• European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy Federica Mogherini: “Political Islam” h
    44 replies, posted
Starpluck confirmed for Muslim DEA agent?
Islam is not European\Western and should not be integrated or accepted in European society. Respect their right to practice it but do not endorse nor appease it like what has been happening or we end up with rochedale (1000 kids raped by muslims) and extremist Islam taking hold (Take a look at Islamic radicalism in the uk, 7/7 bombings etc. You will never be able to have the tolerant form of Islam without the extremist form, so they should both be rejected.
The European Union is a fantastic concept; a union of nations that together have a better position than if the nations were divided. It's a huge disappointment that the people in charge (Barosso, Van Rompuy, Verhofstadt, Mogherini and Malmström among others) seem to live in their own little world rather than in reality
[video=youtube;1le8KiPqt5I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1le8KiPqt5I[/video] Some Political Islam out of a conference in Norway.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48158096]*A history built off invasions and massed killings of Muslims in the 11th and 12th centuries[/QUOTE] Actually, during the height of the 7th and 8th centuries, Muslim kingdoms and the religion were spreading like wildfire all over Africa and the Middle east, and were beginning to expand into Europe. If you want a good example, go look into Spain's history, where the first half has their Christian Kingdoms trying to push back the Umayyad caliphate. Basically, if the crusades and the reconquista didnt happen. Spain would be an Islamic country, Most of greece would be islamic, and Islamic power would be way more powerful today.
What is with the bans? Those were for ridiculous reasons, again. Every time this topic is brought, stupid bans like this occur. It's an overreaction and as it has been said before, makes people avoid talking at all about the subject. On Topic: Statements like this " Religion plays a role in politics" are bad, keep religion out of politics.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;48158998]All religious laws are questionable. If you look at Christian law, or Judaic law — you will see the death penalty for even the most trivial of things. The notion that somehow all religions except "Islam" is OK displays that one could not be any more brazen in their ignorant prejudice.[/QUOTE] Jewish law, not Christian law. There's a reason no records exist of those kinds of laws within the early Christian community. They came later when politics became involved. If anything it's the influence of politics on Christianity, not the other way around.
I'm still reeling from the fact that an EU politician said "political Islam should be part of the picture." I have to wonder if she understands what Political Islam is. Maybe she thought it meant "Muslims participating in politics" or something unassuming. I hope a misunderstanding like that is the case, because if she actually thinks Political Islam should be a part of anything, she's dangerously deluded.
People like this are the reason the far right is on the rise in Europe. [QUOTE] Religion plays a role in politics[/QUOTE] She's a nutjob
[QUOTE=Explosions;48159357]I'm still reeling from the fact that an EU politician said "political Islam should be part of the picture." I have to wonder if she understands what Political Islam is. Maybe she thought it meant "Muslims participating in politics" or something unassuming. I hope a misunderstanding like that is the case, because if she actually thinks Political Islam should be a part of anything, she's dangerously deluded.[/QUOTE] She knows what Political Islam is. See the picture I posted in the OP of her and Arafat.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48158096]*A history built off invasions and massed killings of Muslims in the 11th and 12th centuries[/QUOTE] While the Christian Kingdoms of Europe had their share of atrocities, you can't forget the atrocities the Muslim Kingdoms carried out. The Ottomans enslaved Christian boys from its border regions in the Balkans and Greece, force converted them, and made them serve as front-line troops. The Jizya tax was at least 20% in most Muslim Kingdoms, and went up up into 80% for certain classes. Comparably, a Tithe in Christian Europe was a 10% tax and went to the local church, at least in its earlier use. We also can't forget the thriving slave trade empire built by the Barbary pirates raiding into Europe, to the tune of 1 million people taken, the 10-18 million taken over 1200 years by the Arab slave trade, and 200 thousand people from the Eastern Steppes by the Crimeans. The Sultan had a massive harem of slave women concubines and slave eunuch administrators, and those were the lucky ones. The Christians and the sacking of towns in the Levant during the Crusades or Reconquista didn't make a case just to do it to the Muslims, they did it in their own back yard too. Rebelling vassals had their cities sacked, raiding served as a form of disciplinary action for unruly subjects, and there were entire tactics of war formed around burning crops and killing cattle. Ultimately, perhaps religion factored into none of this. Being Christian didn't cause the soldiers to raze towns, massacre Muslims, and destroy crops. Likewise, being Muslim didn't cause one of the largest slave trades in history, surpassing the Atlantic trade, or the Janissary troops. Instead, they were driven to their actions by the situation, context, standards of the time, and necessity. We shouldn't blame the book, but rather the people. On that note, can we even blame the people given the standards of the time? We can't let presentism cloud our depictions of history, instead we have to put peoples' actions into the context of the time. Instead of projecting modern morals onto the past, we should put that effort into the present. Instead of denouncing the Confederate States of America, we should be finding and arresting the arsonists attacking black churches. Instead of denouncing Nazi Germany, we should be focusing on Neo-Nazis. Instead of denouncing the Ottoman Empire, we should be focusing on eliminating ISIS. Denouncing the past is easy, but it does nothing but cause bias and un-needed harm and takes away steam from effective movements. The past is gone, and we can do nothing to affect what happened, but the present is here and we do something now before it leaves the papers and into the history textbook.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48158225]The "invasions" that the Muslims had against "Europe" were mainly the Umayyad conquests of Iberia[/QUOTE] It's strange that you forgot to mention the Muslim conquests of Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Cyprus, the Levant, Turkey, Georgia, the Balkans and of course the entirety of North Africa which is what made their intrusion into Iberia possible. I won't even get into their numerous invasions of Italy, and their far push into France (up until the battle of Tours). [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48158225]These cities housed Jews, Christians and Muslims, who were all treated fairly equally (Of course, the non-Muslim 'People of the Book' paid the Jizyah, or head tax).[/QUOTE] This sentence is contradictory and misleading. It many cases, Christians and Jews were forced to live under dhimmitude and lost many of their rights. For instance, they could not travel on horseback or camel, could not own large properties. Also if you couldn't pay the Jizyah, [B]you became a slave.[/B] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48158225]n contrast, there have been dozens of Christian European invasions of majority Muslim lands. The Crusades are a fairly obvious start, as was the Reconquista, and then the seizure of Ottoman lands in North Africa, and then the colonization of Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia of the 1800s into the 1900s, and then the carving up of the middle east after WW1. These invasions were largely bloody and ruthless, especially the Reconquista and Crusades, with the rise of such vicious groups as the Spanish Inquisition or the Knights Templar/Hospitaller.[/QUOTE] Crusades and the Reconquista were a response to the Muslim invasions. If someone breaks into your house, is it wrong to take it back? Let's remember that the near east was largely Christian/Jewish before the rise of Islam. The rest of your comment relates to imperialism which wasn't uniquely European. Remember those "Ottoman lands in North Africa"? If these territories were European, you would have called them colonies (and indeed you did in reference to later European imperialism after WW1) The truth is Muslims and Europeans are equally guilty of the evils of imperialism and slavery.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;48160117]It's strange that you forgot to mention the Muslim conquests of Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Cyprus, the Levant, Turkey, Georgia, the Balkans and of course the entirety of North Africa which is what made their intrusion into Iberia possible. I won't even get into their numerous invasions of Italy, and their far push into France (up until the battle of Tours).[/quote] If we fear old conflicts then we would all be at each others throats. Disliking muslims because 100s of years ago they fought with us is nuts, less than 100 years ago we fought the germans and italians. We're friends now, we can forgive those muslim empire builders for what they did. To do otherwise is nuts and I suspect any attempt at doing so would be a cover for someone with just a general dislike for muslims. [quote] This sentence is contradictory and misleading. It many cases, Christians and Jews were forced to live under dhimmitude and lost many of their rights. For instance, they could not travel on horseback or camel, could not own large properties. Also if you couldn't pay the Jizyah, [B]you became a slave.[/B] [/quote] Look at christians in lebanon. They are treated fine by the non extremist population. You speak of persecution of christians and jews but neglect to mention that the same people who persecute christians also persecute other muslims (extremist sunnis - salafi and whabbi islamists see shiite as equally or more apostate than christians)? Did you even know that? [quote] Crusades and the Reconquista were a response to the Muslim invasions. If someone breaks into your house, is it wrong to take it back? Let's remember that the near east was largely Christian/Jewish before the rise of Islam. The rest of your comment relates to imperialism which wasn't uniquely European. Remember those "Ottoman lands in North Africa"? If these territories were European, you would have called them colonies (and indeed you did in reference to later European imperialism after WW1) The truth is Muslims and Europeans are equally guilty of the evils of imperialism and slavery.[/QUOTE] I agree that muslims and europeans are equally guilty of imperialism. Both of us gave it a go. understandably if you saw your neighbour getting all rich and powerful you'd give it a go also. The crusades being a response to muslim invasions... Not 100% true. Lots of people joined the crusades because they were utterly broke and had no prospects at home, lots of the crusades were leaders trying to make their name, nobles trying to make their riches and peasants trying to make their break - with a little pilgrimage on the side. Later crusades were utterly devoid of religion. 1 of the crusades stopped off half way in constantinople... then stayed there... then looted it and killed a bunch of christians. There were christians living in the holy land before the crusades nice and easy, infact when the crusaders murdered everyone in jerusalem they killed a bunch of jews and christians also, just coz. Christians and jews lived in relative harmony, one might argue that the crusaders made it worse for them.
pretty sure the crusades were more a response to barbarian kings constantly warring with eachother in europe with the excuse being "we gotta save constantinople" rather the other way around
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48160328]Disliking muslims because 100s of years ago they fought with us is nuts[/QUOTE] I didn't make any opinions about Muslims. I just corrected Zilla's understatement about their advance into Europe. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48160328] Look at christians in lebanon. They are treated fine by the non extremist population. You speak of persecution of christians and jews but neglect to mention that the same people who persecute christians also persecute other muslims (extremist sunnis - salafi and whabbi islamists see shiite as equally or more apostate than christians)? Did you even know that?[/QUOTE] Yes I'm aware of Sunni on Shia violence. I think this is a bit of a red herring. Muslims getting along with Christians in Lebanon in the year 2015 does not wipe away ~1000 years of oppression and inequality under islamic rule. Let's not forget the rest of the middle east which hasn't left the dark ages in this regard. And about the sunnis not getting along with shias. This is another red herring. Obviously Christians weren't the only group which suffered under Islamic rule (obviously Shias, Jews, Zoroastrians and Hindus were treated just as badly or worse,) but this doesn't in anyway undermine what happened to the Christians. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48160328] The crusades being a response to muslim invasions... Not 100% true. Lots of people joined the crusades because they were utterly broke and had no prospects at home, lots of the crusades were leaders trying to make their name, nobles trying to make their riches and peasants trying to make their break - with a little pilgrimage on the side. Later crusades were utterly devoid of religion. 1 of the crusades stopped off half way in constantinople... then stayed there... then looted it and killed a bunch of christians. There were christians living in the holy land before the crusades nice and easy, infact when the crusaders murdered everyone in jerusalem they killed a bunch of jews and christians also, just coz. Christians and jews lived in relative harmony, one might argue that the crusaders made it worse for them.[/QUOTE] I said that the Crusades were a response to the Muslim invasions. Officially they were, and obviously there wouldn't have been any crusades without any Muslim invasions. Many people gave up everything they had for the cause. Armor and weapons aren't cheap and neither is a boat ride. As for your comment about the later crusades being devoid of religion, this is debatable. The Eastern Roman Empire was an Orthodox state. The Crusaders were usually Catholic. Whatever happened (which is debatable) it's clear there was a lot of religious tension involved. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48160328] when the crusaders murdered everyone in jerusalem they killed a bunch of jews and christians also, just coz. Christians and jews lived in relative harmony, one might argue that the crusaders made it worse for them. [/QUOTE] This is false. There were no Christians in Jerusalem because they had already been expelled by the Muslims. So much for living in relative harmony. As for the Jews, there are accounts of the Crusaders escorting them out of the city. Although they did burn the synagogue. [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48160441]pretty sure the crusades were more a response to barbarian kings constantly warring with eachother in europe with the excuse being "we gotta save constantinople" rather the other way around[/QUOTE] Sorry, but Europe was fighting for it's very survival.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.