Europe's 9/11

lol.

It is quite simple, you said that islam preaches "humane treatment of women", among other things, ignoring all the extra-quranic text which forms much of the basis of shariah law(hadith, commentaries, sunnahs, etc), and most importantly, ignoring the reality of shariah since mohammed walked the earth. All the meanwhile claiming to be "a historian" and "scholar" intent on "educating the ignorant".

As soon as you were called out on the bs and exposed as a marble tower ignoramus you put your tail between your arse and ran off. Look at this:

No, more like tired of going back and forth with someone who has the reading comprehension of a four year old. Once again, you completely ignored my arguments, and made up your own to respond to.

It is pathetic really. The equivalent of a child covering his ears and shouting LALALALA. I'm certainly not the one "ignoring arguments" here.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
269
Pladio and Charlemagne3.0, thanks for your replies. That explains alot.

It must have been quite extensive since most of north africa speak french.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
2,818
Location
United Kingdom
@FretRider

You really are a piece of work. Since you have a reading disability, I'll copy paste the statement that has your panties in a bunch; "The great irony, the Qur'an is actually more progressive than the bible, especially in the way it deals with women!" This after a paragraph condemning both the House of Saud, and wahhabism.

Let me help you out a bit with a simple goolge definition of "irony"; a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. See what I did there genius? I was pointing out the irony of ideological zealots -a state of mind you apparently have first hand knowledge of- questioning the purity of others, when they freely ignore the parts of their holy book that they don't like.

But wait, there's more! The Quran is more progressive than its two counter parts when it comes to women. Read that again genius, I wrote that their "book" is more progressive on the subject, not that they preach it. Now, very slowly read the definition of irony out loud to yourself again. Done? Good. See, the overall irony is that despite the fact that their book is more progressive on the subject, they treat women like shit. In stark contrast, Christian, and Jewish countries, whose holy books treat women like dirt, have afforded them more freedom than women have ever enjoyed. You might also want to look up the word "context".

To put it simply, like you, the extremist are nothing more than empty suits, effectively arguing with themselves, running around in circles. The big difference is that unlike them, you aren't dangerous, just... sad.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
43
To put it simply, like you, the extremist are nothing more than empty suits, effectively arguing with themselves, running around in circles. The big difference is that unlike them, you aren't dangerous, just… sad.

Sounds to me like you just described yourself, a bit of projection perhaps.

I never never seem such a failed and circular argument in my life. Your first attempt to claim moslens were "more tolerant and humane" than the other abrahamic religions has backfired so terribly and exposed you as so completely ignorant on the subject that you don't even try anymore. You are just flinging poo at my direction at this point and looking ridiculous while at it.

If you have no point to make and no reply at your disposal you should just be quiet. Read the hadith, read the sunnahs, research about shariah law(how it is and how it has been since it developed). Educate yourself a bit.
 
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
269
Boys, play nice PLEASE!! :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
This has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with the corrupt culture/governments in the countries these idiots come, or get their teachings from.


Defending Islam? I've written in pretty much every post that the religion is in desperate need of its own Martin Luther, or John Calvin. In other words, reformation.

Islam is a big problem in the way it does not provide what it is expected.
A reforming in what way? It is time to end this non sense.

One example:
A teacher testified about the resistance she encountered when she tried to get her classrooms to express their support to freedom of speech by taking one minute of silence to mourn the deceased.
The article was written in a way that sometimes let people guess who are the troublemakers (always the same type of article)

The first act of resistance she reported is a one eleven year old boy (or so) asking the question "where should I mourn people I am not related with?" A few weeks before the event, five homeless died in the streets because of the cold. Maybe the kid was aware of it, maybe not. No mourning minute was observed for them.
So these deaths must be different from the homeless death.

The teacher took the question as a taunt, as a provocation. A classroom is probably not the place to get a minute of silence respected. A classroom though is a place to learn and teach critical thinking among other things.

The question the kid asked was a critical question. Yet it was taken as a taunt. Later on, the teacher kept depicting all she went through, including the means that she had to deploy in order to keep people in line. The means ranged from manipulation to threats and banishment (troublemakers were expelled from the classroom and sent to report to the headmaster)

Not only the question was a critical one, there are also good reasons not to mourn for a minute.
The rest of the testimony went the same: the teacher was unable to accept they could be different opinions on the event, and that those opinions had to express.
Everyone was required to take the minute of silence. Anyone who held another a non compatible opinion got their opinion crushed. They had to express in one way.


This happened maybe two days after the massacre. Usually, when people hold a value, this kind of disaster help to regenerate the expression of the value: people pay more attention for some time.
The value must be practised though.
There is no freedom of speech. What got regenerated is censorship. As it is the practised value.

During that day in that school, kids deployed various skills they are supposed to learn and practise: critical thinking, skepticism, empiricism, pragmatism, common sense etc
All these methods have one thing in common: when performed properly, they validate the non existence of freedom of speech.
There are dozens of other methods to achieve the same result.

What reforming for Islam? It cant be one that includes any of the previous methods that leads to the conclusion that there is no freedom of speech.

Islam fails to provide what is expected, that is a way of thinking that lead to dismiss the non existence of freedom of speech when freedom of speech is lacking.

Even the most backward versions of Islam that are desesperately promoted by western governments in hope to provide the proper substrate to make for the non existence of freedom of speech.

Ah, yes, all those troublemaking kids were reported as mulsims, all those kids putting in action critical thinking, skepticism, pragmaticism, empiricism were muslim, the others who failed at applying all that, probably, for the majority, non muslim.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Source please.

I can sadly not give a direct source. This was something that I learnt when studying the history of ideas at Stockholm University back in 2007, and I'm currently trying to find the compendium that was handed out with the information so that I could at least point you towards it. I can point you towards two books, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (Margaret C. Schaus) & Women's Roles in the Middle Ages (Sandy Bardsley) which talks about the differences between the christian & islamic countries when it came to what women were and were not allowed to do, and what rights they had.

Abd al-Wahhab, founder of wahhabism, didn't re-interpret the Koran — anyone who advocated that in Islam would be summarily executed. No, it was a clarion call against re-interpretation. To purify Islamic territories of any heresies, to make the conquered people submit, and strip them of their old traditions….
While this was his stated goal, you have to remember that what he did was presenting an alternative interpretation than the one that was the most common. You have to remember that with any major religious work, you are going to find a lot of things open for interpretation, and you are going to find contradictions, and the Koran is no different. You also seem to assume that Wahhabism is the default state for Islamic countries, but fact is that Wahhabism is an offshot of Sunni Islam, and Shia or Ibadi Islam don't follow the Wahhabistic ideas. The only two countries that actually are official followers of Wahhabism are Saudi Arabia (which is currently moving away from it) and Qatar. While that does not mean that Wahhabism does not have followers in other countries as well, it clearly does, it does mean that they don't follow Wahhabi laws.

Your statement about there not being any "different" interpretations in Islam is directly contradicted by the fact that there are 3 major branches in Islam, that have fundamentally different views on how you should follow the religion (this is in fact something that has caused a lot of conflicts in the past).

Finally, your example of Islam being at the forefront of science and technology as the West fell into the Dark Ages has nothing to with a re-interpretation of Islam. That was the start of Islam.
Baghdad was a center of learning well into the 13th century, while Islam was funded in the 6th century.

I'm going to leave this with a quote from Kitab Al-Ilm that is often conveniently forgotten by certain extremist groups, who claim that they want to go back to the "old days":
He said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: If anyone travels on a road in search of knowledge, Allah will cause him to travel on one of the roads of Paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one who seeks knowledge, the inhabitants of the heavens and the Earth and the fish in the deep waters will ask forgiveness for the learned man. The superiority of the learned man over the devout is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets leave neither dinar nor dirham, leaving only knowledge, and he who takes it takes an abundant portion.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
1,756
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
While this was his stated goal, you have to remember that what he did was presenting an alternative interpretation than the one that was the most common.

I think it's just a play on words to say wahhabism offered a different interpretation than what existed before. There wasn't some multicultural appreciation version of Islam before wahhabism.

Islam conquered people who held different faiths and traditions, and they continued to practice these, such as by practicing polytheism, building idols, etc.

Wahhabism was simply a movement that sought to enforce Islam…one of many purity movements.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
39
I can sadly not give a direct source. This was something that I learnt when studying the history of ideas at Stockholm University back in 2007, and I'm currently trying to find the compendium that was handed out with the information so that I could at least point you towards it. I can point you towards two books, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (Margaret C. Schaus) & Women's Roles in the Middle Ages (Sandy Bardsley) which talks about the differences between the christian & islamic countries when it came to what women were and were not allowed to do, and what rights they had.

Stockholm University… feminist authors, got it.

I like medieval history, I can tell you I find no basis for such claim. Medieval Europe was very varied, but in most places women were allowed to inherit, and it was a custom since Charlemagne to give women access to education(well, the noble ones, but then again educating peasants was not really something in the mind of rulers regardless of gender). For the Basques and some celtic cultures women actually were first in line to inherit.

I can give you examples of several notable women in in medieval Europe. Rulers(Eleanor of Aquitaine), Mystics(Julian of Norwich), Battlefield Leaders(Joan of Arc), Writers(Anna Commenos), Intellectuals(Hildegard of Bingen)… can you name similar examples from the muslim world? The arabs and the turks were polygamous and mostly used women as playthings, slaves and baby factories.

It is awfully absurd to claim moslen harem masters and slave traders "thaught" European Christians to treat females better.

Baghdad was a center of learning well into the 13th century, while Islam was funded in the 6th century.

I'm going to leave this with a quote from Kitab Al-Ilm that is often conveniently forgotten by certain extremist groups, who claim that they want to go back to the "old days":

This is also one of the greatest historical fallacies, to claim muslims "developed knowledge", "preserved classical works" or were "more advanced". They were intially desert-dwellers who survived from banditry and commerce. It was only after they succeeded in occupying Byzantine and Persian territory that they achieved any culture at all. Most of the great muslim intellectuals are actually Persians or Syrians, not Bedouins.

Petty historians who have an axe to grind against the Church and the West itself love to tell fairy tales about their achievements, fact is their greatest was simply not destroying what the people they conquered had to offer. Most of what is atributed to them is entirely the work of the byzantines, syrians and persians they stole from.
 
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
269
It is going fast now. As told previously, the value that is getting regenerated is censorship. Censorship is toughened. Censorship has won the day.

Hilarious events are happening everywhere: one, for example. Many rallied behind the slogan I am Charly, including moderators of internet forums.
It did not go that well as those in these forums who experienced censorship from those moderators were unable to keep it quiet.
In many forums, things are going so wrong that stickies are added to rewrite moderation rules in order to toughen censorship to warnings and sentences for people who have the bad idea to point that censors proclaim themselves supporters of freedom of speech.

That is the current state: on one hand, ordinary and extraordinary censors who keep showing their passion for censorship and who demand to be considered as supporters of freedom of speech.
On the other hand, people like muslims who, because they are loosely connected to people who enacted a massacre, are ordered to show again and again they are not represented by the slaughterers.

Censorship is being strengthened, more means to censor will be designed, more means to censor will be legalized.

Regardless, we can't let these worthless sociopaths rob us of the freedoms so many have suffered and died for over the centuries. We have to be as zealous in guarding what we've gained, as they are in their attempts to move us back to the dark ages.

There might be an inheritance issue as there is no freedom of speech.
In France, if censorship was reduced to the muslims' contribution, it would be an extremely approximation of freedom of speech.
The rest of the population in France contributes at 99,999999999999999...% to censorship in France. If one gets randomly censored, the odds that a muslim did it is incredibly low. Better to play a ticket to win the lottery.

What was inherited, though, is a state in hierarchy among people, as some people were heavily submitted in the past through war and conquest and now is the time to make sure that their children are kept at the same position and the relationship it means for censorship.

France was hit so it had to be known and acknowledged worldwide.
A demonstration of political leaders was organized.
Most of them if not all are involved in censorship, as they draft law after law to make sure censorship is performed legally.
Among them, some were distinguished: their peers had officially acknowledged them as censors.
They did in their countries as the others did: they passed laws to ensure censorship has a legal dressing. Nevertheless, their peers acknowledged them as censors.
They were censors publically knignted as censors by non admitted censors.

Even in that case, as there is no freedom of speech, those censors were unable to express they were censors. They had to tell they supported freedom of speech.
Yesterday, they were acknowledged censors, today, they are supporters of freedom of speech, tomorrow they will be acknowledged censors.

Incredible stuff: censorship goes as far as demanding from people that are publically labelled censors they deny they are censors.

How is this situation possible? Stipends. These guys receive stipends. They perform the job of an actor under the orders of a director: one minute, they are censors, the next, they walk for freedom of speech. They are what they are told to be.

This is this kind of relationship Islam has failed to establish. Not every body can be a censor, not everybody can receive stipends to turn the eyes the other way.

The critical question remains: what to do for the rest? You cant get censorship without censored and all censored cant be paid to ignore.
Islam was not the answer.

Something else must be found.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
Bishop Williamson's comments about the attack:

Hebdomania

Today things never are what they appear.
To godless people skilful liars are dear.

The Charlie Hebdo attack of January 7 in which two muslim gunmen killed a dozen cartoonists and journalists in the Paris office of a satirical French weekly, and the enormous public protest of Jan. 11 against the attack in which leaders of several European nations were photo-opped as taking part, are best understood as one more episode in the war being waged by the enemies of God upon what little remains of Christian civilisation. Let us consider in order the cartoonists, the gunmen, the puppet politicians and peoples pandering to Islam and the puppet-masters behind them all.

The cartoonists lampooned not only Islam and muslims but also, from the world’s one true religion, the Holy Trinity, our divine Saviour and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now the one true God is extremely patient, but he is not mocked (Gal. VI, 7). As men have a right not to suffer from terrorism, so the true God has a right not to endure the public repetition of obscene and blasphemous cartoons. Then nobody justifies terrorism as such, but given that the French Church and State authorities refuse to censor obscene blasphemy, is it surprising if God allowed muslims to avenge his honour?

The gunmen, two young muslims, must have been acting religiously, because politically it was entirely foreseeable that their action would rouse opinion against Islam. Still, how could they dare to attack? Because across Europe muslims are by their birthrate and immigration getting stronger in numbers all the time, and they make no secret of the fact that, as soon as they are strong enough, by a bloodbath if necessary, they will islamize the once Christian nations of Europe.

So who persuaded these nations to adopt the suicidal policy of almost unrestricted immigration and unbelievable welfare benefits for the in fact unassimilable immigrants, and so on? Who but our bribed or bullied puppet politicians? In a moment of truth a year or so ag o, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, admitted that “multi-culti,” the mixing of contrary cultures, does not work. But a week or so ago in connection with the Hebdo attack, did she not proclaim that “Islam belongs to Germany”? She had been brought to heel. She is a puppet because she is constantly acting against Germany’s true interests. For instance, were there not so many muslims in France, would Charlie Hebdo ever have bothered to ridicule Islam? And who votes for these puppet politicians? Puppet peoples, who allow their thinking to be enslaved by their vile media.

Then who are the puppet-masters? They are enemies of God, intent upon establishing their own godless New World Order, a police State designed to ensure that not one living soul escapes eternal Hell. Let us call them “Globalists.” Then was the Hebdo attack their work, one of their events like 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 in the UK, engineered to move public opinion, this time t owards freedom for blasphemers and civil war? Most likely. The event was certainly not what it was made to seem. Famous example: the three-minute film clip showing a gunman shooting in the head point-blank a “muslim policeman” lying on the ground, with no blood, no recoil of the gun, and little movement of the “victim.” The clip may still be found, starting from here – http://youtu.be/gobYWXgzWgY.

And the Good Lord amidst all this madness? “Those whom he wishes to destroy, he first makes mad,” is the old saying. Pray 15 Mysteries a day for the triumph that he will engineer, through his Mother alone. Are the poor Globalists ever going to be taken by surprise!

Kyrie eleison.
 
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
269
wow, the Religion of Peace had been busy lately!

mass protests, women murdered in "honor killings", beheadings, poor guy burned to death in a cage, even the gays didnt escape - thrown off a roof and when that didnt kill him, stoned the rest of the way to the grave!

Dang!!

Well, if youre curious about what its like to see a snuff film, the Religion of Peace has you covered. Look it up on the internet, there's all manner of morbid wonders, watching muslims torturing and murdering people in the most gruesome ways possible.

whats next? what new and captivating horrors await our eyes courtesy of the Religion of Peace?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Just saw 21 christians beheaded at once… the Religion of Peace is getting pretty good with expert video editing, music, effects. But yeah, once in a lifetime thing to see a 21 person snuff film. Maybe not, they keep upping the ante. What's next?

Nothing to do with Islam, of course… nothing at all ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Just saw 21 christians beheaded at once… the Religion of Peace is getting pretty good with expert video editing, music, effects. But yeah, once in a lifetime thing to see a 21 person snuff film. Maybe not, they keep upping the ante. What's next?

Nothing to do with Islam, of course… nothing at all ;)
It has all to do with Christianity.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Islam is a Satanic cult, it is as simple as that.

they do seem pretty demonic, like some sort of mass possession. To slowly cut a man's head off with a knife, that's just diabolic… in these videos to to hear the screams, gurgling, a man's voice take on an inhuman quality as his throat is sawn thru, with the chanting of Allah Akhbar all the while. It's horrifying to behold

It's funny, in the 80's when the "Satanic Panic" was in full swing, this was the sort of thing that people dreaded most. Blood sacrifices to a dark god. Now, here we are and it's real - blood sacrifice. Slitting throats, burning people alive, yes "satanic" does seem appropriate.

Blood for the Blood God!

what's next?? Probably the mass burning of those poor guys in cages
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Back
Top Bottom