General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
|
|
Fitna (a short movie about Islam in Europe)
|
| 1. |
10 May 2008 Sat 08:16 pm |
|
This movie is only mentioning FACTS, there's no personal interpretation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjFh4wR2QcM
|
|
| 2. |
10 May 2008 Sat 09:00 pm |
|
That clip seems scaremongering to me.
|
|
| 3. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:14 pm |
|
Fitna film is the product of hate and ignorance, and personally I think Geert Wilders has made a fool of himself. Plus, he's only angering radicals even more by throwing fuel at the fire.
|
|
| 4. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:43 pm |
|
Quoting azade: Fitna film is the product of hate and ignorance, and personally I think Geert Wilders has made a fool of himself. Plus, he's only angering radicals even more by throwing fuel at the fire. |
I completely disagree with everything you said. It's not a product of hate at all, it is ONLY reporting facts. Everything that is mentioned in the clip is completely true and is happening all the time. Hate is what Muslims are saying and doing against non-muslims, and that somehow goes unnoticed, eh? I don't know Wilders, but no matter who he is or what he does, it was very brave and honest of him to make this clip (since the religion of peace kills everybody who criticizes it).
Angering radicals? So you also think that we should appease them and follow their orders? No, it's very good that he angered the radicals (criminals and terrorists) and it's time that these radicals are taken before the law and hopefully eradicated from the society.
|
|
| 5. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:48 pm |
|
I was counting on you to disagree  
Anyway I agree with the last paragraph, radicals belong behind bars.
|
|
| 6. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:51 pm |
|
I have not seen the movie, but I think it seems to show Islam only from radicals' point of view. Lets not forget that not all Islam believers are radicals and not all are terrorists :-S
|
|
| 7. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:54 pm |
|
Quoting azade:
Anyway I agree with the last paragraph, radicals belong behind bars. |
Yes, I agree too
|
|
| 8. |
10 May 2008 Sat 10:55 pm |
|
Quoting geniuda: I have not seen the movie, but I think it seems to show Islam only from radicals' point of view. Lets not forget that not all Islam believers are radicals and not all are terrorists :-s |
I don't think this is a clip about Islam, it is a clip about islamisation of Europe. It is not meant to show all Islam, it is just meant to show radicals, what they do, what they base their actions on and how their ideology is being spread on all muslims.
So far I have no idea about non-radical muslims. I don't hear them anywhere, they are not condemning anything that's done by the "radicals", so apparently they quietly support the killings and hatred.
|
|
| 9. |
10 May 2008 Sat 11:06 pm |
|
I condemn any kind of radicalism and all other muslims I know do too, but the voice of a few psychopaths who bomb and kill people echoes in every corner of the world. It is VERY hard to make oneself heard above that voice, unfortunately.
Hatred breeds hatred, and I don't see what good this film does. It's just a bunch of news clips, there's nothing new there at all. It makes islam haters stronger in their belief, and radicals eager to kill more innocents.
|
|
| 10. |
10 May 2008 Sat 11:11 pm |
|
Quoting catwoman: Quoting geniuda: I have not seen the movie, but I think it seems to show Islam only from radicals' point of view. Lets not forget that not all Islam believers are radicals and not all are terrorists :-s |
I don't think this is a clip about Islam, it is a clip about islamisation of Europe. It is not meant to show all Islam, it is just meant to show radicals, what they do, what they base their actions on and how their ideology is being spread on all muslims.
So far I have no idea about non-radical muslims. I don't hear them anywhere, they are not condemning anything that's done by the "radicals", so apparently they quietly support the killings and hatred. |
I can not see anything such as 'islamisation of Europe' in Europe in generic term..
It is a pure scaremongering..
It reminded me BNP supporters in the UK saying that 'pakistani boys are doing this , doing that, raping white girls' etc.
Apart from that, nobody should be surprised why non radicals are quite.
Look at what happened after 9/11:
West (usa as the leader of west) made the islamic world soaked in blood.
Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Palestine.
If the west is not feeling secure right now, it is the result of its actions in above countries.
|
|
| 11. |
10 May 2008 Sat 11:18 pm |
|
Quoting thehandsom: I can not see anything such as 'islamisation of Europe' in Europe in generic term..
It is a pure scaremongering.. |
This is a claim, what's your explanation of it? It is not scaremongering because it is not speculating on what Muslims may do, it is ONLY reporting facts.
I agree that the political things going on in the middle east may contribute to the hatred of muslims against the west, but, that does not excuse anything that these people say and do in the west. What does Iraq have to do with the killing of Theo van Gogh for example? I think you have a point, but you are taking it to an extreme.
|
|
| 12. |
10 May 2008 Sat 11:48 pm |
|
Quoting catwoman: Quoting thehandsom: I can not see anything such as 'islamisation of Europe' in Europe in generic term..
It is a pure scaremongering.. |
This is a claim, what's your explanation of it? It is not scaremongering because it is not speculating on what Muslims may do, it is ONLY reporting facts.
I agree that the political things going on in the middle east may contribute to the hatred of muslims against the west, but, that does not excuse anything that these people say and do in the west. What does Iraq have to do with the killing of Theo van Gogh for example? I think you have a point, but you are taking it to an extreme. |
I dont think I am taking it to an extreme here.
I believe most of the blame about radicilisation of islam belong to the west itself.
Even al qaide/osama (and consequently 9/11) is the direct result of usa foreign policies (in afghanistan in 80s, middle east since isreal/palestine conflict etc)
There would not be a london bombing for example. There would not be people dying in spain if there was not iraq war or afghanistan war.
And modorate muslims would be swinging towards the radicalism as it is happening now.
Look at that clip..it is full of horrifying images. from 9/11, london, spain even british engineer's head chopping is there..
Possibly they would happen if the head of the west (usa) did not make all those mistakes..
|
|
| 13. |
10 May 2008 Sat 11:58 pm |
|
Quoting thehandsom: I dont think I am taking it to an extreme here.
I believe most of the blame about radicilisation of islam belong to the west itself.
Even al qaide/osama (and consequently 9/11) is the direct result of usa foreign policies (in afghanistan in 80s, middle east since isreal/palestine conflict etc)
There would not be a london bombing for example. There would not be people dying in spain if there was not iraq war or afghanistan war.
And modorate muslims would be swinging towards the radicalism as it is happening now.
Look at that clip..it is full of horrifying images. from 9/11, london, spain even british engineer's head chopping is there..
Possibly they would happen if the head of the west (usa) did not make all those mistakes..
|
I still think you are taking it to an extreme. We can debate how much effect western policies in the middle east have on the radical islamic sects, but undeniably, Islam sanctions massive violence and hatred. There are verses in the Koran that approve it. Maybe 9/11 or 7/7 wouldn't happen if it wasn't because of Israel or Iraq, but the desire for domination, hatred of "infidels" and apostates, hatred towards women... etc, lack of respect for freedom and the countries in which these Muslims live is not just because of the US, it has always been part of Islam and Islam has never changed these goals.
Ask saudi arabia which finances these radicals, ask what their purpose is and they will openly say that it's jihad.
It is possible that saudis are using average people's anger against the west to manipulate and get them on their side of radicalism and jihad.
|
|
| 14. |
11 May 2008 Sun 01:34 am |
|
Quoting catwoman:
but undeniably, Islam sanctions massive violence and hatred.There are verses in the Koran that approve it |
İslam said 'you have your faith and we have ours'
Tell me,how many Crusade in the world you know about ?!
Made by who ?
Under what flag ?
For what purpose ?!
That was in the past ? when Church was in control ?
Ok,let's talk about near past,and lovely present,and tell me about it
let me remind you
Great Britain,USA,France,İndia,Middle East,Vietnam,Palastin,Afghanistan,İraq
Which of them were the Muslims?
Who were following İslam ?!
Quoting catwoman:
but the desire for domination, hatred of "infidels" and apostates, hatred towards women... etc, lack of respect for freedom and the countries in which these Muslims live is not just because of the US, it has always been part of Islam and Islam has never changed these goals. |
Hatred towards women ?!
How was the women situation in Christianity again?!
How respectable they were ?!
What rights did they have ?!
You yourself have said before that women gain their rights when you have developed ,or renew Christianity !
No one can renew a religion but GOD !
lack of respect for freedom and the countries they live for ?!
They simply REFUSE to abandon their religion,their identities
So they have lack of respect ?!
Why jewish have the right to live and practice their religion in Western's countries and not Muslims?
Even you serve them their own food 'kosher' in your restaurants without being offended ?
Why İtalians,chineses are same,BUT NOT Muslims
And if they do,then they have LACK OF RESPECT !
İf they abonded their believes,if they became Muslims only by name,then they will show the respect that you mean?!!!
Why do you think that Muslim Kurds who are ACTUALLY Turkish citizens and free to practice their religion,their traditions their live in THEİR country should have their own identity seperate identity even AWAY from Turkish identity,and you think Turkish government is NOT fair about it,and should allow it
But...at same time Muslims in Western countries SHOULD be respectable to that country,and losing their identities ?!
Quoting catwoman:
Ask saudi arabia which finances these radicals, ask what their purpose is and they will openly say that it's jihad.
It is possible that saudis are using average people's anger against the west to manipulate and get them on their side of radicalism and jihad. |
Jihad ?!
Again,
Jihad means,to defend your country,your home,your family against invaders
İts NOT to invade or take over other countries
That what Jihad means in İslam
So,Yes,you are right,Saudi Arabia is making a good job in taking over UK ,USA,and all the Western countries,and SUCKİNG their funds and oils !
|
|
| 15. |
11 May 2008 Sun 04:50 am |
|
Catwoman, I`m really starting to suspect that you`re a brainwashed missionary. Do they theach you in school how your crusader ancestors were bloody terrorists who murdered millions of people for the sake of CHRISTIANITY, "THE TRUE RELIGION OF PEACE"?
Just one question for you? It`s very straight.
Can you just point out one single religion that has caused more cruelty and bloodshed than christianity?????
|
|
| 16. |
11 May 2008 Sun 05:03 am |
|
Quoting tamikidakika: Catwoman, I`m really starting to suspect that you`re a brainwashed missionary. Do they theach you in school how your crusader ancestors were bloody terrorists who murdered millions of people for the sake of CHRISTIANITY, "THE TRUE RELIGION OF PEACE"? |
 ama... when did I ever mention christianity, eh? :-S I'm starting to think you are a bit paranoid  I NEVER said that one religion is better then another, the only problem with islam I have is its hatred, intolerance, violence and barbaric behavior against women, what they call "infidels" and those who leave islam. I know and respect muslims who are good people, so yes, not all of them are the same, but unfortunately there is a lot that islam has to be held responsible for and so far, islam has no capacity to handle criticism. even look at yourself, have you watched that clip? have you criticized your fellow muslims for their barbarism? NO! your response was to instantly attack me!
Quoting tamikidakika: Can you just point out one single religion that has caused more cruelty and bloodshed than christianity????? |
the only one that can compete is islam and you know it :-S
|
|
| 17. |
11 May 2008 Sun 05:17 am |
|
Quoting catwoman:
ama... when did I ever mention christianity, eh? :-S I'm starting to think you are a bit paranoid I NEVER said that one religion is better then another, the only problem with islam I have is its hatred, intolerance, violence and barbaric behavior against women, what they call "infidels" and those who leave islam. I know and respect muslims who are good people, so yes, not all of them are the same, but unfortunately there is a lot that islam has to be held responsible for and so far, islam has no capacity to handle criticism. even look at yourself, have you watched that clip? have you criticized your fellow muslims for their barbarism? NO! your response was to instantly attack me!
|
 who are my "felloow muslims"??? Nice try, but I`m not a Muslim. you talk about hatred, intolerance, and oppression and relate all these only to Islam but all of these you mentioned do exist in Christianity too in more violent ways. I posted a link for you take a look and tell me who is more intolerant and barbaric when given chance.
you`re really being funny, I asked if there is a more cruel religion than Christianity, not the ones that can compete with it. And the answer apparently is NOTHING.
|
|
| 18. |
11 May 2008 Sun 05:58 am |
|
Hmmm... nice talking to you!
Christianity USED TO be violent, but is not any more. Islam IS. Why do you have to compare islam to christianity anyway, isn't it bad enough what islam does by itself?
|
|
| 19. |
11 May 2008 Sun 07:16 am |
|
Quoting catwoman: Christianity USED TO be violent, but is not any more. |
if it`s not violent anymore who the hell killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, Karabagh and Iraq? You don`t even care about them, right? Kill a Christian and that will make you a terrorist, kill a million of Muslims and you will get away with it.
|
|
| 20. |
11 May 2008 Sun 10:16 am |
|
Quoting tamikidakika: Quoting catwoman: Christianity USED TO be violent, but is not any more. |
if it`s not violent anymore who the hell killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, Karabagh and Iraq? You don`t even care about them, right? Kill a Christian and that will make you a terrorist, kill a million of Muslims and you will get away with it.
|
No matter how much you'd like to accuse Christians of being cruel, you'll never be right. Christians killed Muslims in Bosnia? Iraq? I thought it was the US and most of EU, not Christians. Hard as it may be for you to believe, but amongst those soldiers there were Christians, Muslims and Atheists. Probably a number of Pagans, some Satanists and Agnostics. You know why? Because it was not a religious crusade - it was a political aggression. Calling it a Christian killing spree is a lie.
You're right about Christianity being violent once. Not anymore. It's just based on false assumptions, just as every religion is in my personal opinion. I know Muslims love to go back to the Middle Ages, to crusades and all. But it is happening no more. You may argue that Europe is based on Christian laws, but they are just general ethical issues like don't steal or kill. I wrote a long post in another thread about it. To quote just a fragment:
"The rest of life is governed by Legal Systems of each country and those systems do not always follow the Commandments(e.g. Gay marriages in the Netherlands). Also, although adultery is a sin according to the Commandments, it is not a crime in the light of law. It is basis for divorce, but a person who cheats on their spouse is not legally tried for it."
So, please, don't justify political aggression by means of Holy War. It's not the case. And, answering your question about the bloodiest religion, it is Islam. Christians can stand criticism, no Christian country prohibits or punishes converting to any other religion, no Christian kills a guy who draws a satirical cartoon showing how Christianity is abused to kill. Oh, I forgot - there is a Christian organisation that is a well known terrorist group - KKK. But they're not really about religion, are they?
|
|
| 21. |
11 May 2008 Sun 01:23 pm |
|
Wilders' film is filthy party propaganda for his racist political party. Catwoman, it may show facts, but when using facts for a certain idea, you color them. This was not made to show facts, Im afraid. This is to show there is no place for muslims in my country.
I dont have a positive opinion about any religion, yet, this is not about religion. This is about internal Dutch politics. Thank god my country was smart enough to see it was a worthless and useless film 
|
|
| 22. |
11 May 2008 Sun 01:28 pm |
|
Quoting CANLI: christianity |
Canli, you should stop dragging christianity into every discussion It would work if you, as a devout Muslim woman, would be debating with a devout Christian woman. But since this is not the case, christianity is just an empty argument.
|
|
| 23. |
11 May 2008 Sun 05:49 pm |
|
Quoting Daydreamer:
Christians killed Muslims in Bosnia? Iraq? I thought it was the US and most of EU, not Christians. |
hmm ok nice reasoning. Then it was smn called Laden who killed 5 thousands of people. those who carry out honor killings are just some people whose names are x,y,z. Why are you accusing Islam?
Do you even remember that Bush called the American army in Iraq "crusaders". and you expect me to believe in this lie that they are not commiting these crimes as Christians. Get over it.
btw, I`m wondering why you skipped Karabagh. It`s maybe because you don`t want to see what your angelic Christian/Armenian brothers did.
|
|
| 24. |
11 May 2008 Sun 09:08 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin:
Canli, you should stop dragging christianity into every discussion |
When claming that 'Islam sanctions massive violence and hatred.' what do you expect me to compare it with except other religions,which Christianity is one of them ?!
Beside,the crimes which i've mentioned in my above post were made 'Crusad' under the Christianity flag
and our present ones are made by Christians not Muslims'İraq,Afghanistan,Palestine' so speaking from those facts i cant see how such claim can be true !
So actually,if you open a discussion about religions,you must accept that we talk about ALL religions if appealed,not only about one
You are attacking or lets say criticising my religion so you must accept my attack or criticising to yours!
Quoting Deli_kizin:
It would work if you, as a devout Muslim woman, would be debating with a devout Christian woman. But since this is not the case, christianity is just an empty argument. |
Ok,that again,devout Muslim,and devout Christian..
What does it mean ?
The way i understand it...no im not a devout Muslim...im just Muslim
İts simply like here in TLC
There are terms,you must accept them to become a member of TLC,yes ?!
And there are rules of the sites memberes MUST obay them,yes ?!
Religions are same,terms and rules,you must accept them to be in that religion,and then you SHOULD follow the rules when you are already a member
So,i accepted my religion terms,and i try to follow the rules,as any normal Muslim
İ try to pray all my 5 prayers,to fast Ramazan,give money to poors,i havent go to Haj yet,and i say Shahada
Those are the main 5 rules any regular Muslim does
And that is also my understanding to Christians ,they accept their terms,and try to follow their rules,a normal christian does
Go to sunday prayers,fast their big and small fast,follow other rules they have as any normal christian person...
İ know our christians people do this here
Devout in my understanding is to make more than normal,to study more in your religion,or to devout yourself more to it
To be a Mod as in TLC
İm not a devout Muslim ,im just Muslim
İ dont have enough knowledge to be one and debat with a devout Christian
Beside,do you think that if i am a devout Muslim,i shouldnt be debating except with devout Christian,but when someone is not a devout Christian criticise my religion,i shouldnt debat or reply,because im devout Muslim ?!
İ cant find the logic here
İf you have lack of knowledge about something,its not my problem that you are debating about it,is it ?!
Ps:'you' is generally speaking
|
|
| 25. |
11 May 2008 Sun 09:35 pm |
|
Quoting CANLI: Ps:'you' is generally speaking
|
Thanks for clarifying that canım
I just think it is endearing really, to only be able to defend cruelties of your religion by comparing it to another one. Needless too
Maybe I understood the meaning of devout wrong as not native speaker, I just mean someone who follows the rules as given, and tries to adapt them to his life as much as possible
|
|
| 26. |
11 May 2008 Sun 10:04 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Quoting CANLI: Ps:'you' is generally speaking
|
Thanks for clarifying that canım
I just think it is endearing really, to only be able to defend cruelties of your religion by comparing it to another one. Needless too
Maybe I understood the meaning of devout wrong as not native speaker, I just mean someone who follows the rules as given, and tries to adapt them to his life as much as possible |
You still didnt get my point...
Walk backward ...the claim is ''Islam sanctions massive violence and hatred.''
The proves are ?!
Crusad,Middle East,Vietnam,Palastin,Afghanistan,İraq
Those were made by what,under what flag ,and who?!
İt wont lead you to İslam....
So you dont want me to say they were made under Chritianity and by Christians not İslam and Muslims ?!
You now are saying 'cruelties of your religion'
Ok give me proves ?!
İ gave mine,from the past and recent history,and even present
What are the cruelties that made by my religion?!
We both are living in the same world...
So now,point it out!
|
|
| 27. |
11 May 2008 Sun 10:31 pm |
|
Quoting CANLI: What are the cruelties that made by my religion?!
We both are living in the same world...
So now,point it out!
|
I guess I didnt read the whole thread carefully then, didnt know that things done by Christianity were said to be made by muslims.
However, I cant answer your question. Your religion doesnt make cruelty I think, eventhough some parts of Quran are violent towards atheists.Cruelties are done in NAME of. And I can tell many cruelties done in name of Islam, but I wont bother really, because as we live in the same world, you know them as well.
|
|
| 28. |
11 May 2008 Sun 10:55 pm |
|
Yes,we both live in the same world,and we both know !
|
|
| 29. |
12 May 2008 Mon 03:41 am |
|
Quoting tamikidakika: Quoting Daydreamer:
Christians killed Muslims in Bosnia? Iraq? I thought it was the US and most of EU, not Christians. |
hmm ok nice reasoning. Then it was smn called Laden who killed 5 thousands of people. those who carry out honor killings are just some people whose names are x,y,z. Why are you accusing Islam?
Do you even remember that Bush called the American army in Iraq 'crusaders'. and you expect me to believe in this lie that they are not commiting these crimes as Christians. Get over it.
btw, I`m wondering why you skipped Karabagh. It`s maybe because you don`t want to see what your angelic Christian/Armenian brothers did. |
Well said
it seems now Poles became expert on Islam(learning from Wilders maybe) after then Turkish history
hmmm, and they concluded Islam is the most violent religion 
|
|
| 30. |
12 May 2008 Mon 05:19 am |
|
Quoting armegon: it seems now poles became expert on Islam(learning from Wilders maybe) after then Turkish history
hmmm, and they concluded Islam is the most violent religion |
how sad. were you by chance one of those who were crying blood that we were "generalizing Turkish people" too much? I hope not all Turks are as simple minded as you are.
look dear, there is nothing magical about Islam or turkish history. it is something that everybody, in every country can read about, see and understand. history is about facts, so we don't need a turkish person to know turkish history. same with Islam. a person in Swaziland can read Koran, can read the news and see how Muslims behave, what they do in the name of their faith... etc. of course not all muslims are violent, but the ones that are do have support in their scriptures and are not condemned by the rest of the muslim world. these are facts.
I know you will jump on me now on some weird grounds and you will never respond to the point that I'm making, so help yourself and show us how you can insult me because you have nothing rational to respond to what I say.
|
|
| 31. |
12 May 2008 Mon 05:33 am |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Wilders' film is filthy party propaganda for his racist political party. Catwoman, it may show facts, but when using facts for a certain idea, you color them. This was not made to show facts, Im afraid. This is to show there is no place for muslims in my country.
I dont have a positive opinion about any religion, yet, this is not about religion. This is about internal Dutch politics. Thank god my country was smart enough to see it was a worthless and useless film |
That's interesting.. Can you explain this a little bit more? What kind of propaganda is this clip for? What kind of internal politics is this all about?
I don't think Wilders is trying to say that there is no place for muslims in Holland, this clip only says that there should be no place for THIS KIND OF ISLAM in Europe or anywhere else in the world.
|
|
| 32. |
12 May 2008 Mon 08:34 am |
|
Quoting catwoman: I don't think Wilders is trying to say that there is no place for muslims in Holland, this clip only says that there should be no place for THIS KIND OF ISLAM in Europe or anywhere else in the world. |
Deli_Kizin is right. Wilders is extremely rightwing and yes, he does not want any muslim in Holland. Regardless of their type of faith (sunni, shi'i, ahmadiya etc) or level of faith, I mean no muslims who only go to mosque, no muslimas with scarf, no muslims who only read Koran, no muslims at all! He tried once to forbid the Koran (for sale or just be the owner of it) and even compared it with 'Mein Kampf' from Adolf Hitler. He also said that when you skip all the violent text from it, you keep less than a Donald Duck Magazine. He is constantly talking about islamisation of Europe and accused two members of the government of being 'invaders' (one is minister of state for social affairs, left wing and originally from Morocco, the other - a woman - is minister of state for habituation of newcomers, also left wing and originally from Turkey. Both of course have Dutch passports, speak the language fluently and both are not religious). He wants to send back born Dutch criminals but with Moroccon ancesters back to Morocco or Turkey (nothing about non-muslim criminals), he suggested that the police could shout bullets into the knees of Moroccon football hooligans (nothing about non-Moroccon hooligans!), he suggested to close all mosques in the country. He said there must be freedom of education but for at least 5 year no more islam-based schools. He wants an immigrationstop for people from Morocco and Turkey for 5 years etcetera.
He is scary! I think Catwoman, that as long as you don't know what really happens in Holland with Wilders and his obscure party you should refrain from words like 'I don't think Wilders is trying to say that there is no place for muslims in Holland'. You don't know this man and his followers. If Wilders got enough power, he would surely try to change the country into a no-no for muslims. Unfortunately his website is only in Dutch, else I could give you the link so you could read yourself.
|
|
| 33. |
12 May 2008 Mon 09:14 am |
|
Thank you Saskia for the explanation. You are right that I shouldn't make any claims for Wilders... :-S. I do agree with some of the things you mentioned though - for example, that there shouldn't be more then 5 years of islam based schools.
Removed from the internal dutch politics, I still think that this clip is fine, because it only shows facts. The things shown in the clip do happen and did happen and they are NOT OK. They should not be allowed anywhere.
|
|
| 34. |
12 May 2008 Mon 11:01 am |
|
Quoting tamikidakika:
hmm ok nice reasoning. Then it was smn called Laden who killed 5 thousands of people. those who carry out honor killings are just some people whose names are x,y,z. Why are you accusing Islam? |
Because the concept of "Jihad" that they presented in the media? because they called it the Holy War instead of a normal war? Because that's what they use to motivate suicide bombers?
Quote: Do you even remember that Bush called the American army in Iraq "crusaders". and you expect me to believe in this lie that they are not commiting these crimes as Christians. Get over it. |
Bush is a dick. I doubt he knows what crusades were in the first place. If you had read what I had written you'd have known that the US and EU armies are not Christian armies. There are Muslims, Pagans etc in them. So, sorry, calling them Christian is a lie.
Quote: btw, I`m wondering why you skipped Karabagh. It`s maybe because you don`t want to see what your angelic Christian/Armenian brothers did. |
Armenians aren't my brothers. And neither are Christians. I'm an atheist and find all religions just means of brainwashing people and getting their money.I skipped Karabagh because I know nothing about it. And, contrary to you, I don't like writing about things I have no idea about.
Besides, following your line of reasoning. If a Christian woman slaps a Muslim guy, it's a war of religions Just come to terms with the fact that Christian domination in the civilised word is over. I'm sure Christians are not happy about it, but it's a fact. Us aggression is morally wrong and only about material profits. It has nothing to do with religion. Do you seriously think that Americans would support a claim that it's a mission to save the poor Muslim souls that live in sin because they're not Christian? Then you don't know how careful Americans are with religious issues. It is a proclaimed secular state.
|
|
| 35. |
12 May 2008 Mon 11:27 am |
|
Quoting armegon:
it seems now poles became expert on Islam(learning from Wilders maybe) after then Turkish history
hmmm, and they concluded Islam is the most violent religion |
, First of all, the word "Poles" is written with a capital letter. Though I'm sure that was just a slip of the finger, not something you did on purpose. That'd be too low, right?
Catwoman was right. You may hate it, you may like to follow your country's policy of sweeping dirt under the carpet, but you can't help it. People who are not Turkish do know Turkish history and people who aren't Muslims may have an opinion about Islam.
Of course, you may choose to think that a country that bans a site with videos hides no secrets about its past from its citizens. But it is your choice, not everybody's here. Just try to get a wider picture of the world and acknowledge that some people perceive things differently. Some people have access to materials you don't.
As for Islam being the most violent religion, I gave my reason for it. I also added that it is about nowadays, but as usual you read only what you found convenient for yourself. Can you prove the otherwise? Can you find a religion that uses people with Down's syndrome as suicide bombers and lets them die with the word Allah on their mouth? Can you find a religion that STILL forces women into marriages they don't want?
You may argue that the real Islam isn't like that. Canli did it a lot of times here and I'm thankful to her for that. But it's unfortunately some people who use this religion for their own aims that make it so bloody. Whatever your religion is and whatever mine, we cant change the fact that it is Islam whose picture has been distorted and abused these days. Somehow Christians don't put up the "In God we trust" banners and don't go on a killing spree hoping to get 72 virgins after killing some Muslims. They're more busy trying to get control in Europe as its popularity is going down. Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriages and many more contradict the Christian way. But there you are trying to prove that a religion that can't even get its primary domain respect its basic laws has enough power to motivate people to go on a crusade. Please. Think again.
|
|
| 36. |
13 May 2008 Tue 04:48 am |
|
Quoting catwoman: were you by chance one of those who were crying blood that we were 'generalizing Turkish people' too much? |
If wanting fairness and justice means crying to u, yes i cried, and this expression shows ur level and how u moderate forum. Arent you the one calling Turks racist?
Quoting catwoman: I hope not all Turks are as simple minded as you are. |
Standard catwoman’s provoking personal insults like “you are not open-minded, simple-minded etcâ€. You can hope Turks are simple minded as u called Turks before racist. Yah u are the omly one here with complicated-minded because you are unbalanced catwoman sorry to say that, post of yours on this thread also shows how u sincere just like u said “muslims spread hatred†in one post putting all them in one bag then u said in other post “but not all muslims†, felt like it is said with compulsion unsincerely. This thread also shows ur intention.
Quoting catwoman: look dear, there is nothing magical about Islam or turkish history. it is something that everybody, in every country can read about, see and understand. history is about facts, so we don't need a turkish person to know turkish history. same with Islam. a person in Swaziland can read Koran, can read the news and see how Muslims behave, what they do in the name of their faith... etc. of course not all muslims are violent, but the ones that are do have support in their scriptures and are not condemned by the rest of the muslim world. |
But it seems to me u do not know much about Islam except some hearsays or the ones u learned from western propogand. As for the Turkish history part u only see or read the one side of the story or u choose what u want to believe and ignore others, so i can clearly say u are biased. In addition, for example according to quote above how do u know muslims do not comdemn so-called muslims like Al-Quaida or Taliban. How about protesting in west about crimes against muslims?
Quoting catwoman: I know you will jump on me now on some weird grounds and you will never respond to the point that I'm making, |
I always respond to ur points but u always ignore them because u do want to believe what u want, u always follow ur nose.
Quoting catwoman: so help yourself and show us how you can insult me because you have nothing rational to respond to what I say. |
You showed urself first, and i use my right above, actually till now in this forum i have never insulted anyone except some allusions i remember. Ok catwoman you know everything, we know nothing, btw if u dont mind, are u Leo?
|
|
| 37. |
13 May 2008 Tue 05:04 am |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: First of all, the word 'Poles' is written with a capital letter. Though I'm sure that was just a slip of the finger, not something you did on purpose. That'd be too low, right? |
Ohh sorry about that,i modified it immediately. I think it became habit for me because everyday im writing 9mtr Rooftop pole, 6mtr Rooftop pole or Rooftop poles etc .
Quoting Daydreamer: Catwoman was right. You may hate it, you may like to follow your country's policy of sweeping dirt under the carpet, but you can't help it. |
What are u talking about? I hate nothing, I only do not like, people talking as they know everything just like u done above about my country’s policy. If u are talking about the todays policy, i do not like them also, actually ithought there is no policy of Turkey after 1950s.
Quoting Daydreamer: People who are not Turkish do know Turkish history and people who aren't Muslims may have an opinion about Islam. |
You are now talking general. Im talking about you not people, for example u mentioned Jihad and tried to mention 72 houri(not virgin) here but actually you only know and want to believe what u heard from mass western media , any anti-islamic source . Im sure CANLI got bored, writing the same things here just like before i was doing. But u still do not consider any of them and stay bounded and brainwashed.
Quoting Daydreamer: Of course, you may choose to think that a country that bans a site with videos hides no secrets about its past from its citizens. But it is your choice, not everybody's here. Just try to get a wider picture of the world and acknowledge that some people perceive things differently. Some people have access to materials you don't. |
Do you think people learning their past from youtube? And Did i say something like youtube ban is necessary for Turkia? Thats only ur illusion, It seems you get a wilders picture of world.
Quoting Daydreamer : As for Islam being the most violent religion, I gave my reason for it. I also added that it is about nowadays, but as usual you read only what you found convenient for yourself. Can you prove the otherwise? Can you find a religion that uses people with Down's syndrome as suicide bombers and lets them die with the word Allah on their mouth? Can you find a religion that STILL forces women into marriages they don't want? |
And you mean Islam is violent nowadays not in past, interesting , Islam is always same but people not. Did Islam be violent after 911? Then there was no suicide bombers before? Western media is pumping all these crap to people and make people hate eachother. Look, Islam does not approve any of them above so these are not the fault of religion but the people who dont know their religion well or some other factors. I said this many times here, some religous leaders use religion for their benefits mostly political, then is it the false of İslam or the people? People also patching traditions to religion just like u patched above about forced marriage.
Quoting Daydreamer: Whatever your religion is and whatever mine, we cant change the fact that it is Islam whose picture has been distorted and abused these days. |
For me nothing changed about Islam, for u, i guess u knew nothing about Islam before and now u are brainwashed by ur media that all evil is Islam.
Quoting Daydreamer: Somehow Christians don't put up the 'In God we trust' banners and don't go on a killing spree hoping to get 72 virgins after killing some Muslims. |
The ones who killed millions of muslims are called christian countries, does not matter it was a religious crusade or political as a result people killed. At the same time you accuse muslims making an holy religous war(please do not mention again western media’s understanding of Jihad) but not political. It is not fair.
Quoting Daydreamer: They're more busy trying to get control in Europe as its popularity is going down. Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriages and many more contradict the Christian way. But there you are trying to prove that a religion that can't even get its primary domain respect its basic laws has enough power to motivate people to go on a crusade. Please. Think again. |
You should also think twice while calling a religion violent and please try to allege more logical claims like “Islam was not violent before but it is most violent religion nowâ€.
|
|
| 38. |
13 May 2008 Tue 10:58 am |
|
Ooofff I ave no idea why I even bother to reply since, again, you read only what you want, not what I write.
Quoting armegon:
Im talking about you not people, for example u mentioned Jihad and tried to mention 72 houri(not virgin) here but actually you only know and want to believe what u heard from mass western media , any anti-islamic source . Im sure CANLI got bored, writing the same things here just like before i was doing. But u still do not consider any of them and stay bounded and brainwashed. |
I didn't try to mention the virgins, I did mention them. And, using English, I used the official translation of the word.
I'm glad you bothered to read my discussions with Canli. Oh, wait a second - you didn't. That's why you don't know that she actually did change my view about some aspects of Islam. Namely - the theoretical and practical side of it. She pointed out that what is written and how it is interpreted differ. No big surprise, actually, that's the case with every single religion.
Quoting armagedon:
Do you think people learning their past from youtube? And Did i say something like youtube ban is necessary for Turkia? Thats only ur illusion, It seems you get a wilders picture of world. |
And where did I write that? :O I just draw a conclusion that if your government control what you watch, they might also be controlling what you read. And how did you manage to put Wilders (with a capital letter) into the You Tube story? I don't recall agreeing with him or showing any kind of appreciation towards him. On the contrary, I agree with what Deli_kizin wrote about him, not only in this thread but in the one dedicated to him a long time ago. Why can't you just respond without insulting or making snap judgements?
I know you'd like to see all westerners brainwashed and toeing one line. Sorry. Too much individualism here. You know, it's actually allowed!
Quoting armagedon
And you mean Islam is violent nowadays not in past, interesting , [/QUOTE:
How do I put it so that you understood...NO. Where did I write THAT? I just wanted to avoid the usual "Christians were violent in 1200 so we're not the only cruel religion" argument. I wanted to draw a line between the past and nowadays and speak only in terms of modern world. I had no idea you'd interpret it as a declaration of peace-loving Muslims who suddenly felt like killing for a change.
Quoting armagedon: Islam is always same but people not. Did Islam be violent after 911? Then there was no suicide bombers before? Western media is pumping all these crap to people and make people hate eachother. Look, Islam does not approve any of them above so these are not the fault of religion but the people who dont know their religion well or some other factors. I said this many times here, some religous leaders use religion for their benefits mostly political, then is it the false of İslam or the people? People also patching traditions to religion just like u patched above about forced marriage. |
And here's the part where I absolutely agree with you. And I put it in my previous post as well - I was talking about the distorted image of Islam, the abused religion used for controlling people. What western media do is showing only the fanatic face of Islam. The forced marriages I wrote about, the suicide bombers etc. But why shouldn't they? Radical Islamists are part of this world and, as the terrorist attacks showed, constitute a threat. Was the West really that biased and anti-Islam, all Muslims would be kicked out of Europe or the US, Muslims wouldn't get all those extra rights that they get in secular states. Why doesn't it happen? Because people know that a group of people using a religion as an excuse for murder is not the whole truth. Westerners go to liberal countries with Islam being the main religion and they see what Islam is like over there. That is not that radical, means-faced, wired fanatic. Too bad, people like you, still accuse us of seeing just one face of Islam. We don't. Read, think, think again and then post lies.
Quoting armagedon: Quoting Daydreamer: Whatever your religion is and whatever mine, we cant change the fact that it is Islam whose picture has been distorted and abused these days. |
For me nothing changed about Islam, for u, i guess u knew nothing about Islam before and now u are brainwashed by ur media that all evil is Islam. |
How do you know what I had known about Islam before it went to the media? Oh, right...you assume that all westerners live in the dark, are hardly literate, know nothing about other cultures and religions. Then, should a fad come, they immediately become experts on media releases. I've heard Buddhism is next.
Yes, your logic is stunning. Criticising US aggression in Iraq I meant Islam is all evil. I just couldn't put it across as clearly as you did.
Quoting armagedon: The ones who killed millions of muslims are called christian countries, does not matter it was a religious crusade or political as a result people killed. At the same time you accuse muslims making an holy religous war(please do not mention again western media’s understanding of Jihad) but not political. It is not fair. |
Are called Christian by whom? The last time I checked they were all secular, which can't be said about the Muslim countries. For the fifth (?) time - Christian countries with anti-Christian laws and differentiated religious strata are Christian. Is that what you're trying to say here?
Why do I believe that Muslims consider it a Holy War? Because this way, the propaganda works. This way religious leaders control them. West says - they're a threat to democracy (NOT Christianity) - they don't mention oil as that would not convince mothers to send their sons to die. The East says - they hate Muslims and we need to protect our religion. It's crap in both cases. It is about money and influence.Not about religion. But poor young Muslims do believe that West hates Islam and do everything to protect it. West doesn't give a damn about Islam. It's Muslims themselves that gave Islam a bad name. West only used what they gave them.
Quoting armagedon:
You should also think twice while calling a religion violent and please try to allege more logical claims like “Islam was not violent before but it is most violent religion nowâ€.
|
I recall saying Christianity used to be violent but not anymore, but Islam being peaceful? Where did I say it?
Footnotes:
1. Using the words Islam and Muslim, I meant the radical wing unless stated otherwise. I found footnote was necessary or I'll fall victim of misinterpretation again.
2. To make things clear:
- I don't find all Muslims the same
- I see the difference between radical Islamists and common Muslims
- I believe Islam is abused by both radical Muslims and Western media
- I disagree that being a westerner means you learn only from the media. Were it so, all claims about The West made by people form the East would be wrong as well. In effect, nobody would know anything.
-I'm tired of proving I am not a camel and of saying one and the same thing over and over again hoping some people will accidentally read it and not distort it so that it matches their ideas
|
|
| 39. |
13 May 2008 Tue 02:55 pm |
|
Quote: Quoting Daydreamer: -
Quoting armegon:
Im sure CANLI got bored, writing the same things here just like before i was doing. |
That's why you don't know that she actually did change my view about some aspects of Islam. Namely - the theoretical and practical side of it. She pointed out that what is written and how it is interpreted differ. No big surprise, actually, that's the case with every single religion.
|
|
+1
I find it a rather unfriendly remark towards CANLI. It is a fact her ideas differ from mine, her clothes do too () and we may even disagree lots on certain subjects. But for me too, she has given me a good insight in Islam, not the way it is practiced by extremists, not the way it is non-practiced by Muslims who are only muslim theoretically, but the way an intelligent woman lives it. Even then we can disagree, but we agree to disagree and I enjoy changing thoughts with her un such subjects.
|
|
| 40. |
13 May 2008 Tue 03:33 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: +1
I find it a rather unfriendly remark towards CANLI. It is a fact her ideas differ from mine, her clothes do too () and we may even disagree lots on certain subjects. But for me too, she has given me a good insight in Islam, not the way it is practiced by extremists, not the way it is non-practiced by Muslims who are only muslim theoretically, but the way an intelligent woman lives it. Even then we can disagree, but we agree to disagree and I enjoy changing thoughts with her un such subjects. |
I completely agree! I love a good argument with Canli because you can then move to another subject and the argument is completely forgotten 
|
|
| 41. |
13 May 2008 Tue 05:39 pm |
|
Thank you guys,i enjoy debating with you too
Quoting armegon: Im sure CANLI got bored, writing the same things here just like before i was doing. But u still do not consider any of them and stay bounded and brainwashed.
|
True armegon,i got bored,very much too,and sometimes dont join in debats
But with people who are debating for the sake of debating,passing time,their minds are set for what they think,and they dont want to understand otherwise,but they are bored and just want have some fun
Those i dont bother with anymore,let them think or say what ever they want,at all cases it wont harm me nor my religion what they say,or what they believe,and certainly i dont wait for their aproval over anything regarding my religion
İn few words,i dont care less,so i dont bother!
But in the other hand,there are some members who you also enjoy debating with,you correct some info if they got it wrong,try to explain the logic,and also understand how do they think,what do they understand about you,also you know that there are some people there who are still capable of thinking and not brainwashed by their media ,they are welling to know and understand about you not just condemning you like others !
And with such members,you dont have to rebeat yourself,what you have talked about before,you dont do it again 'i dont do it,dont need to much too'
Because they listen,even if they dont agree,as same as you listen too even you dont agree
And that is what makes the debating nice with them
As Deli has said,we agree on disagreeing
|
|
| 42. |
14 May 2008 Wed 11:32 pm |
|
Sorry for late response, i went to a business trip
Quoting Daydreamer: I didn't try to mention the virgins, I did mention them. And, using English, I used the official translation of the word. |
There is no official translation of the word “hoor-houriâ€, some translated them as “companions†or “maidens†or “spouses†or “gorgeous companions with big eyes†but the literal meaning of “hoor†is white/pure/crystal clear. According to Quran it can be both male or female. So it applies to both men and women.
Quoting Daydreamer: I'm glad you bothered to read my discussions with Canli. Oh, wait a second - you didn't. That's why you don't know that she actually did change my view about some aspects of Islam. Namely - the theoretical and practical side of it. She pointed out that what is written and how it is interpreted differ. No big surprise, actually, that's the case with every single religion. |
Did i say CANLI changed ur views of Islam? I just only pointed out what she mentioned, is futile because you do not consider or want to understand them .
Quoting Daydreamer: And where did I write that? |
Didnt u mention in ur quote below that banning youtube is hiding secrets of a country about its past. And i asked do you think people are learning their past from youtube? Anything weird?
Quoting Daydreamer: Of course, you may choose to think that a country that bans a site with videos hides no secrets about its past from its citizens. |
Quoting Daydreamer: I just draw a conclusion that if your government control what you watch, they might also be controlling what you read. |
It maybe happened in past but now no one can control what u read because of net. About the ban of youtube, i also got angry. But as far as i know , it is asked to site owner to remove that videos but got no response to this request. Then one citizen sued the site. But it is known u can also access that site in other ways because there is no blockage in country exit.
Quoting Daydreamer: As for Islam being the most violent religion, I gave my reason for it. I also added that it is about nowadays, |
Quoting Daydreamer: Why can't you just respond without insulting or making snap judgements? |
Where did i insult in my post? It was a just a allusion. I thought u think like wilders, anything wrong? Thats only my impression according to ur posts in this forum. If it is wrong, you do not need to offend, and i learned this now . I didnt read what u wrote about wilders before.
Quoting Daydreamer: I know you'd like to see all westerners brainwashed and toeing one line. Sorry. Too much individualism here. You know, it's actually allowed! |
No not like that. I see many enlightened westerners. Actually i have friends from europe who i continually contact.
Quoting Daydreamer: How do I put it so that you understood...NO. Where did I write THAT? |
Just see what you said in below quote, İslam is being violent nowadays, i think u know the meaning of nowadays. If u say “it is about nowadays†, it is one of the prospectives that will understood like that.
Quoting Daydreamer: As for Islam being the most violent religion, I gave my reason for it. I also added that it is about nowadays, |
Quoting Daydreamer: What western media do is showing only the fanatic face of Islam. The forced marriages I wrote about, the suicide bombers etc. But why shouldn't they? Radical Islamists are part of this world and, as the terrorist attacks showed, constitute a threat. Was the West really that biased and anti-Islam, |
But it is not the fanatic face of Islam, it is of face radicals who are using Islam. Also muslims are part of this world, i doubt they show something good about real muslims, if u watch US news channels, u can understand what i mean. As for the West being biased, i can say yes absolutely, but thats my impression.
Quoting Daydreamer: all Muslims would be kicked out of Europe or the US, Muslims wouldn't get all those extra rights that they get in secular states. Why doesn't it happen? |
Muslims went there to gain money, most of them are from poor countries, and Europe countries need their workforce to live Europeans beter life, they do all the bad jobs, be sure that if they do not need them, they will be posted immediately.
Quoting Daydreamer: Too bad, people like you, still accuse us of seeing just one face of Islam. We don't. Read, think, think again and then post lies. |
I do not accuse anyone, thats how i recognize you on this forum according to ur posts. So please check your words carefully about calling me lier, because you gave that impression to me.
Quoting Daydreamer: How do you know what I had known about Islam before it went to the media? |
you do not read carefully, lady. What i wrote there, i began the sentence with “i guessâ€.
Quoting Daydreamer: Oh, right...you assume that all westerners live in the dark, are hardly literate, know nothing about other cultures and religions. |
No, not like that, u did the same thing what u accused me of, thats ur made-up, my sentiments only comprises warmongers like wilders and who make people eacother hate.
Quoting Daydreamer: Then, should a fad come, they immediately become experts on media releases. I've heard Buddhism is next. |
Havent u already confessed that western media shows only the radicals? That means u are also expert on media releases . Ahh i forgot you have many expertises.
Quoting Daydreamer: Yes, your logic is stunning. |
Same is valid for u, i sometimes thought u are playing naive.
Quoting Daydreamer: Is that what you're trying to say here? |
I tried to say people mostly muslims are killed, massacred in the middle of Europe or in Iraq or any country invaded but we dont see enough response from the west countries who are the defenders of Human rights, when muslims killed Human Rights suddenly forgotten, and people see this double standards.
Quoting Daydreamer: It's crap in both cases. It is about money and influence |
Agreed, surprisingly.
Quoting Daydreamer: West doesn't give a damn about Islam. It's Muslims themselves that gave Islam a bad name. West only used what they gave them. |
Its again in both ways.
Quoting Daydreamer: I recall saying Christianity used to be violent but not anymore, but Islam being peaceful? Where did I say it? |
I think i explaned this
|
|
| 43. |
15 May 2008 Thu 12:11 pm |
|
Quoting armegon: Sorry for late response, i went to a business trip |
No problem, I hope it went good
It's pretty hard to respond to your post after it is cut in one-liners. I'll do in in bulk if you don't mind.
1. The 'Where did I write that' quote referred to You Tube's educational mission, not the fact that it was banned. You asked if I though that people learn about their past from You Tube and I wondered where you had got that idea from. To make things clear, I don't think You Tube is an educational site. I believe it's for entertainment. I didn't say that banning it had anything to do with hiding past events. I just think that a country that bans a site because somebody disliked one film, is a country that may be also controlling access to documents about past (or forging them). You live in a country that, apart form its natural beauty, has lots of issues that are surprising to other countries. Banning You Tube is just an effect of your government's policy. You also have article 301 to help it. The thing is, media and speech control are powerful mechanisms. And only a body that has something to hide has to look for means of controlling speech. Speculation is called treason and the tool for that is the article 301. An allegedly individual claim about You Tube results in a national ban. It is not really important that you can find a loop hole and still watch it, what is important is the fact that you government dared to do it. It shows how superior and in power they consider themselves. And it is dangerous as it is just a step away from dictatorship. You're saying that your state does not control what you read. How do you know? You mean, they just control what you watch and leave the rest up to you? What about Pamuk? I'm not debating here whether he was wrong or right, it's not the matter. Was he free to write whatever he wanted in Turkey or was he controlled and judged?
2. About Canli's presentations of Islam, I actually said that I had both understood and considered them. I even added that she had changed a lot about my idea of Islam. That's why I don't understand why you insist on saying otherwise. I say 'Canli changed my ideas' in one post and in the next you go 'What she said is futile because you don't understand/consider it.' Read and understand
3. As for the insulting part - yes, it did insult me to be accused of supporting Wilders. Just as it did insult me many times in this forum to be called a terrorist supporter, which I am not. I am everything but radical. And I wonder which posts of mine led you to believe I was Wilder's supporter.
4. I do know the meaning of nowadays. I'm sorry if my attempt to compare contemporary situation rather than past confused you. I did that on purpose (not confuse but refer to nowadays) as I wanted to avoid the abused crusades argument and focus on natural progress of religions.
5. I'm glad we agree on something
6. Yes, there are many Muslims in Europe, but many of them live off social benefits and are unwilling to integrate. The hostility you're talking about does not stem from the fact that they are Muslims but from the latter. The less a group integrates, the more hostility it provokes. In contemporary Europe the workforce flow is so big, that more countries are in favour or restrictions than unlimited intake of immigrants.
7. I'm sorry about the word 'lies' it should have been 'oversimplification.' My bad.
8. Even if you speculate, there must be something that gave you that idea. I'm curious on what grounds you think that I had known nothing about Islam before 9/11
9. I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that part about being an expert on media releases. I just wrote my observation about media showing what is likely to cause a reaction. They show fanatics because it sells. For the same reason they show murders and wars. I thought it was obvious.
The Buddhism part was meant as closure to the 'all westerners are stupid' sarcasm that was meant to show what your reasoning looks like to me. Besides, I am not an expert on anything. I used to be an expert on semantics but that was ages ago and I forgot most about it The fact that I have an opinion does not make me an expert, does it? I've never claimed to be one anyway.
10. Could you give me an example of my illogical reasoning? I'd appreciate it - you know, a person learns all life long. In your case it was saying that I find Islam the root of all evil as a result of being brainwashed by my media, all that after I have repeatedly stated my opinions about the US aggression. Also why the fact that radical Muslims distort the image of Islam makes me illogical? Let me refer to the most trustworthy (for me) source of info about Islam here - Canli. She's said so many times that how Islam is practised differs in different countries. Some demand things not demanded by Quran. I wonder why restating it makes me illogical. Do you mean that Islam's picture is not distorted by people saying that they follow Islam but actually do things other Muslims don't approve of? I'm sorry, this part got me lost.
11. Where are Muslims killed in Europe? For all I know it's them who kill - like Teo Van Gogh's murder. Or demonstrations in Paris. Cf point 6. The Iraq war is not supported by many of EU countries. Those who support it, do it because of their alliance with the US. If you read about what societies feel about it, you'll see that most people don't support it. Also, there are military trials for soldiers who break the code there.
12. I hope I made myself clear this time.
|
|
| 44. |
16 May 2008 Fri 01:15 am |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: No problem, I hope it went good |
Thank you…
Quoting Daydreamer: It's pretty hard to respond to your post after it is cut in one-liners. I'll do in in bulk if you don't mind. |
No problem, i will do the same and try to give short replies.
1) It seems you sticked the law 301, let me remind u same kind of laws exists in European countries just look at Italy for example and 301 is also changed now. If u wanna see stunning laws, it is better u to search in European countries, as an example saying; there hadnt been anything called Armenian genocide, surprisingly banned in European countries who are so-called the castle of freedom like French & Austria. Actually i think Turkey exaggerated this freedom of speech issue, every day u heard a state or government member or also in Parliament insult the basis of this country and nothing happenned to them. In addition banning of that site has nothing to do with the government. I guess u begin to think that im one of the supporter of this government, actually not, i can clearly say that this government is the puppet of US and Europe as i said many times here, they became superior by the help of them just they have supported radicals before. And again i think ur comments sounds naive to me, because todays government and Pamuk are on same boat. As for the books and writings of Pamuk, as far as i know his books are publicly sold in country. And about media issue, this government recaptured most of them, so u cant criticize them basically, i think u do not follow well Turkish inside policy, this government is fighting from the beginning with judgement, military and all the basis of this country so Europe should look after them well, they do everything that Europe and US wants.
2) Its good that CANLI changed ur views but i mean to say from the beginning that i cant feel it from ur posts. I think it is clear now.
3) Sorry for that. But as a note same insults made many times to Turkish members of this and they cannot get any excuse.
4) OK…
5) Same here
6) hmmm integrate, i began to dislike this word after “democratizingâ€. Simply what will they integrate? They can live their life how they want, if they do not break any laws of that country or disturb any other people, right?
7) No problem, OK…
8) I think i explained this, it is an inference from ur posts . I thought u learned terms from media because if u know something before, u dont write what western media parroting all the time.
9) I think there had been a misunderstanding , anyways…
10 ) I explained this, i said illogical because of your comment “it about nowadaysâ€. No, Islam is not distorted by people, Islam is the same, the only problem is ignorance of people who dont know their religion and the political or religious leaders using this to gain power, its my point from the beginning.
11) I was talking about Bosnia. UN was watching when people were being killed, I remember one Dutch General who was very good at watching.
|
|
| 45. |
16 May 2008 Fri 02:51 am |
|
I am not sure about your defence about article 301 and the way you look at the changes Turkey is trying to do to its consutition right now.
I guess you are supporting one of these strange groups which try to associate the changes to the consitutition to sevr.
That article, the way it has been implemented in Turkey is a SHAME for every Turk.
That law has been working for making the hit list for ultra nationalists in Turkey. It was ambiguous, confusing, open to interptretation, cloudy, vague.
The prosecuters were following all the intellects and what they were saying in order to find something to bring the court cases. And they were thinking of 'saving the honour of the nation' when they were doing their patriotic jobs.
Of course, some politicians say that 'ah they have the same
in europen countries'.
Well..It is not entirely true.
I quite like know how many court cases opened against its intellects in half way decent europen countries for insulting 'britishness/germanness/polishness etc'.
We should have changed those anti democratic laws (many from the army times from 1983) by ourselves.
Those changes are necessary for us , for Turkish people primarily. Not for Europeans!!
And I still dont get the hatred people feel about Orhan Pamuk..
Is a Turkish person not allowed to say what he said?
How annoying that is!!
And about Islam and Canli's views..
I am sorry but I can show you many many surets from Kuran here and your only defence will be 'wrong interpretation/translation' for them.
Canli is a bit optimistic and she is telling her interpretation. So as the guys in Afghanistan!!
Islam needs reform..
'wrong interpretation' as a defence is not good enough..
|
|
| 46. |
16 May 2008 Fri 04:46 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom: I am not sure about your defence about article 301 and the way you look at the changes Turkey is trying to do to its consutition right now. |
Im not trying to defend the law, im just pointing out the double standards.
Quoting thehandsom: I guess you are supporting one of these strange groups which try to associate the changes to the consitutition to sevr. |
Which group? I do not support any group, i only tell my opionions. And about the sevr, u cannot blame people to think like that when they see the double standards of EU or maps of middle east which published in US military journals, simply people do not trust and believe their sincerity. So mr thehandsom which strange group do you fall into? the group of flatterers?
Quoting thehandsom: It was ambiguous, confusing, open to interptretation, cloudy, vague. |
Agreed. It should be stated clearly.
Quoting thehandsom: I quite like know how many court cases opened against its intellects in half way decent europen countries for insulting 'britishness/germanness/polishness etc'. |
It is not our point here i think…
Quoting thehandsom: We should have changed those anti democratic laws (many from the army times from 1983) by ourselves. |
Agreed but by ourselves, i think we do not need anyone to teach anything by meddling in our internal affairs.
Quoting thehandsom: And I still dont get the hatred people feel about Orhan Pamuk.. |
I do not mind Pamuk, he can do whatever he want but not provoking people.
Quoting thehandsom: I am sorry but I can show you many many surets from Kuran here and your only defence will be 'wrong interpretation' for them. |
I am sorry but i can show you refutations to them and then you will come with new questions. So it is better for u to research, actually you can find ur answers from net, if u make a good research. If u are interested, i can give u somelinks . Islam do not need reform as u cant change Kuran but for sure people needs.
|
|
| 47. |
16 May 2008 Fri 05:25 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom:
And about Islam and Canli's views..
I am sorry but I can show you many many surets from Kuran here and your only defence will be 'wrong interpretation/translation' for them.
Canli is a bit optimistic and she is telling her interpretation. So as the guys in Afghanistan!!
Islam needs reform..
'wrong interpretation' as a defence is not good enough..
|
Wel handsom,when we discuss İslam rules i dont give MY interpretation !
As you know,rules in İslam are fixed,as in any religion,forming that religion and making distinguish from the other.
And also,as you may know,explaining religion rules is a big responsibility,not only regarding to other people but infront of ALLAH
Thats why İmam...the one who study religion has very high position infront of ALLAH also have very big responsibility to explain things right or he will be asked about it infront of ALLAH
As Muslim i know you know this very well
So i would APPERİCİATE if you dont say İ am telling MY OWN interpretation !
When i do give personal opinion i say so,other wise i search everything before i say it,or else i say i dont know about it,because i cant afford telling something in behalf of ALLAH not right !
Anyway,thx for comparing me by the guys in Afghanistan!
Nice touch thank you !
Ohhh,btw,can you tell me when ALLAH will send Jepril 'Holly spirit' again to REFORM İslam ?!
Sure a rule from ALLAH only ALLAH will change it not human or else Muslims wont follow
Of course you dont expect us to follow another human who just decided to REFORM our religion !
Ama Mohamed SAV was the last prophets and he is already died !
So obviously you know something we dont know...
So can you tell us how and when ALLAH will send Jibril again for REFORMİNG ?!
|
|
| 48. |
16 May 2008 Fri 05:27 am |
|
Quoting armegon:
I am sorry but i can show you refutations to them and then you will come with new questions. So it is better for u to research, actually you can find ur answers from net, if u make a good research. If u are interested, i can give u somelinks . Islam do not need reform as u cant change Kuran but for sure people needs.
|
+1
|
|
| 49. |
16 May 2008 Fri 06:06 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom: Islam needs reform..
'wrong interpretation' as a defence is not good enough..
|
+infinity 
|
|
| 50. |
16 May 2008 Fri 10:03 am |
|
I think Handsom The Hairy said everything about your points referring to 301 and Pamuk. I find nothing else to add as he's right.
And Islam...Canli says there's one Islam, only one possible way of interpretation that is right and it needs no reform, which you agree with. What would you call the countries that punish men and women for having a coffee together or those where men are free to sexually assault a woman if she is without male company or those where converting is considered a crime? Aren't they officially Muslim? Aren't they justifying their actions with Quran verses? To me they act differently than most of the Muslims I know. Now, if we call them radical, it means that they are closest to the right interpreting of Quran, doesn't it? (Webster's definition of radical is: "Of or pertaining to the root; proceeding directly from the root")
So, either there's more than one Islam (in the sense of school and/or interpretation) or those radicals are right and all the rest lives by liberal rules and, in effect, don't follow the word of God the way he'd like that.
Now, tell me, who is right - radicals or the other group. And is there a body that decides about it?
|
|
| 51. |
16 May 2008 Fri 03:21 pm |
|
Quoting CANLI:
Anyway,thx for comparing me by the guys in Afghanistan!
Nice touch thank you !
|
Come on Canli..
You very well know that i was not trying to belittle you or anything with above..
All I was trying to say that you are reading kuran and interpreting something.
and the people in afghanistan are reading the same thing and interpreting something else..
|
|
| 52. |
16 May 2008 Fri 10:48 pm |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: I think Handsom The Hairy said everything about your points referring to 301 and Pamuk. I find nothing else to add as he's right.
And Islam...Canli says there's one Islam, only one possible way of interpretation that is right and it needs no reform, which you agree with. What would you call the countries that punish men and women for having a coffee together or those where men are free to sexually assault a woman if she is without male company or those where converting is considered a crime? Aren't they officially Muslim? Aren't they justifying their actions with Quran verses? To me they act differently than most of the Muslims I know. Now, if we call them radical, it means that they are closest to the right interpreting of Quran, doesn't it? (Webster's definition of radical is: "Of or pertaining to the root; proceeding directly from the root")
So, either there's more than one Islam (in the sense of school and/or interpretation) or those radicals are right and all the rest lives by liberal rules and, in effect, don't follow the word of God the way he'd like that.
Now, tell me, who is right - radicals or the other group. And is there a body that decides about it? |
Daydreamer,actually i dont know how else would i make it simple !
We really lead very simple life than you may think
Ok let me try...
İn İslam,Christianity... Lying is a sin...yes ?!
That is the rule,it is clear,you read it and understand it,i read it and understand it ...yes ?!
Ok now there are group of people who know this,and they afraid if they make that sin while they are talking,so,when ever they say anything,they get proves for it,or eye witness ,or anyone else to say what they said is right...
İs this what İslam said or Christianity said ?
Or they just said Lying is a Sin ?!
Another group,they dont lie but they hide what they know,or manipulate by words so they dont say the truth at the end
İs it also what İslam and Christianity said ?!
Lying is a sin,that is the rule,that is fixed,no change
What people doing above,is how they apply this rule
So you actually cant say oooohhh İslam or Christianity is very hard and restricted religion when you judge first group
And also you shouldnt say İslam and Christianity are manipulative when judging the second group
So you got what i mean ?
Rules are fixed,and clear also
İn İslam,man and woman shouldnt be alone together in a closed place
They should be punished only,and ONLY when there are 4 eye witness for their sin,that is the rule
So having coffee together in open place is not a case of this rule,or any other rule in Quran
İ dont know which country punish them,but who do it,its coming from their system,their traditions,but not from Qur'an
İt is here same as i have mentioned in my above example
Of course they are Muslims,and also they have the right to live their life the way they want 'to be extreme or other wise'
But when they rule,they should and MUST rule according to the written rule in Quran
İf ALLAH wanted the extreme to be the rule HE could simply do this
They cant apply their personal choice in religion on everyone .
So actually the choices you are making between both are not right
''So, either there's more than one Islam (in the sense of school and/or interpretation) or those radicals are right and all the rest lives by liberal rules and, in effect, don't follow the word of God the way he'd like that.''
There is ONE İslam of course,but there are 3 ways of applying the same rule in anything not only in religion, extreme,middle,less
And our prophet SAV said better ways are the middle ways
Our judge in the end between all is Quran
Take İran for example,they say they are İslamic country,ok agree,Muslims have 1 book and that is Quran ,so take the book give me my rights and hold me to my duties not more nor less
Other than that,its my personal choice
Understand what i mean ?!
|
|
| 53. |
17 May 2008 Sat 10:55 am |
|
Quoting CANLI:
So actually the choices you are making between both are not right
Quoting Daydreamer: So, either there's more than one Islam (in the sense of school and/or interpretation) or those radicals are right and all the rest lives by liberal rules and, in effect, don't follow the word of God the way he'd like that. |
There is ONE İslam of course,but there are 3 ways of applying the same rule in anything not only in religion, extreme,middle,less
And our prophet SAV said better ways are the middle ways |
But, Canli, that's exactly what I said, just, instead of using the term "apply rules" I used "interpret rules."
But I meant exactly the same thing
|
|
| 54. |
17 May 2008 Sat 02:40 pm |
|
.
|
|
| 55. |
17 May 2008 Sat 03:58 pm |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: I meant exactly the same thing
|
Then we agree i guess
zhang ziyi,
You have very strange picking of the links you provide,i couldnt figure their aim till now actually
Are you one of the % 77 or % 23 in that survey ?!
Accordingly,i guess i wont be able to reply till i do!
|
|
| 56. |
17 May 2008 Sat 07:02 pm |
|
.
|
|
| 57. |
20 May 2008 Tue 12:05 am |
|
.
|
|
|
| Random Pictures of Turkey |
|---|
|
|
|
