Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:10 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:gsj8i2tu59bh8v37118o7jo5rs2rk01kpo(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:35:26 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:5db7i2d91g9i390qo6jqr3csbn7etevmsm(a)4ax.com... > > >>> Yes, but because of the small amount of respect eked out to >>> non-Muslim People of the Book, refusal to convert isn't an automatic >>> death sentence. For all others, AIUI, it is. >>> >> >>Ok, as I read it, you had stated Islam defines all non-Muslims as Infidels >>"Any person who belongs to and acknowledges belonging to any other >>religion >>is an infidel." >> >>Could it be that Islam is not as clear cut as posting sections of the >>Koran >>may imply? > > --- > I'm sure, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. > > My point was that (AIUI) all non-Muslims are infidels until they > convert, at which point they are no longer considered infidels. > > Now, if People of the Book refuse to convert they become (I forget > the Muslim word for it) something like slaves/second class citizens > whose very survival depends on the whim of the authorities, but if a > person who isn't one of the People of the Book refuses to convert, > they are always put to death. > > Right? Wrong? Something else? > > What do you think? I think it is an interpretation of the Koran which has not been practiced in any Islamic states that I can think of. (Ottoman Turkish murder of the Armenians is the closest and this is possibly not entirely related to religious issues) Historically, Islamic nations (like Christian nations) have been more tolerant of other faiths than a strict interpretation of their religious dogma would imply. The fact that we already have contradictory viewpoints in this small section of the writings of a madman (pieced together and re-transcribed by other madmen) highlights the difficulty in making judgement calls based on the texts. We live in a time when Christianity has had to evolve to at least tolerate the unbeliever (and they have a stricter interpretation of it than Moslems - you are either a Christian or you aren't), but historically the doctrine has been convert or die. Now, I fully understand that this is "not really the case" in Christian nations - why do we assume it is the case in Islamic ones? All of the current worlds Islamic nations tolerate the existence of other religions within their borders. The extremists may be different - but they are extremists.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 16:11 Keith wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > Keith wrote: > > > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > > > > > > Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts > > > > which have nothing to do with US policy. > > > > > > Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their > > > school buses. He knows all. > > > > It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker > > buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one ! > > See folks" He is _that_ stupid. Tell me something. What's your objection to a 130 seater bus except that the stupid USA doesn't make one ? Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:11 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:37:44 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:30:06 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >>> <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:45229733.8D7D0F64(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>>> Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show >>>>> me >>>>> a religious text that*isn't* >>>>> riddled with contradictions. >>>> >>>>They're all really just books of magic spells anyway. >>> >>> --- >>> No, they're not. They're survival manuals. >>> >> >>Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has >>always impressed me in the survival books. > > --- > No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs. > Which animals to eat and things like that. > Not very good survival manuals. Do they tell you how to treat heat stroke? Do they tell you how to ensure sandflys wont bite? Now that would be cool.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:14 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:cdfai2hr2cn8dq19nmkpsc2l4kefaktodj(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:35:41 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>> >John Fields wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>> >> >John Fields wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>> >> >> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>> >> >> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Refusal to convert would result in death. >>> >> > >>> >> >There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. >>> >> >>> >> --- >>> >> Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'. >>> >> --- >>> >> >>> >> >Who exactly do you mean ? >>> >> >>> >> --- >>> >> The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of >>> >> your head if you refused to convert. >>> > >>> >Let me make this clearer. >>> > >>> >Who *exactly* do you mean ? >>> >>> --- >>> What, you want _names_? >> >>That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for >>example. > > --- > Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other > than American. > > For example, I'm sure you'd have no problem with radical white > American supremacists. well, understanding the concept, that is. > I'm sure you'd have a very _big_ problem with them otherwise. > I would have no problem with the phrase used properly. Radical Islamic extremists provide the thrust for the terrorist attacks which this thread is about. Speaking of Radical Islamic extremists as a single coherent organisation is wrong. Same with White American Supremacists. I can only assume there are as many, often disparate, groups as there are in the UK (lots). Islamic terrorist organisations are often even more fragmented.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:16
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45244B07.23CF9415(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have >> >> no aspirations to Empire. >> > >> >" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational >> >organization >> >whose goal is to promote American global leadership " >> > >> >http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm >> > >> >> Had we chosen to we could have kept >> >> Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't. >> > >> >The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep. >> >> --- >> We sure as hell did > > I'd give you most of the credit for Japan but Europe ? No way ever. Field Marshall Slim would roll over in his grave :-) >> , and they were spoils of war, to do with as we saw fit. > > No they weren't ! Sadly this is indicative of a certain mindset. Fortunately it is not one held by all [or most] Americans. >> How do you think England got to be an empire, by giving it all back? > > How many countries did we have to go to war with ( and how many killed ) > to get the > Empire ? Depends if you call the African tribes countries :-) |