Islam Must Rule the World
- Thread starter Atom
- Start date
- Status
Like the untouchables?
And hello - I'm back.
Yes, political Christianity does. Congratulations; you utterly missed my point.
Then I suppose I should wish political Christianity all the best. Yet, I do not. I do not wish to see any religion influencing politics, save only when such influence is uniformly for the good. As for "turn the other cheek" - this is an individual thing, and not a political one. I would have thought that was clear from my post. Still, it's undeniable that Christianity the religion teaches forgiveness. Aggressive acts by Christian nations are not those ones I think JC would endorse. Does islam have a similar structure, in dealing with those who offend?? Or is jihad - as some have told me - integral to islam?
Rather, my concern for a specific religion which carries a large and active minority of support for religious warfare and oppressive conservatism, and whose nations - all of them - abide under a legal system governed by the teachings of a 7th century xenophobe.
And, Kadark: your tolerance for homosexuals comes very, very late to the table.
Last edited:
...you're saying that to be muslim, one must be capitalist? That doesn't sound very encouraging.
Varies by nations.
Total.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? How diverse and multicultural is Pakistan, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Morocco?
Touche. But if you read history carefully, you'll find they were treated worst under British colonial rule. Why do you think that is? Could it have anything to do with the British redefining Hinduism as a "religion" rather than as dharma and giving preferential treatment to the "upper classes"?
And hello - I'm back. I noticed your warning for "hate sites", and I wonder who that was directed at. Who decides what constitutes hate? Is it content, or the prejudices of the moderator?
I hope you noticed which forums it was associated with; or is it selective reading as usual?
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Is this with reference to Sweden? Are you reading the posts?
Do you know the ethnicity of the peoples of Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt or Morocco?
1) The correlation made between secularism and becoming a suicide bomber is a misleading statistic because it includes the Tamil Tigers which are an isolated exception to the rest of the world as a whole.
2) Also they're not factually correct any more as they were only compiled until 2003 and since then the stats (including the Tamil Tigers' figures) have changed
2) Also they're not factually correct any more as they were only compiled until 2003 and since then the stats (including the Tamil Tigers' figures) have changed
I think the problem predates the Brits by a few thousand years, actually.
"Well, before the British came here, we only pelted the untouchables with dung. But the British advised us that the job would more efficiently be done with rocks. They were partially right; it would take all day to kill an untouchable with dung. Still, it was inhumane. When Ghandi got rid of the Brits, we went back to the dung. I sincerely hope the untouchables appreciated the difference in the softness of the medium."
I hope you noticed which forums it was associated with; or is it selective reading as usual?
And touché.
In my defense, I did edit the post thereafter, realizing my error. I am nothing if not contrite and honest. In fact, if I could sum up my experience on this forum in one word, that word would be "contrite honesty".
I know for a fact that at least a fifth of all US Americans appreciate my position, and also some in South America and Iraq.
...eh? Is there some tenuous link to the point I've not got here? Accio point! Nothing. Ah well.
Is this with reference to Sweden? Are you reading the posts?
Do you know the ethnicity of the peoples of Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt or Morocco?
Well, it seems a bit monocultural, to be honest.
So the fact that terrorists are on average, more educated, more prosperous and no more religious than any other group is not significant.
Would that have anything to do with the fact that India signed an agreement NOT to interfere in the political problems of Sri Lanka (after the assassination of the Indian Prime Minister by the LTTE in the 1990s), while there has been unrestrained war in Palestine (ongoing) Lebanon (last year is a good example), Iraq (last 5 years) Iran (sanctions since 1970s, axis of evil, battleships in Persian Gulf) and Afghanistan (war since whenever), with Americans increasing, not decreasing military concentration in the region?
Also the LTTE have been actively training the "Islamic" terrorist groups since the 1990s. Are they becoming religious?
You seem singularly blockheaded today.
Voila, assimilation! (except Morocco, I think they are 30% Berbers and 60% Arabs or vice versa and the rest are Europeans living in Tangiers and Casablanca and Marrakesh)
And I thought only Willy could be so confused.
Link please?
And touché.
In my defense, I did edit the post thereafter, realizing my error. I am nothing if not contrite and honest. In fact, if I could sum up my experience on this forum in one word, that word would be "contrite honesty".
I know for a fact that at least a fifth of all US Americans appreciate my position, and also some in South America and Iraq.
Thou duth protethteth too muth.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You will just have to take my word for it then, I was just trying to get a simple point across. I am not going to investigate all these points. :shrug:
I think it should be pretty straight forward that to subject the whole world to any one religion is wrong, even evil..
People should be able to make up their own minds. Thats the last thing I'll say about it, it's ridiculous that even after 26 pages that hasn't been established yet.
Why don't you take my word for it instead? If that is all that is required to establish appositeness, why raise a discussion point?:bugeye:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I didn't raise the discussion point, Billy did. The answer is so straight forward its ridiculous to even discuss.
Discussion point: Islam Must Rule the World
My answer: No
You see its the "must" that is wrong here.
If the discussion point would be "Wouldn't it be great if everyone would have the same religion ? Life on Earth would be much more peaceful", I would probably answer with yes.
The "must" suggests forcing people to convert to Islam who don't want to, that is just wrong. As I said, people should be allowed to make their own choices.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Btw. what is your word ? What is your opinion on this ?
I am talking about the discussion point that you raised.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1522012&postcount=508
Would you care to answer the questions I raised in response?
- Status