Now? That was always the case. People disagree. These are controversial topics. It happens.
Most Muslims are Oriental and European, just saying.
Arabs, North Africans and Persians (Mideasterners) only make up 30% or so of the Islamic population.Most Muslims are Non-European
Its European Vs Non-European issue. Religions which are embraced by majority of Europeans are (Christianity/Judaism). Since majority of Non-Europeans are Muslims, it is a racial warfare disguised as religious warfare.
Most Muslims are Oriental and European, just saying.
Its European Vs Non-European issue. Religions which are embraced by majority of Europeans are (Christianity/Judaism). Since majority of Non-Europeans are Muslims, it is a racial warfare disguised as religious warfare.
Except that most Muslims are Oriental (well Turkish really) and European with most of the growing Islamic population due to whites converting (this is piratically true in the Americas).
The growing Muslim population is of particular interest. In the EU, about 3.2% are Muslims. I would like to share that nowadays, discussions of European Islam may in fact refer to very diverse elements.
Kufarinator, et al,
Dave actually does not have to say a word. The Islamic world already has established their reputation, the compassion and their ability to commit to peaceful pursuits.
(COMMENT)
Yes, I see it all throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Why, the Islamic world just sets the example for everyone to follow. Just look as all those peaceful, prosperous and thriving counties. I don't see an unkind word spoken about them. They all promote peace and freedom.
Most Respectfully,
R
Dave actually does not have to say a word. The Islamic world already has established their reputation, the compassion and their ability to commit to peaceful pursuits.
(COMMENT)
Yes, I see it all throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Why, the Islamic world just sets the example for everyone to follow. Just look as all those peaceful, prosperous and thriving counties. I don't see an unkind word spoken about them. They all promote peace and freedom.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, because secularism (I'm a secularist BTW) has worked so well. Iran and Turkey (now ruled by an Islamist party) are stable, Iraq and Syria, not so much. The socialist (in name) secularist dictatorships are responsible for almost all of the region's issues (including all those pesky wars with Israel).
I am enraged. We Whites fought very hard in the past to keep Islam out of Europe. Think Spain. Think the Baltics. Yet, we now allow them so simply walk into Europe? It is high time the European states work to push those Muslims out of Europe as Hitler rightfully attempted to do with the Jews.
Another Crusades needs to happen, where we of the West get together and destroy Islam once and for all. They are a threat to society, to world peace. If the Jews get caught in the middle and end up being destroyed, so be it. Two birds with one stone I say.
Yes they tried so hard that Aragon was allied to Granada, the Normans declared Arabic to be the official language and built churches in the style of mosques after conquering Sicily, France allied with the Ottomans, Richard the Lion Heart tried to merge his family into Saladin's (which would of made Saladin English royalty had it worked out) and the voivode (king) of Wallachia collected the jizya for the Ottomans and sent his 2 sons (1 being the now infamous Dracula) to Istanbul to be trained as Janissaries. :giggle:
And the fairy tales continue. I don't know what you Americans are being taught in schools, but Muslims have been the scum of the world for centuries. They deserve to be eradicated.
David, et al,
I did several searchs of the Turkish Constitution. I can't find any reference to religion, Islam, Muslim --- as a basis for governance.
(COMMENT)
I believe that Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) was one of the brightest leaders of his era. And I believe that he intentionally divorced religion from the scheme, knowing it would lead to trouble. While I do not argue that it is (predominantly) a Muslim country, I think it is also separating religious beliefs from the business of governance.
I think both Iraq and Afghanistan should have followed Turkey's lead.
While I believe that Turkey is a little restrictive, I don't hold Iran as a freely developing nation, or a non-repressive government. Eventually there will be a backlash against religiously repressive governments and it may have an adverse impact on the religious following as an unforeseen consequence of a lack in religious tolerance. Eventually, the populations of Muslim states will come to realize that such repressive regimes also retards cultural and scientific development. The people will want the same standard of living as the outside world. Maslow's hierarchy of needs will kick-in and religious influence will dwindle as a intelligentsia re-emerges.
Persia and the Arab worlds were once the center of learning. Unlike America, which has taken a different path, the Persia and the Arab worlds could be great once again - if given room to grow. But until that time; until the Persia and the Arab worlds see a path to enlightenment, it will be at odds with the growing and expanding markets that are not confined by the anti-developmental that is Islam.
Most Respectfully,
R
I did several searchs of the Turkish Constitution. I can't find any reference to religion, Islam, Muslim --- as a basis for governance.
(COMMENT)
I believe that Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) was one of the brightest leaders of his era. And I believe that he intentionally divorced religion from the scheme, knowing it would lead to trouble. While I do not argue that it is (predominantly) a Muslim country, I think it is also separating religious beliefs from the business of governance.
I think both Iraq and Afghanistan should have followed Turkey's lead.
While I believe that Turkey is a little restrictive, I don't hold Iran as a freely developing nation, or a non-repressive government. Eventually there will be a backlash against religiously repressive governments and it may have an adverse impact on the religious following as an unforeseen consequence of a lack in religious tolerance. Eventually, the populations of Muslim states will come to realize that such repressive regimes also retards cultural and scientific development. The people will want the same standard of living as the outside world. Maslow's hierarchy of needs will kick-in and religious influence will dwindle as a intelligentsia re-emerges.
Persia and the Arab worlds were once the center of learning. Unlike America, which has taken a different path, the Persia and the Arab worlds could be great once again - if given room to grow. But until that time; until the Persia and the Arab worlds see a path to enlightenment, it will be at odds with the growing and expanding markets that are not confined by the anti-developmental that is Islam.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Confusion of terms
When it was coined a few years ago, Islamist referred strictly to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda types who have managed to ideologize their form of Islam. For this reason, some people also coined the term Islamo-fascism to describe the phenomena. Now, any strong Islamic movement (Hamas, for example) is referred to as Islamist and the distinction and danger is neglected.
The reason the true Islamists/Islamo-fascists (the Al-Qaeda types) are so dangerous is that they have defined the end result they want (a strict Islamic Caliphate and a global Jihad against non-believers) and are willing to bend, fold and mutilate the teachings of the Koran in order to achieve their goals. This is not Islam in the traditional sense of the religion
Only with the most strenuous twisting of text can you try to justify a suicide-bombing of Shia Muslims under the tenets of the Koran. The ideological portion of the equation means that any distortion of the faith is justified to achieve the end result, just as Stalinist Russia was somehow going to usher in the defeat of Capitalism and the worker's paradise.
Both religion and ideology are responsible for the spilling of oceans of human blood. An extremist cause that combines the worst features of both is not one I am willing to tolerate.
When it was coined a few years ago, Islamist referred strictly to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda types who have managed to ideologize their form of Islam. For this reason, some people also coined the term Islamo-fascism to describe the phenomena. Now, any strong Islamic movement (Hamas, for example) is referred to as Islamist and the distinction and danger is neglected.
The reason the true Islamists/Islamo-fascists (the Al-Qaeda types) are so dangerous is that they have defined the end result they want (a strict Islamic Caliphate and a global Jihad against non-believers) and are willing to bend, fold and mutilate the teachings of the Koran in order to achieve their goals. This is not Islam in the traditional sense of the religion
Only with the most strenuous twisting of text can you try to justify a suicide-bombing of Shia Muslims under the tenets of the Koran. The ideological portion of the equation means that any distortion of the faith is justified to achieve the end result, just as Stalinist Russia was somehow going to usher in the defeat of Capitalism and the worker's paradise.
Both religion and ideology are responsible for the spilling of oceans of human blood. An extremist cause that combines the worst features of both is not one I am willing to tolerate.
If you actually believe that they believe in the rhetoric. There is a case that the rhetoric of a jihad, etc. are nothing more than recruiting tools for what is otherwise completely a political goal.
So fascist Canuck I have to be exterminated just because I'm a Muslim? Very democratic and civilised!
No, ISLAM needs to be exterminated. Your religion actually specifies and instructs how to exterminate all infidels (nonbelievers). The sole goal of Islam is world domination, which I cannot allow.
Don't feel lonely, many of us are not feeling the love from the " Canuck".
Ooooh, the stinging sarcasm, the razor-sharp wit...
Similar threads
