It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why aren't all three Abrahamic Faiths held to the same standard?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
It makes me kind of sad how while so many peoples and religions suffered throughout history, they are so willing to join in on the bigotry when a new group comes around to be railed against.


First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


First off, the shariah thing. Islamophobes use "creeping sharia" as the excuse why Islam is ESPECIALLY different and evil compared to other religions, and thus is an entirely new, and justifiable reason to distrust and be suspicious of all muslims (i.e. for muslims it is "guilty unless proven innocent", and not the other way around).
Funnily enough, this isn't a new claim, and Muslims are not the first people it has been directed against.

  • In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly to discuss whether Jewish Law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic (reminiscent of some hearings on Islam that were held recently, no?)
    Immanuel Kant (an influential German philosopher), claimed that the particularistic nature of Jewish legislation made Jews hostile to all other peoples (another claim that is thrown VERY often against Muslims and Sharia, especially in these forums).
  • Hegel (another German philosopher), said that the kosher and other Mosaic laws prevented jews from identifying with their countrymen, and called into question their ability to function as civil servants (ANOTHER claim that is thrown against muslims regularly now, even by almost presidential candidate Herman Cain, who wanted a loyalty oath from any muslim he employed, but not other religions).
  • Bruno Bauer suggested that Jews should be made to renounce Jewish law if they wanted to be granted full legal rights, otherwise their laws would prevent them from being "true citizens" (again, something which many islamophobes, even on this site, have suggested).
  • Anti-semites throughout history (and even up to this day), made accusations against Jews of being untrustworthy because of the practice of the "Kol Nodre" ("All Vows") chant. Henry Ford claimed that because of it, nothing a jew says can be trusted, and thus it is impossible to maintain business and social interactions with them (another tactic that islamophobes have taken up, making accusations against muslims of "taqiyya").


Today, we can recognise this stuff as obvious and blatant antisemitism. If someone suggested such things today, they'd be universally derided....unless they were talking about muslims.
It is interesting that today we have the Beth Din of America, that was founded in 1960, that deals with laws pertaining to jewish people in America, stuff like divorce and financial disputes, but at the first sign of even the SLIGHTEST possibility of some sort of Islamic law being used by muslims in America to settle their personal disputes, people yell about "CREEPING SHARIAH!"


To vary the comparison a bit, let us talk about other religions. In New York, for example, until the late 18th century, catholics were not allowed to or even have a Church or even practice their religion. Their priests could be arrested if caught (similarly cases with the jews and quakers also, which lead to the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, the "Flushing Remonstrance"). Interesting to compare this with recent controversy involving a muslim centre in New York.
Then we also have the huge backlash that followed the large scale Irish immigration in the 19th century (and also the later immigration by the Italians, which was, hilariously enough protested by many Irish-americans).
The supposed reasons for the animosity against the catholics was also similar to the reasons of Islamophobes today: They claimed that the Catholics were subject to a different authority (the Catholic Church and the Pope), and their first allegiance would be to that, rather than the Constitution, or to America.
We can see another example of that way into the last century, even, when John F. Kennedy had to fight off anti-catholic sentiment in his bid for the presidency.


As an interesting conclusion, let me mention some statistics that are in opposition to commonly held beliefs islamophobes peddle to "prove" that Islam and muslims are different from the other groups, and they in fact are WORTHY of antagonism:

Did you know that 21% of Muslim-Americans think that it is sometimes justified for the military to target and kill civilians? Or that 11% think that it is sometimes justified for individuals or small groups of people to target and kill civilians?
THAT'S HORRIBLE!

That means that only 78% of Muslim-Americans agree that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians, and that only 89% of Muslim-Americans agree that it is NEVER okay for individuals or small groups to target civilians. Oh, but wait....the same poll also found that:

  • Of Protestants: Only 38% say that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians (71% for individuals/small groups)
  • Of Catholics: Only 39% say that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians (71% for individuals/small groups)
  • Of Jews: Only 43% say that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians (75% for individuals/small groups)
  • Of Mormons: Only 33% say that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians (79% for individuals/small groups)
  • Of those with No Religion/Atheistic/Agnostic: Only 56% say that it is NEVER okay for the military to target civilians (76% for individuals/small groups)


While still on the subject of the US, it would perhaps also be pertinent to mention some information from a report on terrorism that the FBI published in 2005. Following is a list of the groups responsible for all 318 terrorist attacks on US territory from 1980 to 2005, ordered by how many attacks they did:
Latino groups: 42%
Extreme Left Wing Groups (Anarchists, etc.): 24%
Others: 16%
Jewish Extremists: 7%
Muslim Extremists: 6%
Communists: 5%

Of which 209 were bombings, 43 arsons, 20 malicious destructions, 16 shootings, 10 hostile takeovers, 8 robberies, 4 assaults, 2 hijackings, 2 kidnappings, 2 rocket attacks, 1 assassination, and 1 WMD (which it seems was actually anthrax).


Since we are talking about Abrahamic faiths, while it may be touching on some controversy, perhaps it is relevant to mention Israel and Palestine. It is interesting to note that 52% of Israeli Jews consider that it is sometimes justified to target and kill civilians. 51% of Palestinian muslims think the same.
While this is high, you should keep in mind the situation and context of the Palestinians with regards to Israel. Also, while it may be phrased a little differently, in 2009 the Jerusalem Post quoted a survey done that showed that 92% of Israeli Jews supported the bombing of Gaza by the Israeli military despite the damage to the civilian population and infrastructure.
edit on 7-10-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Wow, my first thread ever where I ran out of space. I guess this means that most people will not be bothered to read it, as it is too long
. Oh well, at least I (hopefully) formatted it for maximum readability.

Anyhow, so as not to end on a sour note, a final response to the claim by some that “If Muslims are not with the terrorists, why don't they denounce and condemn them?
Well, just to tell you, they DO!
This link shows a sample of the hundreds and hundreds of muslim organisations, community leaders and scholars who condemn terrorism.
THERE IS NO SILENT MAJORITY. IT IS A VERY VOCAL MAJORITY.

Anyhow, during the course of my research for this thread, at least I saw a silver lining. If the Jews and Catholics have finally been (mostly) accepted into mainstream society, I guess that means that it will happen eventually for muslims too. I guess this is just the era for the muslims to be "the Other" that people try rallying around. Hope it finishes soon, and the entire cycle of needing an "Other" to rally around goes with it.

In the mean time, I will continue to speak out against the bigots
.
edit on 7-10-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I'm just about to read your thread I swear, but firstly, love your avatar. I miss Monkey Island.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
As I see it, and I am probably wrong, is not so much the variations of religions which separate people as much as it is the "baggage of their customs".

Many people would rather hold to the customs of their tribe than to allow for any advancement of their own social group. You will find this to be present in almost all groups even without bringing in the religious questions.

Then you have the idea which is cultivated by many that "they are just better than everyone else". This is the kind of regressive thinking which so easily divides people exactly when religious worship should be bring them together.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Dear babloyi,

I was glad to see you starting a thread. I respect you and your good heart. I agree that a religion is insufficient cause for hatred.

While I want to go along with you all the way, I find I just can't yet.

You're first argument seems to be that the people who claim "creeping Sharia" are Islamophobes. Also, this was the same complaint lodged against the Jews, so it's not valid against the Muslims.

Whether someone is an Islamophobe doesn't affect the truth or falsity of what they say. Their beliefs have to be examined as much as anyone else's.

Despite your examples, the "creeping Sharia" argument was not made against the Jews or Catholics. People did not believe that the Jews were going to require everyone to learn the Torah and pray in synagogues. Nor did they believe that Kennedy was going to force everyone to go to Mass.

The "creeping Sharia" argument is more along the lines that Islamic law would force Americans into changing their laws, customs and behavior.

The example of Jewish mediation groups is different than what you present. There is nothing unusual about two parties agreeing to settle a dispute between themselves using whatever method they choose. But a Sharia law against blasphemy, or using the American secular courts to appply Sharia law is entirely different, and troubling.

I agree that groups coming into the US have had trouble, especially if they are noticiably different, but that happens everywhere.

You then have two sets of statistics. The first shows that the Muslims living in America don't approve of the military killing children. Whose military, or whose small groups? Could you argue that there is no particular objection to Islamic violence, but there is to American?

Further, are Muslims in America representative of Muslims world-wide? I think the answer has to be no. My guess is that many have come here to escape the violence in their Islamic countries.

The second set of statistics dealt with the number of attacks on US soil from 1980 to 2005. Those aren't good years to choose in order to examine the Muslim threat on US soil. Besides, I think most people are hearing about attacks around the world, making Islam look very violent indeed.

And what guidance is being given to American Muslims to aid them in their dealings with non-Muslims? Is it all peaceful?

Islam Questions and Answers


The kaafirs whom the Muslims fight and inflict harm and loss upon are the kaafirs who fight the Muslims and drive them out of their homes, or help to drive them out of their homes and punish and mistreat them, and who stand in the way of calling people to Islam and prevent people from following the path of Allaah, and prevent the spread of Islam.


You see, to "prevent the spread of Islam" sets one up to be a kaafir the Muslims fight and inflict harm and loss upon. I can try to prevent the spread of any religion I want, that, indeed, is the position of American Atheists. That shouldn't make me a target in a holy war.

And remember the survey of 100 American Mosques? American Mosque Survey


For me, the six tables of data boil down to two simple and stunning facts. Eighty-one percent of the mosques in the study feature Islamic literature that advocates violence. The authors divide the "violence-positive material" into two categories: 30 percent "moderate" violence, and 51 percent "severe" violence.
Further, 85 percent of the imams recommend this literature - both lay-written and authoritative Islamic texts (not including the Koran or Sunnah, writings said to be words and deeds of Muhammad).


My belief is that Muslims should be accepted in this country, but also be made to realize that there is an attack being conducted against the United States by some of their co-religionists. It should not be surprising if Muslims here are looked at as players on one side or the other of this game. With us or against us.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Ok, read it. Good points well made, but I can personally see the bogeyman changing from Islam (the internet is breaking down social barriers created by TPTB at a rate too great for us to be kept in the dark about the actions of our brothers overseas) to a 'threat' outside our planet in the very near future. It is needed to bring the masses and different faiths into line.

My Muslim colleagues are very well educated people, all are tolerant of others' views and to my surprise are well-versed in a lot of the topics discussed here on ATS. I whole-heartedly agree with you that it is bigoted to demonise that of which we know naught.

Good thread S&F



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
"Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting." wiki

All aspects of a Muslim’s life are governed by sharia law from politics to economics, banking, business, contracts and family. "Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters." m.guardian.co.uk...

Sorry, but our country already has laws. To allow a group special exemption from a country's laws in favour of their own laws is ludicrous. Seriously, where would it end? I'd like to live in a community where all 10 commandments are enforced. You may choose a city where anything goes is the law.

Can you imagine allowing religious courts? Where there isn't one set of laws covering everyone?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 

Hey iamahumandoing!

It'd be funny if the new boogeyman becomes aliens....I wonder if people would've learnt from the movie E.T. by then?


PS: I miss Monkey Island too ;(....they released some new stuff, but that doesn't even hold a candle to the original 2 games....

reply to post by hdutton
 

Hey hdutton!

You know, I half-agree with you, but place it more on economic circumstances and education than culture. For example, much of Africa has certain...unfortunate practices, and interestingly enough, these are spread among both the Christian AS WELL as the Muslim population. The same with the Indian Subcontinent and some of the far east. Then again, as economic circumstances improve, and a greater percentage of the population gets good education, I see these problems disappearing.

edit on 7-10-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Hey Charles! Good to see you in this thread.

You are of course correct in that whether or not a person is an Islamophobe doesn't affect what the truth of the situation is. I'd posit, however, that Islamophobes are more likely to misread the situation in order to form and validate a negative opinion of Islam.

And again, you are of course correct that nobody thought the Jews were going to require everyone to learn the Torah and pray in synagogues, nor that Catholics was going to force everyone to go to Mass....but that is the point I am making here. No muslims are making such demands either! There is no "creeping sharia" effort to make Americans to "changing their laws, customs and behavior"!
Do you know the "pretend sparks" that conflagarated this issue? It was a case of a contract made between 2 muslim parties involving the "Islamic Education Center" of Tampa...the contract had been written up in accordance to Islamic law, so when one of the parties sued the other over a monetary dispute, the Judge ruled that Ecclesiastical Islamic Law" would be used to decide the legitimacy of the arbitration. This caused Islamophobe (I hope you don't mind me using the term, I really believe it fits in this situation) groups to go crazy with accusations flying about "Creeping Shariah" and "Islamic Law trumping US Law", all the while ignoring the fact that since this was a case involving contract law, both parties could've used whichever system they wanted...Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, whatever.

For a much more detailed and specific look at the shariah issue, I'd suggest you visit another (very long
) thread I made on the topic:
The Shariah Conspiracy

Now the stuff about the statistics, the questions posed which resulted in the relevant statistics I posted in the American survey were:
"Some people think that for the military to target and kill civilians (not children) is sometimes justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?"
and
"Some people think that for an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?"
There is not really any specification about which military or which small groups or individuals.

As to your other point, certainly, muslims in America wouldn't be representative to muslims worldwide, but according to the statistics (which I left out of my previous post), even if you check them, America and Israel STILL come out on top above other muslim countries on the question of whether targetting and killing of civilians is sometimes justified:

Americans (Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and areligious americans, excluding muslims, as gleaned from the statistics in the first post): 57.4%
Israeli Jews (also mentioned in the first post): 52%
Palestinian Muslims: 51%
Nigerians Muslims: 43%
Lebanese Muslims: 38%
Spanish Muslims: 31%
German Muslims: 17%
French Muslims: 16%
British Muslims: 16%
Egyptian Muslims: 15%
Indonesian Muslims: 13%
Jordanian Muslims: 12%
Pakistani Muslims: 5%
Turkish Muslims: 4%


As for the survey involving the 100 mosques, I read up on that when it came out, and I'd have to say that their methodology was severely flawed, which really isn't surprising, considering that it was put out by the "Center for Security Policy", which has made no qualms about its explicit and total anti-islam stance, and one of the authors of the articles (David Yerushalmi) was also one of the major instigators of the creeping shariah nonsense, citing such non-issues as the contract law case in Tampa that I outlined above.

Of course, that doesn't automatically make it wrong. It would take a whole lot of space to explain why it is wrong, and for some reason, ATS now seems to have severely restricted the size of posts. I had to split my response in two again.
I'd suggest you check out this excellently detailed article analysing the report:
MEQ Report Claims 81 Per Cent of US Mosques Promote “Violent Jihad”
Which outlines the vague and slap-shod way that the survey analysed each mosque, and the arbitrary way in which they placed each mosque in their categories.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Its strange how I dont hear about non-western countries worrying about Sharia law taking over their way of life.
Its also funny, how I dont hear about non-western countries banning Islamic symbols such as hijabs and minarets etc. These countries dont seem as paranoid.

Anti-islamic legislature seem to be confined to western, more "developed" European nations... I mean, these guys are ok with bombing/shooting at muslims in muslim countries but yet, are not cool with the idea of having muslims walk around in Islamic garb in their towns and cities.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Wow, my first thread ever where I ran out of space. I guess this means that most people will not be bothered to read it, as it is too long
. Oh well, at least I (hopefully) formatted it for maximum readability.


Well, friend, I "bothered" to read it, that is why I starred and flagged it. A well thought out post, on a controversial topic. I fully agree that every religious person needs to research everything about their particular faith, and begin to see what religion itself does in the face of war, ethnic, and looting that goes on all the time. Right now America is involved in five shooting wars. Can anyone show me that religions don't have anything to do with this? And the infighting among you all, and the hatred for other religions and faiths, not to mention the unhealthy obsession with sex, and death. Is it worth it?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
babloyi, you're one of the few reasons I hang around ATS.

How are we going to reduce this discussion to manageable proportions? Would it be OK with you to start with the Sharia business and go to violence a little later on? (I also liked your Sharia conspiracy thread. You do good work, Roy.)

I may have some basic issues with understanding "Sharia" that you can help me with. I agree that Sharia is a code of conduct, like "Christian Morality," I think you called it. But isn't it more? I thought it was the basic legal and governing system for Islamic societies, complete with Sharia police, courts, trials, and punishments, up to and including death.

That is just not right for America. Our history includes freedom of religion (which includes the right to change religion or believe none at all), the right to pass our own laws and change them when we see fit, and the freedom of speech (which allows us to draw cartoons of leaders or burn things),

For these and other reasons, complete acceptance of Sharia would be an abomination for the American system as it was set up. It would be such a drastic change that no one should be surprised that there is great fear of it. Aren't there some areas with a similar fear that introducing beer or blue jeans would be the beginning of destruction?

Sharia, if it were to be introduced into the United States would be through one of the three branches of government. I believe that the fear that President Obama may be a secret Muslim is based on the fear of imposition of Sharia in the short or long term.

The national legislature has been pretty immune so far, probably because of the press it gets. But the courts! That's another issue.

As you wrote in your other thread, a Muslim man was found innocent of raping his wife because he said it was allowed by his religion. You're right, it was overturned on appeal, but how in the world was the trial court persuaded to buy that argument? And its only appealed when the prosecutor wants it to be. The victim can't appeal on her own.

Yes, contract law gets fuzzy, but what about family law? A man entered into a temporary marriage in an Islamic ceremony in England. They come to the US and divorce. Again, it took the appeal court to decide that there was no divorce because there was no marriage. Cases like marital property laws, or child custody laws, are both examples of where Sharia uses a different standard than American courts. And those cases are being tried and decided, its not an academic exercise.

There are dozens of those cases and unless there is a firm line drawn, confusion will spread through the system. It's no longer perfectly clear now as your case of the rapist points out.

As I said, I could have major confusion on this issue, and would appreciate your guidance.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



besides that, we been harassed by muslims for a long time.


you know that, right? taking our ships and ransoming our people or making them slaves.

why do you think the phrase of "from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli" was written?

we didn't have a deep water navy back then, it took years to kick their ass.

the muzzies are getting a free ride this time around on the back of the christians and jews.

it will all even out in the end.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

Hi again, sk0rpi0n.

I've been thinking about your question on non-western countries, and I was wondering if you can give me some help. What countries are you thinking of?

I suppose we could call North and South America, "western," and also Europe and the Australia area. So are you asking why Asian, Middle-Eastern and African countries aren't worried about creeping Sharia? Well, if they're totalitarian countries, they wouldn't care because they set whatever law they want. If its an Islamic country they won't care, because they already have Sharia. If it's a small minority Islamic country, then there's no reason to fear Sharia. So what countries are left?

I must be misunderstanding you because it sounds as those you're asking me to name a digit between one and two.

Charles1952



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Hey there OP.

So it's good to see people talking about important things.

If we had Marty McFly's time machine, we could zap back to 1933 when Dachau concentration camp was built, or 1937 when Buchenwald concentration camp was built, and see what it looked like before 1939, when the UK started to be bombed. Also if we had the time machine, we might look at the newspapers in London in 1937, and do they mention that Hitler has concentration camps being built? And concentration for what? I've seen the newspapers of that time, and it was the same vapid garbage as today.

Well, the first real question is "Was Hitler actually Holy roman Emperor?" ...I would say that to have Jewish guy like him ascend to King power, and to have Italy as his ally, means that yes, he was assuming the spear of Longinus, the all-power aspect of the region, which before it was ever called Germany, was called The Holy Roman Empire. So then we can see how Rome, and the papal powers (black and white) were performing a mass ritual burning of their enemy. Analysis of Goebbles, Mengele, Heydrich shows Judaist families and ancestry, or so I have read. Himmler can be seen as a Jesuit. The Jesuits take the Aten of amarna, the blazing sun disc, as their symbol. Moses' people are not comfortable admitting any heritage links to Amarna, though Freud tried to gently urge them to do so in 1936 as his final effort to change the world. He did not live to see the reaction of his work, which was WW2, the holocausting (means: burnt offering) of certain people. If you watch the footage of Hitler's summer retreat you can see Himmler confidently explaining something to R. Heydrich, who is seen studiously nodding his head. "A Jew who has conquered his own inner Jew" is what Himmler called him. And he was used against his own tribe, ostensibly the tribe of Moses. Notice that Hitler's biographer compares him to Akhenaten right after Freud asked if Moses might have been an Egyptian.

Now, let's take a closer look and we will see that there are two branches from Abraham: One is Ishmael, and one is Isaac. Of Isaac, we are told, comes Joseph, who is given all the power of Egypt. Logically then there is another branch, of Ishmael, that is NOT given the power of Egypt. Abraham himself begged his God to bless one branch over the other.

Then from those two branches (the bible doesn't discuss Ishmael's branch) come the 'flowers': Jesus and Mohammed. Note also that flowers and fruit are synonymous.

Yes, because they each can be seen to be an opposite of the other. That is to say, Jesus, being the flower of the Kingly/Pharonic branch of Isaac > Joseph > Moses, when he shows up, is actually the anti-King. He rides in on a donkey to symbolize that a King, for these men called Pharisees, is just another commodity. He has all the power (I believe he was actually of Akhenaten's bloodline preserved via the Ptolemies) and yet he sits in the dirt like the biblical Job, and lives right next to the people. In this way, Jesus is the greater Moses, meaning Jesus was the greater Akhenaten. He being Moses, who sinned against the priests by living right next to the people, and thereby destroying generations of class-control. Jesus and Akhenaten are both flowerings of the Isaac branch.

Then we have the Ishmael branch. Well, bible doesn't say much. His mom, I believe, was an Egyptian princess given by Thutmosis, to Abraham. It only makes sense, because otherwise they'd not even have mentioned Ishmael. Pharaoh had fallen under Sarah's spell as Abraham knew all the men would fall under her spell. Probably due to some striking characteristic like flaming red hair or something. I'm serious here, because the true and really important question of the root of Ishmael and Isaac, is this question: "What trait or characteristic would a woman possess, that would make her own husband scheme ahead of time, how to keep her from being kidnapped?" Seriously now, tell me, when you read the bible, do you understand that Sarah, is the key to the whole thing? Was her boobs? Was it her difference in some other way? What made Abraham know that Pharaoh would kill to have her, and what deal was cut between these two great men of great power? That is the first key question.

So we could take a moment to discuss the flowering of Mohammed, and we could compare him to Jesus. Hmm, well, I may leave that for others to do, I have laid the groundwork for true understanding, and it's very easy to sling the histories of men back and forth. I would ask these question though:

Why must the J-tribe have their man (Jesus) be perfect? Yet Mohammed's tribe, allows him, to be imperfect? +1 M-tribe

Why does the M-tribe, disallow any further prophets? Jesus said that "other [prophets] would arise, but that the people should exercise discernment on their own, in an individual capacity" which is very different, and more advance concept. +1 J-tribe



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


I'm not nimble enough to follow you. Would you, or someone else, please explain that post to me. I started losing track when you said that the place to start was that Hitler was actually the Holy Roman Emperor, and I never quite caught up.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


I'm not nimble enough to follow you. Would you, or someone else, please explain that post to me. I started losing track when you said that the place to start was that Hitler was actually the Holy Roman Emperor, and I never quite caught up.


Germany before Hitler, was called "The Holy Roman Empire". I see this on all maps of that time.

Therefore, he was acting in that capacity, because Rome and their empire, is against the other powers.

I know there was a lot in my post, but we can start here: Names get changed, and so what matters are titles. I am not saying titles matter, but to the titled PEOPLE, it all that matters. That is to say, Hitler, is a made up name, which Hitler's father, adopted.

Why all of a sudden, does Hitler's dad say "As of today you will all call me Hitler." ... Uhm. Why?

And as for the rest, it essentially boils down to the elite core around Hitler, and who they were, and to what end they were managing him. Himmler, I am saying, appears to be a manager. Around him, are the men he is managing via their own psychosis. These would be Hitler, Heydrich, Mengele, Goebbles etc.

So the real question is what was Hitler's title, and did it apply to those lands as Emperor or Chancellor?

It is folly to talk of anything except WW2, because we are all, right now, better prepared and positioned to understand these events. As we move forward, if we slacken our grip on the past, history will be continued to be written by the winners.

anyway, if you have secific questions, just make your question clear and I'll try to answer it.

Tell me: Who gives "names"? And who gives "titles"?

And if you have no name, say your mother was an Indian and didn't name you, are you still a person?

Can a man with no name, become Emperor? It is a good question to ask. And also, if that Emperor be clothed nicely as was Hitler, can he also be appearing naked to the eyes that can see? Therefore the true question is, after Hitler, can there ever be an Emperor, who is truly clothed? Surely they will all look stupid and naked after him. And yet, the titles may never go away. So really the titles will be held for 1000 years until they find someone else silly enough to march naked through town whilst thinking he is clothed.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


My point (with reference to my previous post in this thread) was that its only the "modern", "advanced" nations of Europe that seems to have a problem with Islamic culture having a visible presence on their lands.
They are the only ones paranoid about muslim culture "taking over" their lands. They are the ones churning out material that demonize the muslim people.

I mean, its not like these muslims have a military presence in their lands. Its not like these nations are getting bombed by muslim nations... like the way muslim nations are getting bombed by these "advanced" nations.




If its an Islamic country they won't care, because they already have Sharia. If it's a small minority Islamic country, then there's no reason to fear Sharia. So what countries are left?


I'll start with my country.

For the record, my country has seen invasions/attacks from muslim powers lasting centuries even before the first recorded instance of terrorists blowing up/shooting at citizens from countries that, in this modern age, claims to have a problem with islamic terrorists.

We have a sizeable minority of muslims...yes, we do see petty conflicts from time to time...but my country is not ruled by lawmakers who seek to ban islamic symbols.... or for that matter anybody elses symbols.



edit on 7-10-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
"Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting." wiki

All aspects of a Muslim’s life are governed by sharia law from politics to economics, banking, business, contracts and family. "Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters." m.guardian.co.uk...

Sorry, but our country already has laws. To allow a group special exemption from a country's laws in favour of their own laws is ludicrous. Seriously, where would it end? I'd like to live in a community where all 10 commandments are enforced. You may choose a city where anything goes is the law.

Can you imagine allowing religious courts? Where there isn't one set of laws covering everyone?


Are you aware US law prevents this? Its against the law to use other legal systems. So guess what! All this sharia law stuff is nonsense invented by the right to instill hatred and division. Well at least in the US.

Edit: Also sons do not inherit 2x. By islamic law all share equally. That can't be changed even by a will.
edit on Fri October 7th, 2011 by damwel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Damwel speaks accurately, Charles, and that pretty much covers the whole aspect as far as shariah goes, if you ask me. I mean, as I mentioned in the other thread, the US Constitution ALREADY caters to and makes sure that no other law would supercede the law of the land.

Article 6 of the US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


So anyone who drums up fears and media frenzy about "Sharia taking over the courts", probably has ulterior motives.
And seriously, Islamic Law, in the sense you were talking about in your earlier post (forcing Americans to go to the mosque, or not allowing them to say something that could be considered blasphemy) ....that's never going to happen. Do you seriously fear something like that would happen? Can you imagine a non-fantastical way it WOULD happen? I surely can't, and there are no muslims or any groups operating within the law or system of the USA to try and make it happen. Do you think that it is POSSIBLE that the three branches of government could be so infected that anyone who'd be orchestrating this plan could possibly think it would work? Do you think that even if the President WAS an undercover muslim, he'd be able to do anything significant so as to allow the eventual imposition of Shariah law over the people of the US? I personally don't, and in that sense, I'd say "Creeping Shariah" is total BS.

As far as contract law, or civil matters are concerned, if both parties willingly entered into it using an Islamic framework, and both parties are willing to stay as such, I don't quite see what the problem is? I mean, as I mentioned, the Beth Din of America handles stuff like this daily. So do the Islamic courts in the UK.
edit on 7-10-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join