I ain't paying any Jizya to a global caliphate. This is what the islamofascists are working towards.
It's funny how they love to immigrate to the west but shout "kuffir out of muslim lands!"
The one that made me pause was a sign at a demo in London against Geert Wilders - the dutch film maker who made a documentary the radical muslims didn't like. They were threatening him with death.
The sign stated "FREEDOM GO TO HELL" when of course they were allowed to demonstrate by those freedoms.
@lineswine As far as I am concerned, you are free to go to hell. How utterly stupid, nihilistic and vapid.
Global caliphate? Muslims are unable to establish one true Islamic county, let alone the caliphate. Absurd phobias. But fear on, if you have nothing better to do.
Btw, "We" immigrate, because "you" need "us" due to "your" refusal you to do dirty jobs that are beneath "your" dignity. Ridiculous...
As far as I'm concerned you're welcome to worship anything you like, however backward, misogynistic & violent it is. Please try to stop hating the others that don't.
As islamic county? Looked at Wayne County recently, or parts of European cities?
No-go areas for kuffir/indigenous population.
No we don't need you any more...we have other peoples to do that now, while the muslims born in the west try to ape jamaican gangsters & claim welfare, whilst selling dope & trying to be "cool".
@lineswine I do not hate anyone. I know that hate hurts the hater. My neighbors and friends have always been of other faiths or atheists and I work in international setting. See my profile.
You are wrong. You need us. EU needs 1.6 million immigrants annually to keep the economy afloat. Otherwise, you can kiss goodbye your lovely lifestyle that Brair used to blare about so much. Hedonism and pissing your life away every weekend is expensive, much, much expensive. :-)
Pissing my life away? Nice guess, but utterly wrong.
Where do you get your figures from...Iran?
Blair (not "Brair") was too far up Bushs' arse for my liking.
Even if we did need that sort of numbers (which I doubt), what's happening to the current ones? Not that many blow themselves up in the hope of 72 virgins.
You know, Europe was doing very well indeed BEFORE the influx of economic migrants from the 3rd world, including the crappy bits of the Balkans.
@lineswine My figures are from Karoly Lorant - The demographic challenge in Europe. Google it and you'll get the full report in pdf. It was prepared for the EU, exactly to see what to do about the future.
There are tables about the projected number of Muslims. I guess you will not like it.
You are being "slightly" misleading about Geert Wilders - he is a Dutch politician who advocates the banning of the Qur'an, taxing women who wear headscarves for religious reasons, banning immigration from muslim majority countries and banning the building of mosques. He is not just a film-maker - you make him sound like Theo Van Gogh when he is in fact a vile politician.
By the way, if you remove the word "advocates", change koran to christian bible, force women TO wear headscarves, banning immigration from pretty much ANY country & banning the building of any religious place of worship other than a mosque...you'd be in Saudi Arabia.
Welcome to 7th century values, where women MUST be accompanied by a male relative, women aren't allowed to drive & barbaric punishments are the order of the day.
Oh, please now tell us what happened to Theo Van Gogh.
So you are saying that Geert Wilders is morally equivalent to the Saudi regime and its ultra conservative Wahhabist version of islam? Doesn't say much for Geert Wilders does it? He has 7th century morals as well.
So he is in fact worse than I thought - thank you for correcting me.
Not at all...I was pointing out that the opposite of what Geert Wilders advocates is already exists in Saudi Arabia & has done for some time.
See the difference there? "Advocates" & "Already exists"?
I hope you do.
What DON'T understand is your acceptance of what happened to Theo Van Gogh.
Remember how I asked you to tell us his story? It appears you must have "forgotten", or is it a case that you don't want extreme islam seen in a bad light?
Sorry you pointed out the moral equivalence of Geert Wilders and the Saudi Government - a point i did not anticipate as you position. If Geert Wilders were elected he would enact a morally equivalent position to the Saudis - I find the Saudis government repugnant but apparently Geert Wilders would not.
Do you not accept that Geert Wilders and the Saudi regime are morally equivalent.
Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a muslim extremist, Mohammed Bouyeri, influenced by Takfir wal-Hijra.
To advocate is one thing, but as you know, politicans promises are nebulous at best & outright lies at worst.
You know what Geert Wilders thinks, or myself, or what I accept? You have "inside info" on the thoughts of Geert & myself, or is it (as I suspect) just a guess?
NONE of us can tell what someone will do in the future, including me & more to the point YOU. I see you have no comment on the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
Tacit approval, perhaps? Are Takfir wal-Hijra OK by you?
With a politician like Geert Wilders he can either be lying about his policies - in which case he is morally reprehensible for being a liar or he is telling the truth and wants a country that IS morally equivalent to the Saudi regime.
Either way it does not look good for Geert Wilders - either way you have him either as genuinely morally equivalent to the Saudi regime or a liar.
So Playing the game you do with your last line - as you have not condemned any genocide - tacit approval?
The Berlaymont is in Brussels in Belgium - neither I who lives in Germany nor you who say you live in the UK are in the "home of the Berlaymont" - so your comment is meaningless.
You pointed out that Geert Wilders position and the Saudi regimes are morally equivalent - I have no problem with that as I do not approve of either of them.
Freedom of Speech is a right I value - I therefore do not complain when people express views inconsistent with Freedom of Speech. cont
@johncrwarner like Geert Wilders and the muslim extremists in London that you references.
Our conversation started with me taking issue with you describing Geert Wilders as the "Dutch film maker" without referencing his politics and policies.
So you do not condemn each and every genocide that has occurred by name and by your logic you must be giving tacit approval - it is your logic - not mine.
If you do not believe that murder is wrong - what more can I say.
I will use your logic / rhetoric - and I am doing so to look at what your position means.
You say you come from the UK - home of the British analytical philosophy yet do not seem able to use logic to define your own position.
You demand that I condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh - yet shrug off all equivalents as a straw man arguments - they are not and as yet you have not made a case that Geert Wilders is not morally equivalent in his position to the Saudi regime
You are a self confessed troll - who makes no videos and have on your profile "Still winding up knobheads on YouTube who take themselves (& me) seriously...check all the comments from the retards that took the bait." - this is the classic definition of a troll and you suggest that I am.
You use what I would describe as Beckian logic (after its current master - Glenn Beck) . the logic of the unwarranted extension and the "do you still beat your wife? yes or no" moral query
@johncrwarner Condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh - yes/no?
Simple question, so WHY do you keep dodging it?
The quote is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I come from AND STILL LIVE in England...which more than can be said by you.
Glenn Beck is some right-wing nutter in the USA, who I don't give a toss about. Sky shows Fox News, but I'll be buggered if I'll watch Murdochs' biased output.
I put that bit on my profile there as a joke to a mate, about 2 years ago.
1) you want me to condemn a particular murder as worse than any other murder?
I have stated that I find murder immoral. That is the end of the discussion. I will not be drawn into your "Beckian world view" - I call it that as it is the same tactic used by "some right-wing nutter in the USA" as you so quaintly put it. If you want to discuss whether some murders are morally worse than others it is an interesting point but not your point. (cont)
2) Your profile said the text are you saying that it does not represent the truth of how you respond now? That is okay by me - but if you don't wish to be misrepresented or misunderstood perhaps you might think about altering your text.
3) Thank you for correcting the quote on wife-beating - "Have you stopped beating your wife? yes / no" - the point I am making is that you are asking that sort of question and expecting an answer - the fallacy of the position is in the assumption
4) Can I ask which particular videos you found boring and why? I like to hear from my viewers. Which ones have you watched? And does it make any difference to you or me that the videos are to you "boring".
5) You seem a little concerned that I have lived but no longer live in the UK - is that something which concerns you? I am genuinely interested to know what it does seem to concern you.
See previous entry. Your delivery is a tad monotonous droning, the subject matter puerile in some videos & dull in others. The subject of Scandanavian slagheaps isn't exactly riveting stuff. (I didn't say "boring", don't mis-quote me please.)
You inferred I was lying about living here in England. I affirmed I have & STILL DO.
You have but no longer do. Why would that be...UK tax laws? Wanted by the law?
Thank you for your feedback - it is always interesting to hear a diverse range of opinions on my videos.
When did I infer you were lying about living in the UK - you have stated that your profile information is inaccurate and could be viewed as misleading. I could only state that "you who say that..." as your profile said you are a self-declared troll and at 13:00 hours EST still says so. If you announce you are a troll am I not allowed a little suspicion of the rest of your profile
@johncrwarner You say you're an English teach, but you can't write for toffee (or "poopy chocolate", for that matter). I've had to point out errors, already.
Therefore I can be skeptical of your profile, too.
Where do I use the word "troll" to describe myself?
For Your Information, EST = Eastern Standard Time, as used on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. Given that it is 6:11 a.m. there currently, do you have a time machine?
I live in a place which operates also on EST (European Summer Time) - there are more than one EST in the world and I think the eastern seaboard of north america is currently on EDT (eastern daylight time) and the third place with EST is australia.
As we both live in Europe I made the assumption you would understand that it was a european time zone I was referencing.
I fear you have received your answer to the query over the murder of Theo Van Gogh - you seem to be under the illusion that I have not answered your question - if Theo Van Gogh's murder needs special condemnation - I would welcome your reasoning.
You can't/won't explicitly condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
I condemn it especially as it was done in the name of "The religion of peace", by zealots who are prepared to drop all trapping of their own faith, in order to infiltrate cultures/faiths they condemn.
The reason they hate these other faiths? They don't follow exact same rites & rituals the zealots dropped in the 1st place!
You have condemned genocide as a generality - yet not specifically and I have condemned murder, like you, as a generality - do you think that each murder should be individually condemned - the logic of your position escapes me.
Interestingly you have chosen the ad hominem approach - to misquote Samuel Johnson - it is the last refuge of scoundrels.
I have and will continue to state that murder is immoral. I have to say that "condemning" was for ever tainted for me by John Major saying society should condemn a little more and understand a little less. I remember commenting to a colleague that that helps no-one.
What is special about Theo Van Gogh's murder by a muslim extremist influenced by one of the nastiest islamic groups Takfir wal-Hijra.
I am obviously ignorant - I do not see a straw man argument there - it is a statement of why I dislike the term "condemn" - I find it a problem to use it as it does not solve any problems.
I cared little for John Major and my issue with his policies has little to do with his choice of mistress - though I have to say I was very very surprised he even had a mistress.
@johncrwarner argumentum ad hominem isn't always fallacious, given that it was addressing your character, which I find to be haughty & not a little conceited.
Nice try at trying to put down this pleb! (It's a pity this pleb went to a school that still taught Latin, even though I was rubbish at it.)
As a Muslim, I see that US laws are more in line with the Quran (civil rights and liberties, reasonable doubt in criminal matters) than the so called hypocritical Islamic countries of SA or Iran.
In the Quran there is no stoning for any crime, homosexuality and apostasy - not criminalized at all, a woman truly guilty of adultery must be set free when claiming innocence 5 times. 24:1-10.
Sadly, the current Sharia rulings are based on hearsay traditions that are sometimes 100% against Quran.
@lineswine What is bloodthirsty in the Quran? Never be an aggressor, but you are allowed to defend yourself. Never attack first. What is bloodthirsty about that?
Hadith that are opposite the Quran and that came many years after are a fabrication to destroy Islam. All sayings of the prophet (hadith) are in reality just a hearsay. It is absurd that there are hadith contrary to the Quran.
U want me to stop being a Muslim based on anti-Quranic hearsay hadith? Dream on. Yes, Danny Gokey version.
@lineswine Yes, but only those who attacked Muslims. Remember, a Muslim can never attack first. Otherwise, he immediately is no longer a Muslim.
Not true for "friends." The word is protectors. Do not take non-Muslims as protectors. My fellow Bosniak Muslims, to whom I belong, trusted the Serbs, surrendered their few hunting rifles to them, turned the other cheek and suffered genocide as the reward for their trust.
@beameout You mean protectors like...the USA, UK etc. that pulled your arse out of a genocide?
Of course you COULD have waited for the Ummah to come to your rescue (Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc.) - after all they have plenty of resources, but strangely their presence was no-where to be found. Funny that, eh?
Of course...it COULD be that Arabic muslims see any other muslims as "2nd class", but I'm sure that couldn't be the cause of you having to rely of Kuffir to save you from the Serbs.
@lineswine The "intervention" came after 150,000 killed Muslims. When we were recapturing the country, the north western Bosnia, the orders to stop came. So it actually did not help us, but frustrated us. Brothers from the Middle East did help to the best of their ability. They have been providing the money for the orphans.
1) Do NOT blame/include everyone for the atrocities carried out by the Serbs. WE came to support you militarily, putting our people in harms way to support you, remember?
2) NO Arab was seen helping you, other than with some money, which they have plenty of. They'll support the building of madrassas, to further their extreme Wahhabist views. As to them turning up bodily? Not likely, despite them possessing modern armaments. What does that tell you about the way they regard you?
@lineswine The truth is opposite. The genocide ended when the occupied territories started to be recuperated. YOU came to support the Serbs, to make sure the genocide is cemented, after 150,000 Muslims were slaughtered in a recognized genocide.
As for the point numero dos _yawn_ U R mistaken again, but U do not deserve the explanation, because of your holier-than-thou attitude, so keep on eating propaganda and keep yourself fat and happy as they say.
There are lads here that got shot by the Serbs, NOT friendly fire incidents.
The "oh, everyone persecutes us poor muslims" line is wearing a bit thin.
We turned up to stop the genocide, or you wouldn't be here now.
2) Yup, still no answer from you as to why no "brothers from the east" turned up.
There ISN'T an explanation, except the possibility they consider you to be "2nd class muslims" & not worth the effort of helping you, unlike the west.
@lineswine No. 1 reason why Islam will survive, while all other religions go to the dustbin of history, is in its message of fairness and justice - everybody will receive only what they earned and none shall be wronged. No unjust transfer of sins as in other religions, where they mix and blend Creator and his creation, so people do not know whom to really worship, not so in Islam.
Everybody worships either the Creator, own ego, money, other people, atheism... We are all “slaves” to something.
"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" Well, bully for you son, but it's no excuse to go killing people who DON'T have the same imaginary friend...or even no imaginary friend at all.
That's your faith...faith doesn't mean "truth", just that you're a believer - same as all the other people with their faiths, be it the same as yours or another one.
I'm sure you'll say that the Islamofascists aren't true muslims - but they'll say the same of you.
High Arabic culture and Islam are not synonymous. Saying that "Islam" preserved the texts of the Greeks is like saying "Christianity" went to the Moon. The texts of the Greeks were preserved by a culture which endorsed Islam just as the culture which sent crew cut sporting Americans to set foot on the Moon was Christian. It is madness to suggest that space travel is inherent in the Christian religion or that the religion of Islam is in favour of philosophy and scientific speculation.
It's absurd to say that any religion is definitively this that or the next thing. Religion is what people make of it. The texts of the world's major religions are collections of disparate sayings, stories and edicts which do not, despite what their followers say, contain a coherent underlying message. This is why it is possible to develop such a wide variety of sects based on these texts.
@pirbird14 What I know I know, I don't need anybody telling me what I know. I can't help but act defensively when somebody talks as if they know my mind better than I do. I suggest you avoid that. You know what I'm like. ;-)
@MartinJWillett First, I was not the first, nor am I the only to conflate the two. Thunderfoot does this very thing in the video prior to the one I responded to. He uses terms like "the Islamic world" and "Islamic culture" all the time. This aside, the "high Arabic culture" you speak of is commonly referred to as the "golden age of Islam" that was issued in by the Abassid Caliphate, whose rule traced its lineage to Muhammed's uncle. The Abassid's felt it religious duty to gain knowledge...
... due to their interpretation of the Hadith and Quran. They set up the "House of Knowledge" with the express goal of expanding knowledge in the fields of science and mathematics. So, yeah, to wrongly attribute this to Islam would be bad, too bad I did no such thing. To simply "wish away" Islam and claim it to simply be Arabic culture is disingenuous.
@ThePunkReturns It is often called that, but the term is misleading. It was a golden age because it was a golden age of reason among a large cosmopolitan but monoglot community, not because the presiding force of unreason was Islamic. The Enlightenment is not sensibly analysed as the Christian Enlightenment, it was an enlightenment among Christians not an enlightenment caused by Christianity. Likewise Islam was briefly as civilized as religiously sceptical pagans had been but with more unity.
@MartinJWillett Again, it was fully endorsed and encouraged by the Islamic Caliphate, as they saw it their religious duty. The enlightenment era had no such endorsement or encouragement from the religious authority. Significant difference. The subject/object distinction should be employed regarding Christians and the enlightenment, but seeing as how the object (The Islamic authority) was the impetus for the search for the knowledge, the subject (the scholars) should not be entirely separated out
@ThePunkReturns That interpretation of an Islamic duty to study science has evaporated, mainly because the more science you understand the less sense the Qur'an makes.
Is he talking only about the religious doctrine in isolation? I think that when one is either denigrating or promoting a religion, outside of the pure fantasy issues like eternal salvation, they are usually including the other elements of culture which are associated with it even though demonstration of causality is impossible most of the time.
If it's to that 2 minute video he did, that looked like he wasn't addressing this either way. I think most people bring aspects of culture not directly (or at least not clearly directly) related to the ideology in question into these discussions. I guess the more "aware" understand that they are doing this, while the less aware do not, (see "atheism is caused Stalinism") though I think we all tend to leave this unstated unless we are focused on making the point you make early in this video.
I'm not sure if I heard you right, but I agree with everything except the notion that Islam hasn't changed. There's one name in particular: Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī. Islam radically changed when he walked on the scene some 400 years after the founding of Islam. Up until that point, despite what people like to quote in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, The Islamic world was a bastion of social freedom and a market of ideas. That's a very drastic change. :P
@williamcardno no, I said no.such thing and if it came across that way I definitely didn't intend on it. I am absolutely sure that Islam has changed, drastically and for the worse. I do not however think it an irreversible trend. History has shown it can be a forward thinking religion, as much as one can be.
Erm Tfoot does know about the advances made by early Islam, and even mentioned them, stating that it was Islam (as-it-is-being-practiced-today) that is detrimental to science. I do not fully agree with him, as I look at Muslims outside the theocratic countries, and note plenty of scientific advances made by them.
First person to point out the five hundred and sixty (nearly six hundred) years difference in ages between Xtianity and Islam.
Silly argument. Islam's accomplishments in science existed ONLY from 800 to 1200. That's only 300 years and that's only because that area of the world was a clearinghouse for ALL cultures. But when Islam reasserted itself with a particularly stupid Islamic "scholar" around 1200, it was 100% ANTI-SCIENCE. It's "scholar" declared mathematics the "work of the devil" and Islam has been going downhill ever since.
@bunsinspace Perhaps you missed the point. The argument often seems to be that Islam inherently is anti-scientific, however there is nothing inherent about it (as illustrated by the fact that when exposed to other cultures in a "clearinghouse" setting, it scientifically flourishes). This very much was the point of the video. You totally missed what I was saying. I wasn't claiming it inherently scientific either, simply pointing out that it can be influenced from the outside.
@ThePunkReturns OK you're not getting it. I will be more explicit. Look up Imam Hamid al-Ghizali (1058-1111). He is the architect of the END of science in Islam beginning in the 12th century. Since he arrived on the scene Islam has become inherently anti-scientific. There is no sugar-coating that fact. That is why Islam is a backwards religion. You can't balance the accomplishments of scholars for a mere 300 years with the damage done by 8 centuries of religiously enforced ignorance.
@bunsinspace I have to say that this is not the logician and theologian Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī who did indeed change the course of islamic philosophy and theology by applying logic to it and dismissing neoplatonism. He was many things but he was not anti-science as far as I understand it and developments in understanding went on for another three hundred years after him. I am not convinced of the case you are presenting.
@johncrwarner OMG - you got that from reading the wikipedia crap didn't you. You need to read more critically. His seminal work, "the Incoherence of the Philosophers" is an outright indictment aginst ALL scientific methodology as demonic and it places every devout Muslim in the unenviable position of choosing either the scientific method or the dictates of faith as rendered by the imams. A lesser known Muslim scholar wrote a rebuttal which was largely ignored. Please read wikicrap carefully.
@bunsinspace So are you saying everything I wrote is incorrect? As far as I can tell it was on issues of neoplatonist metaphysics he seems to have put the knife - and the people he attacked with neoplatonists like Avicenna and the book was critiqued by Averroes - I used wikipedia to check the name as your spelling appears to be erratic.
@ThePunkReturns OK I have to admit that Islam allows for the adoption of the works of non-Muslims for their own ends, It even allows individual Muslims who are INFIDELS (not religiously observant) to excel in the sceinces in ALL areas. But Islam as a faith is inherently anti-scientific and I've given you the historical reason for that. It cannot change course unless some day the equivalent of a Maimonides is born to Islam who marries religion and the scientific method.
@bunsinspace You have not proven that Islam is INHERENTLY anti-scientific at all. Merely you have pointed out that the predominant influence in Islam has been one that was unscientific or antiscientific. Certainly you would admit o that one person's view or interpretation does not a religion make.And while it may have undue influence in the culture, it is not the basis of the religion. Many cite the Quran's emphasis on knowledge as necessitating inquiry, though admittedly in modern history...
... these voices have had less sway. Nothing about the current situation NECESSITATES an anti-scientific nature of Islam. The point of the video was to say that we, the west, have done little to encourage Islam to advance in this line of reasoning,, nor have we done much to foster a western mentality toward sciences in Islam (in fact our actions can be seen as detrimental to encouraging the "westernization" of Islam.
@ThePunkReturns I concede your point that non-Islam has "done nothing." I merely take issue with your opinion that Islam is not inherently anti-scientific which is at odds with all the available datum from any perspective. Even a casual view of many Muslim discussion boards where the Quran is being discussed will reveal a consistent disdain for the scientific method in favor of either blind faith or pseudo-science. Why do you think such a LARGE world population is so POORLY represented?
@ThePunkReturns OK, you don't understand how Islam developed during the Middle Ages. That's cool. You think that one person cannot influence an entire religion, even in the face of the fact that ALL religions are purported to be creation of or attribution of a single person. That's OK, you're entitled. But in the 12th century Something changed in Islam, it IS anti-science, and it exists in MOST of the world Islamic rhetoric today and in no other mainstream faith.
@bunsinspace the definition of Inherent. "existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic". Clearly this isn't the case, as it HAS been separated in the past. I do understand how Islam has developed, and I admit the influence one person can have on a religion. However the point was that if one person can have a negative influence on the whole or nearly the whole of a religion, an opposition force can have a greater influence. As a side note, anti-science does exist in other religions(creationists...
anti stem cell research people in Christianity) though luckily not as predominantly as in Islam. However, anti-scientific thought was, in very recent history, the predominant force in Christianity as well. I am sure that there were a great many people during this time that saw it as intrinsic to Christianity as well.
@ThePunkReturns OK, but that is a tautology as ultimately everything is everything. When we speak of inherence and intrinsic we normally refer to observeable sampling. So apart from the tautology I do understand your point about the influence, but as you do not really understand the development of religion you cannot understand how I refocussed your idea from external influence which never works to internal choice which has worked historically.....
@ThePunkReturns There is a wikipedia article on Ghizali (Ghazali) that demonstrates the global trend in electronic media to rewrite Muslim history and portray odious fundamentalists (such as Ghizali) as if they were god's gift to the scientific world. In point of fact his reasoning seems to predominate Islam worldwide and such misrepresentative doublespeak is echoed by the ignorant non-Muslim world as if it were fact.....
@bunsinspace But anybody who cares to look to verifiable sources (such as the work "the incoherece of the philosophers" itself, or the Quran as it is being read in the Mosques, or the Hadiths as they are being rendered by the imams. will rapidly come to the conclusion that there is something decidedly irrational about the way in which the rational words are used in islam in irrational ways. If you want I can give you examples even from readings in the Quran - Islam versus rationalism.
I ain't paying any Jizya to a global caliphate. This is what the islamofascists are working towards.
It's funny how they love to immigrate to the west but shout "kuffir out of muslim lands!"
The one that made me pause was a sign at a demo in London against Geert Wilders - the dutch film maker who made a documentary the radical muslims didn't like. They were threatening him with death.
The sign stated "FREEDOM GO TO HELL" when of course they were allowed to demonstrate by those freedoms.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine As far as I am concerned, you are free to go to hell. How utterly stupid, nihilistic and vapid.
Global caliphate? Muslims are unable to establish one true Islamic county, let alone the caliphate. Absurd phobias. But fear on, if you have nothing better to do.
Btw, "We" immigrate, because "you" need "us" due to "your" refusal you to do dirty jobs that are beneath "your" dignity. Ridiculous...
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
As far as I'm concerned you're welcome to worship anything you like, however backward, misogynistic & violent it is. Please try to stop hating the others that don't.
As islamic county? Looked at Wayne County recently, or parts of European cities?
No-go areas for kuffir/indigenous population.
No we don't need you any more...we have other peoples to do that now, while the muslims born in the west try to ape jamaican gangsters & claim welfare, whilst selling dope & trying to be "cool".
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine I do not hate anyone. I know that hate hurts the hater. My neighbors and friends have always been of other faiths or atheists and I work in international setting. See my profile.
You are wrong. You need us. EU needs 1.6 million immigrants annually to keep the economy afloat. Otherwise, you can kiss goodbye your lovely lifestyle that Brair used to blare about so much. Hedonism and pissing your life away every weekend is expensive, much, much expensive. :-)
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout that was effin Blair
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
Pissing my life away? Nice guess, but utterly wrong.
Where do you get your figures from...Iran?
Blair (not "Brair") was too far up Bushs' arse for my liking.
Even if we did need that sort of numbers (which I doubt), what's happening to the current ones? Not that many blow themselves up in the hope of 72 virgins.
You know, Europe was doing very well indeed BEFORE the influx of economic migrants from the 3rd world, including the crappy bits of the Balkans.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine My figures are from Karoly Lorant - The demographic challenge in Europe. Google it and you'll get the full report in pdf. It was prepared for the EU, exactly to see what to do about the future.
There are tables about the projected number of Muslims. I guess you will not like it.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
That report wasn't taken as gospel...try "Economic Policy for a Social Europe - A Critique of Neoliberalism and Proposals for Alternatives".
You also forget the burgeoning birth rate of immigrants already in Europe, as to numbers needed within Europe - these people are already here.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
You are being "slightly" misleading about Geert Wilders - he is a Dutch politician who advocates the banning of the Qur'an, taxing women who wear headscarves for religious reasons, banning immigration from muslim majority countries and banning the building of mosques. He is not just a film-maker - you make him sound like Theo Van Gogh when he is in fact a vile politician.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
By the way, if you remove the word "advocates", change koran to christian bible, force women TO wear headscarves, banning immigration from pretty much ANY country & banning the building of any religious place of worship other than a mosque...you'd be in Saudi Arabia.
Welcome to 7th century values, where women MUST be accompanied by a male relative, women aren't allowed to drive & barbaric punishments are the order of the day.
Oh, please now tell us what happened to Theo Van Gogh.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
So you are saying that Geert Wilders is morally equivalent to the Saudi regime and its ultra conservative Wahhabist version of islam? Doesn't say much for Geert Wilders does it? He has 7th century morals as well.
So he is in fact worse than I thought - thank you for correcting me.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
Not at all...I was pointing out that the opposite of what Geert Wilders advocates is already exists in Saudi Arabia & has done for some time.
See the difference there? "Advocates" & "Already exists"?
I hope you do.
What DON'T understand is your acceptance of what happened to Theo Van Gogh.
Remember how I asked you to tell us his story? It appears you must have "forgotten", or is it a case that you don't want extreme islam seen in a bad light?
Over to you.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
Sorry you pointed out the moral equivalence of Geert Wilders and the Saudi Government - a point i did not anticipate as you position. If Geert Wilders were elected he would enact a morally equivalent position to the Saudis - I find the Saudis government repugnant but apparently Geert Wilders would not.
Do you not accept that Geert Wilders and the Saudi regime are morally equivalent.
Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a muslim extremist, Mohammed Bouyeri, influenced by Takfir wal-Hijra.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
To advocate is one thing, but as you know, politicans promises are nebulous at best & outright lies at worst.
You know what Geert Wilders thinks, or myself, or what I accept? You have "inside info" on the thoughts of Geert & myself, or is it (as I suspect) just a guess?
NONE of us can tell what someone will do in the future, including me & more to the point YOU. I see you have no comment on the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
Tacit approval, perhaps? Are Takfir wal-Hijra OK by you?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
With a politician like Geert Wilders he can either be lying about his policies - in which case he is morally reprehensible for being a liar or he is telling the truth and wants a country that IS morally equivalent to the Saudi regime.
Either way it does not look good for Geert Wilders - either way you have him either as genuinely morally equivalent to the Saudi regime or a liar.
So Playing the game you do with your last line - as you have not condemned any genocide - tacit approval?
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
Politicians are inherently untrustworthy. You didn't know that, especially living in the home of Berlaymont?
I'm not defending Geert Wilders policies (he doesn't appear to advocate Genocide, nor do I).
I merely quoted the protest by the islamofascists when he visited the UK, namely "Freedom go to hell". You think this stance is a reasonable one?
I don't. Neither do I want to live under Sharia Law.
Still no condemnation of the murder of Theo Van Gogh from you.
I'm not surprised.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
The Berlaymont is in Brussels in Belgium - neither I who lives in Germany nor you who say you live in the UK are in the "home of the Berlaymont" - so your comment is meaningless.
You pointed out that Geert Wilders position and the Saudi regimes are morally equivalent - I have no problem with that as I do not approve of either of them.
Freedom of Speech is a right I value - I therefore do not complain when people express views inconsistent with Freedom of Speech. cont
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner like Geert Wilders and the muslim extremists in London that you references.
Our conversation started with me taking issue with you describing Geert Wilders as the "Dutch film maker" without referencing his politics and policies.
So you do not condemn each and every genocide that has occurred by name and by your logic you must be giving tacit approval - it is your logic - not mine.
If you do not believe that murder is wrong - what more can I say.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner Sorry, I mis-read your profile.
You say you are in Germany, a country famous for "interesting" politicians.
You say you went to Oxford Uni. a an incubator of politicians, yet have no knowledge of these duplicitous types?
Which part of "he doesn't appear to advocate Genocide, nor do I)" escapes you?
I do not advocate genocide...clear enough now? (good straw man argument by you).
As for poor Theo, still no condemnation of his murder from you.
If you won't, I suspect you're a troll.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
I will use your logic / rhetoric - and I am doing so to look at what your position means.
You say you come from the UK - home of the British analytical philosophy yet do not seem able to use logic to define your own position.
You demand that I condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh - yet shrug off all equivalents as a straw man arguments - they are not and as yet you have not made a case that Geert Wilders is not morally equivalent in his position to the Saudi regime
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
(cont)
You are a self confessed troll - who makes no videos and have on your profile "Still winding up knobheads on YouTube who take themselves (& me) seriously...check all the comments from the retards that took the bait." - this is the classic definition of a troll and you suggest that I am.
You use what I would describe as Beckian logic (after its current master - Glenn Beck) . the logic of the unwarranted extension and the "do you still beat your wife? yes or no" moral query
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner Condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh - yes/no?
Simple question, so WHY do you keep dodging it?
The quote is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I come from AND STILL LIVE in England...which more than can be said by you.
Glenn Beck is some right-wing nutter in the USA, who I don't give a toss about. Sky shows Fox News, but I'll be buggered if I'll watch Murdochs' biased output.
I put that bit on my profile there as a joke to a mate, about 2 years ago.
Your videos are dull.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
Can I clarify your position:
1) you want me to condemn a particular murder as worse than any other murder?
I have stated that I find murder immoral. That is the end of the discussion. I will not be drawn into your "Beckian world view" - I call it that as it is the same tactic used by "some right-wing nutter in the USA" as you so quaintly put it. If you want to discuss whether some murders are morally worse than others it is an interesting point but not your point. (cont)
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
2) Your profile said the text are you saying that it does not represent the truth of how you respond now? That is okay by me - but if you don't wish to be misrepresented or misunderstood perhaps you might think about altering your text.
3) Thank you for correcting the quote on wife-beating - "Have you stopped beating your wife? yes / no" - the point I am making is that you are asking that sort of question and expecting an answer - the fallacy of the position is in the assumption
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner (cont)
4) Can I ask which particular videos you found boring and why? I like to hear from my viewers. Which ones have you watched? And does it make any difference to you or me that the videos are to you "boring".
5) You seem a little concerned that I have lived but no longer live in the UK - is that something which concerns you? I am genuinely interested to know what it does seem to concern you.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
See previous entry. Your delivery is a tad monotonous droning, the subject matter puerile in some videos & dull in others. The subject of Scandanavian slagheaps isn't exactly riveting stuff. (I didn't say "boring", don't mis-quote me please.)
You inferred I was lying about living here in England. I affirmed I have & STILL DO.
You have but no longer do. Why would that be...UK tax laws? Wanted by the law?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
Thank you for your feedback - it is always interesting to hear a diverse range of opinions on my videos.
When did I infer you were lying about living in the UK - you have stated that your profile information is inaccurate and could be viewed as misleading. I could only state that "you who say that..." as your profile said you are a self-declared troll and at 13:00 hours EST still says so. If you announce you are a troll am I not allowed a little suspicion of the rest of your profile
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner You say you're an English teach, but you can't write for toffee (or "poopy chocolate", for that matter). I've had to point out errors, already.
Therefore I can be skeptical of your profile, too.
Where do I use the word "troll" to describe myself?
For Your Information, EST = Eastern Standard Time, as used on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. Given that it is 6:11 a.m. there currently, do you have a time machine?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
I live in a place which operates also on EST (European Summer Time) - there are more than one EST in the world and I think the eastern seaboard of north america is currently on EDT (eastern daylight time) and the third place with EST is australia.
As we both live in Europe I made the assumption you would understand that it was a european time zone I was referencing.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner "Your profile said the text are you saying that it does not represent the truth of how you respond now?"
Poor grammar, 3/10 see me.
Call yourself an English teacher? If you are, I can see why you don't teach in England..you're crap at it.
You may think the murder of Theo Van Gogh was somehow justified, I'm trying to find if that is so.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
I fear you have received your answer to the query over the murder of Theo Van Gogh - you seem to be under the illusion that I have not answered your question - if Theo Van Gogh's murder needs special condemnation - I would welcome your reasoning.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
You can't/won't explicitly condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
I condemn it especially as it was done in the name of "The religion of peace", by zealots who are prepared to drop all trapping of their own faith, in order to infiltrate cultures/faiths they condemn.
The reason they hate these other faiths? They don't follow exact same rites & rituals the zealots dropped in the 1st place!
A paradox, or simply zealotry to the Nth degree?
lineswine 1 year ago
@johncrwarner
I asked you to condemn explicitly the murder of Theo Van Gogh. You still won't.
"Quaintly" - that's a middle class term for "you're a pleb". Cheers Johnny, at least this time your patronising attitude is clear.
You seem to know an awful lot about this Glenn Beck. You're a supporter?
I've no videos as I'd rather not put stuff up for the sake of it.
What's the name of the chocolate you find so funny? Poop? The joke was juvenile public schoolboy stuff.
You can't write concisely.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
You have condemned genocide as a generality - yet not specifically and I have condemned murder, like you, as a generality - do you think that each murder should be individually condemned - the logic of your position escapes me.
Interestingly you have chosen the ad hominem approach - to misquote Samuel Johnson - it is the last refuge of scoundrels.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner I condemn all genocides.
I condemn all murders, especially ones done in the name of an "invisible friend".
Do you?
Looks like you don't have much to do today.
I'll off work, ill. What's your excuse?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
I have and will continue to state that murder is immoral. I have to say that "condemning" was for ever tainted for me by John Major saying society should condemn a little more and understand a little less. I remember commenting to a colleague that that helps no-one.
What is special about Theo Van Gogh's murder by a muslim extremist influenced by one of the nastiest islamic groups Takfir wal-Hijra.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johncrwarner "What is special about Theo Van Gogh's murder by a muslim extremist influenced by one of the nastiest islamic groups Takfir wal-Hijra."
If that is a question (it starts with the word "What"), shouldn't the sentence end in a question mark?
Your English is getting worse.
Another Straw man job, this time featuring the man who found Edwina Curry sexy. Ewwww! You really like that type of argument, don't you?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
I am obviously ignorant - I do not see a straw man argument there - it is a statement of why I dislike the term "condemn" - I find it a problem to use it as it does not solve any problems.
I cared little for John Major and my issue with his policies has little to do with his choice of mistress - though I have to say I was very very surprised he even had a mistress.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner argumentum ad hominem isn't always fallacious, given that it was addressing your character, which I find to be haughty & not a little conceited.
Nice try at trying to put down this pleb! (It's a pity this pleb went to a school that still taught Latin, even though I was rubbish at it.)
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine
Yet this discussion is and was about your analysis of Geert Wilders. My personality was and has only been introduced by you.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
As a Muslim, I see that US laws are more in line with the Quran (civil rights and liberties, reasonable doubt in criminal matters) than the so called hypocritical Islamic countries of SA or Iran.
In the Quran there is no stoning for any crime, homosexuality and apostasy - not criminalized at all, a woman truly guilty of adultery must be set free when claiming innocence 5 times. 24:1-10.
Sadly, the current Sharia rulings are based on hearsay traditions that are sometimes 100% against Quran.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
Sanah al-bukhari Vol.2, Book 23, Hadith 413
The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse (adultery).
He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death) near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.
Let's try that again, sport. You can't BS us any longer - we're reading the koran & finding out what a bloodthirsty cult it really is.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine What is bloodthirsty in the Quran? Never be an aggressor, but you are allowed to defend yourself. Never attack first. What is bloodthirsty about that?
Hadith that are opposite the Quran and that came many years after are a fabrication to destroy Islam. All sayings of the prophet (hadith) are in reality just a hearsay. It is absurd that there are hadith contrary to the Quran.
U want me to stop being a Muslim based on anti-Quranic hearsay hadith? Dream on. Yes, Danny Gokey version.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout Koran 47:4 (The "Smite at their necks" , take them captive, carry on fighting until they embrace islam)
Koran 9:29 (fight anyone who isn't a muslim, until they convert, or at least pay up a tribute & act subdued)
koran 5:51 (only be friends with other muslims. If a muslim DOES, he's "one of them")
Koran 5:33 (Kill anyone who "wages war" on islam. Luckily it doesn't state what "wage war" consists of...a few Danish cartoons, perhaps?)
Bloodlust!
Plenty of muslims believe the hadiths.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine Yes, but only those who attacked Muslims. Remember, a Muslim can never attack first. Otherwise, he immediately is no longer a Muslim.
Not true for "friends." The word is protectors. Do not take non-Muslims as protectors. My fellow Bosniak Muslims, to whom I belong, trusted the Serbs, surrendered their few hunting rifles to them, turned the other cheek and suffered genocide as the reward for their trust.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout You mean protectors like...the USA, UK etc. that pulled your arse out of a genocide?
Of course you COULD have waited for the Ummah to come to your rescue (Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc.) - after all they have plenty of resources, but strangely their presence was no-where to be found. Funny that, eh?
Of course...it COULD be that Arabic muslims see any other muslims as "2nd class", but I'm sure that couldn't be the cause of you having to rely of Kuffir to save you from the Serbs.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine The "intervention" came after 150,000 killed Muslims. When we were recapturing the country, the north western Bosnia, the orders to stop came. So it actually did not help us, but frustrated us. Brothers from the Middle East did help to the best of their ability. They have been providing the money for the orphans.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
So...No Arab bodies on the ground, fighting alongside their Bosnian brethren?
What a massive surprise..NOT!
Recapturing the country...with 150,000 less people?
Yes, I know that "in war, the truth is the 1st casualty" , but really, you need to more objective view of things.
All the serbs that were "taken out" by the U.N. forces somehow didn't help you?
Your arse was being handed to you by the Serbs & you KNOW it.
lineswine 1 year ago
@beameout
1) Do NOT blame/include everyone for the atrocities carried out by the Serbs. WE came to support you militarily, putting our people in harms way to support you, remember?
2) NO Arab was seen helping you, other than with some money, which they have plenty of. They'll support the building of madrassas, to further their extreme Wahhabist views. As to them turning up bodily? Not likely, despite them possessing modern armaments. What does that tell you about the way they regard you?
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine The truth is opposite. The genocide ended when the occupied territories started to be recuperated. YOU came to support the Serbs, to make sure the genocide is cemented, after 150,000 Muslims were slaughtered in a recognized genocide.
As for the point numero dos _yawn_ U R mistaken again, but U do not deserve the explanation, because of your holier-than-thou attitude, so keep on eating propaganda and keep yourself fat and happy as they say.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
1)You keep telling yourself that mate.
There are lads here that got shot by the Serbs, NOT friendly fire incidents.
The "oh, everyone persecutes us poor muslims" line is wearing a bit thin.
We turned up to stop the genocide, or you wouldn't be here now.
2) Yup, still no answer from you as to why no "brothers from the east" turned up.
There ISN'T an explanation, except the possibility they consider you to be "2nd class muslims" & not worth the effort of helping you, unlike the west.
lineswine 1 year ago
@lineswine No. 1 reason why Islam will survive, while all other religions go to the dustbin of history, is in its message of fairness and justice - everybody will receive only what they earned and none shall be wronged. No unjust transfer of sins as in other religions, where they mix and blend Creator and his creation, so people do not know whom to really worship, not so in Islam.
Everybody worships either the Creator, own ego, money, other people, atheism... We are all “slaves” to something.
beameout 1 year ago
@beameout
"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" Well, bully for you son, but it's no excuse to go killing people who DON'T have the same imaginary friend...or even no imaginary friend at all.
That's your faith...faith doesn't mean "truth", just that you're a believer - same as all the other people with their faiths, be it the same as yours or another one.
I'm sure you'll say that the Islamofascists aren't true muslims - but they'll say the same of you.
Everyone? Nope.
lineswine 1 year ago
High Arabic culture and Islam are not synonymous. Saying that "Islam" preserved the texts of the Greeks is like saying "Christianity" went to the Moon. The texts of the Greeks were preserved by a culture which endorsed Islam just as the culture which sent crew cut sporting Americans to set foot on the Moon was Christian. It is madness to suggest that space travel is inherent in the Christian religion or that the religion of Islam is in favour of philosophy and scientific speculation.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
It's absurd to say that any religion is definitively this that or the next thing. Religion is what people make of it. The texts of the world's major religions are collections of disparate sayings, stories and edicts which do not, despite what their followers say, contain a coherent underlying message. This is why it is possible to develop such a wide variety of sects based on these texts.
You know this.
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 What I know I know, I don't need anybody telling me what I know. I can't help but act defensively when somebody talks as if they know my mind better than I do. I suggest you avoid that. You know what I'm like. ;-)
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
And you know what I'm like.When you lie, I call you out on those lies. :-)
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 If you disagree with something I have said that does not make it a lie. No smiley face.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
When you claim i have made an argument which I did not and you refuse to cite my text in support of your claim, I call it a lie. :-))
pirbird14 1 year ago
@pirbird14 Don't.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
XD
pirbird14 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett First, I was not the first, nor am I the only to conflate the two. Thunderfoot does this very thing in the video prior to the one I responded to. He uses terms like "the Islamic world" and "Islamic culture" all the time. This aside, the "high Arabic culture" you speak of is commonly referred to as the "golden age of Islam" that was issued in by the Abassid Caliphate, whose rule traced its lineage to Muhammed's uncle. The Abassid's felt it religious duty to gain knowledge...
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
... due to their interpretation of the Hadith and Quran. They set up the "House of Knowledge" with the express goal of expanding knowledge in the fields of science and mathematics. So, yeah, to wrongly attribute this to Islam would be bad, too bad I did no such thing. To simply "wish away" Islam and claim it to simply be Arabic culture is disingenuous.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns It is often called that, but the term is misleading. It was a golden age because it was a golden age of reason among a large cosmopolitan but monoglot community, not because the presiding force of unreason was Islamic. The Enlightenment is not sensibly analysed as the Christian Enlightenment, it was an enlightenment among Christians not an enlightenment caused by Christianity. Likewise Islam was briefly as civilized as religiously sceptical pagans had been but with more unity.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett Again, it was fully endorsed and encouraged by the Islamic Caliphate, as they saw it their religious duty. The enlightenment era had no such endorsement or encouragement from the religious authority. Significant difference. The subject/object distinction should be employed regarding Christians and the enlightenment, but seeing as how the object (The Islamic authority) was the impetus for the search for the knowledge, the subject (the scholars) should not be entirely separated out
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns That interpretation of an Islamic duty to study science has evaporated, mainly because the more science you understand the less sense the Qur'an makes.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
"Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum" pretty much sums it up.
Vamavid 1 year ago
good view points
qwertyfshag 1 year ago
Is he talking only about the religious doctrine in isolation? I think that when one is either denigrating or promoting a religion, outside of the pure fantasy issues like eternal salvation, they are usually including the other elements of culture which are associated with it even though demonstration of causality is impossible most of the time.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
@blackacidlizzard perhaps he is taking this into account, but it doesn't seem as though he is.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
If it's to that 2 minute video he did, that looked like he wasn't addressing this either way. I think most people bring aspects of culture not directly (or at least not clearly directly) related to the ideology in question into these discussions. I guess the more "aware" understand that they are doing this, while the less aware do not, (see "atheism is caused Stalinism") though I think we all tend to leave this unstated unless we are focused on making the point you make early in this video.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
I'm not sure if I heard you right, but I agree with everything except the notion that Islam hasn't changed. There's one name in particular: Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī. Islam radically changed when he walked on the scene some 400 years after the founding of Islam. Up until that point, despite what people like to quote in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, The Islamic world was a bastion of social freedom and a market of ideas. That's a very drastic change. :P
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno no, I said no.such thing and if it came across that way I definitely didn't intend on it. I am absolutely sure that Islam has changed, drastically and for the worse. I do not however think it an irreversible trend. History has shown it can be a forward thinking religion, as much as one can be.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
Erm Tfoot does know about the advances made by early Islam, and even mentioned them, stating that it was Islam (as-it-is-being-practiced-today) that is detrimental to science. I do not fully agree with him, as I look at Muslims outside the theocratic countries, and note plenty of scientific advances made by them.
First person to point out the five hundred and sixty (nearly six hundred) years difference in ages between Xtianity and Islam.
wyrdness1 1 year ago
Silly argument. Islam's accomplishments in science existed ONLY from 800 to 1200. That's only 300 years and that's only because that area of the world was a clearinghouse for ALL cultures. But when Islam reasserted itself with a particularly stupid Islamic "scholar" around 1200, it was 100% ANTI-SCIENCE. It's "scholar" declared mathematics the "work of the devil" and Islam has been going downhill ever since.
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace Perhaps you missed the point. The argument often seems to be that Islam inherently is anti-scientific, however there is nothing inherent about it (as illustrated by the fact that when exposed to other cultures in a "clearinghouse" setting, it scientifically flourishes). This very much was the point of the video. You totally missed what I was saying. I wasn't claiming it inherently scientific either, simply pointing out that it can be influenced from the outside.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns OK you're not getting it. I will be more explicit. Look up Imam Hamid al-Ghizali (1058-1111). He is the architect of the END of science in Islam beginning in the 12th century. Since he arrived on the scene Islam has become inherently anti-scientific. There is no sugar-coating that fact. That is why Islam is a backwards religion. You can't balance the accomplishments of scholars for a mere 300 years with the damage done by 8 centuries of religiously enforced ignorance.
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace I have to say that this is not the logician and theologian Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī who did indeed change the course of islamic philosophy and theology by applying logic to it and dismissing neoplatonism. He was many things but he was not anti-science as far as I understand it and developments in understanding went on for another three hundred years after him. I am not convinced of the case you are presenting.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner OMG - you got that from reading the wikipedia crap didn't you. You need to read more critically. His seminal work, "the Incoherence of the Philosophers" is an outright indictment aginst ALL scientific methodology as demonic and it places every devout Muslim in the unenviable position of choosing either the scientific method or the dictates of faith as rendered by the imams. A lesser known Muslim scholar wrote a rebuttal which was largely ignored. Please read wikicrap carefully.
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace So are you saying everything I wrote is incorrect? As far as I can tell it was on issues of neoplatonist metaphysics he seems to have put the knife - and the people he attacked with neoplatonists like Avicenna and the book was critiqued by Averroes - I used wikipedia to check the name as your spelling appears to be erratic.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns OK I have to admit that Islam allows for the adoption of the works of non-Muslims for their own ends, It even allows individual Muslims who are INFIDELS (not religiously observant) to excel in the sceinces in ALL areas. But Islam as a faith is inherently anti-scientific and I've given you the historical reason for that. It cannot change course unless some day the equivalent of a Maimonides is born to Islam who marries religion and the scientific method.
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace You have not proven that Islam is INHERENTLY anti-scientific at all. Merely you have pointed out that the predominant influence in Islam has been one that was unscientific or antiscientific. Certainly you would admit o that one person's view or interpretation does not a religion make.And while it may have undue influence in the culture, it is not the basis of the religion. Many cite the Quran's emphasis on knowledge as necessitating inquiry, though admittedly in modern history...
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
... these voices have had less sway. Nothing about the current situation NECESSITATES an anti-scientific nature of Islam. The point of the video was to say that we, the west, have done little to encourage Islam to advance in this line of reasoning,, nor have we done much to foster a western mentality toward sciences in Islam (in fact our actions can be seen as detrimental to encouraging the "westernization" of Islam.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns I concede your point that non-Islam has "done nothing." I merely take issue with your opinion that Islam is not inherently anti-scientific which is at odds with all the available datum from any perspective. Even a casual view of many Muslim discussion boards where the Quran is being discussed will reveal a consistent disdain for the scientific method in favor of either blind faith or pseudo-science. Why do you think such a LARGE world population is so POORLY represented?
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns OK, you don't understand how Islam developed during the Middle Ages. That's cool. You think that one person cannot influence an entire religion, even in the face of the fact that ALL religions are purported to be creation of or attribution of a single person. That's OK, you're entitled. But in the 12th century Something changed in Islam, it IS anti-science, and it exists in MOST of the world Islamic rhetoric today and in no other mainstream faith.
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace the definition of Inherent. "existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic". Clearly this isn't the case, as it HAS been separated in the past. I do understand how Islam has developed, and I admit the influence one person can have on a religion. However the point was that if one person can have a negative influence on the whole or nearly the whole of a religion, an opposition force can have a greater influence. As a side note, anti-science does exist in other religions(creationists...
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
anti stem cell research people in Christianity) though luckily not as predominantly as in Islam. However, anti-scientific thought was, in very recent history, the predominant force in Christianity as well. I am sure that there were a great many people during this time that saw it as intrinsic to Christianity as well.
ThePunkReturns 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns OK, but that is a tautology as ultimately everything is everything. When we speak of inherence and intrinsic we normally refer to observeable sampling. So apart from the tautology I do understand your point about the influence, but as you do not really understand the development of religion you cannot understand how I refocussed your idea from external influence which never works to internal choice which has worked historically.....
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@ThePunkReturns There is a wikipedia article on Ghizali (Ghazali) that demonstrates the global trend in electronic media to rewrite Muslim history and portray odious fundamentalists (such as Ghizali) as if they were god's gift to the scientific world. In point of fact his reasoning seems to predominate Islam worldwide and such misrepresentative doublespeak is echoed by the ignorant non-Muslim world as if it were fact.....
bunsinspace 1 year ago
@bunsinspace But anybody who cares to look to verifiable sources (such as the work "the incoherece of the philosophers" itself, or the Quran as it is being read in the Mosques, or the Hadiths as they are being rendered by the imams. will rapidly come to the conclusion that there is something decidedly irrational about the way in which the rational words are used in islam in irrational ways. If you want I can give you examples even from readings in the Quran - Islam versus rationalism.
bunsinspace 1 year ago