that make them a hate monger? Of course not. And for the record, I have nothing against Muslims as people. I have Muslim friends (granted, they aren't very devout ones, but they're Muslims, nonetheless). It's the religion that scares me.
But you're not "showing the ugly side". You're making half-assed claims about the left as a whole and trying to paint Islam in a poor light while still being too cowardly to personally state your own position on the matter. Not a good move if you're even attempting to establish credibility on this one.

To Sierra BTP and the others:

Show me a post where I said I was a Christian, or a post where I said Christianity was a perfect religion.

Until then, shut up.

I didn't say you were a Christian. I am one. However, I did say that if we're going to look in holy books for bad things, we can start with the Old Testament.

Shall we go on to the New Testament?

It's the religion that scares me.

All religions are scary!! Why do you feel the need to pick on one specific group!!

Do your "muslim friends" know you've created this thread?

Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15).

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).


Or, whose god orders the cruelest warfare?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all the men in the towns they invaded, enslaving only the women and children (who sometimes were to be slaughtered as well, along with every other living thing in sight.)

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Koran 47:4).

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deuteronomy 20:13-16).

Reality check: When did I say I was a Christian?

To Sierra BTP and the others:

Show me a post where I said I was a Christian, or a post where I said Christianity was a perfect religion.

Until then, shut up.

Then stop making selective arguments, and give 11 books the Left doesn't want you to read for EVERY bloodthirsty religion.

I didn't say you were a Christian. I am one. However, I did say that if we're going to look in holy books for bad things, we can start with the Old Testament.

Shall we go on to the New Testament?

Be my guest, but let's do it in a different thread.

Until then, shut up.Clever tactic... :rolleyes:

Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15).

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).


Or, whose god orders the cruelest warfare?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all the men in the towns they invaded, enslaving only the women and children (who sometimes were to be slaughtered as well, along with every other living thing in sight.)

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Koran 47:4).

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deuteronomy 20:13-16).

notice this is all in the old testoment back when the jews were surounded by enimies it was for the effect of inducing fear it is part of the jewish religion not the christian religion

Be my guest, but let's do it in a different thread.
Shouldn't have created the thread if you weren't prepared for the crap you'd have to take.

Simonist']Shouldn't have created the thread if you weren't prepared for the crap you'd have to take.

Yes, I was about to say that telling people to shut up isn't one of the accepted tactics on NS General.

Piekrom']notice this is all in the old testoment back when the jews were surounded by enimies it was for the effect of inducing fear it is part of the jewish religion not the christian religion
Christians embrace it just as much as Jews. Ergo, it IS a part of the Christian religion.

Using the term 'You're just PC' is fast becoming the absolute laziest come back people can use. Seriously, you can't come up with anything so you just fall back on the 'you're being PC' arguement. It's bullshit, and most of the time not true.

Simonist']But you're not "showing the ugly side". You're making half-assed claims about the left as a whole and trying to paint Islam in a poor light while still being too cowardly to personally state your own position on the matter. Not a good move if you're even attempting to establish credibility on this one.

Why should I show the ugly side of Christianity? This thread isn't abroad Christianity, is it?

Using the term 'You're just PC' is fast becoming the absolute laziest come back people can use. Seriously, you can't come up with anything so you just fall back on the 'you're being PC' arguement. It's bullshit, and most of the time not true.
Agreed. I'm far from PC, and it kind of annoys me when people go out of their way to be PC, but my God, how can I be leftist if THAT'S the case?!

Yes, I was about to say that telling people to shut up isn't one of the accepted tactics on NS General.

From what I've seen, it is. There are far more rude people- present company included- (on all ends of the political spectrum) than polite ones.

Why should I show the ugly side of Christianity? This thread isn't abroad Christianity, is it?
I never said to. Quit putting words in others' mouths and they'll quit putting words in yours. Where in ALL of my reply to you did I mention Christianity?

You're just totally trying to drag this thread down, aren't you? Still not addressing the issues YOU raised, either. :rolleyes:

From what I've seen, it is. There are far more rude people- present company included- (on all ends of the political spectrum) than polite ones.

That still doesn't mean it is an accepted tactic. That just means there are a lot of people who don't know how to debate.

Why should I show the ugly side of Christianity? This thread isn't abroad Christianity, is it?

No, but if you mention the ugly side of a particular religion, it is fair debating tactics to suggest that other religions have an equally, if not more excessive, ugly side as well.

To parade about saying Islam has an ugly side is not news. Most, if not all, religions, have an ugly side.

As one who is all for killing as many militant Islamics as possible at once, I find your argument inane and unnecessary.

Don't kill people for what they believe. Kill them for what they do.

Simonist']Shouldn't have created the thread if you weren't prepared for the crap you'd have to take.

No, I just don't want the thread hijacked. Different topics should be discussed in different threads.

Just another right-winger making a stupid thread to get a reaction out of everybody.

He has no intention for real discussion.....we're on the 4th page and he still won't tell us anything about his own stances.

We've even been told to shut up.

Why do they waste so much time? That's not PC

That still doesn't mean it is an accepted tactic. That just means there are a lot of people who don't know how to debate.

Like me. I'll admit, I couldn't debate to save my life. :(

As one who is all for killing as many militant Islamics as possible at once, I find your argument inane and unnecessary.
Funny, thinking I'd never agree on anything even REMOTELY regarding killing with the infamous Whispering Legs, and here we are in total agreement on this.....

Just another right-winger making a stupid thread to get a reaction out of everybody.

He has no intention for real discussion.....we're on the 4th page and he still won't tell us anything about his own stances.

We've even been told to shut up.

Why do they waste so much time? That's not PC

This thread isn't about my stances, is it? This is discussion of Islam, not a "let's get to know the asshole Blessed Misfortune" thread.

No, I just don't want the thread hijacked. Different topics should be discussed in different threads.
Correction: as you are also taking part of the discussion as it changes and shifts, the thread it not being "hijacked".

Simonist']Christians embrace it just as much as Jews. Ergo, it IS a part of the Christian religion.

Only the western protistants and catholics who have had power for so long in their regions. If you were to look at all the eastern orthodox churches you will see that they were killed more then they kill other peoples. Look at the wars of king Constantien he just fought till victory was achieved and security assured.

The only "bloodless" religion I can think of is Buddhism, and I might even be wrong on that one.

Unfortunately not... I wrote an essay on this for my Buddhism class a few years ago. For one thing, Buddhist beliefs pretty much do not apply to rulers, because a pacifist wouldn't last very long surrounded by hostile neighbours. There's been plenty of violence between Buddhist states, but one good thing is that while Buddhism is a missionary religion, it has never been spread by violence. Although ironically, some Buddhist leaders have made war on others to capture Buddhist artifacts :p

No religion is free of violence, but I believe that religion is more often used as a cover for more mundane motives like power and resources.

This thread isn't about my stances, is it? This is discussion of Islam, not a "let's get to know the asshole Blessed Misfortune" thread.

Well, then start the discussion of the 11 books. I assume you read them all?

From what I've seen, it is. There are far more rude people- present company included- (on all ends of the political spectrum) than polite ones.They usually get noticed more often since they're the ones that won't think twice about posting something that might be offensive. I doubt that most of the vast amount of nations are rude.

This thread isn't about my stances, is it? This is discussion of Islam, not a "let's get to know the asshole Blessed Misfortune" thread.
But as you STARTED the thread, and are attacking us based on our replies (though poorly, in my opinion), we just want to understand where you're coming from. I've personally already cemented my opinion -- that you're a right-wing whackjob, with the same opinions that your parents raised you with, probably still living with them (perhaps not even a legal adult yet) who simply likes to post crap like this to see if you can incite people to flame.

But then, I always have low opinions of people who refuse to follow through on their own nonsense.

This thread isn't about my stances, is it? This is discussion of Islam, not a "let's get to know the asshole Blessed Misfortune" thread.
:headbang:

Okay........

You're totally wrong on your original assertion about Islam.

That's it. Care to comment now?

Well, then start the discussion of the 11 books. I assume you read them all?

Yes, I have. The books discuss how Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, etc. had their lands conquered, subjugated, Islamized, etc. and how Mohammed, far from the peace lover he's portrayed as, was a warmonger and tyrant, who pillaged, plundered, and murdered his way across the Middle East, leaving death and destruction in his wake. Also, how intolerant Islam is of women, people of other faiths (comparing them to animal blood, feces, etc.), and how Mohammed was a pedophile and whoremonger, etc.

Yes, I have. The books discuss how Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, etc. had their lands conquered, subjugated, Islamized, etc. and how Mohammed, far from the peace lover he's portrayed as, was a warmonger and tyrant, who pillaged, plundered, and murdered his way across the Middle East, leaving death and destruction in his wake. Also, how intolerant Islam is of women, people of other faiths (comparing them to animal blood, feces, etc.), and how Mohammed was a pedophile and whoremonger, etc.
But you find crap like that at the base of many religions. You can't one day just wake up and think "Hmmmm, Islam is bad because they were violent, the conquered lands for no real reasons, and they're mean to women". Guess what. You'll be hating a lot more than just Muslims for that.

Simonist']But as you STARTED the thread, and are attacking us based on our replies (though poorly, in my opinion), we just want to understand where you're coming from. I've personally already cemented my opinion -- that you're a right-wing whackjob, with the same opinions that your parents raised you with, probably still living with them (perhaps not even a legal adult yet) who simply likes to post crap like this to see if you can incite people to flame.

But then, I always have low opinions of people who refuse to follow through on their own nonsense.

Okay. Here I am:

Yes, I am a whackjob, but not a right-wing one. Just a whackjob. I'm arrogant, hot-tempered, and type things I regret just seconds later. I'm an asshole, a bigot, a moron, rude, etc. I lean to the right on some others, but I'm libertarian on many others.

Okay. Here I am:

Yes, I am a whackjob, but not a right-wing one. Just a whackjob. I'm arrogant, hot-tempered, and type things I regret just seconds later. I'm an asshole, a bigot, a moron, rude, etc. I lean to the right on some others, but I'm libertarian on many others.
Well, I already figured that crap. But I was more expecting to hear your opinions on the subject at hand, rather than just an admission of a heated temper.

Yes, I have. The books discuss how Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, etc. had their lands conquered, subjugated, Islamized, etc. and how Mohammed, far from the peace lover he's portrayed as, was a warmonger and tyrant, who pillaged, plundered, and murdered his way across the Middle East, leaving death and destruction in his wake. Also, how intolerant Islam is of women, people of other faiths (comparing them to animal blood, feces, etc.), and how Mohammed was a pedophile and whoremonger, etc.Ah, but the two religions "subjugated" have never done anything wrong to islam?

If you would read the books of Zangi, you would note immediately that most of the books you refer to are wrong.
The spreading of Dar al-Islam, by force, is not a requirement for Shi'is.
So, at one stroke, I can exclude a large number of Muslims from your little diatribe.
Then, I can exclude all non-militant Sunnis, and most of the Sufis. By the same Arabic source on the nature and obligation of jihad.
All I'm left with are militant Sunnis, who hardly comprise the majority of Muslims."

From statements made by their own leaders in the news media, there would seem to be both Shi'is and "mainstream" Sunnis (including some members of the [non-Wahabbi] immigrant communities in countries such as Britain and the Netherlands) who would disagree with you about this point.
The only Muslim sect that I know of whose leaders have ALWAYS rejected the concept of 'Jihad' as Holy War is the 'Ahmadi' or 'Ahmadiya' one, founded in India (maybe in a part of it that's now in Pakistan) towards the end of the 19th century, which many mainstream Sunnis condemn as heretical and which has actually been actively persecuted by the Pakistani government.

Furthermore...
Sharia law STILL defines all of atheism, paganism and apostatsy from Islam as capital offences, and there have been executions accordingly (not just under the Taliban but also [for example] in Iran, where the Ba'hai are persecuted for claiming to have had a prophet who lived after Mohammed, or in the Sudan...) whereas the various Christian inquistions were less solidly grounded in scriptual authority and were all abolished after far shorter lengths of time than that for which Sharia law has existed... And the proportion of the modern world's Muslims who support the use of Sharia law seems to be much, MUCH higher than the proportion of the modern world's Christians who still favour any form of theocratic government...

This thread isn't about my stances, is it? This is discussion of Islam, not a "let's get to know the asshole Blessed Misfortune" thread.

Now, there's no need to put words in our mouths.

As for hijacking, it is perfectly fine to discuss other religions in comparison with Islam, as I have done. I have even mentioned another Islamic work by Zangi, which is far more authoritative than any derivative work you have mentioned.

If I were to take the topic off to something like "do you like smooth or chunky peanut butter?" that would be hijacking.

But I'm staying on violence in religions, as compared to Islam, which you are asserting is completely violent, and for some reason you believe this fact is hidden from us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but George Bush and his advisors are Republicans, and far from being on the Left. They also constantly remind the world that our attacks on al-Q, our war on terror, and our invasion of Iraq are not an attack on Islam or Muslims. We still are forbidden to profile young Arab Muslim men in airports.

Are you saying that Bush is a) deceiving us, b) deceived, or c) never read those books of yours

Simonist']But you find crap like that at the base of many religions. You can't one day just wake up and think "Hmmmm, Islam is bad because they were violent, the conquered lands for no real reasons, and they're mean to women". Guess what. You'll be hating a lot more than just Muslims for that.

Yes, there have been assholes and extremists from all religions (cough, Phelps and Falwell, cough), but in Islam's case, the founder of the religion was himself an asshole and extremist.

Ah, but the two religions "subjugated" have never done anything wrong to islam?

Probably they have. I don't know. You're best off asking someone far more knowledgable (sp?) on the subject on them.

Yes, I am a whackjob, but not a right-wing one. Just a whackjob. I'm arrogant, hot-tempered, and type things I regret just seconds later. I'm an asshole, a bigot, a moron, rude, etc. I lean to the right on some others, but I'm libertarian on many others.

You forgot a staunch enemy of self-improvement.

Anyone who is aware of all of those personality flaws and doesn't mind them should be institutionalized.........

Yes, there have been assholes and extremists from all religions (cough, Phelps and Falwell, cough), but in Islam's case, the founder of the religion was himself an asshole and extremist.

Historically, for reasons that are hidden by the sands of time, the founder of Christianity was convicted of being an asshole and an extremist, and subsequently nailed to a tree.

What, in your esteemed judgment, makes Muhammed an asshole and an extremist?

Yes, there have been assholes and extremists from all religions (cough, Phelps and Falwell, cough), but in Islam's case, the founder of the religion was himself an asshole and extremist.
Well it's easy to say that about Phelps (who's actually a kind of a weirdly nice guy when you're not talking about homosexuals, I had to meet him once. He bought me lunch) and Falwell, because they're contemporaries. Centuries down the road, they may well be seen as saints. But it's a lot harder to make a claim like that if you personally dont' have any proof aside from what these authors say. Like I said, from what I read of your little book club list, I wasn't at all impressed. I wouldn't take the word of those three authors to heart any day.

Probably they have. I don't know. You're best off asking someone far more knowledgable (sp?) on the subject on them.Then there isn't really much point in discussing how bloody Islam is if you don't have anything to compare it to.

Then there isn't really much point in discussing how bloody Islam is if you don't have anything to compare it to.
Damn....you beat me to it.

islam[/b]?[quote]
[QUOTE=Blessed Misfortune]Probably they have. I don't know. You're best off asking someone far more knowledgable (sp?) on the subject on them.

Whaaaa?

Anyone who is aware of all of those personality flaws and doesn't mind them should be institutionalized.........

Good idea. :)

Historically, for reasons that are hidden by the sands of time, the founder of Christianity was convicted of being an asshole and an extremist, and subsequently nailed to a tree.

What, in your esteemed judgment, makes Muhammed an asshole and an extremist?

Slaughtering and enslaving people who refused to convert to his religion, pillaging everywhere he went, in addition to being a whoremonger and a pedophile (one of his wives was a nine-year-old girl).

the jews did not have a land at the time of the muslim conquest the romans had previously distroyed that and dispersed the jews. the jews have made many offences with in the past 100 years that makes me have no sympathy for them. all things against jews have been recent but as far as the christians in the eastern roman empire suffered without lifting a hand to begin with then and only then did some revolt and the wars start.

Slaughtering and enslaving people who refused to convert to his religion, pillaging everywhere he went, in addition to being a whoremonger and a pedophile (one of his wives was a nine-year-old girl).
I wouldn't argue with this post except to say that, well.....slaughtering and enslaving non-converts has been a practice since the rise of the Roman Empire. You're being foolish to selectively pick out Islam on that one. Furthermore, having a 9 year old wife wasn't terribly uncommon in those times. People only lived maybe three to four decades, and a woman was expected to start a family early on. Also, men were encouraged to have multiple wives, to better spread their seed.

Maybe some studying would do you good...?

"The Left" usually DOESN'T want to censor anything...even if it is "harsh".

Islam has a bloody history, as does Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...and so on and so forth...

The only "bloodless" religion I can think of is Buddhism, and I might even be wrong on that one.

The only bloodless religion I can think of is the Amish!!

Piekrom']the jews did not have a land at the time of the muslim conquest the romans had previously distroyed that and dispersed the jews. the jews have made many offences with in the past 100 years that makes me have no sympathy for them. all things against jews have been recent but as far as the christians in the eastern roman empire suffered without lifting a hand to begin with then and only then did some revolt and the wars start.

Ha, another bit of religious intolerance added to this o-so-vibrant discussion.

Slaughtering and enslaving people who refused to convert to his religion, pillaging everywhere he went, in addition to being a whoremonger and a pedophile (one of his wives was a nine-year-old girl).

So you have a problem with Jesus hanging out with idolators, gamblers, and prostitutes? Getting a foot massage?

Any problem with the Crusades? An uninvited attack (multiple times) by Christian soldiers on Islam in the name of God? Sponsored by the Catholic Church?

oh i do not hat the jews i am just saying i have no sypathy for israil

Now, I got to page 4 of this thread and then thought 'fuck me, the troll is actually getting fed' so...

Don't feed the troll!!!

Piekrom']oh i do not hat the jews i am just saying i have no sypathy for israil
Dude, we weren't talking about IsrAEL. That's threadjacking to the EXTREME. Well not quite, but, um.....ENOUGH NON SEQUITURS FROM YOU!

what is the troll

Slaughtering and enslaving people who refused to convert to his religion, pillaging everywhere he went, in addition to being a whoremonger and a pedophile (one of his wives was a nine-year-old girl).Sounds completely different from how Islam was practiced on the Iberian Peninsula...

Piekrom']what is the troll
Oh geez, man, did you even read the stickies regarding forum rules and etiquette before you ran headlong into this? Here, read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) and come back when you're a better man for it.

from Wiki:

"In the context of the Internet, a troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages."

The only bloodless religion I can think of is the Amish!!They got bloodied quite badly in the 30 years war.

Simonist']Dude, we weren't talking about IsrAEL. That's threadjacking to the EXTREME. Well not quite, but, um.....ENOUGH NON SEQUITURS FROM YOU!

i am not thread jacking more like i am defending my self against an attack made on a coment i made about did any of the other religions do anything to muslims

So you have a problem with Jesus hanging out with idolators, gamblers, and prostitutes? Getting a foot massage?

Any problem with the Crusades? An uninvited attack (multiple times) by Christian soldiers on Islam in the name of God? Sponsored by the Catholic Church?

How can you call the Crusades unprovoked?? Byzantium was under attack, as was Cordoba, Sicily, Corsica, Rhodes, Crete, etc. by the Islamic Hoards. Let's not re-write history like Mr. Oliver Stone, OK??

The Pope's method of recruiting for the Crusades may have been suspect, but you cannot deny that Christianity was under assult in 1098.

[QUOTE= Any problem with the Crusades? An uninvited attack (multiple times) by Christian soldiers on Islam in the name of God? Sponsored by the Catholic Church?[/QUOTE]

"Uninvited"? Although I certainly wouldn't try to defend the Crusaders' general behaviour towards the civilian inhabitants of the lands that they over-ran, DO I really have to point out that the First Crusade began as an attempt to regain lands (in Anatolia) which the Muslims had only just conquered from the [Byzantine] Christians, and that all of the other "Muslim" lands attacked were also ones which the Muslims themselves had taken by force from previous Christian governments?

Piekrom']oh i do not hat the jews i am just saying i have no sypathy for israil

And apparently no idea of proper spelling, either?

How can you call the Crusades unprovoked?? Byzantium was under attack, as was Cordoba, Sicily, Corsica, Rhodes, Crete, etc. by the Islamic Hoards. Let's not re-write history like Mr. Oliver Stone, OK??

The Pope's method of recruiting for the Crusades may have been suspect, but you cannot deny that Christianity was under assult in 1098.

The Oxford History of the Crusades denies it.

The Byzantine Crusades were completely separate, and no threat to Christianity.

Careful, Transoceana: you might disturb the mythology and internal monologue of the historically illitterate Blame-the-West-Firsters ...



www.postmodernspectator.com

Unless you mean "socially restrictive Communists" by "the left," I'd say we're more likely to allow you to read anything than you silly Conservatives and your attempts at censoring and book banning.

Yes, there have been assholes and extremists from all religions (cough, Phelps and Falwell, cough), but in Islam's case, the founder of the religion was himself an asshole and extremist.

Well, the founder of Christianity seems to have open-minded and a great guy, but look where that got his religion.

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.

My my a tad sensitive are we.

You can doubt all you want, I am a history nut so I will read some of them when I find them. I have more books then wall space.

So you are a centrist or a libert? Not from your comments. You sound conservative as I have heard my redneck relatives say the same thing.

BTW: Re-read my post. For some reason I can't find anything that said you were from the right.

Ahh well.....

"Well, the founder of Christianity seems to have open-minded and a great guy, but look where that got his religion. "

What element of Christianity do you actually mean? the early church of the catacombs? The church of the 7 councils and Patristic Fathers? The Roman catholic or Orthodox Churches after the split? Some of the many flavors of reformers in the Renaissance? The counter-reformers of that period? The later evolution of the reformers into churches as disparate as the Unification Church of Coleridge, the Wesleyans, or the Tractrarians? The Vatican II - reformed Catholic Church? The Evangelical revival of today, or the old line protestant churches like the Episcopalians or Presbys? The breakaway Anglicans, or the fast-growing Orthodox faith in the US, Asia, and Africa?

My point is that you paint 2000 years of very diverse and influential history with a very broad and intellectually lazy brush. If indeed you have issues with the past of Christianity, then you more than likely are indulging in the historically illiterate pastime of judging the past by the standards of the present. If its with contemporary Christianity then I trust that you can be more specific.


www.postmodernspectator.com

If people were to judge religions by how bloody they have been...

If you look at the books, you'll know that the books not only are talking about the histrory, but the present and the actual dogma of Islam.

I have an idea. Anyone in support of this thread turn against it. Anyone against it, argue that this thread is right.

I just basically want to see if you all can give a valid arguement from the opposite point of view.

Well, the founder of Christianity seems to have open-minded and a great guy, but look where that got his religion.

The thing is for me, that always marks Jesus as supieror to Mohammad is that when Jesus's life was threatened he didnt fight, kill or harm anyone. He actually adhered to his ideals right up to his death. When Mohammad's life was threatened he promptly raised an army and killed all of those who disagreed with him (ok not all, but his opposition, the Qarish I think) at the battle of Badra. He did not adherr ultimately to the faith and beliefs he set about to create.

The thing is for me, that always marks Jesus as supieror to Mohammad is that when Jesus's life was threatened he didnt fight, kill or harm anyone. He actually adhered to his ideals right up to his death. When Mohammad's life was threatened he promptly raised an army and killed all of those who disagreed with him (ok not all, but his opposition, the Qarish I think) at the battle of Badra. He did not adherr ultimately to the faith and beliefs he set about to create.
Why fight … in the end he did not loose anything but some time and a bit of un-deserved pain

Honestly I think the thieves gave up more of a sacrifice then Jesus … they did not have an all powerful daddy (or self however you want to look at it) to give him back his body and take him wholly up into heaven

Liberals favor capitalism, albeit regulated capitalism. They favor a free market, for the most part, but with some restrictions. They favor helping the needy, so long as they're willing to help themselves.

Leftists favor socialism. They favor pilfering the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. They favor robbing people with money blind via taxation, and giving it all to poor people, whether they work or not.

Most liberals are patriotic. But they are genuine patriots, the sort who support their country when it is right, and oppose it when it is wrong.

Leftists are internationalists.

Liberals favor equal treatment for all, be they black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever.

Leftists favor special treatment for minorities.

Taxation is neccassary for society to operate......and "successful and rewarding the unsuccessful" does'nt account for the fact that many people who are successful or unsuccessful don't deserve to be so. Why should'nt the successful help the unsuccessful?

Why fight … in the end he did not loose anything but some time and a bit of un-deserved pain

Honestly I think the thieves gave up more of a sacrifice then Jesus … they did not have an all powerful daddy (or self however you want to look at it) to give him back his body and take him wholly up into heaven

Still, in the last day he was seperated from his Father. To him, someone who had heard God talk to him through his whole life, that would be hell on earth.

Why fight … in the end he did not loose anything but some time and a bit of un-deserved pain

Honestly I think the thieves gave up more of a sacrifice then Jesus … they did not have an all powerful daddy (or self however you want to look at it) to give him back his body and take him wholly up into heaven

See you now look at it like he was actually the son of God. But if you dont accept Christianity as truth, then he was just a man and he followed up his mission to death. My point still stands. Jesus actually adhered to the ideals he claimed to uphold. Mohamad did not. The only way you can support the idea that "jesus didnt lose much, Mohammad did" is if you are prepared to accept the fact that he died and rose and was the son of God. If not you cant use that arguement.

Still, in the last day he was seperated from his Father. To him, someone who had heard God talk to him through his whole life, that would be hell on earth.
You assume …

Sense no human (non Jesus) has even a comparable experience it would assuming a lot

Why should'nt the successful help the unsuccessful?

Ultimately those who are in power should give the fair oppotunity for everyone to be sucessful. They shouldnt fix the system to make it more easy to be sucseeful for minorityes because they are deemed not to be sucessful without help. You just have to give the same oppotunites to all, and remove the elements that cause minorities to fail in the first place.

You assume …

Sense no human (non Jesus) has even a comparable experience it would assuming a lot

Well since the Bible says that the nature of hell will be seperation from God, I would think it was hell. All we can do is assume in this sort of case. Its obvious that what Jesus went through was an extreme ammount of pain, from both what he experinced and his cry at the end

See you now look at it like he was actually the son of God. But if you dont accept Christianity as truth, then he was just a man and he followed up his mission to death. My point still stands. Jesus actually adhered to the ideals he claimed to uphold. Mohamad did not. The only way you can support the idea that "jesus didnt lose much, Mohammad did" is if you are prepared to accept the fact that he died and rose and was the son of God. If not you cant use that arguement.
I don’t have to accept it personally only as a hypothetical

Assuming each argument in turn was hypothetically true Mohammed lost more.

All I can say is: Read the Qur'an (if you can't read Arabic, the Yusuf Ali translation is widely considered to be the most accurate). That's where you can get Islamic beliefs straight from the horse's mouth. No middleman. All Muslims abide by the rules of the Qur'an (or at least, they're supposed to).

Well since the Bible says that the nature of hell will be seperation from God, I would think it was hell. All we can do is assume in this sort of case. Its obvious that what Jesus went through was an extreme ammount of pain, from both what he experinced and his cry at the end
Only what we go through every day ... there is no biblical support that he was any more seperated then us


Again not all that impressive

I never said they were. I'm simply pointing out that Islam is a religion of violence, born through bloodshed, spread through bloodshed, maintained through bloodshed.

Which could be argued about every other religion known to man if you choose to only look at the evidence that supports your thesis and the evidence that disputes it.

Don't forget that Christianity has just as violent a history, if not more.
Oh and fuck anyone who thinks that Islam is evil.

if someone has already posted this, i don't care i'm posting it again for the sake of realisation. the author of this post claims islam to be a religion founded through violence and spread by violence. Do you even know why most of the world is christain? have you ever heard of the holy roman empire? did you know that the romans single handedly imposed christianity through force on most of the Eurasian region? Next, we have the crusades; I'd call that the maintaing of a religion through violence: the pope orders all european christian nations to march into palestine and murder all the muslims that have 'infested the holy land', this 'holy land' which happens to be holy for three different religions.

In short, you suck; you conservative/republican/right-wing b*****d

if someone has already posted this, i don't care i'm posting it again for the sake of realisation. the author of this post claims islam to be a religion founded through violence and spread by violence. Do you even know why most of the world is christain? have you ever heard of the holy roman empire? did you know that the romans single handedly imposed christianity through force on most of the Eurasian region? Next, we have the crusades; I'd call that the maintaing of a religion through violence: the pope orders all european christian nations to march into palestine and murder all the muslims that have 'infested the holy land', this 'holy land' which happens to be holy for three different religions.

In short, you suck; you conservative/republican/right-wing b*****d

Well, I agree with that last bit...

Liberal and left are not the same thing.

yes they are,

either way, I hate the left, and i hate this guy who's posting anti-muslim stuff...

just shut it, you're giving the right a bad name.

this post shouldn't even be taken seriously. This kid is effectively a fascist and has nothing to base what he's saying on. Threads like this are just pollution and take time away from serious posts.

liberalism is not the same as leftism. leftism is usually associated with socialism while liberalism is associated with centrism. there, has that explained things for you? oh and don't post that sort of thing if you don't understand the concept of the political spectrum, which you evidently don't

if someone has already posted this, i don't care i'm posting it again for the sake of realisation. the author of this post claims islam to be a religion founded through violence and spread by violence. Do you even know why most of the world is christain? have you ever heard of the holy roman empire? did you know that the romans single handedly imposed christianity through force on most of the Eurasian region? Next, we have the crusades; I'd call that the maintaing of a religion through violence: the pope orders all european christian nations to march into palestine and murder all the muslims that have 'infested the holy land', this 'holy land' which happens to be holy for three different religions.

In short, you suck; you conservative/republican/right-wing b*****d
Don't insult Christians, don't insult conservatives, we are not all fascist extremist, in fact, none of us are. so you take your empty accusations elsewhere.

yes they are,

either way, I hate the left, and i hate this guy who's posting anti-muslim stuff...

just shut it, you're giving the right a bad name.
Not really … you are letting your viewpoint on American politics blind you

Left is usually associated with their economic viewpoint … liberal is a social standing measurement opposite of authoritarian

Don't insult Christians, don't insult conservatives, we are not all fascist extremist, in fact, none of us are. so you take your empty accusations elsewhere.
Well some could be … making an over generalization such as “none” is begging for trouble specially when someone finds the few that are.

Not really … you are letting your viewpoint on American politics blind you

Left is usually associated with their economic viewpoint … liberal is a social standing measurement opposite of authoritarian
Right. Like, I'm socially liberal, but I've been known for some incredibly centrist/conservative fiscal views. Because I was raised an upper-crust snob by hippies with money.

Don't insult Christians, don't insult conservatives, we are not all fascist extremist, in fact, none of us are. so you take your empty accusations elsewhere.
Sorry to disagree, but if NONE of you are like that, then the stereotype never would've come to be. Same goes for the opposite side.

like, oh let me think... the British National Party, our 'National Front' party! what a load of twats they are

liberalism is not the same as leftism. leftism is usually associated with socialism while liberalism is associated with centrism. there, has that explained things for you? oh and don't post that sort of thing if you don't understand the concept of the political spectrum, which you evidently don't

and i think i do know more than you, while you may see yourself as centrist, true centrists, and right wing people see you as left wing.

for example liberals, and leftists belive in planned economy to an extent, centrists have no opinion, centrists have hardly any opinion on anything, whereas liberals and leftists belive strongly in most things, the same with conservatives and right-wingers.

so in summary, i don't think YOU understand the political spectrum.

Simonist']Right. Like, I'm socially liberal, but I've been known for some incredibly centrist/conservative fiscal views. Because I was raised an upper-crust snob by hippies with money.


Sorry to disagree, but if NONE of you are like that, then the stereotype never would've come to be. Same goes for the opposite side.

christians aren't fascists, conservatives aren't fascists, fascists ARE however fascist. and anyone with fascist beliefs, are not conservative, they may say they are, but belive me, they're not. and i think that you'll realise, that stereotypes are invented by opposition and spin... they are invented by lies, and if you haven't realised that, then may God help you.

and i think i do know more than you, while you may see yourself as centrist, true centrists, and right wing people see you as left wing.

for example liberals, and leftists belive in planned economy to an extent, centrists have no opinion, centrists have hardly any opinion on anything, whereas liberals and leftists belive strongly in most things, the same with conservatives and right-wingers.

so in summary, i don't think YOU understand the political spectrum.
Read my post … left right economic standpoint … up down is your libertarian/authoritarian standing

One is economic the other is social

You are again just too blinded by your familiarity with your own system

In the US the “left” also tends to be liberal … but that does not mean they are directly associated everywhere

again you are a complete idiot, liberal is not a term you can apply to the political spectrum. i am centrist in my positioning on that, while my ideas are liberal

and i think i do know more than you, while you may see yourself as centrist, true centrists, and right wing people see you as left wing.

for example liberals, and leftists belive in planned economy to an extent, centrists have no opinion, centrists have hardly any opinion on anything, whereas liberals and leftists belive strongly in most things, the same with conservatives and right-wingers.

so in summary, i don't think YOU understand the political spectrum.

Centrists aren't the "no opinion" type, those people are apolitical. Centrists are the ones that don't consistently vote one way or the other, they can't be pinned to one side because their views and beliefs are incredibly mixed. For instance, on a US spectrum, I'm almost as left as they go, socially speaking (and as I already said, I have the occasional conservative/centrist fiscal belief). However, on a WORLD view, I'm pretty much described as "a teeeeeeny bit left of center", or, in kinder words, a centrist.

YOU'RE going to try to tell ME that I don't have an opinion? It never struck ME that way.

All you Christian-bashers have really stated is that in some instances Christianity was imposed by force up until nearly a millenium ago (HRE excepted). So are you contending that Islam is culturally nearly 1000 years behind Christianity?

Hmm, lets see: which religion has gone through a major Reformation and Enlightenment in the West? And in the east, I challenge you to show aggressive Christian bigotry anywhere on the scale that Islam has showed.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Islam at all. But attempting to equate contemporary Christians to its more militant adherants reveals more of the accusers' prejudices than anything and is really ill informed. To compare historical Christian atrocities (whether performed by secular or religious authorities) to historical and contemprary Islamist ones is also suspect, but maigh be legitimate on a case by case basis, provided that one does not commit the cardinal historical sin by judging the past by the standards of the present.

All you Christian-bashers have really stated is that in some instances Christianity was imposed by force up until nearly a millenium ago (HRE excepted). So are you contending that Islam is culturally nearly 1000 years behind Christianity?

Hmm, lets see: which religion has gone through a major Reformation and Enlightenment in the West? And in the east, I challenge you to show aggressive Christian bigotry anywhere on the scale that Islam has showed.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Islam at all. But attempting to equate contemporary Christians to its more militant adherants reveals more of the accusers' prejudices than anything and is really ill informed. To compare historical Christian atrocities (whether performed by secular or religious authorities) to historical and contemprary Islamist ones is also suspect, but maigh be legitimate on a case by case basis, provided that one does not commit the cardinal historical sin by judging the past by the standards of the present.
How DARE you assume that simply because we're pointing out the SAD TRUTH behind Christianity's past, we're Christian bashers? I'm a devout Catholic, for your information, but you think that just because I can acknowledge that my Church has made mistakes, that means that I don't consider the Church any good?

You make many dangerous assumptions when you refuse to see beyond simply what's written and don't put thought into your own posts.

Simonist']Centrists aren't the "no opinion" type, those people are apolitical. Centrists are the ones that don't consistently vote one way or the other, they can't be pinned to one side because their views and beliefs are incredibly mixed. For instance, on a US spectrum, I'm almost as left as they go, socially speaking (and as I already said, I have the occasional conservative/centrist fiscal belief). However, on a WORLD view, I'm pretty much described as "a teeeeeeny bit left of center", or, in kinder words, a centrist.

YOU'RE going to try to tell ME that I don't have an opinion? It never struck ME that way.

CENTRISTS, MODERATES, trying to please both sides of an argument, you can't hold a political view, you're more intent on pleasing people thatn your own beliefs, your beliefs come second place to sorting out arguments. THAT'S what I'm saying! So stop accusing me of being ignorant, I'm not!

But attempting to equate contemporary Christians to its more militant adherants reveals more of the accusers' prejudices than anything and is really ill informed.
As you appear to be doing with Islam?

CENTRISTS, MODERATES, trying to please both sides of an argument, you can't hold a political view, you're more intent on pleasing people thatn your own beliefs, your beliefs come second place to sorting out arguments. THAT'S what I'm saying! So stop accusing me of being ignorant, I'm not!
It's not a matter of trying to please both sides, and I'm not accusing you of being ignorant any more than you're accusing me of being a salmon. Quit being ridiculous.

As I said, who the fuck on EITHER side cares if I vote "Moderate", "Liberal", etc? Nobody. I vote on each issue depending on what's most tasteful and necessary in my eyes. How is it used to please either side? Your arguments make absolutely no sense except to seem to provide an excuse to your simple refusal to acknowledge that people are entitled to their OWN opinions.

Leftists hide the truth about everything behind a veil of political correctness.
I'm leftist and I'm against political correctness. And I certainly hate fundamentalist/conservative Islam.

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.
Maybe some leftists are like this, and of course you only see the worst in what you don't like in the first place. Most leftists aren't PC.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.
Because it's usually right-wingers who display such mindless vitriol against the left.

Seriously, why would leftists want to defend religious fundamentalism?

Liberals favor equal treatment for all, be they black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever.

Leftists favor special treatment for minorities.
Actually that's the other way around.

I'd always been led to believe that liberals were normally considered to lean leftwards. Is this one of these odd American conventgions which I'm unaware of?

I doubt you'll read them. Leftists never read anything that isn't politically correct. They always babble about "looking at both sides of the issue," yet they never do. They favor political correctness over fact. They would rather accept a foot note-free politically correct book than a politically incorrect book loaded with documentation.

And who said I was from the Right? For all you know, I could be a centrist, a libertarian, apolitical, or whatever.

Your continued trolling in this thread is not appreciated. You accuse 'leftists' of being completely ignorant to all sides of any issue, which is a blanket statement of ones' beliefs. I suggest that you knock off the stereotyping, and use good debating tactics. This thread could also be construed as flamebait/trolling, so I'm locking it. How about you start a discussion of one of the authors who wrote more than one of the books in your list (Robert Spencer).

if someone has already posted this, i don't care i'm posting it again for the sake of realisation. the author of this post claims islam to be a religion founded through violence and spread by violence. Do you even know why most of the world is christain? have you ever heard of the holy roman empire? did you know that the romans single handedly imposed christianity through force on most of the Eurasian region? Next, we have the crusades; I'd call that the maintaing of a religion through violence: the pope orders all european christian nations to march into palestine and murder all the muslims that have 'infested the holy land', this 'holy land' which happens to be holy for three different religions.

In short, you suck; you conservative/republican/right-wing b*****d

I can understand your point, but your last sentence proves that you need to control your emotions. That sentence is flaming the creator of this thread. Despite the fact that his first post was flamebaiting/trolling, doesn't give you the right to attack him, so cool it.