What is different about Islam from other religions is that it is one from the ground up - it is applicable to the individual all the way up to state.
And among it's many applications is dealing with the Kaffir( or Islamic equivalent of 'nigger' ). Those rules are pretty explicit. The infidels are to be fought wherever you may find them, although a truce may be brokered if it is advantageous to Muslims. Furthermore, if the infidel is conquered, then he may be allowed to live under Islamic rule and practice his older, inferior religion, provided he pays the Muslims for protection in the form of a tax, the jizya. But at no time can infidel laws supercede Islamic ones. A muslim has more weight in testimony than a non muslim with regards to law. So on and so forth. The end game is bring the whole of the world into the fold of Islam, for that is the whole point of Islam( submission ) and one which is prophesied in the Quran.
Again your points are irrelevant and they don't address your earlier fallacies.
Muslims introduced the rule of law, eh? Before Rome and Greece? Ok. Literacy?! Do tell. Muslims invented the book?! Running water? Gee, wonder what those Roman aquaducts are for. So on and so forth.
Your claims are so patently absurd, I'm thinking you must be a Muslim.
Well, first of all there are some fundamental ideological differences between Islam and Christianity.
All of the violence in Christianity is contained in the Old Testament, which is Jewish. The New Testament is the only book written by Chrstians, and it is overwhelmingly postitive. Secondly, the frameworks of the two religions are completely different. In the Quran, you are read God, literally, as transmited through Mohammed via the angel Gabriel. The New Testament is much more diffuse and organic, written by a number of men over the centuries You would have a lot more theological ammunition arguing for peace with Christianity than with Islam. That's why the Islamic fundamentalist is just that, fundamental. He can crack the Quran and contradict every sura that speaks of mercy and compassion with one that calls for violence and jihad.
When people say that all religions are the same, they are incorrect. All men are the same, having the same violent and authoritarian impulses, but the ideas they embrace are as different as night and day.
The conceptual problem lies in the underlying view of Muslims and Arabs in the West. These ideas are very old in Europe, going back to fears of invasion hundreds of years ago (which, in turn, was partly based on guilt regarding the Crusades).
European fears of Islamic invasion are based on thousands of years of.... Islamic invasion. From the Moorish invasions of the 9th century to the Ottaman of 17th, Muslims have been trying to conquer Europe. Coupled with the fact that core ideology of Islam is one of submitting the Infidel to Allah with Mohammed as his only true Prophet, then European fears are well founded. The Crusades were a defensive gesture, not an offensive one. They were launched in response to Byzantine Christians calls for help against the Muslims.
I suppose you can write all this off to oraganized racism, but your evidence is lacking and amateurish. You've provided none. That 11 point list you've provided could be tripled by the things Muslims do to themselves. Does that make them co-conspirators? nd for all your blathering, you didn't address the key point. Free speech isn't something you put in quotes, as if it's a misnomer or fallacy. It's something you obviously don't appreciate or have thought much about.
The US can't own the 'Internet' anymore than anyone can own the inventions you listed. We can make our own televisions, right? They can make their own Internet.
It's not about being a dick. What are you, 12 years old? There are serious considerations in not letting the UN, or any other foreign institution having control over something we created and is of enormous economic and military signifigance.
As usual, Europe is using the UN as a proxy to compensate for their obvious weaknesses. We've driven the growth of the internet, and everyone else wants a free ride.
Why your bothering to try to prove this on a website such as slashdot is beyond me. Regardless, traing camps in the ME train terrorists in simple guerilla warfare that is pretty consistent throughout all cultures. The inferior force must use hit and run tactics to defeat and wear out the superior one. Fundamentalist mine 1400 years of Islamic history for motivation, not military tactics. So when I say they are influenced by culture, it's obviously their own, not the Chinese.
And the conclusion that the insurgents suppport base is small, is both simple common sense and from the mouths of the Iraqi people. Polls consistently show little support for these people, aside from the Sunni population( which has waned). And Iraq is a country of 24 million people and every one has easy acess to weapons. If the population as whole want the Americans gone or at the least to do grievous harm to American forces, it would be happening. It isn't.
*But* the bottom line is, your point boils down to the jihadist think they're winning because running away is considered winning. By whom? Certainly not by Muslims and that *is* documented throught Islamic history. Islam translates into 'submission', and its theology and history consists of, among other things, subjugating, humilating, and above all, defeating the infidel in battle. So the jihadist can think whatever they want. But for you to claim that this is consistent in their culture, which is Islamic, is absurd.
You see, for the case in Iraq at the moment their fighters are culturally influenced by Asian and Steppe fighting methods (the history of this stems from Sun Tzu and other cultural writings being moved along the Silk Road and also from Mongol invasions) which posits that running away is in fact winning in their mindset.
Culturally influenced my ass. The mostly Arab fighters who inhabit the Iraqi battlefields use whatever Islamic mythology suits them at the moment, be it Mongol, Moorish, or Arab. Of the 50% of them who can read, I doubt they know who Sun Tzu is other than an infidel. Islam is about conquering and humiliation, not running away. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then the 'insurgents's support base would be much larger. They would be winning after all.
Tell you what? Why that is?
Seems to me having had a female president doesn't lead to a generalized better treatement of women, as a woman's situation in Pakistani society at large is horrible.
There's certainly nothing from stopping a woman in the US from becoming president. There also isn't much from stopping a woman in Pakistan from being stoned to death, having acid thrown in her face, or from being circumcised.
Well, the Quran is pretty explicit in it's world view. There's Muslims and non Muslims. There's the House of Islam( Dar-ul Islam ) and the House of War( Dar-ul Harb ). Furthermore, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to engage in Jihad to spread the Muslim faith to all corners of the word. And, non Muslims are not equal to Muslims in Muslim societies. They are second class citizens. Slavery is also explicitly endorsed in the Quran. Extremists, as you call them( I prefer fundamenalists ), are simply drawing upon the ample theological and historical record that Islam provides.
And with regards to Women, again, the record shows that Islamic societies have never treated women as equals to men( what society has? ). Women have their 'place' so to speak, and it's usually barefoot and pregnant.
Slashdot Mirror
What is different about Islam from other religions is that it is one from the ground up - it is applicable to the individual all the way up to state.
And among it's many applications is dealing with the Kaffir( or Islamic equivalent of 'nigger' ). Those rules are pretty explicit. The infidels are to be fought wherever you may find them, although a truce may be brokered if it is advantageous to Muslims. Furthermore, if the infidel is conquered, then he may be allowed to live under Islamic rule and practice his older, inferior religion, provided he pays the Muslims for protection in the form of a tax, the jizya. But at no time can infidel laws supercede Islamic ones. A muslim has more weight in testimony than a non muslim with regards to law. So on and so forth. The end game is bring the whole of the world into the fold of Islam, for that is the whole point of Islam( submission ) and one which is prophesied in the Quran.
Again your points are irrelevant and they don't address your earlier fallacies. Muslims introduced the rule of law, eh? Before Rome and Greece? Ok. Literacy?! Do tell. Muslims invented the book?! Running water? Gee, wonder what those Roman aquaducts are for. So on and so forth. Your claims are so patently absurd, I'm thinking you must be a Muslim.
Well, first of all there are some fundamental ideological differences between Islam and Christianity.
All of the violence in Christianity is contained in the Old Testament, which is Jewish. The New Testament is the only book written by Chrstians, and it is overwhelmingly postitive. Secondly, the frameworks of the two religions are completely different. In the Quran, you are read God, literally, as transmited through Mohammed via the angel Gabriel. The New Testament is much more diffuse and organic, written by a number of men over the centuries You would have a lot more theological ammunition arguing for peace with Christianity than with Islam. That's why the Islamic fundamentalist is just that, fundamental. He can crack the Quran and contradict every sura that speaks of mercy and compassion with one that calls for violence and jihad.
When people say that all religions are the same, they are incorrect. All men are the same, having the same violent and authoritarian impulses, but the ideas they embrace are as different as night and day.
The conceptual problem lies in the underlying view of Muslims and Arabs in the West. These ideas are very old in Europe, going back to fears of invasion hundreds of years ago (which, in turn, was partly based on guilt regarding the Crusades).
.... Islamic invasion. From the Moorish invasions of the 9th century to the Ottaman of 17th, Muslims have been trying to conquer Europe. Coupled with the fact that core ideology of Islam is one of submitting the Infidel to Allah with Mohammed as his only true Prophet, then European fears are well founded. The Crusades were a defensive gesture, not an offensive one. They were launched in response to Byzantine Christians calls for help against the Muslims.
European fears of Islamic invasion are based on thousands of years of
I suppose you can write all this off to oraganized racism, but your evidence is lacking and amateurish. You've provided none. That 11 point list you've provided could be tripled by the things Muslims do to themselves. Does that make them co-conspirators? nd for all your blathering, you didn't address the key point. Free speech isn't something you put in quotes, as if it's a misnomer or fallacy. It's something you obviously don't appreciate or have thought much about.
You analogies are flawed.
The US can't own the 'Internet' anymore than anyone can own the inventions you listed. We can make our own televisions, right? They can make their own Internet.
It's not about being a dick. What are you, 12 years old? There are serious considerations in not letting the UN, or any other foreign institution having control over something we created and is of enormous economic and military signifigance.
As usual, Europe is using the UN as a proxy to compensate for their obvious weaknesses. We've driven the growth of the internet, and everyone else wants a free ride.
Why your bothering to try to prove this on a website such as slashdot is beyond me. Regardless, traing camps in the ME train terrorists in simple guerilla warfare that is pretty consistent throughout all cultures. The inferior force must use hit and run tactics to defeat and wear out the superior one. Fundamentalist mine 1400 years of Islamic history for motivation, not military tactics. So when I say they are influenced by culture, it's obviously their own, not the Chinese.
And the conclusion that the insurgents suppport base is small, is both simple common sense and from the mouths of the Iraqi people. Polls consistently show little support for these people, aside from the Sunni population( which has waned). And Iraq is a country of 24 million people and every one has easy acess to weapons. If the population as whole want the Americans gone or at the least to do grievous harm to American forces, it would be happening. It isn't.
*But* the bottom line is, your point boils down to the jihadist think they're winning because running away is considered winning. By whom? Certainly not by Muslims and that *is* documented throught Islamic history. Islam translates into 'submission', and its theology and history consists of, among other things, subjugating, humilating, and above all, defeating the infidel in battle. So the jihadist can think whatever they want. But for you to claim that this is consistent in their culture, which is Islamic, is absurd.
You see, for the case in Iraq at the moment their fighters are culturally influenced by Asian and Steppe fighting methods (the history of this stems from Sun Tzu and other cultural writings being moved along the Silk Road and also from Mongol invasions) which posits that running away is in fact winning in their mindset. Culturally influenced my ass. The mostly Arab fighters who inhabit the Iraqi battlefields use whatever Islamic mythology suits them at the moment, be it Mongol, Moorish, or Arab. Of the 50% of them who can read, I doubt they know who Sun Tzu is other than an infidel. Islam is about conquering and humiliation, not running away. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then the 'insurgents's support base would be much larger. They would be winning after all.
Try such pesky venues like Scoop or the Guardian or pravda or AlJazeera
You forgot the NY Times, The Wapo, and CNN.
The 'caskets' meme is *so* old. It's now Judith Miller!( gee, what happened to 'Mother' Sheehan? )
Anyhoo, your obviously lax on your medicinal schedule.
Tell you what? Why that is? Seems to me having had a female president doesn't lead to a generalized better treatement of women, as a woman's situation in Pakistani society at large is horrible. There's certainly nothing from stopping a woman in the US from becoming president. There also isn't much from stopping a woman in Pakistan from being stoned to death, having acid thrown in her face, or from being circumcised.
The Quran? Hadith? Read them sometime.
Well, the Quran is pretty explicit in it's world view. There's Muslims and non Muslims. There's the House of Islam( Dar-ul Islam ) and the House of War( Dar-ul Harb ). Furthermore, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to engage in Jihad to spread the Muslim faith to all corners of the word. And, non Muslims are not equal to Muslims in Muslim societies. They are second class citizens. Slavery is also explicitly endorsed in the Quran. Extremists, as you call them( I prefer fundamenalists ), are simply drawing upon the ample theological and historical record that Islam provides.
And with regards to Women, again, the record shows that Islamic societies have never treated women as equals to men( what society has? ). Women have their 'place' so to speak, and it's usually barefoot and pregnant.
Algebra was neither invented nor discovered by the Arabs. It's development has been continuous and contributed to by all civilizations.
No.
He said US, China, India, so those are the columns I used.
China - 7.3%
India - 3.6%
America - 67.8%
Statistics are your friend.