Dsoul said:

If you look at history, all nut jobs believe in their position. As with using the Holy Koran as a source, you can always twist things to fit your agenda, the Bible and the Torah can be twisted to fit Chrisitan and Jewish agendas; we have seen that through history. Again, we got back to claiming that one is evil and the other ones are not. Go after the Bible and Torah, then I would have no problem.

Just because a few muslims twist the Koran and make it fit their evil twisted minds, does not mean that Islam is evil. We have Christians and Jews who twist the Bible and Torah to fit their evil minds, do we paint all Jews and Christians with the same brush? Nope. So stop doing it with Islam.

Like I said before: If you are going to be against hate speech and want freedom for all people, cool. But stop pretending that one group is better than the other group. Or one religion is better than another.

If Greet Wilders is going to go after the Koran, go after the Bible as well as the Torah.

JellyBean said:

In a perverse way I respect the religious folk who walk the talk of their doctrines more than those who do a pick and mix which is ultimately unlikely to please their jealous, angry god's rules.

It seems there's more fervor to do this in islam currently, with more of the adherents latching onto the violent aspects. Bar the odd abortion clinic bomber do you really see that pattern in modern day christianity or judaism?

mordang said:

Those same things are happening with Palestinians under Israeli laws, do you see anyone coming to the aid of the Palestinians?

Dewrede said:

jn2 said:

Maybe some Muslims are misguided, but this Pat Condell guy is notorious for his hate speech, he is just a common racist and any one who preaches intolerance is not worth wasting time on. Pat has other videos that go on about migrants in Britain which are pretty horrific. Ok so some Muslims need to reign in their views, but isn't that the same of all dogma based religions and cults.
We all forget in this age that God is Love. He is a loving God to all people, not a spiteful one.

Quran Also Carries Muhammad’s Words!


One of the cardinal beliefs of the Muslims is this: The Quran is the only Religious Book that was not written by any human, and that all of its messages had come down to Muhammad in Allah’s own words.

My research into the Quran proves that the above claim is false. Here is what its verse 16:51 says, and what I have understood from it.

“Allah has said: “Take not (for worship) two gods: for He is just One Allah: then fear Me (and Me alone).””

If we need a specific verse from the Quran that irrefutably proves that it also contains Muhammad’s words and statements, this is it!

Not only the first three words and the construction of the statement prove that the speaker of the statement was Muhammad; even the nuances of the Arabic grammar that govern the use of punctuation marks make it absolutely clear that it was Muhammad, and not Allah, who spoke those words of the verse.

The verse, previous to this one, ended with a big circle (a full stop in English) along with an instruction to the reader to bow his or her head after reaching its end. In other words, verse 51 is independent of verse 50 and that we should judge it solely on the basis of its contents.

Approaching the contents of the verse from the above standpoint, we find that the speaker of the words “Allah has said” were the words that came from Muhammad’s mouth. There is no way that Allah could have expressed Himself in those words, as doing that would have made Him not only batty, but also a subject of ridicule and contempt.

The sooner Muslims accept this fact, the better it will be for them. The realization of the truth by them will herald a new era in which the people of other religious denominations would not only be able to talk to them on social and economic issues, but also on their religion and its varied doctrines, without fear of being assaulted or lynched by them.

If any thing most Muslims respect and love more than their own lives is the Quran. This is a psychological disorder the root of which runs to a belief that tells them that what their Religious Book contains were spoken by none but Allah Himself. Despite the fact that the Quran contradicts this belief, Muslims do not want to consider even the possibility of it having words that could also have come from Muhammad’s mouth.

Muslims’ belief that all the words of the Quran are from Allah makes it an extremely sacred Book. To preserve its sacredness, they are willing to do anything, including killing themselves, if it becomes necessary. This behavior of the Muslims is known as ‘fundamentalism.’ Also known vicariously as ‘Islamic Fundamentalism,’ which espouses violence, causes death and destruction, it has become today the major problem of our world.

It is not true that only the illiterate or half-literate Muslims are guilty of fundamentalism, even the scholars of Islam harbor it in their heart. This is discernible from the efforts that they have been making, for hundreds of years, for defending what is indefensible. Here is an example of how a reputable Muslim scholar avoided telling his readers the truth that lies behind the Quran’s authorship.

“Allah is Most High, Most Wise: man is, in spite of his high destiny, often the lowest of the low (95:5). Yet Allah, out of His infinite Mercy and Grace, has bestowed His revelation on man. How does it come about? Three ways are mentioned: (1) W’ahyun, Inspiration; (2) from behind a veil; and (3) by sending of a Messenger.

W’ahyun, Inspiration, is interpreted to be of two kinds: (1) a suggestion thrown by Allah into the heart and mind of man, by which man understands the substance of the Message, whether it is a command or prohibition, or an explanation of a great truth; and (2) verbal or literal inspiration, by which the actual words of Allah are conveyed in human language. Orthodox opinion admits the existence of both kinds, though the latter (“recited,” matlu) is held to be of a superior degree, only vouchsafed to the greater Prophets, while the former (“other than recited,” gair-matlu) may be given not only to the greater Prophets but to the other men of spiritual insight who have not attained the degree of Prophethood. If we accept the theory of verbal inspiration, it would also cover the Messages brought by the angel Gabriel.”[1]

It is clear from the Quran itself that it is the bearer of messages that had come supposedly from Allah to Muhammad in two forms. One of them came in the form of inspiration, which Allah Himself ‘threw’ into Muhammad’s heart.[2] The second came through the medium of angel Gabriel, who, too, put it down to his heart by Allah’s Will.[3]

In both the cases, no direct words from Allah were involved. Muhammad received the messages either directly from Allah or through angel Gabriel ‘into his heart and mind,’ and then expressed them to his followers in his own words. This is what the Quran implies, and also, this is what the learned scholar has said indirectly in his commentary.

The Muslim scholars’ unwillingness or desire to speak clearly on the authorship of the Quran is a reason that leads all Muslims to believe that all of its contents came directly from Allah, and in His own words. Therefore, they are not only extraordinarily sacred to them, they are also infallible.

This dogmatic belief has made the Muslims not only excessively reverent of the Quran; it has also made them highly sensitive to any criticism that is made by those who hold differing views on its authorship.

Given the state of mind with which almost all Muslim children grow up and lead their lives, we are not likely to see a peaceful world until steps are taken to debrief them on the Quran and its contents. And this can be done only through the Muslim scholars and preachers.

We do not know how Muslim scholars and preachers can be made to change what they have been preaching to their readers and listeners, but this is something that we need to do, if we want to see a less dogmatic and placid community of Muslims to emerge in our midst sometime in future.

Insofar as the question of two gods spoken of in the verse is concerned, the concept of two gods had actually originated in ancient Persia much before Judaism, Christianity and Islam took their birth. Not only did the Persians of the yore believe in Resurrection after death as well as Free Will for man to choose between good and bad, they also believed that there were two gods; one of which, known as Ahura Mazda, Lord of Wisdom, Supreme Ruler of the World, was the Creator of all good things. The other, called Angra Manyu, the Evil Spirit, created all that is evil in the world.

The ancient Persians, also known as Zoroastrians, therefore, worshipped Ahura Mazda so that he could continue to favor them with all the good things of the world. The presence of Angra Manyu in their midst reminded them of the evil things, which they needed to shun in their lives.

The tradition of having two gods was also prevalent among the Meccan Pagans of Muhammad’s time, but with a difference. To them, both the gods were good, hence worthy of veneration and worshipping.

In keeping with this tradition, they had two statues of the gods Isaf and Naila installed on the hills of Safa and Marwa. When performing their annual hajj rituals, the Pagans ran from one hill to another, each time stopping briefly only to touch the idols.

Muhammad retained the Pagans’ practice of running between the two hills seven times in Islam, but without the idols. Though the Pagans’ practice carried some sense, Muslims replicating it during their annual hajj does not.

What people, not familiar with the hajj rituals, should make of millions of Muslims, who run between the two hills without, unlike the Pagans, a logical cause or ostensible reason?

[1] Abdullah Yusuf Ali, op. cit. Vol. 2, p. 1321.

[2] Cf. The Quran, 4:163.

[3] Cf. The Quran; 2:97.

And the first one to throw into the bible or torah in this discussion on their violent passages, is a fool.

And the first one to throw into the bible or torah in this discussion on their violent passages, is a fool. Simply for the different interpretation people have (or even are allowed) on these books and the absolute numbers of victims that are (not) made in the name of these religions in comparison to the islam.

jn2 said:

Maybe some Muslims are misguided, but this Pat Condell guy is notorious for his hate speech, he is just a common racist and any one who preaches intolerance is not worth wasting time on. Pat has other videos that go on about migrants in Britain which are pretty horrific. Ok so some Muslims need to reign in their views, but isn't that the same of all dogma based religions and cults.
We all forget in this age that God is Love. He is a loving God to all people, not a spiteful one.

mordang said:

Didn't you just try to defend Pat Condell by saying he also attacks Christians?


The biggest problem with Wilders is that he attacks ALL muslims. Also the ones that fit perfectly in Western society. If he would be offensive to just extremists he has a point.

mordang said:

You see, the fact that you keep desperately trying to discourage that comparison from being made, only serves to reveal that even you've identified it, quite correctly, as the 'fatal flaw' of your argument, which has to always be covered over for that argument to even have a hope of being persuasive. Once the cat's out of the bag, and people start make the logical comparison between violence and intolerance in the name of Islam, violence and intolerance in the name of other religions, or the many secular justifications for violence and intolerance, the idea that this is uniquely 'Muslim problem' collapses.

People can easily look at the history of America or Europe; look at the Nazis; look at the Middle East; look at Northern Ireland; look at the violence of racism and homophobia, and see violence being committed by those with an attachment to any number of particular ideologies or belief systems, both religious and secular, which is easily comparable. This continual attempt to block such comparisons from being made is, tragically, precisely what gives the game away by identifying the fatal weak point. It's a bit like a man whose house is being searched by the police giving the game away by continually casting his eyes towards the spot where he's hidden his stash!

Making comparisons between things that are not superficially similar isn't 'foolish' at all; on the contrary, it's one of the emblematic features of human intelligence and our ability to reason. And, in argument, it's how we assess the validity of a particular truth claim. If one asks or tries to persuade people to suspend their ability to reason, one is essentially trying to convince them to rely on blind faith that what one is telling them is the truth. And, in the context of this discussion, that surely can't be a good tack!
[Edited 11/1/09 6:37am]

Here (in Sweden), the national racist (no no, just looking out for Swedish values ) party's leader wrote a long article calling islam "the worst threat to Sweden since WW II" He's suck a fuckhead. They've done a good job of trying to clean up their appearance but the message is the same. Throw all refugees and immigrants out cause they're all rapists and/or members of organised crime, and return women to their place in the kitchen/giving birth to babies. They really think that if there were no foreigners in Sweden there would be no rapes and no organised crime.
Now, the news paper that published it did so to expose the party for what it is, none of the parties in parliament will debate with them because nobody wants to feed them or give them space and thereby legitimise them politically. There IS a risk they'll get into parliament at next year's election though.
I loathe these ignorants.

Popular perceptions on Islamic fundamentalism

In a survey conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres on behalf of the UK-based think tank Open Europe in March 2007, 56% of the Swedish respondents agreed with the statement that "Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country".[14]

Its just prejudice and hatred to a minority group again, people are listening to this all the time start to believe in this hate coz of the problem with immigration etc which causes problems in Muslims everyday lives from walking down the street and living in communities without being sneered at or harrassed. His preaching is disgusting and should not be praised.
I'm a christian, well try to be one lol and studied buddhism for well over 10yrs and I dont know any religion that hasnt got violence in its scriptures and teachings where its not suppressing its own people, but these books are old and us humans was pretty barbaric back then. u do have a lot of ignorant nutjob extremist out there who are using this against there own people and against others to produce hatred and it should not be encourage.

^ this isn't about blaming all immigrants and refugees for all the crimes that are being commited

it's about critisizing the dogma of hatred and terror
(against all 'infidels' ; western society) that is islam


Wilders' party is not a racist 'far right' extremists party
Infact he doesn't want to be associated with any far right parties abroad

once again ; critisizing religion has nothing to do with racism


getting so ***** tired of this PC bullshit here
[Edited 11/1/09 11:12am]

Dewrede said:

Don't get tired, get angry.

Don't forget 1 in 5 agree on this day and Wilders is only busy for 5 years. It is not without reason that there was a "scientific" survey by 3 (known leftist) scientists in a left newspaper, condemning him as dangerous to state and social cohesion. Only in december, a few months before local elections this rapport is going to be debated...

Social democrats in Holland are down to around 15 seats in the House (of Commons or Tweede Kamer) in polls from 33. They are getting desperate...and that is why they'll grabb anything and everything to delude the voter yet again into voting for them.

But who lied about the referendum for the EU?

dothejump said:

Like I said, like Wilders said, many, many, many times...every time. It is not about the people, it is about Islam. And every time, in sheer desperation, one gets to hear it is about muslims. But the message is clear. Although you don't want to hear. Wilders considers Islam a dangerous ideology, but he doesn't talk about muslims, no matter how hard you try.

5 years ago...van Gogh died by they hands of an islamist.
Fortuyn died by the hands of a leftie.
And Wilders lost his freedom, together with Ayaan Hirschi Ali.
Aboutaleb went under policeprotection. Afshin Ellian is under surveilance, all are the critical about Islam.

I as an atheist, have no interest in Christianity. I'd see it out of this world as soon as possible, for it is harmfull...any religion is. That you want have it in the discussion is because it is a religion...right you are. But there is a difference that you have not considered, why I don't want it in the the discussion. Islam is not just a religion, it is more, and that you can't get into your mind, is an allcontroling ideology. It not just dictates spiritual, it dictates every aspect of life. If you would want to compare it, than compare it with facism or communism. It tells you what to wear, what to eat, when to pray, what your rights are, what sex you can have, how to fight, how to drink. It leaves no aspect of human life alone or open to individual forfillment.

That you want christianity into the discusssion is only to point at the neigbour and say "he did it too!". Well the neigbour didn't, and even if he did, it doesn't make present actions right. Like I said before, Chistianity is a mild sickness compared to Islam.

mordang said:

So what should be the conclusion of this?
Start chasing all lefties because Volkert van der Graaf killed Fortuyn? Nope, Fortuyn was killed by one totally insane maniac. The same with the murder of Van Gogh. Yes, Mohammed B said he was driven by the islam but that doesn't make everyone who practices Islam a potential killer. Both Fortuyn and Van Gogh were killed by insane losers.

And as a sidenote: the way Van Gogh is made a martyr now is making me sick. He was a great interviewer but he was also a disgusting as a columnist. In my opinion he wasn't a preacher for free speech but just someone who made sick comments and was just hurting people.
(And to make it clear: that's no reason to kill someone. I just can't stand the way Van Gogh is made a nice hero now).
[Edited 11/1/09 13:05pm]

Another low in the career of Wilders:

"Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, has called Integration Minister Eberhard van der Laan (of the Labour Party) and Democrats D66 leader Alexander Pechtold "political accomplices" of Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of filmmaker Theo van Gogh." (source: http://www.rnw.nl/english...mate-hate)


I'm sorry but I can't take people who give their vote to this clown serious anymore. People like Wilders don't belong in politics.

Wilders who is a democrat, and as a democrat, warns against some of facistic features Islam posseses, is now extreme right. So is the Islam, so democratic, that criticism upon it, should be considered dangerous to democracy? A strange paradox.

An attack upon Wilders, by an islamist, will not only be smiled upon by Allah, it has now found legitimacy by Dutch authorities. No, I'm not saying Dutch lawmakers condone murder. It is about how a political murderer thinks. He seeks justification for his actions...and our politicians are giving it. That is what Wilders is saying.

mordang said:

This is such an unfair and such a typical response mordang. Wilders is not a democrat and he is not playing fair at all.

Wilders and his supporters can say whatever they want, insult entire groups of people just based on their religious beliefs, while they claim they are all about free speech, but Muslims must shut up about their beliefs and assimiliate or otherwise be deported, while their holy book must be reduced to a comic book or banned all together. You call that 'freedom'?

Wilders can criticise other politicians whatever he wants, he is constantly demonising them into being 'crazy', 'dangerous', 'islamo fascist', 'helpers of murderers' etc etc. But what happens when Wilders is criticised by these other politicians based on his no - solutions- just complaints - politics? Then he doesn't react with content. Nooooo, then they are demonising HIM. Then THEY are the ones who are responsbile if something ever happens to him.

So much for fair play and free speech by this ONE MAN party. Can't you even see the enormous hypocracy there? Demonising everything you don't like yourself and then making others responsible if something ever happens to you? And don't you know that a ONE MAN 'party' is not democratic AT ALL? A democrat has a party with MEMBERS that can VOTE. Wilders does NOT. He is the only one who decides. A real democrat does NOT have a one man 'party' where he is the only one who decides. Surely you know that, so surely you are not serious that he is a 'democrat'.

A one man party that demonises whatever isn't to his liking and that claims freedom and free speech for himself but not for others: now THAT looks a lot like fascism to me mordang. Is that really what you want? One man all on his own ruling this country, while demonising everything that he hates?

--
[Edited 11/3/09 1:16am]

Dewrede said:

Don't get tired, get angry.

Don't forget 1 in 5 agree on this day and Wilders is only busy for 5 years. It is not without reason that there was a "scientific" survey by 3 (known leftist) scientists in a left newspaper, condemning him as dangerous to state and social cohesion. Only in december, a few months before local elections this rapport is going to be debated...

Social democrats in Holland are down to around 15 seats in the House (of Commons or Tweede Kamer) in polls from 33. They are getting desperate...and that why they'll grabb anything and everything to delude the voter yet again.

But who lied about the referendum for the EU?

mordang said:

This is such an unfair and such a typical response mordang. Wilders is not a democrat and he is not playing fair at all.

Wilders and his supporters can say whatever they want, insult entire groups of people just based on their religious beliefs, while they claim they are all about free speech, but Muslims must shut up about their beliefs and assimiliate or otherwise be deported, while their holy book must be reduced to a comic book or banned all together. You call that 'freedom'?

Wilders can criticise other politicians whatever he wants, he is constantly demonising them into being 'crazy', 'dangerous', 'islamo fascist', 'helpers of murderers' etc etc. But what happens when Wilders is criticised by these other politicians based on his no - solutions- just complaints - politics? Then he doesn't react with content. Nooooo, then they are demonising HIM. Then THEY are the ones who are responsbile if something ever happens to him.

So much for fair play and free speech by this ONE MAN party. Can't you even see the enormous hypocracy there? Demonising everything you don't like yourself and then making others responsible if something ever happens to you? And don't you know that a ONE MAN 'party' is not democratic AT ALL? A democrat has a party with MEMBERS that can VOTE. Wilders does NOT. He is the only one who decides. A real democrat does NOT have a one man 'party' where he is the only one who decides. Surely you know that, so surely you are not serious that he is a 'democrat'.

A one man party that demonises whatever isn't to his liking and that claims freedom and free speech for himself but not for others: now THAT looks a lot like fascism to me mordang. Is that really what you want? One man all on his own ruling this country, while demonising everything that he hates?

--
[Edited 11/3/09 1:16am]

mordang said:

Didn't you just try to defend Pat Condell by saying he also attacks Christians?


The biggest problem with Wilders is that he attacks ALL muslims. Also the ones that fit perfectly in Western society. If he would be offensive to just extremists he has a point.

dothejump said:

Thank you. That is my whole point.