Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Doc »

Not all Muslim not even a majority but certainly a large minority

Here is one veiw:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr ... 30426.aspx.

Arab Spring And The Major Fail

April 26, 2013: After two years the Arab Spring revolution has developed a bitter aftertaste. Unemployment is up and corruption is still around in countries where the rebels succeeded. The incompetent and abusive police forces are still on the job in those nations. While the government has changed, the families that control most of the economy are still around. This concentration of economic power in a few families is common in many countries, particularly in the Arab world. The problem with the Arab Spring is that the focus of the anger was too narrow, concentrating on the current dictators and not the fundamental problems that allowed all those dictators to flourish in the first place.

Islamic radicalism has been a part of Islam since the beginning but has never been able to sustain control over governments. That’s in large part because Moslems are divided over whether it is better to be ruled by a religious dictatorship as according to Islamic law (interpreted by religious scholars who act as a final appeals court) or by some other system. Islamic radicals consider the alternatives (secular dictatorship, monarchy, and democracy) un-Islamic. Many Arab countries had tried secular dictatorship (usually accompanied by socialism) after World War II. This turned out to be a major failure and most of the Arab Spring governments overthrown were secular dictatorships. Monarchies have been more successful, as they have been the oldest and most successful form of government in the region. Democracy has had a hard time in the Middle East because it requires a civil society (people willing to work honestly for the common good) and the pervasive corruption in the region made that very difficult. The religious dictatorship has never worked, also done in by the corruption and tribalism but it has survived as an impossible idea.

The big change has been the tolerant attitude towards Islamic radicalism by the new Arab Spring governments. A major reason for the renewed vigor of Islamic terror organizations in the last year is because the Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian, and Tunisian jails were emptied of political prisoners after the rebels replaced the dictators. The freed prisoners included thousands of Islamic radicals, many of them Islamic terrorists who have gone back to the business of being very bad.

Even the Islamic conservatives, who tended to stay out of jail by toning down their religious and social prejudices, have become a problem. Mobs of Islamic conservative men have been attacking women’s schools and any establishment that serves alcohol (even if mainly to tourists). Women who don’t dress very conservatively are confronted and sometimes beaten. These Islamic conservative groups want Islamic law imposed on everyone and are not waiting for laws to be passed. Anyone who opposes this vigilantism is accused of being hostile to Islam and attacked even more vigorously.

Most of the Islamic terrorists let out of prison were those who had experience, especially management skills. In the last decade the U.S. and Israel have put thousands of skilled Islamic terrorists out of action (dead or imprisoned). Arab dictatorships were particularly effective at finding and killing to imprisoning Islamic radicals and have been doing this vigorously since the 1990s. All this led to a steady decline in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks over the last decade. But with so many jailed Islamic terrorists freed, the mayhem is on the increase again.

Already, police in Arab countries are seeking to arrest some of those freed radicals for crimes committed since they got out, or for general bad behavior over a long period of time. Despite that experience, countries still undergoing Arab Spring rebellions (like Syria) are under pressure to let Islamic radicals out of prison once the dictatorship is overthrown. In part this is because many Islamic radical groups are taking part in the fighting and expect to get something more than a “thank you” for their efforts. Indeed, Syrian rebels are concerned about the Islamic radicals attempting to install a religious dictatorship after the current secular Assad dictatorship is overthrown. Whatever the case, Islamic radicals expect a new government to let imprisoned Islamic terrorists go free. Even if the new government wants to keep Islamic terrorists and criminals imprisoned, the chaos that accompanies a revolution often leads to many jail breaks. Moreover, many of the non-terrorist criminals and political prisoners are recruited into Islamic radical groups while in prison. Western and Arab intelligence agencies are identifying more and more of these former prisoners in terrorist hot sports like Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, and Libya, including those who were not originally jailed for Islamic terrorism.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

Not all Muslim not even a majority but certainly a large minority

Here is one veiw:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr ... 30426.aspx.

Arab Spring And The Major Fail

April 26, 2013: After two years the Arab Spring revolution has developed a bitter aftertaste. Unemployment is up and corruption is still around in countries where the rebels succeeded. The incompetent and abusive police forces are still on the job in those nations. While the government has changed, the families that control most of the economy are still around. This concentration of economic power in a few families is common in many countries, particularly in the Arab world. The problem with the Arab Spring is that the focus of the anger was too narrow, concentrating on the current dictators and not the fundamental problems that allowed all those dictators to flourish in the first place.

Islamic radicalism has been a part of Islam since the beginning but has never been able to sustain control over governments. That’s in large part because Moslems are divided over whether it is better to be ruled by a religious dictatorship as according to Islamic law (interpreted by religious scholars who act as a final appeals court) or by some other system. Islamic radicals consider the alternatives (secular dictatorship, monarchy, and democracy) un-Islamic. Many Arab countries had tried secular dictatorship (usually accompanied by socialism) after World War II. This turned out to be a major failure and most of the Arab Spring governments overthrown were secular dictatorships. Monarchies have been more successful, as they have been the oldest and most successful form of government in the region. Democracy has had a hard time in the Middle East because it requires a civil society (people willing to work honestly for the common good) and the pervasive corruption in the region made that very difficult. The religious dictatorship has never worked, also done in by the corruption and tribalism but it has survived as an impossible idea.

The big change has been the tolerant attitude towards Islamic radicalism by the new Arab Spring governments. A major reason for the renewed vigor of Islamic terror organizations in the last year is because the Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian, and Tunisian jails were emptied of political prisoners after the rebels replaced the dictators. The freed prisoners included thousands of Islamic radicals, many of them Islamic terrorists who have gone back to the business of being very bad.

Even the Islamic conservatives, who tended to stay out of jail by toning down their religious and social prejudices, have become a problem. Mobs of Islamic conservative men have been attacking women’s schools and any establishment that serves alcohol (even if mainly to tourists). Women who don’t dress very conservatively are confronted and sometimes beaten. These Islamic conservative groups want Islamic law imposed on everyone and are not waiting for laws to be passed. Anyone who opposes this vigilantism is accused of being hostile to Islam and attacked even more vigorously.

Most of the Islamic terrorists let out of prison were those who had experience, especially management skills. In the last decade the U.S. and Israel have put thousands of skilled Islamic terrorists out of action (dead or imprisoned). Arab dictatorships were particularly effective at finding and killing to imprisoning Islamic radicals and have been doing this vigorously since the 1990s. All this led to a steady decline in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks over the last decade. But with so many jailed Islamic terrorists freed, the mayhem is on the increase again.

Already, police in Arab countries are seeking to arrest some of those freed radicals for crimes committed since they got out, or for general bad behavior over a long period of time. Despite that experience, countries still undergoing Arab Spring rebellions (like Syria) are under pressure to let Islamic radicals out of prison once the dictatorship is overthrown. In part this is because many Islamic radical groups are taking part in the fighting and expect to get something more than a “thank you” for their efforts. Indeed, Syrian rebels are concerned about the Islamic radicals attempting to install a religious dictatorship after the current secular Assad dictatorship is overthrown. Whatever the case, Islamic radicals expect a new government to let imprisoned Islamic terrorists go free. Even if the new government wants to keep Islamic terrorists and criminals imprisoned, the chaos that accompanies a revolution often leads to many jail breaks. Moreover, many of the non-terrorist criminals and political prisoners are recruited into Islamic radical groups while in prison. Western and Arab intelligence agencies are identifying more and more of these former prisoners in terrorist hot sports like Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, and Libya, including those who were not originally jailed for Islamic terrorism.


.



Sounds like, those Arab Bedouins and Pakistani Pashtoons and North Africans and and and, all, were, liberal democracy civilized civilization and cultures UNTIL that pedophile MO showed up :lol: :lol:

Yaaaa, Doc , that bad bad Islam


reminds me of that evil man


Churchill.jpg
Churchill.jpg (69.63 KiB) Viewed 1561 times

wonder where her got all those medals (hint : murdering Africans in Africa)



.


CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

Speech written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The River War).

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, . . .


HERE IS THE SPEECH :

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."

Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).


.


Well, folks .. what can one expect from (western) Joe with such (western) leaders.


Same mindset as Adolf .. at least Adolf was honest





.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.

Not all Muslim not even a majority but certainly a large minority

Here is one veiw:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr ... 30426.aspx.

Arab Spring And The Major Fail

April 26, 2013: After two years the Arab Spring revolution has developed a bitter aftertaste. Unemployment is up and corruption is still around in countries where the rebels succeeded. The incompetent and abusive police forces are still on the job in those nations. While the government has changed, the families that control most of the economy are still around. This concentration of economic power in a few families is common in many countries, particularly in the Arab world. The problem with the Arab Spring is that the focus of the anger was too narrow, concentrating on the current dictators and not the fundamental problems that allowed all those dictators to flourish in the first place.

Islamic radicalism has been a part of Islam since the beginning but has never been able to sustain control over governments. That’s in large part because Moslems are divided over whether it is better to be ruled by a religious dictatorship as according to Islamic law (interpreted by religious scholars who act as a final appeals court) or by some other system. Islamic radicals consider the alternatives (secular dictatorship, monarchy, and democracy) un-Islamic. Many Arab countries had tried secular dictatorship (usually accompanied by socialism) after World War II. This turned out to be a major failure and most of the Arab Spring governments overthrown were secular dictatorships. Monarchies have been more successful, as they have been the oldest and most successful form of government in the region. Democracy has had a hard time in the Middle East because it requires a civil society (people willing to work honestly for the common good) and the pervasive corruption in the region made that very difficult. The religious dictatorship has never worked, also done in by the corruption and tribalism but it has survived as an impossible idea.

The big change has been the tolerant attitude towards Islamic radicalism by the new Arab Spring governments. A major reason for the renewed vigor of Islamic terror organizations in the last year is because the Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian, and Tunisian jails were emptied of political prisoners after the rebels replaced the dictators. The freed prisoners included thousands of Islamic radicals, many of them Islamic terrorists who have gone back to the business of being very bad.

Even the Islamic conservatives, who tended to stay out of jail by toning down their religious and social prejudices, have become a problem. Mobs of Islamic conservative men have been attacking women’s schools and any establishment that serves alcohol (even if mainly to tourists). Women who don’t dress very conservatively are confronted and sometimes beaten. These Islamic conservative groups want Islamic law imposed on everyone and are not waiting for laws to be passed. Anyone who opposes this vigilantism is accused of being hostile to Islam and attacked even more vigorously.

Most of the Islamic terrorists let out of prison were those who had experience, especially management skills. In the last decade the U.S. and Israel have put thousands of skilled Islamic terrorists out of action (dead or imprisoned). Arab dictatorships were particularly effective at finding and killing to imprisoning Islamic radicals and have been doing this vigorously since the 1990s. All this led to a steady decline in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks over the last decade. But with so many jailed Islamic terrorists freed, the mayhem is on the increase again.

Already, police in Arab countries are seeking to arrest some of those freed radicals for crimes committed since they got out, or for general bad behavior over a long period of time. Despite that experience, countries still undergoing Arab Spring rebellions (like Syria) are under pressure to let Islamic radicals out of prison once the dictatorship is overthrown. In part this is because many Islamic radical groups are taking part in the fighting and expect to get something more than a “thank you” for their efforts. Indeed, Syrian rebels are concerned about the Islamic radicals attempting to install a religious dictatorship after the current secular Assad dictatorship is overthrown. Whatever the case, Islamic radicals expect a new government to let imprisoned Islamic terrorists go free. Even if the new government wants to keep Islamic terrorists and criminals imprisoned, the chaos that accompanies a revolution often leads to many jail breaks. Moreover, many of the non-terrorist criminals and political prisoners are recruited into Islamic radical groups while in prison. Western and Arab intelligence agencies are identifying more and more of these former prisoners in terrorist hot sports like Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, and Libya, including those who were not originally jailed for Islamic terrorism.


.



Sounds like, those Arab Bedouins and Pakistani Pashtoons and North Africans and and and, all, were, liberal democracy civilized civilization and cultures UNTIL that pedophile MO showed up :lol: :lol:

Yaaaa, Doc , that bad bad Islam


reminds me of that evil man


Churchill.jpg

wonder where her got all those medals (hint : murdering Africans in Africa)



.


CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

Speech written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The River War).

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, . . .


HERE IS THE SPEECH :

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."

Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).


.


Well, folks .. what can one expect from (western) Joe with such (western) leaders.


Same mindset as Adolf .. at least Adolf was honest
.
That certainly answers my question of why Muslims can't get along.... The western devils make them do it. :roll:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Doc wrote:That certainly answers my question of why Muslims can't get along.... The western devils make them do it. :roll:
Bingo!

IH8K0bPc-BE
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.

Not all Muslim not even a majority but certainly a large minority

Here is one veiw:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr ... 30426.aspx.

Arab Spring And The Major Fail

April 26, 2013: After two years the Arab Spring revolution has developed a bitter aftertaste. Unemployment is up and corruption is still around in countries where the rebels succeeded. The incompetent and abusive police forces are still on the job in those nations. While the government has changed, the families that control most of the economy are still around. This concentration of economic power in a few families is common in many countries, particularly in the Arab world. The problem with the Arab Spring is that the focus of the anger was too narrow, concentrating on the current dictators and not the fundamental problems that allowed all those dictators to flourish in the first place.

Islamic radicalism has been a part of Islam since the beginning but has never been able to sustain control over governments. That’s in large part because Moslems are divided over whether it is better to be ruled by a religious dictatorship as according to Islamic law (interpreted by religious scholars who act as a final appeals court) or by some other system. Islamic radicals consider the alternatives (secular dictatorship, monarchy, and democracy) un-Islamic. Many Arab countries had tried secular dictatorship (usually accompanied by socialism) after World War II. This turned out to be a major failure and most of the Arab Spring governments overthrown were secular dictatorships. Monarchies have been more successful, as they have been the oldest and most successful form of government in the region. Democracy has had a hard time in the Middle East because it requires a civil society (people willing to work honestly for the common good) and the pervasive corruption in the region made that very difficult. The religious dictatorship has never worked, also done in by the corruption and tribalism but it has survived as an impossible idea.

The big change has been the tolerant attitude towards Islamic radicalism by the new Arab Spring governments. A major reason for the renewed vigor of Islamic terror organizations in the last year is because the Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian, and Tunisian jails were emptied of political prisoners after the rebels replaced the dictators. The freed prisoners included thousands of Islamic radicals, many of them Islamic terrorists who have gone back to the business of being very bad.

Even the Islamic conservatives, who tended to stay out of jail by toning down their religious and social prejudices, have become a problem. Mobs of Islamic conservative men have been attacking women’s schools and any establishment that serves alcohol (even if mainly to tourists). Women who don’t dress very conservatively are confronted and sometimes beaten. These Islamic conservative groups want Islamic law imposed on everyone and are not waiting for laws to be passed. Anyone who opposes this vigilantism is accused of being hostile to Islam and attacked even more vigorously.

Most of the Islamic terrorists let out of prison were those who had experience, especially management skills. In the last decade the U.S. and Israel have put thousands of skilled Islamic terrorists out of action (dead or imprisoned). Arab dictatorships were particularly effective at finding and killing to imprisoning Islamic radicals and have been doing this vigorously since the 1990s. All this led to a steady decline in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks over the last decade. But with so many jailed Islamic terrorists freed, the mayhem is on the increase again.

Already, police in Arab countries are seeking to arrest some of those freed radicals for crimes committed since they got out, or for general bad behavior over a long period of time. Despite that experience, countries still undergoing Arab Spring rebellions (like Syria) are under pressure to let Islamic radicals out of prison once the dictatorship is overthrown. In part this is because many Islamic radical groups are taking part in the fighting and expect to get something more than a “thank you” for their efforts. Indeed, Syrian rebels are concerned about the Islamic radicals attempting to install a religious dictatorship after the current secular Assad dictatorship is overthrown. Whatever the case, Islamic radicals expect a new government to let imprisoned Islamic terrorists go free. Even if the new government wants to keep Islamic terrorists and criminals imprisoned, the chaos that accompanies a revolution often leads to many jail breaks. Moreover, many of the non-terrorist criminals and political prisoners are recruited into Islamic radical groups while in prison. Western and Arab intelligence agencies are identifying more and more of these former prisoners in terrorist hot sports like Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, and Libya, including those who were not originally jailed for Islamic terrorism.


.



Sounds like, those Arab Bedouins and Pakistani Pashtoons and North Africans and and and, all, were, liberal democracy civilized civilization and cultures UNTIL that pedophile MO showed up :lol: :lol:

Yaaaa, Doc , that bad bad Islam


reminds me of that evil man


Churchill.jpg

wonder where her got all those medals (hint : murdering Africans in Africa)



.


CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

Speech written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The River War).

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, . . .


HERE IS THE SPEECH :

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."

Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).


.


Well, folks .. what can one expect from (western) Joe with such (western) leaders.


Same mindset as Adolf .. at least Adolf was honest


.


That certainly answers my question of why Muslims can't get along.... The western devils make them do it. :roll:



.


What I meant by my above post, and seems not successful getting through, was :


Can we judge Christianity based on what Hitler did, or Churchill Africa episode, or European Colonialism period or Western policy backing Zionists, or 1 million Iraqi children murdered and proud of it and and and


7rO9R9oxFuA
5S1YkQs5nXQ


Those bad guys nothing to do with Christianity (though much to do with Christian institution)


One should ask (perfidious) ahole Churchill, how come those SH*T Muslims were "epicenter" of science and philosophy and medicine and everything else for 500 years when you guys were sh*ting from balcony due to lacking of toilets and now suddenly those Muslims barbarians :)



Yes, Doc, when "western devils" woke up, things changed

But, Iran will fix things .. that is why West is so afraid of Iran




.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

The Devil Made Me Buy that Dress-Jeraldine Jones/Flip Wilson

Post by monster_gardener »

Marcus wrote:
Doc wrote:That certainly answers my question of why Muslims can't get along.... The western devils make them do it. :roll:
Bingo!

IH8K0bPc-BE
Thank You VERY Much for your posts, Doc & Marcus.........

Along the same lines...........

5kaiLcwHXB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaiLcwHXB4


But more seriously IMVHO it is because human beings tend to be Depraved Sinful Egotiscal Chaos Monkey's without G_d's intervention........

As with cats, socialization helps control and or hide this, but often what keeps us from major atrocities is fear of retribution and lack of opportunity...........

Even with dogs who tend to be more moral than cats and chaos monkey humans, they too are more likely to steal food when they think the master or mistress cannot see them doing it.........

Note: Sorry........ :oops: Forgot to add the video the first time.
Last edited by monster_gardener on Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:One should ask . . how come . . Muslims were "epicenter" of science and philosophy and medicine and everything else for 500 years when you guys were sh*ting from balcony due to lacking of toilets and now suddenly those Muslims barbarians . .
ALI, please define those 500 years—from when-to-when—and where exactly, geographically speaking, was this so-called "epicenter" located?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Marcus wrote:.
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

One should ask . . how come . . Muslims were "epicenter" of science and philosophy and medicine and everything else for 500 years when you guys were sh*ting from balcony due to lacking of toilets and now suddenly those Muslims barbarians . .
ALI, please define those 500 years—from when-to-when—and where exactly, geographically speaking, was this so-called "epicenter" located ?

.



Yes, I will, Marcus

but

let me first give an explanation why and how Islam is the "nucleus" of modern science and and of today

Islam of Mohammad must be seen as a "Social Revolution" .. until that time, say 1340 yrs ago, everywhere in the world, including Sassanid Persia, it was a CASTE system .. that meant, EDUCATION was reserved, was privilege, only of higher cast .. In Persia (and elsewhere) only NOBLE could go school

Moh said everybody is same, in Islam there is no CASTE, there is no nobility, .. that was one of the main reason Islam took off like a forest fire

The elimination of CASTE system, and "explicit" mention (and obligation) of "eduction" in Koran (seek knowledge from crib to grave) led an EXPLOSION for seeking knowledge

Another very important development was the Arab language became "universal" in Muslim space .. everybody spoke & understood Arabic language (even as 2nd language), from Chinese border to Spain and India .. same as now English is THE world language (in science etc) .. result was that Persian scholars in central Asia could write a scientific essay that would be understood and debated in Toledo, Spain .. most great universities and research centers and philosophers and scientists in that space came to being AFTER Islam took over, reason was that Islam PROMOTED eduction and no cast system .. commoner could go to school, pretty much all giants of science and philosophy and humanism and and and came from common folks (unlike in Europe of that time)

Islam created a platform for excellence in modern thinking (science and philosophy and and) : freedom (of cast system), universal language, and, very important, a set of "ground rules" (sort of constitution with moral and ethics, could be argued modern for that time)

At that time, Europe was in dark ages, not science but Alchemy was in, Galileo had to admit earth was flat


Back to your question : Islamic Golden Age



And, Marcus, the Golden Age of Islam was under Abbasid .. that is when Pomegranates were
in "driver seat" .. :)


.

The first change the Abbasids made was to move the empire's capital from Damascus, in Syria, to Baghdad in Iraq. This was to both appease as well to be closer to the Persian mawali support base that existed in this region more influenced by Persian history and culture, and part of the Persian mawali demand for less Arab dominance in the empire. Baghdad was established on the Tigris River in 762. A new position, that of the vizier, was also established to delegate central authority, and even greater authority was delegated to local emirs. Eventually, this meant that many Abbasid caliphs were relegated to a more ceremonial role than under the Umayyads, as the viziers began to exert greater influence, and the role of the old Arab aristocracy was slowly replaced by a Persian bureaucracy.[6]

The Abbasids had depended heavily on the support of Pomegranates[citation needed] in their overthrow of the Umayyads. Abu al-'Abbas' successor, Al-Mansur, and welcomed non-Arab Muslims to his court. While this helped integrate Arab and Persian cultures, it alienated many of their Arab supporters, particularly the Khorasanian Arabs who had supported them in their battles against the Umayyads.

.





.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

ALI,

With some reservations, I'd agree with much of what you say even though some of it is, I think, very overstated.

That said, it is further my opinion that the intellectual impetus driving that world was Persian culture. Islam supplied only the unifying, cultural context for that portion of the world that it conquered by the sword.

Islam, in my opinion, is utterly incapable of enervating a civilization as defined by Quigley:
This last definition means that a producing society becomes a civilization when it is organized in such a way that its patterns of relationships and behavior provide three things: (a) an incentive to innovate new ways of doing things; (b) an inequitable distribution of the social product so that there accumulates within the society a surplus of wealth (that is, wealth which its possessors do not wish to consume immediately); and (c) that the society be organized in such a way that the surplus being accumulated is used to mobilize resources to exploit the innovations being made. Such a triplex of organizational patterns is what I call “an organization of expansion”. Any producing society which develops such an organization of expansion is a civilization; accordingly, it will expand as all civilizations do, but as non-civilized societies do not.

By “expansion” here I mean that the civilization grows in four ways: (a) in population; (b) in geographic area; (c) in production of wealth per capita; and (d) in knowledge. When a civilization is expanding in these ways, we say that it is in its “Stage of Expansion”, which is Stage III of the seven distinct stages in the life of any civilization. This stage of growth follows the logistical curve of growth found in the curve of any growth process. This is the familiar elongated S-curve, whose slope, as shown by the tangent to the curve, reflects the rate of growth. As we move in time from left to right along this curve, the rate of growth increases to a certain point, after which the rate ceases to increase and soon begins to decease. In the early stages of a civilization, the rate of growth is close to zero, and the slope of the curve is almost horizontal (that is, zero); as growth begins, this slope of the tangent begins to turn in a counter-clockwise direction as the rate of growth increases. The civilization enters Stage III of its civilization process as soon as the tangent to the curve begins to turn, and it continues in this State III until the rate of growth begins to decrease, as indicated by the fact that the tangent ceases to turn in a counter-clockwise direction and begins to turn in a clockwise direction. At this point, although growth continues for a considerable period, the rate of growth is decreasing, and the civilization has entered upon Stage IV in its life-span; that is, it enters its Age of Conflict or General Crisis (Stage IV).
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Marcus wrote:.


ALI,

With some reservations, I'd agree with much of what you say even though some of it is, I think, very overstated.

That said, it is further my opinion that the intellectual impetus driving that world was Persian culture. Islam supplied only the unifying, cultural context for that portion of the world that it conquered by the sword.

Islam, in my opinion, is utterly incapable of enervating a civilization as defined by Quigley:
.

This last definition means that a producing society becomes a civilization when it is organized in such a way that its patterns of relationships and behavior provide three things: (a) an incentive to innovate new ways of doing things; (b) an inequitable distribution of the social product so that there accumulates within the society a surplus of wealth (that is, wealth which its possessors do not wish to consume immediately); and (c) that the society be organized in such a way that the surplus being accumulated is used to mobilize resources to exploit the innovations being made. Such a triplex of organizational patterns is what I call “an organization of expansion”. Any producing society which develops such an organization of expansion is a civilization; accordingly, it will expand as all civilizations do, but as non-civilized societies do not.

By “expansion” here I mean that the civilization grows in four ways: (a) in population; (b) in geographic area; (c) in production of wealth per capita; and (d) in knowledge. When a civilization is expanding in these ways, we say that it is in its “Stage of Expansion”, which is Stage III of the seven distinct stages in the life of any civilization. This stage of growth follows the logistical curve of growth found in the curve of any growth process. This is the familiar elongated S-curve, whose slope, as shown by the tangent to the curve, reflects the rate of growth. As we move in time from left to right along this curve, the rate of growth increases to a certain point, after which the rate ceases to increase and soon begins to decease. In the early stages of a civilization, the rate of growth is close to zero, and the slope of the curve is almost horizontal (that is, zero); as growth begins, this slope of the tangent begins to turn in a counter-clockwise direction as the rate of growth increases. The civilization enters Stage III of its civilization process as soon as the tangent to the curve begins to turn, and it continues in this State III until the rate of growth begins to decrease, as indicated by the fact that the tangent ceases to turn in a counter-clockwise direction and begins to turn in a clockwise direction. At this point, although growth continues for a considerable period, the rate of growth is decreasing, and the civilization has entered upon Stage IV in its life-span; that is, it enters its Age of Conflict or General Crisis (Stage IV).

.
.



Islam, like Christianity had to be adapted to passing time, am sure Jesus turning in his grave watching this gay-marriage fiasco evolving .. Pomegranates would AND could have adapted Islam to passing times .. but, unfortunately, Turks (Ottoman) were in charge of Islam last 500 yrs, and, Arabs had (still have) their heads in their as*s

But (original) Islam not worst that (original) Christianity or (original) Judaism .. as Islam came nearly 800 yrs AFTER Christianity, argument could be made it has more
of the passing times .. what one hears now re Islam and Muslims is mostly "politically" motivated, quite similar to Adolf bad-mouthing and stereotyping Jews not even 80 yrs ago




.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:Islam, like Christianity had to be adapted to passing time, . . Pomegranates would AND could have adapted Islam to passing time .. but, unfortunately, Turks (Ottoman) were in charge of Islam last 500 yrs, and, Arabs had (still have) their head in their as*s

But (original) Islam not worst that (original) Christianity or (original) Judaism .. as Islam cam nearly 800 yrs AFTER Christianity, argument could be made it has more
of the passing time .. what one hear now re Islam and Muslims is mostly "politically" motivated, quite similar to Adolf bath-mouthing and stereotyping Jews not even 80 yrs ago
ALI, though Islam and Christianity have adapted to their times, it remains true that while Christianity largely defined its times*, Islam didn't, couldn't, and can't. Islam is too fatalistic. After the great schism and as Western Civilization became the dominant social form, especially so after the Reformation, Islamic culture was increasingly stripped of its impetus as the entire world became increasingly absorbed by the vitality of the West.

As you say, Persia might have altered that progression, but while man proposes, God disposes.

Islam today is roughly where it was a couple hundred years after the prophet . . absolutely clueless as to how to survive in our modern, multicultural age. That said, Islam will, I think, survive, but the Islam of tomorrow will not be the Islam of today any more than is the Islam of America today is not the Islam of Saudi Arabia.

  • *See: Rosenstock-Huessy, Berman, Cochrane, Quigley, et al.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Marcus wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:Islam, like Christianity had to be adapted to passing time, . . Pomegranates would AND could have adapted Islam to passing time .. but, unfortunately, Turks (Ottoman) were in charge of Islam last 500 yrs, and, Arabs had (still have) their head in their as*s

But (original) Islam not worst that (original) Christianity or (original) Judaism .. as Islam cam nearly 800 yrs AFTER Christianity, argument could be made it has more
of the passing time .. what one hear now re Islam and Muslims is mostly "politically" motivated, quite similar to Adolf bath-mouthing and stereotyping Jews not even 80 yrs ago
ALI, though Islam and Christianity have adapted to their times, it remains true that while Christianity largely defined its times*, Islam didn't, couldn't, and can't. Islam is too fatalistic. After the great schism and as Western Civilization became the dominant social form, especially so after the Reformation, Islamic culture was increasingly stripped of its impetus as the entire world became increasingly absorbed by the vitality of the West.

As you say, Persia might have altered that progression, but while man proposes, God disposes.

Islam today is roughly where it was a couple hundred years after the prophet . . absolutely clueless as to how to survive in our modern, multicultural age. That said, Islam will, I think, survive, but the Islam of tomorrow will not be the Islam of today any more than is the Islam of America today is not the Islam of Saudi Arabia.

  • *See: Rosenstock-Huessy, Berman, Cochrane, Quigley, et al.

.



When one speaks of, or compares, Islam and Christianity (Judaism another ballgame), one speaks and compares the Original Islam (of, say, Abbasid Caliphate 1200 yrs ago) with Christianity of year 2000 (argument could be made Luther would not recognize year 2000 Christianity as his understanding of Christianity)


This not an honest comparison or debate


Honest would be, if one wants to compare Christianity to Islam .. to compare original Christianity, to, original Islam .. and see which one is more progressive etc etc

Once one brings "reform" into play, than everything goes as there is no clear borderline for reform, one could argue, God is for equality of woman and man, why not a woman pope and as we all proud of gays, why not a openly lesbian female pope .. you see, Marcus, sky is the limit with this "reform"

IMVHO, one should start with a clean sheet of paper .. as I said, the (Totem worshiper) Hebrew tribe in Babylon, either misunderstood or intentional highjacked elements of Persian Zoroastrianism, called it Abrahamite and corrupted the whole thing, appointing themselves as (chosen people) chosen by GOD to enlighten us the Goy, leading to disaster since


All this must be void and revert to original version .. Zoroastrianism .. and .. built on sound ground, humanism




.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:ALI, though Islam and Christianity have adapted to their times, it remains true that while Christianity largely defined its times*, Islam didn't, couldn't, and can't. Islam is too fatalistic.
Unsubstantiated false claim.


After the great schism and as Western Civilization became the dominant social form, especially so after the Reformation, Islamic culture was increasingly stripped of its impetus as the entire world became increasingly absorbed by the vitality of the West.
Historically incorrect, laughable.


Islam today is roughly where it was a couple hundred years after the prophet . . absolutely clueless as to how to survive in our modern, multicultural age.
Clearly false, also racist.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:ALI, though Islam and Christianity have adapted to their times, it remains true that while Christianity largely defined its times*, Islam didn't, couldn't, and can't. Islam is too fatalistic.
Unsubstantiated false claim.


After the great schism and as Western Civilization became the dominant social form, especially so after the Reformation, Islamic culture was increasingly stripped of its impetus as the entire world became increasingly absorbed by the vitality of the West.
Historically incorrect, laughable.


Islam today is roughly where it was a couple hundred years after the prophet . . absolutely clueless as to how to survive in our modern, multicultural age.
Clearly false, also racist.


.



:lol:






.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:That said, it is further my opinion that the intellectual impetus driving that world was Persian culture.
Centuries of Islamic scholars and mathematicians, both Arabic and Persian, writing in Arabic and professing Islam, prove that this claim is false.


Islam supplied only the unifying, cultural context for that portion of the world that it conquered by the sword.
You've repeated this claim several times, but it is manifestly false to say that Islam exclusively "conquered by the sword" given that conversion by force is prohibited and how readily Arabs, Pomegranates, and the subjects of the former Byzantine empire converted out of preference. Moreover, the regions which did become Islamic reached new heights of cultural and scientific achievement that they had been unable to reach previously, further disproving this claim. If, as you assert, the pre-Islamic culture was superior then how did it reach unprecedented heights after the conversion to Islam? Its illogical even before it is false.



Islam, in my opinion, is utterly incapable of enervating a civilization as defined by Quigley
This claim is also an absurd falsehood, as the countless achievements on Islamic civilization demonstrate. I've never heard of Quigley, but even if you apply this fringe model your claims about Islamic civilization are still clearly false, given as it has proven itself to be the most dynamic and innovative civilization for centuries. There is no crisis in Islamic civilization until the 18th century, when Western military technology allows them to weaken and then break apart and colonize Islamic states. Moreover, these innovations are post-Enlightenment. Medieval Christian, or immediate post-Reformation Europe were still militarily, economically, and culturally inferior to large Islamic states like the Ottoman or Mughal empires (and Qing China, but that's another subject).









Props to Doc for one of the best trolling threads of all time. "Why do the sand n#####s kill each other so much?" *lives in country where tens of thousands of its citizens murder each other every year, supports government which murders children with robots*
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:.

That said, it is further my opinion that the intellectual impetus driving that world was Persian culture.

.

Centuries of Islamic scholars and mathematicians, both Arabic and Persian, writing in Arabic and professing Islam, prove that this claim is false.


.



As said many times, Pomegranates gave (the tribal) Islam a spiritual and (mainly) philosophical dept .. pretty much ALL giants of Islamic Philosophy were Pomegranates .. and .. Yes, .. they wrote also in Arabic, but mainly in Persian (they wrote Persian for Pomegranates) .. Islamic civilization in reality is Persian AND Syrian .. the rest, Arabia, nill


Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:.

Islam supplied only the unifying, cultural context for that portion of the world that it conquered by the sword.

.
You've repeated this claim several times, but it is manifestly false to say that Islam exclusively "conquered by the sword" given that conversion by force is prohibited and how readily Arabs, Pomegranates, and the subjects of the former Byzantine empire converted out of preference. Moreover, the regions which did become Islamic reached new heights of cultural and scientific achievement that they had been unable to reach previously, further disproving this claim. If, as you assert, the pre-Islamic culture was superior then how did it reach unprecedented heights after the conversion to Islam? Its illogical even before it is false.


.


True, Notion Islam conquered all territory by sword is not quite accurate .. my understanding is, Pomegranates resisted fiercely, so did part of India, the rest did not



Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:.

Islam, in my opinion, is utterly incapable of enervating a civilization as defined by Quigley

.


This claim is also an absurd falsehood, as the countless achievements on Islamic civilization demonstrate. I've never heard of Quigley, but even if you apply this fringe model your claims about Islamic civilization are still clearly false, given as it has proven itself to be the most dynamic and innovative civilization for centuries. There is no crisis in Islamic civilization until the 18th century, when Western military technology allows them to weaken and then break apart and colonize Islamic states. Moreover, these innovations are post-Enlightenment. Medieval Christian, or immediate post-Reformation Europe were still militarily, economically, and culturally inferior to large Islamic states like the Ottoman or Mughal empires (and Qing China, but that's another subject).


.


seconding it


Explained in my posts, Muslim world was epicenter of all for 500 yrs .. and why so




.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Yes, Doc, when "western devils" woke up, things changed

But, Iran will fix things .. that is why West is so afraid of Iran

.
That does not answer my question as to why Muslims cannot get along even with themselves.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Yes, Doc, when "western devils" woke up, things changed

But, Iran will fix things .. that is why West is so afraid of Iran


.
That does not answer my question as to why Muslims cannot get along even with themselves.


.


already answered ,

because of you guys


You leave Muslim hemisphere .. and it will be smooooooth sailin




.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:. . compare Christianity to Islam . . and see which one is more progressive . .
ALI, history has already ruled on that question.

Christianity is largely responsible for Western Civilization while Islam, except where in the majority, remains stagnant and backward.

Islam has "changed" only where it is parasitic on Western Civilization (read "oil") or where numerically in the minority. A Muslim in America is not a Muslim in Saudi Arabia.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:That does not answer my question as to why Muslims cannot get along even with themselves.
Nobody gets along along "even with themselves," and your question is mere trolling. Americans murder more Americans than anyone else, even Afghan children. The column you posted was apparently written by a guy who designed board games.



Marcus wrote:Greco-Roman pagan culture and the Enlightenment are largely responsible for Western Civilization
Fixed.

Marcus wrote: while Islam, except where in the majority, remains stagnant and backward.
Substantiate this false claim or stop repeating it.


Marcus wrote:Islam has "changed" only where it is parasitic on Western Civilization (read "oil") or where numerically in the minority.
Substantiate your repeated lie that Islam is "parasitic." I see now why you quoted and then defended revisionist historian and racist fringe theologian Rushdoony.


Marcus wrote: A Muslim in America is not a Muslim in Saudi Arabia
Explain this false and nonsensical statement.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:1). . Pomegranates gave (the tribal) Islam a spiritual and (mainly) philosophical dept .. pretty much ALL giants of Islamic Philosophy were Pomegranates .. and .. Yes, .. they wrote also in Arabic, but mainly in Persian (they wrote Persian for Pomegranates) .. Islamic civilization in reality is Persian AND Syrian .. the rest, Arabia, nill

2). . Luther would not recognize year 2000 Christianity as his understanding of Christianity)

3). . Zoroastrianism .. built on sound ground, humanism
1) Exactly! Couldn't agree more.

2) Not so. Conservative Lutheranism uses Luther's original writings. Luther would be astounded culturally, but he'd feel right at home in a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod church.

3) For all its good points, Zoroastrianism is a primitive religion grounded in Natural Law and is, at the same time, philosophically untenable. There cannot be two gods, one good and one evil. There is either one God or there is no God.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Marcus »

Ibrahim wrote:Fixed.Substantiate this false claim or stop repeating it.Substantiate your repeated lie that Islam is "parasitic." I see now why you quoted and then defended revisionist historian and racist fringe theologian Rushdoony.Explain this false and nonsensical statement.


:oops: . . save your name-calling, demands, and accusations, Ibs . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:3) For all its good points, Zoroastrianism is a primitive religion grounded in Natural Law and is, at the same time, philosophically untenable. There cannot be two gods, one good and one evil. There is either one God or there is no God.
:lol:

Satan = "God's adversary, tempter of men"

Ahriman = "that's impossible, this religion is primitive"


Not to mention that Hindus and even some Buddhists believe in many gods, and there are over a billion of them in the world today (combined).
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Yes, Doc, when "western devils" woke up, things changed

But, Iran will fix things .. that is why West is so afraid of Iran


.
That does not answer my question as to why Muslims cannot get along even with themselves.
.
already answered ,

because of you guys:
What ,because people talk bad about Islam?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/bo ... d=all&_r=0

Elmirza Khozhugov, 26, the ex-husband of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s younger sister, Ailina, said that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been enamored of conspiracy theories, and that he was also concerned by the wars in the Middle East.

“He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe,” Mr. Khozhugov said in an e-mail. “It was very hard to argue with him on themes somehow connected to religion. On the other hand, he did not hate Christians. He respected their faith. Never said anything bad about other religions. But he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.
You leave Muslim hemisphere .. and it will be smooooooth sailin
.
Be careful of what you wish for:

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?optio ... Itemid=422
Global Oil Production Set to Skyrocket
But maybe I didn't ask the right question. What would it take for Muslims to learn to get along even with each other?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why can't muslims get along with anyone even each other?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Fixed.Substantiate this false claim or stop repeating it.Substantiate your repeated lie that Islam is "parasitic." I see now why you quoted and then defended revisionist historian and racist fringe theologian Rushdoony.Explain this false and nonsensical statement.


. . save your name-calling, demands, and accusations, Ibs . .


Substantiate your false smears of other religions.
Post Reply