LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWell, they're definetly freaking working on it.If there are so many calls for violence, then why haven’t Muslims wiped out people of different faiths
I've read a couple of articles with the same opinions on this matter, but they mainly come from the nordic(is that even a word? I heard it once before) countries. So whats the deal with that?According to the Norwegian paper Dagbladet, central figures in Kristiansand Progress party (Frp) wants to ban Islam in Norway.
«We are not the only ones demanding this ban,» said Halvor Hulaas, chairperson in Krstiansand Frp to the paper. «This is an opinion that is well established in Scandinavian countries. We are now importing people with a religion that is practiced in the same way it was practiced when it was established in year 600. The freedom we have in Norway may be taken away from us if we do not start to have some demands to these immigrants.»
Karina Udnæs, deputy leader of the Progress party’s city council group in Kristiansand is pushing it even further.
«It is about high time Norway and Europe make the ideology Islam and the practice of this, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism,» Udnæs said. «The prophet Muhammad urged them to kill everyone infidel.»
«Udnæs’ comparison of Nazism and Islam is supported by many in Frp,» Hulaas said. «The religion as it is practiced is a threat against our social system and way of life.»
He said that Kristiansand now lives under the threat of getting a large mosque in town.
«Of course, we are aware of what these mosques are used for,» Hulaas said.
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece
Heres another one. Don't know what country Danish people are from(I'll take a stab at it and say Denmark) but it seems nordic.
Islam is the most Warlike religion
A Danish language researcher has spent over three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, and concludes that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. Four years after the terror attacks at the World Trade Center, Danish linguist Tina Magaard presents an analysis that questions Islam’s relationship with terror, violence and Holy War.
Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard. Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard.
The Copenhagen imams Ahmed Abu Laban and Abdul Wahid Petersen are greatly upset by the analysis presented by the linguist. Abu Laban: “I don’t want to confine myself to a single stupid, prejudiced and dishonest researcher. Why waste time on somebody who wants to create twisted ideas about Islam?” Abdul Wahid Petersen calls the analysis ”academic nonsense": ”You cannot single out quotes and conclude the way she does. Most verses in the Koran should be viewed within a specific historical context and cannot be generalized. If there are so many calls for violence, then why haven’t Muslims wiped out people of different faiths
in the societies where Muslims make up the majority? Because we do not read the Koran that way
Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, who claims that critics of Islam are "prejudiced", earlier this year advocated using the Islamic concept of blood money to pay the equivalent of 100 camels
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09...-religion.html
Well, they're definetly freaking working on it.If there are so many calls for violence, then why haven’t Muslims wiped out people of different faiths
FRP is the acronym for the Progressive Party (Fremskridtpartiet ).
Each of the Scandinavian countries has their own version of this party. They are populist parties catering to those segments of the individual countries populations who are hostile to the thoughts of their countries becoming multi ethnic in composition. Their supporters range from the pack-your-bags-and-leave variety to the more moderate stay if you want, but on condition to you becoming assimilated type.
In these latter years they have moved from being marginalized on the extreme right to becoming, in Norway the second largest party in Parliament, and in Denmark the3rd., largest and are here the party that, while not part of the ruling Centre-Right coalition, they do vote with them ensuring their continued stay in power.
Imams Ahmed Abu Laban and Abdul Wahid Petersen while both can be considered moderate by comparison to some of their more vocal compatriots elsewhere. Yet they are also both of the school of thought that insist that something must be done to placate the anger felt by young Muslims, least they stray into terrorism.
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
I wonder if this will work or just piss more Islamic people off.
I would bet on the latter, that is if I where a betting man.
Originally Posted by GVChamp
One cannot wish away a religious group which has many adherents.
It will only start a tit for tat situation and the world will go crazier than what it is now.
One can of course curb thier activities, religious or political which runs counter to the findamental tenets of the host countries.
Islam the religion should be allowed. Radical wahabi Islam should be banned everywhere. When a religion calls for murder it is no longer a religion but a cult.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Try selling that idea to the Saudis!
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
The house of Saud is the problem. However nobody will deal with them because of their oil.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
And would the solution be worse than the problem? At least the house of Saud wants to do business with the west. Who would be the most likely to take over if we were to remove them? The radical religious establishment is very deeply rooted in that country, and personally I think that giving them opportunities for that kind of control is a bad idea.
Theres only one other "religion' that calls for bloodshed.....Satanism, nuff said right there.
Druidism, Christianity did (if one believes that the Pope is God's viceroy on earth), the Jews certainly killed enough people based on the will of God (read old testiment), "radical Hindu's" (a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one) would use any old excuse to attack their Muslim neighbors and the Confucian's (come consider a religion, myself more of a philosphy, but what the hell) would often scarcely tolerate, often persecute the Muslims living in their mix. I doubt you will find many religions with clean hands in this regard, and most religious texts (of any religion) open up to interpretations that involve violence. Islam may have more references in it's holy book than most, but that is a matter of degree, not kind, and it is hardly unique in being militant. It just happens to be the largest militant religion today.
Because they don't read Al Qu'ran, perhaps ?
Sura 109: "...You shall have your religion and I shall have mine..."
Just because a country does business with the West, it does not absolves her of the dastardly religious practices of her country, nor does it absolve her from the venom she is spreading worldwide.
Saudi Arabia is the source of fundamentalist Islam and a few cosmetic actions are no proof that she is attempting to cleanse her decadent society and cult like religious mode. In fact, official sponsorship of the Wahabi cult is a well known fact. The Saudi sheiks are in the position they are, all because of the deal cut with the Wahabi spiritual leader. The are as dangerous as the Wahabi terrorist; in fact, worse.
If they are removed, then it could be given to anyone as it has been done in Iraq.
Will there be peace in Saudi Arabia then? Who knows? Let the dogs fight over the fishes and loaves for all I care.
I am sure other religions too justify violence, but they couch such thoughts with allusion to defence of righteousness and such "noble" goodness, but they do not urge their followers to kill for the sake of cleansing the world of people who do not believe in their religion.
That, unfortunately, is the subtle difference.
Otherwise, it is a fine religion.
Sir, Christianity already had that in its history, starting with the Crusades and the conquest of the New World, especially the Church's treatment of the native populations of Central and South America.
In modern history, Shintoism laid a pretty wide wrath and Nazism practised genocide.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: