Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Some muslims say that. Others say it will be brought by offensive jihad.
    Again, the VAST majority do not favour offensive Jihad.

    Check with any muslim scholar: sharia is the practical application of the principles of islam as found in the koran and hadith. To reject sharia law as a whole is to reject islam in their eyes. Most muslims are willing to accept British law until britain becomes a muslim country, but not to desire and prefer sharia eventually is a crime against god.
    A recent poll of muslims showed most were in favour of bringing in aspects of Sharia law into Britain UNLESS it contravened existing British law. Some muslim scholars believe Shariah law can only be implimented in a perfect Islamic Ummah where there will be no excuses for things like prostitution.

    It is also the opinion of many muslim scholars.
    And not the opinion of others. It is not for you to dictate when someone stops being a muslim.

    Then you aren't very knowledgeable. Bukhari 7: 62: 64-5 for just one source.
    I wasn't denying it. It's just not a big feature in Friday prayers

    Yes they did. They didn't stay:
    Define invasion

    At that time Turk was a generic term for muslim. If you want to discuss Elizabethan antisemitism I am perfectly happy to do so. Start a thread on it. There was a religious basis to hostility to muslims then- there's a political one now. Both in islam are indistinguishable.
    However, I believe they used the term Arab sometimes to describe Turks? There was Islamophobia, but in those days it was more Xenophobic and tolerated. In today's context the phobia is more targetted against one community.

    The only race- technically- is the human race.
    Amen comrade :wink:

    What a piece of scum you really are, you think its enjoyable to attack BNP members, disgusting.
    I'd imagine it to be enjoyable. Especially the fat bald ones who spit on you when you're canvassing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Again, the VAST majority do not favour offensive Jihad.

    A recent poll of muslims showed most were in favour of bringing in aspects of Sharia law into Britain UNLESS it contravened existing British law. Some muslim scholars believe Shariah law can only be implimented in a perfect Islamic Ummah where there will be no excuses for things like prostitution.

    And not the opinion of others. It is not for you to dictate when someone stops being a muslim.

    I wasn't denying it. It's just not a big feature in Friday prayers

    Define invasion

    However, I believe they used the term Arab sometimes to describe Turks? There was Islamophobia, but in those days it was more Xenophobic and tolerated. In today's context the phobia is more targetted against one community.

    Amen comrade :wink:

    I'd imagine it to be enjoyable. Especially the fat bald ones who spit on you when you're canvassing.
    I'd imagine it to be enjoyable. Especially the fat bald ones who spit on you when you're canvassing
    you are below filth, you imagine beating up BNP members to be enjoyable, then you make up stuff about "the fat bald ones" spitting at you. You are disgusting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I'd imagine it to be enjoyable. Especially the fat bald ones who spit on you when you're canvassing.
    Haven't had one spit on me, but I've had similar unpleasant experiences with BNP on the streets.

    By comparison, the Conservatives are always civil when we meet!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)
    you are below filth, you imagine beating up BNP members to be enjoyable, then you make up stuff about "the fat bald ones" spitting at you. You are disgusting.
    Is there any need for name calling?

    And how do you know that's made up?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    In the eye of the beholder the "jewishness" overwhelms every other quality.
    That's not true at all. Anyone from any race can practice Judaism, and the person's religion and race are totally seperate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What would you say is the proportion of orthodox jews to progressive ones? Because I'm pretty sure that orthodox jews consider their religion to be genetic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    What would you say is the proportion of orthodox jews to progressive ones? Because I'm pretty sure that orthodox jews consider their religion to be genetic?
    I'd say its about 50:50.

    It depends what you mean by 'orthodox'. There probably are certain orthodox sects (such as the Hasidim) who would be reluctant to fully accept converts but other than that orthodox Judaism is open to all as long as you pass all the exams they require!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    you are below filth, you imagine beating up BNP members to be enjoyable, then you make up stuff about "the fat bald ones" spitting at you. You are disgusting.
    How do you know if I made it up? I've also witnessed racism (in anti-semitic form) by a BNP supporter

    What would you say is the proportion of orthodox jews to progressive ones? Because I'm pretty sure that orthodox jews consider their religion to be genetic?
    Orthodox Jews probably are Judean or Jewish in race. But when we talk about Judaism the religion, it is not a racial group. Maybe we can say Judeans are, like the Sephardis and Ashkenazis, but that doesn't include many other Jews.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    How do you know if I made it up? I've also witnessed racism (in anti-semitic form) by a BNP supporter

    Orthodox Jews probably are Judean or Jewish in race. But when we talk about Judaism the religion, it is not a racial group. Maybe we can say Judeans are, like the Sephardis and Ashkenazis, but that doesn't include many other Jews.
    Isn't there a Jewish gene?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Isn't there a Jewish gene?
    Most European Jews belong to a 'jewish' racial group, like Sephardi or Ashkenazi (mine is Ashkenazi) but they're not exclusive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    How do you know if I made it up? I've also witnessed racism (in anti-semitic form) by a BNP supporter

    Orthodox Jews probably are Judean or Jewish in race. But when we talk about Judaism the religion, it is not a racial group. Maybe we can say Judeans are, like the Sephardis and Ashkenazis, but that doesn't include many other Jews.
    How do you know if I made it up?
    How do I know this is made up.........
    I'd imagine it to be enjoyable. Especially the fat bald ones who spit on you when you're canvassing
    It so obvious its made up "the fat bald ones" :rolleyes:
    racism (in anti-semitic form) by a BNP supporter
    Oh no......scary :ahhhhh:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)

    Oh no......scary
    Does antisemitic racism not bother you then?

    It certainly scared me when my family was spat at and threatened by a skinhead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Again, the VAST majority do not favour offensive Jihad.
    When offensive jihad was an effective way of bringing the virtues of islam to the world the vast majority seemed to favour it. They may have changed their minds for pragmatic reasons.
    A recent poll of muslims showed most were in favour of bringing in aspects of Sharia law into Britain UNLESS it contravened existing British law.
    Again, how far was it because they knew they wouldn't be able to bring all of it in?
    Some muslim scholars believe Shariah law can only be implimented in a perfect Islamic Ummah where there will be no excuses for things like prostitution.
    Prostitution does not need excuses. There are reasons for it, but that is another matter. These scholars believe that it is the duty of muslims to do all they can to bring about that perfect islamic ummah.

    a not in the opinion of others. It is not for you to dictate when someone stops being a muslim.
    I don't dictate. i point out the logical consequences of their beliefs and allow them to draw conclusions. I may give a nudge if one is needed.

    I wasn't denying it denying it. [that Mohammed fu(ked Aisha when she was nine years old]
    Well, in post 34 you'd "only heard" that she was fourteen years old.
    it's just not a big feature in Friday prayers
    I wonder why? It is a big feature of when some muslims say women are allowed to be married and how much choicew they should have in marriage partners.

    Define invasion
    A large-scale, usually armed, incursion into the territory of another country. It need not- as you seem to think- be permanent.
    However, I believe they used the term Arab sometimes to describe Turks?
    And? Don't think so. as far as ~I know, Shakespeare never used Arab ay all, in fact.
    There was Islamophobia, but in those days it was more Xenophobic and tolerated.
    So that would make it acceptable to you?
    In today's context the phobia is more targetted against one community.
    Several communities, actually, and there is a big difference between thinking that islam is a vile and ridiculous ideology and hostility to individual people who happen to hold- or suppose they hold because they haven't thought about it- that ideology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    That's not true at all. Anyone from any race can practice Judaism, and the person's religion and race are totally seperate.
    Try telling that to an antisemite.

    It is still the case that people are identified- and identify themselves- as jewish when they have attenuated religious belief or none at all. Certainly, you won't find former christians identified as christians still in a way that you would find ex- religiously speaking- jews. T. S. Eliot's infamous remark about "too many jewish freethinkers" would have been meaningless rather than offensive if judaism was solely religiously defined.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    When offensive jihad was an effective way of bringing the virtues of islam to the world the vast majority seemed to favour it. They may have changed their minds for pragmatic reasons.
    When and how do you know?

    Again, how far was it because they knew they wouldn't be able to bring all of it in?
    Many muslims are afriad to be politically active because of their guest mentality, so introducing shariah law isn't on their list of priorities. I'm sure most muslims in Turkey and Iran do not want Shariah law there.

    Prostitution does not need excuses. There are reasons for it, but that is another matter. These scholars believe that it is the duty of muslims to do all they can to bring about that perfect islamic ummah.
    Yes, and some point to the Qoranic quote which forbids forced conversions as evidence for this being a peaceful movement. Others citeviolent quotes yes. But it is nt black or white.

    I don't dictate. i point out the logical consequences of their beliefs and allow them to draw conclusions. I may give a nudge if one is needed.
    It's good to know that you are giving these silly ignorant muslims, who obviously know nothing about the Qoran, a nudge in the right direction when it comes to Islamic laws. :rolleyes:

    Well, in post 34 you'd "only heard" that she was fourteen years old.
    Yes. I had only ever heard that the marriage was consumated at 14. That doesn't mean everything I have not heard is rubbish though.

    I wonder why? It is a big feature of when some muslims say women are allowed to be married and how much choicew they should have in marriage partners.
    Not really a big issue in regard to how much choice a woman has.

    And? Don't think so. as far as ~I know, Shakespeare never used Arab ay all, in fact.
    Going off an a tangent really with this one we are.

    So that would make it acceptable to you?
    No. But in the context of those times, the level of Xenophobia meant that racism or prejudice discriminated at muslims wasn't anything unusual or linked to pecific events in their recent history.

    A large-scale, usually armed, incursion into the territory of another country. It need not- as you seem to think- be permanent.
    When did Muslims invade Britain?

    Several communities, actually, and there is a big difference between thinking that islam is a vile and ridiculous ideology and hostility to individual people who happen to hold- or suppose they hold because they haven't thought about it- that ideology.
    People who do think it is a vile ideology usually haven't thought about it properly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    When and how do you know?
    Observation. When muslims could effectively practise armed jihad they thought it good. Now they can't they don't. This may be a coincidence, of course.

    Many muslims are afriad to be politically active because of their guest mentality, so introducing shariah law isn't on their list of priorities.
    when they had conqueror mentality it was higher on the list, especially the profitable bits.
    I'm sure most muslims in Turkey and Iran do not want Shariah law there.
    How do you know? Isn't Iran aspiring to introduce it completely? If they don't they are civilised hypocrites. I think it would be better if they recognised the fact.

    Yes, and some point to the Qoranic quote which forbids forced conversions as evidence for this being a peaceful movement. Others citeviolent quotes yes. But it is nt black or white.
    Who said it was? Black and dark grey would be a morte accurate description.

    It's good to know that you are giving these silly ignorant muslims, who obviously know nothing about the Qoran, a nudge in the right direction when it comes to Islamic laws. :rolleyes:
    ~I'm a very kindly chap. Ignorance is one of the great bulwarks of belief.

    Yes. I had only ever heard that the marriage was consumated at 14. That doesn't mean everything I have not heard is rubbish though.
    a great deal that you haven't heard isn't rubbish.

    Not really a big issue in regard to how much choice a woman has.
    do you think that the acceptance of marriage of her parents' choice of husband by a six year old girl and consummation at nine are informed and mature decisions?

    Going off an a tangent really with this one we are.
    No. you said the elizabethans used arab as a synonym for Turk. i gave evidence that they didn't.

    No. But in the context of those times, the level of Xenophobia meant that racism or prejudice discriminated at muslims wasn't anything unusual or linked to pecific events in their recent history.
    Muslims- like jews, but in a different way for various reasons- were specifically hated more than other foreigners for their beliefs and customs, real or imaginary. Read Captives by Linda Colley for an examination of later attitudes- especially among slaves and exslaves- to muslims as captors and the influence this had on general attitudes.

    When did Muslims invade Britain?
    As i said, there were regular pirate raids on sea towns in the sixteenth and century. Invasion need not- as you seem to think- mean with the intent of permanent occupation.

    People who do think it is a vile ideology usually haven't thought about it properly.
    There we must differ. Islamophobes- in the common sense- do not in fact think of islam as an ideology at all, any more than most muslims do. they accept it as a given- a good one in muslims' eyes, bad in islamophobes- which does not need further examination.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Try telling that to an antisemite.

    It is still the case that people are identified- and identify themselves- as jewish when they have attenuated religious belief or none at all. Certainly, you won't find former christians identified as christians still in a way that you would find ex- religiously speaking- jews. T. S. Eliot's infamous remark about "too many jewish freethinkers" would have been meaningless rather than offensive if judaism was solely religiously defined.
    I already said above:

    Most European Jews belong to a 'jewish' racial group, like Sephardi or Ashkenazi (mine is Ashkenazi) but they're not exclusive.
    What I mean is there are racial groups which tend to be Jewish by majority. But not all people in these racial groups are Jewish, and not all Jews are from a 'traditionally-jewish' race. There are vast exceptions including the fact that anyone can convert, and that there are Indian, Chinese and Ethiopian Jewish communities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Observation. When muslims could effectively practise armed jihad they thought it good. Now they can't they don't. This may be a coincidence, of course.
    How do you know most of them supported it? And was this the conext of 1000 years ago? Does this ring true also about the crusades?

    when they had conqueror mentality it was higher on the list, especially the profitable bits
    When did 'muslims' conquer? They conquered as Arabs. They were not a coalition of Turks Persians and Arabs for example. They were as much Arab invaders (infact more so) than 'muslim invaders'.

    How do you know? Isn't Iran aspiring to introduce it completely? If they don't they are civilised hypocrites. I think it would be better if they recognised the fact.
    I'll be going to Turkey for the 6th time this summer and have had several religious discussions with various people, and none of them wanted Sharia law or an Islamic state. I have never met one Iranian who supports sharia or the Islamic Republic. Of course this doesn't mean there are non, but the vast majority do not want it.

    do you think that the acceptance of marriage of her parents' choice of husband by a six year old girl and consummation at nine are informed and mature decisions?
    You said women, not girls. And we don't know whether it was 9 or not. But in the context of 1500 years ago, he probably wasn't doing anything wrong.

    No. you said the elizabethans used arab as a synonym for Turk. i gave evidence that they didn't.
    No you didn't. All you said was that you weren't aware of Shaespeare using the word Arab.

    As i said, there were regular pirate raids on sea towns in the sixteenth and century. Invasion need not- as you seem to think- mean with the intent of permanent occupation.
    Large scale armed invasion is not the same as a pirate raid :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    What I mean is there are racial groups which tend to be Jewish by majority. But not all people in these racial groups are Jewish, and not all Jews are from a 'traditionally-jewish' race. There are vast exceptions including the fact that anyone can convert, and that there are Indian, Chinese and Ethiopian Jewish communities.
    Certainly, but there is prejudice against jews based on the perception of jews as being a race distinguishable from other people apparently of the same race. There aren't many conversions, given the requirement that converts must know exactly what they're doing; if anything the "blurring" comes about as a result of people ceasing to be jewish religiously and then by perception. At one time antisemitism was religiously based and race and religion were separate. that isn't so with recent and contemporary antisemitism, which has become a form of racism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    How do you know most of them supported it? And was this the conext of 1000 years ago? Does this ring true also about the crusades?
    I was thinking of a1200 to 1300 years ago and the first irruption of mulsims out of Arabia, the later Almohar and Almarovid invasions of Spain and the ottoman invasions of Europe.. The very military success of their invasions suggests that the participants were pretty enthusiastic.

    When did 'muslims' conquer? They conquered as Arabs. They were not a coalition of Turks Persians and Arabs for example. They were as much Arab invaders (infact more so) than 'muslim invaders'.
    They were inspired by muslims teachings. they said so themselves. The Ottomans[and the Seljuks before them] were Turks, the almohars and almarovids were Berber, the later muslim invaders of India were often Persian or afghan.

    I'll be going to Turkey for the 6th time this summer and have had several religious discussions with various people, and none of them wanted Sharia law or an Islamic state. I have never met one Iranian who supports sharia or the Islamic Republic. Of course this doesn't mean there are non, but the vast majority do not want it.
    I wonder how many religious Iranians you get the chance to meet- there must be quite a few who support or supported the self-styled Islamic state or it wouldn't exist, just as quite a few Turks voted for islamic parties to get them into parliament.

    You said women, not girls. And we don't know whether it was 9 or not. But in the context of 1500 years ago, he probably wasn't doing anything wrong.
    Surely someone who is thought of an age to marry is legally a woman rether than a child. It may or may not have been considered acceptable then. In the eyes of many muslims the example of the prophet makes it acceptable now as well.

    No you didn't. All you said was that you weren't aware of Shaespeare using the word Arab.
    Thye best-known Elizabethan writer did not use the term Arab as a synonym for Turk; indeed, he did not use the term at all. This is pretty good evidence that it was not, as you think, a common phenomenon.

    Large scale armed invasion is not the same as a pirate raid :rolleyes:
    I didn't use the words large scale.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,557

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.