Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:


The issue is that in the west Islam is predominantly seen and approached as "Arab" by default. I could even reference a few books that directly address this reality. Beyond that there's also the problem that "racism" is often invoked in any case where someone is being a bigot which kind of goes both ways. On the one hand sure, hating muslims isn't literal racism because "muslim" isn't a race, but on the other hand why are we quibbling over that? Bigotry is still bigotry and ardently crying out "but I can't be racist against an ideology" comes off as childish and deflecting from the underlying criticism that caused someone to shout racism in the first place.

Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab. That does not make being anti radical Islam racist. I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam. And honestly, it really gets on my nerves. How can people who are usually dedicated to women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom rights, etc defend a belief that opposes women's rights, condemns gays to death and preaches the utter dominion of one religion?

When i point this out I am of course simply called 'racist' again...

People who do this are really not doing any good because after being called, wrongfully and idiotically, 'racist' over and over again, the peolel being accused of this often become so enraged and frustrated they decide to just go full Monty and full racist since they'll be called that as long as they don't agree in lock step with the people calling them racist constantly.

Honestly, I try to tell people I don't oppose radical Islam because of any racial issue since Islam isn't a race. I try to explain I am against radical Islam because it would eliminate the rights of non Muslims. And I feel like a might as well. Be trying to reason with a lake full of frogs mindlessly croaking 'racist racist' ad infinutum.

So eventually both sides stop even trying to communicate with each other because it's utterly futile. That's not good for a Democratic society.


Really, Europe needs to talk about some of it's issues instead of having a situation where one sides position is 'We're going to do nothing but yell 'racist' at you as long as you disagree with us instead of discussing what we disagree about. '' and the other says "we're not going to let you beat us down by yelling racist at us constantly. ''

Both sides quit bothering even trying to communicate and work things out and just basically work on beating down the other.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy.

That's the thing. There is no early Hitler. There's just Hitler. That's why I say the book isn't about Hitler but about people and society, because the book uses its narrative to parallel the development of perceptions of Hitler rather than the development of Hitler's ideology. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. It wasn't secret or hidden but completely public what Hitler thought and wanted to do, and yet still Germany and the world by a large underestimated and didn't fully appreciate the man they were dealing with.

I don't think the author misrepresents how aware people were at all. People knew, but as the author points out and as we can even see in modern politics people didn't take a lot of what Hitler said seriously nor did they fully appreciate that there were people who took what he said deadly seriously.

To be fair, there is an early Hitler as in a younger man who's ideas shifted. In 1925 he had some general ideas, but between Mein Kampf and what actually happened there are quite some differences. 1933 Hitler and 1945 Hitler are different people even if for the greater part they are still the same person. Few people stay exactly the same person for 20 years, unless perhaps you close yourself off from all outside experiences.

To an extent you can say it was public knowledge, it would be for those who chose to dig deeper, which to circle back to the topic at hand is exactly what the AfD problem is, people look at the party program instead of the person, exactly what they did with the NSDAP.

I know the book isn't about Hitler, but I'm just nitpicking that it picks Hitler and then forms certain inconsistencies. Yeah its artistic license, but then it feels like the book just picked Hitler to present the wider subject because of marketing.

so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

That's exactly Look Who's Back's point when it talks about this subject. Hitler didn't even win the 32 election. It's somewhat ludicrous in hindsight that people actually look back and ask "how did you people let this happen" because no one really let it happen. Even people who appreciated his madness, failed to appreciate how much it had spread. They thought he could be controlled, appeased, or negotiated with. People in Germany thought they could just elect someone else later, or that other political parties would keep him controlled. People foolishly held faith that Hindenburg could keep Hitler in check, or that Hitler's lieutenants could be persuaded to change parties. When Hitler promised a powerless man soon to be thrown out of government (Papen) that he would respect the office of the President, protect the press, and and a whole bunch of other gak he was never going to do, people believed him despite obvious warning signs that Hitler would never keep such a promise.

Rampant naivete put Hitler in power more than anything and that's the full point of Look Who's Back; people are incredibly naive. Even today we foolishly sit in self-righteousness that we'd never elect "Hitler" fully ignorant that in 1933 no one else thought they were electing "Hitler" either.

Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Techpriestsupport wrote:


Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

And this is where I point out the constant pitfall; the casual transition between "how is disagreeing with muslims racist" to "I disagree with radical Islam." Really this is a game played by bigoted politicians and played into by otherwise non-bigoted supporters. I make that determination because I don't think politicians are so oblivious that they can't notice that talking about "Islam general" constantly gets them into trouble. Instead they play a word game where they start out talking about "Islam general" and then when someone cries the racist/bigot/xenophobe/hate whistle they make a sudden transition to "I wasn't talking about all Muslims just the radical ones." I've seen this, frankly speaking, stupid little word game play out countless times on national stages and get reiterated by supporters. I've seen it here on Dakka.

Say what you mean, or people will assume you mean what you say. A casual misunderstanding here and there is bound to happen, but when a politician makes the same misunderstanding speech after speech and year after year it's obvious that their either too stupid to be in charge of anyone or they're doing it on purpose.

I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

And it really doesn't help that people who are "anti-radical Islam" don't seem to understand Islam at all, it's radical interpretations or it's general ones and casually conflate them in a vague and confusing manner such as this. Of course I find this true of any society. We all have piss poor understandings of religions other than our own, and a big part of that is just communication failure. Arabic is a consonantal triliteral language. Most Semitic languages are (this includes Hebrew). That means the root of every word is general speaking its consonants. The root of Islam, SLM and this root is literally translated as "to be safe, at peace." As a derivative of its root, the word Islam literally means "to submit and be at peace" and its a core component of the religion. Peace comes from submission to god's will, which is really a core of all Abrahamic faiths (who are also generally accused of being barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political enties that espouse the forcible imposition of their religion's customs on others, the supremacy of men, subjugation of non-believers, inferiority of women to the point of slavery, and are filled with people at various points in reference who have wanted to kill any who don't believe as they do), but that doesn't stop people from wildly making the word mean whatever they want it to mean.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam.

Well you kind of set yourself up for that honestly. Which isn't to say it's fair, but given your own response I can see why people say it. Criticism and being told your wrong gets on everyone's nerves, but its not really the responsibility of others to bend over backwards and understand your meaning. You have to make yourself clear, and if you want to express your opposition to Islamic religious tenants I'd first suggest actually understanding them because it's not hard to see that you do not. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. It includes women haters who burn adulterers in the streets as well as Imam's who defend young girls from being stoned to death by mobs for incredibly minor breaches of etiquette.

The "I'm only racist because people call me racist" excuse is certainly understandable in a way. People throw the word around too casually, but at the end of the day that failure isn't just on people throwing the word around casually. The brandishing of ignorance as a shield runs both ways here.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

 LordofHats wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:


Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

And this is where I point out the constant pitfall; the casual transition between "how is disagreeing with muslims racist" to "I disagree with radical Islam." Really this is a game played by bigoted politicians and played into by otherwise non-bigoted supporters. I make that determination because I don't think politicians are so oblivious that they can't notice that talking about "Islam general" constantly gets them into trouble. Instead they play a word game where they start out talking about "Islam general" and then when someone cries the racist/bigot/xenophobe/hate whistle they make a sudden transition to "I wasn't talking about all Muslims just the radical ones." I've seen this, frankly speaking, stupid little word game play out countless times on national stages and get reiterated by supporters. I've seen it here on Dakka.

Say what you mean, or people will assume you mean what you say. A casual misunderstanding here and there is bound to happen, but when a politician makes the same misunderstanding speech after speech and year after year it's obvious that their either too stupid to be in charge of anyone or they're doing it on purpose.

I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

And it really doesn't help that people who are "anti-radical Islam" don't seem to understand Islam at all, it's radical interpretations or it's general ones and casually conflate them in a vague and confusing manner such as this. Of course I find this true of any society. We all have piss poor understandings of religions other than our own, and a big part of that is just communication failure. Arabic is a consonantal triliteral language. Most Semitic languages are (this includes Hebrew). That means the root of every word is general speaking its consonants. The root of Islam, SLM and this root is literally translated as "to be safe, at peace." As a derivative of its root, the word Islam literally means "to submit and be at peace" and its a core component of the religion. Peace comes from submission to god's will, which is really a core of all Abrahamic faiths (who are also generally accused of being barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political enties that espouse the forcible imposition of their religion's customs on others, the supremacy of men, subjugation of non-believers, inferiority of women to the point of slavery, and are filled with people at various points in reference who have wanted to kill any who don't believe as they do), but that doesn't stop people from wildly making the word mean whatever they want it to mean.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam.

Well you kind of set yourself up for that honestly. Which isn't to say it's fair, but given your own response I can see why people say it. Criticism and being told your wrong gets on everyone's nerves, but its not really the responsibility of others to bend over backwards and understand your meaning. You have to make yourself clear, and if you want to express your opposition to Islamic religious tenants I'd first suggest actually understanding them because it's not hard to see that you do not. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. It includes women haters who burn adulterers in the streets as well as Imam's who defend young girls from being stoned to death by mobs for incredibly minor breaches of etiquette.

The "I'm only racist because people call me racist" excuse is certainly understandable in a way. People throw the word around too casually, but at the end of the day that failure isn't just on people throwing the word around casually. The brandishing of ignorance as a shield runs both ways here.

Ok, see, this is where and how pretty much any an all attempts at discussion on this matter end.


One side says it does not want islam forced on it and is concerned that too many people want to do just that.

The other side pushes the "racist" button.

When the first side tries to explain it's not about race but about the desire of a group to force their laws on everyone, the second side just pushes the "You don't understand islam!" button and the "Not all muslims!" button.

I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion. Now other people will poi t to suras in the koran that deny this, however thyey don;t point out an important fact: In the koran it is written that sometimes 2 suras will contradict each other and in such cases the part that comes later in the Koran is to be considered right.

So yes there are suras in the koran that call for acceptance and tolerance, but later suras call for the forcible subjugation of non muslims and the death of those who will not submit, and by the korans own rules those suras take precedence oveer the earlier suras.

At which point the other side presses the "racist" and "You don't understand islam" buttons again, and maybe "but the bible says bad things too." button.

Yes, the bible says bad things, but the difference is that in western culture, society housebroke christianity and makes christianity subordinate to society. So even if the bible says "suffer not a witch to live" it;s still illegal to murder Ms. Minerva down the street for being a practicing wiccan.

In most mideast culture islam dominates society so if Ms. Minerva refuses to wear a veil and goes out in public without a male relative escort you arrest her, imprison her, maybe whip or even stone her to death because the koran says so.

But, hey, I'm bailing out on this conversation now because I've had it before, literally dozens of times. And every time goes the exact same way. Soeone says they don;t want islamic fundamentalism taking over their society. The other side pushes the 'racism' button. We try to say that it's not about race its about ideology. the other side pushes the "You don;t underastand islam!" and "But the bibles says bad things to!" buttons, and the "not all muslims" button.

There's no point in trying to discuss this. Both sides have been driven into concrete bunkers over it and will never be able to discuss it, let alone do anything about the it or the other issues tearing their societies apart.

And yes I'm an american and yes the exact same thing happened to my country, so I'm not disparaging germany or england or anywhere else, it happened to my country too, I'm just depressed it seems to be the new status quo.

Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

Islam is divided into several sects, sunni and shiite being the most common. They've been fighting and killing each other over the divisions between their sects for a long time, like christianity used to kill each other over divisions between catholics, cathars, gnostics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, mormons, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

But no one's called you racist, all that happened was that LordofHats pointed out how one of your statements was incorrect and you immediately went into defensive mode. You can't really complain when someone points out that you made a demonstrably faulty argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But no one's called you racist, all that happened was that LordofHats pointed out how one of your statements was incorrect and you immediately went into defensive mode. You can't really complain when someone points out that you made a demonstrably faulty argument.

Ok, LoH did say most muslims were non arab, and that might be true. But most arabs are muslim. Also he said that most musilms were south east asian. Even if it's true it does make most mulsims non caucasian and as such many people simply, automatically, claim any time a caucasian criticizes or disagtrees with a non caucasian. So, again, many toimes a euorpean is labled and dismised as a racist simply for disagreeing with or opposing fundamantalist islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make a last comment in this thread, as an american my opinion about merkel might might mean much, I admit. But I personally like her for her statement she made about trump to americans.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
When the first side tries to explain it's not about race but about the desire of a group to force their laws on everyone, the second side just pushes the "You don't understand islam!" button and the "Not all muslims!" button.

Honestly. You don't understand Islam, and you can say your anti-radical Islam all you want but the sentence quoted there makes it really confusing who you're talking about. The casual transition from generality and specificity is kind of a bitch in these discussions, which you can accept as a problem that needs to be worked through on your end since you're the one doing it, or you can be upset that people aren't understanding you.

I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion.

Except it doesn't. If anything Islam is probably one of the least evangelizing religions on the planet, especially when you compare it to Christianity and Buddhism. Kind of goes hand in hand with being very decentralized which in itself makes it really hard for anything as general as "Islam calls for global islamic dominion" to be true. There's some Muslims who think that but some is not "Islam."

Now other people will poi t to suras in the koran that deny this, however thyey don;t point out an important fact: In the koran it is written that sometimes 2 suras will contradict each other and in such cases the part that comes later in the Koran is to be considered right.

So yes there are suras in the koran that call for acceptance and tolerance, but later suras call for the forcible subjugation of non muslims and the death of those who will not submit, and by the korans own rules those suras take precedence oveer the earlier suras.

Yeah this is kind of true of most written religious texts. Any Christian can give you countless examples of people taking verses out of context, and any well read one can probably list more than a few contradictions just in a single book. But of course if I were to go around pointing out how the Bible says in Timothy that women should be submissive to men and never speak with authority to men, I'd probably be called a misogynist cause well that's kind of a misogynistic thing to say. Good thing this isn't how most Christians today look at women or Timothy 2:11 assuming they've even read 2:11 cause I find most religious people have on casually read their own holy books at best. Though I suppose Christians have the excuse that the Bible is really freaking long while the Koran is comparatively short but still

And you're just showing that you don't understand Islam. Islam does not form a division between Surahs. All Surahs are equally authoritative because they're all part of the divine revelation to Mohommed. Their arrangement is completely regardless of authority, chronology, or even their theme. The only division drawn by Islam between Surah's is their total length (they are arranged in order from longest to shortest) and when they were purportedly revealed (before or after Mohammed's exile from Mecca). You might be confusing the Surah's with Hadith, but I'm not sure because the earlier a Hadith is chronologically the more authoritative it is considered to be, and even then Islamic scholars madly debate which Hadith are real and which are fake. The innate incoherence of the Surahs actually has its own word in Islamic studies (munasabah) because it doesn't take a genius to notice that many Surah are contradictory (especially since the Koran is for a religious text on the short side) and that the organization of verses and chapters is confusing as feth bordering at times on chaotic. Reconciling the coherence of the text has been a topic of debate, literally, since the religion started.

At which point the other side presses the "racist" and "You don't understand islam" buttons again, and maybe "but the bible says bad things too." button.

Well of course they do. You really don't seem to understand Islam, and the Bible does say bad things too, but no one in the west generally regards the Bible with such ignorance as they regard the Koran, which is mostly a matter of familiarity and actual study. Its also useful to bring up the Bible because we know Christians today by and large ignore large swathes of it in daily life. Clearly the innate fashion superiority of ripped jeans takes priority over Leviticus 10:6, and love clearly conquers Timothy 2:9 because as we all know every kiss begins with Kay. The Koran also bans the practice of interest in financing but hundreds of millions of Muslims have credit cards and every bank in the Middle East collects and issues interest because that's modern economics.

All Christians either ignore that they ignore huge amounts of what the Bible says in their daily life, or are openly aware that they ignore huge amounts of what the Bible says in their daily life. It's useful to bring up the Bible because this is true, but for some baffling reason we recognize that followers of a common religion in the west ignore a lot of their own text, but we somehow hold followers of another religion to their text to the word.

Yes, the bible says bad things, but the difference is that in western culture, society housebroke christianity and makes christianity subordinate to society. So even if the bible says "suffer not a witch to live" it;s still illegal to murder Ms. Minerva down the street for being a practicing wiccan.

And the Koran explicitly forbids the killing of Ahl-al-Kitab, and calls on Muslims to seek wisdom from them but not too much wisdom because come on. Those Christians think God has a son. There's clearly something wrong with them /sarcsm Obviously this isn't the foremost command in some minds because it turns out that just because a holy book says something doesn't mean the faithful are gonna do it. When's the last time Christians did as Deuteronomy 17:7 commands?

In most mideast culture islam dominates society

You could say the same thing about the West and Christianity for most of the recent past. Heavy forbid you be gay in a predominantly Christian country. I mean you might be imprisoned. Or electrocuted. Or told that god hates you in the most love your neighborly way possible.

Saudi Arabia isn't an example of all Middle Eastern countries and their laws are a poor representation of what most people there actually believe. Lots of people who live there find Saudi Arabia's laws on women archaic, which is why there's mounting social pressure the change them. Besides. That whole "women can't drive" thing was all Elizabeth's fault anyway We all know how women drivers are amiright (I kid)

But, hey, I'm bailing out on this conversation now because I've had it before, literally dozens of times.

Honestly you seem to just be making mountains of convenient assumptions about this conversation but w/e.

Someone says they don't want islamic fundamentalism taking over their society.

It probably would help to actually understand what fundamentalists believe and how it is different from radicals, violent extremists, political Islamists and all the various other spins on the religion which of course is wildly time consuming which is why it's so easy for all the misconceptions and nonsense people think about Islam to propegate and stick around. So you can complain about how both sides have been driven into their concrete bunkers, but maybe you should dare to step out of yours. In the words of Batman if you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change (and protect your abs). Cease conflating the general and the specific. It does you no favors. You've done it through your entire post which leaves anyone reading it baffled and with little choice but to assume one of various things that inevitably lead to such cries as racist and bigot.

Also probably helps to not make assumptions about other people's responses to you. I haven't said your racist. I've said your say things that are going to make people think you are, but you seem more interested in being offended and expressing your indignation than considering that there's something you can do about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

See I made that entire wall of quotes response and this guy just said most of what I wanted to actually get across in like five sentences.

I need to learn brevity damnit.

Lordofhats, you are simply wrong. I can't say it any other way.

The cunningly written Koran does contain suras that look nice and peaceful, but in the later parts it rescinds all of them.

This is what the Koran says:

"Fight until there is no more fitna (dissent, chaos) and all religion is for Allah alone." Qur'an Chapter 8, "al-Anfal"; verse 29.

If you study the life of Muhammad you will see that he routinely sent his men out to raid until he had conquered most of Arabia within the ten year period between the hijra and his death. Taking over most of the Arabian peninsula within a decade doesn't just happen by accident, as much as Muslims tell you that all his battles were defensive. What a Muslim means by "defensive" is that Muhammad was "defending" all those poor misguided Christians, Jews, and polytheists from the falsehood and oppression of their own religions.

As for the old Meccan verse which Muslims like to trot out, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," that was abrogated by so many later verses that gave Muhammad "permission" to fight (22:39), then made fighting an "obligation" (2:216), then instructed them to "cut the necks (of the polytheists) and chop every finger" (8:12) and many other verses, including "slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, and lay ambush for them" (9:5). For the Qur'anic verse on how later verses abrogate the earlier ones, look up 2:106: "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better..."

Look at that. The Koran tells Muslims to kill non Muslims wherever they find any. Period. It tells them to fight until the only religion is Islam. Period.

I'm not arguing the point anymore. People in many countries that value freedom are justly concerned with people coming in with views like that. That's the issue. That's why many people in europe are concerned with a wave of refugees that might contain a large number of people who believe their God commands them force their views on everyone, everywhere. A steady stream of bombings and other acts of mass. Murder show these people have grounds to be concerned about.

Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

Sorta. You can buy them here, but the imagery is censored.

Not getting into the religion thing here, last time I offended practically everyone .

Techpriestsupport wrote:
The cunningly written Koran does contain suras that look nice and peaceful, but in the later parts it rescinds all of them.

Except that's not how the Koran is read or regarded by any Islamic sect. Honestly. I don't know where you heard that. It's a new one to me and I've come across all kinds of nonsense.

"Fight until there is no more fitna (dissent, chaos) and all religion is for Allah alone." Qur'an Chapter 8, "al-Anfal"; verse 29.

When is the last time any Christian or Jew did as Deuteronomy 17:7 commands?

Cunningly written is an odd way to describe the Koran. Even top tier Muslim scholars often regard the prose of the work as exemplary but the actual writing as chaos. See Christians got around this. We wrote our gak down within 100 years of Jesus dying. None of that debating the merits of oral tradition vs written tradition over here The Muslims tried the whole oral tradition thing first and then realized that wasn't working for them

If you study the life of Muhammad you will see that he routinely sent his men out to raid until he had conquered most of Arabia within the ten year period between the hijra and his death. Taking over most of the Arabian peninsula within a decade doesn't just happen by accident, as much as Muslims tell you that all his battles were defensive. What a Muslim means by "defensive" is that Muhammad was "defending" all those poor misguided Christians, Jews, and polytheists from the falsehood and oppression of their own religions.

Yes yes yes. And the Crusades were all about God and Christendom until it came time to carve up the pie. I haven't proclaimed Muhammad a paragon of virtue and peacefulness, but you're talking about events over one thousand years in the past and using them to judge the present. Christians used to do the whole smite the infidels bit too but only supreme douchbags still hold it against them cause it happened a long ass time ago.

And even with that generalization you're still showing a bad understanding of Islam. Millions of Christians and tens of thousands of Jews have lived within the borders of Muslim countries for thousands of years cause Islam has never had a "kill um all" policy on infidels on a monolithic level. A tax them all policy to be sure, but Islam's history is particularly remarkable or commendable in regards to its treatment of other faiths for the most part. They're about the same there as everyone else, outside of India where things get really bizarre because like most of the rest of the world Islam has struggled to decide if Hindus are monotheistic or not (even the Hindus don't know )

As for the old Meccan verse which Muslims like to trot out, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," that was abrogated by so many later verses that gave Muhammad "permission" to fight (22:39), then made fighting an "obligation" (2:216), then instructed them to "cut the necks (of the polytheists) and chop every finger" (8:12) and many other verses, including "slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, and lay ambush for them" (9:5). For the Qur'anic verse on how later verses abrogate the earlier ones, look up 2:106: "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better..."

Okay now you're just being obtuse and making a really shallow and transparent attempt to pretend you know what you're talking about. Surah's are are equal in Islam. None are considered to retcon the others.

First off Al-Baqara 256 isn't about not compelling anyone to believe anything. It's a philosophical statement of "fact" that is then explained in the following passages. Muslims have actually expanded this section at various points in history to justify freedom of religion, purging infidels, and even to support freedom of speech and association. Ultimately though the section itself is rather long winded way of saying "you can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink." It has nothing to do with peace or war with other religions. It's a simple philosophical rationalization. It's in part a logical continuation of the underlying presumptions Islam has towards the nature of evil. Unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Zorastrianism Islam presumes that human beings are at their core "good." Evil is not born of temptation, of demons, original sin, or the nature of the universe but rather from willful choice. Ergo, someone who does not believe has chosen not to believe and nothing anyone can do is really going to convince them to believe. It's also why Islam isn't very big on evangelism. There's always been a common presumption to wit in the faith that anyone who comes across the Koran and doesn't see it's greatness can't be convinced otherwise so don't bother trying. This has been used to justify peace and war in Islamic history. You realize Christians had this debate once? The Bible says turn the other cheek, and many early Christians debated whether it was allowable under Jesus' teachings to defend themselves or fight in war. Eventually they kind of stopped debating the point because a religion of absolute pacifism is a religion that isn't going to be around for very long and well riding on horses and stabbing guys with long sticks was probably pretty fun for some people I guess and why let religion get in the way of fun?

For anyone interested Al-Haj 39 says "Permission has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged" which is really just a simple statement saying "you can defend yourself." Not so sure what's so evil about that or how it contradicts Al-Baqara 256 but w/e.

I'm assuming you have the wrong verse for "2:216" and "8:12". Al-Baqara 216 says;

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

There's nothing in there about fighting being an obligation... This is actually imo one of the most poetically beautiful lines in the entire book. I suspect whoever wrote it was very familiar with Ecclesiastes cause this kind of juxtaposition of man's ignorance with god's wisdom is very similar and pre-Islamic Arabs were very familiar with some Jewish texts.

Al-Anfal 12 says;

When your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Which is a really confusing verse on its own. Al-Anfal basically means "spoils of war" and was written in part to codify proper conduct in wartime and other part as a historical recounting of the Battle of Badr in 624 CE, and is part of a pair with the following chapter At-Twaba which means "Repentence" which covers peacetime after a war. You'd know this if you actually studied Islam rather than just threw its verses out, or as I suspect repeat them from some source that threw them out cause wherever you're getting this from is tragically lacking in context. What your citing is part of a longer quotation attributed to Mohammed. Presumably the speech he gave to his army before the battle. Fitting with my earlier comment about turning the other cheek, the way the speech plays out presumably Mohommed's army didn't want to fight, but Mohommed encouraged them to fight because god had told them they must fight. So obviously you have to go fight cause god told you too, but this isn't a blanket permission to fight in this section. It's a description of the divine intervention at Badr where Muslims generally believe that God sent his angels to help Mohommed defeat the numerically superior Meccan army. Further the quote you cite itself has the angels being orders to strike people at the necks and cut off their fingers, not the Muslims and it was only for one battle. In fact two verses later (Al-Anfal 14) reads;

Taste it. And indeed for the disbelievers is the punishment of the Fire.

In this case the word for fire is Anam, which is a reference to Jahannam, the place of punishment in the afterlife i.e. hell for lack of a better word. The speech never even strictly justifies warfare (that part comes later), it basically just amounts to "god says we gotta fight and oh he's gonna send his homies to help us out so don't lose your gak or anything."

Honestly the only verse you've even gotten half right is Al-Tawbah 5, but you've either ignored or not been told about a rather important distinction the Koran and Islam makes in infidels. Namely that being "of the Book" is okay we won't kill you, but if you're not of the Book well you're kind of screwed. And yep. That's not nice. Of course Islam has been way more flexible with who qualifies as "of the book" that the Koran ever was. Christians, Jews, and Sabians are the only ones given explicit protection in the Koran, but Muslims have typically also granted the status to Zoroastrians. Baha'i is the only Abrahamic faith not covered. Over the course of history the protection of the status has generally been expanded to Buddhists and Hindus as well. Less so the former as Islam has historically had little contact with Buddhism, but in the case of Hinduism it was kind of necessity. Even when the Indian sub-continent was conquered it was one of the most populated parts of the planet. Can't exactly kill everyone for being a polytheist when everyone is a gak ton of people, especially when all the religious scholars couldn't decide if Hindus were polytheists or not. I imagine some Muslims picked up the Vedas and much like me walked away with a bad headache

Look at that. The Koran tells Muslims to kill non Muslims wherever they find any. Period. It tells them to fight until the only religion is Islam. Period.

Except it literally doesn't in any of the sections you cite. At worst Muslims are commanded to kill polytheists, something they didn't even do a whole lot of after they conquered Arabia and Parthia. Everyone north and west mostly was some kind of monotheist, who they're never given permission to kill because apparently any monotheist is at least a little right and worth sparing. Even then I suspect that command was ultimately a matter of political practicality. It justified the suppression of pre-Islamic polytheistic traditions, while not binding Muslims to doing the same to everyone else who they didn't really have a personal grudge with. Of course they did a whole lot of killing of monotheists anyway cause common. Its the 7th and 8th centuries. Driving your enemies before you and hearing the lamentations of the women was kind of the deal back then.

I'm not arguing the point anymore. People in many countries that value freedom are justly concerned with people coming in with views like that. That's the issue. That's why many people in europe are concerned with a wave of refugees that might contain a large number of people who believe their God commands them force their views on everyone, everywhere. A steady stream of bombings and other acts of mass. Murder show these people have grounds to be concerned about.

All that tells me is that there are people who are mind numbingly ignorant, have no interest in actually doing any fact checking or trying to understand someone unlike them, and are deathly afraid of foreigners coming in and taking over based on a whole lot of bad reading. And yeah. That's generally the kind of behavior that gets words like bigot and racist thrown around, but hey. Concrete bunkers apparently.

"Racist" modern day Europeans are anti-Islamic immigration not because they are against Islamic extremism. They are against the immigrants because they often have a somewhat dark skin tone.

It's exactly the same as British people who are against Pakistani or Sikh or Indian immigrants, who might be five or six different religions, but no-one is interested in their religion.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

Islam is divided into several sects, sunni and shiite being the most common. They've been fighting and killing each other over the divisions between their sects for a long time, like christianity used to kill each other over divisions between catholics, cathars, gnostics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, mormons, etc.

That doesn't really answer the question with regards to Europe and Muslims being present since the 60's/70's.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

As XuQishi said, most games can just be bought in Germany, they just require some censoring. However as censoring falls to the developer and not the state, sometimes you end up with games that remain banned cause the developer isn't interested enough to change. Although it may seem a bit weird to us, its not that different from say censoring in Australia, just more specific.

Wow, this thread took quite a turn in the last few pages! Just a quick update on the grand coalition politics:

Schulz (SPD) is now expected to officially vote for the re-confirmation of Angela Merkel (CDU) for the position of chancellor. He states that he is "going to vote for a government that [he] was decidedly involved in forming". - And again, this coming from a guy that very clearly stated, in public - on twitter and otherwise - that he would not be open for a coalition with Merkel's CDU, right after last year's elections.

We are, of course, all used to politicians flip flopping, but in this case it just so very blatant that it irks me. I'm also not really sure what Schulz's end game is - he was aiming for the position of chancellor before the elections, and since then he has only lost influence and approval. It's clear to everyone he won't ever be chancellor in the future. Is this just his way of staying relevant in politics after his defeat?

Techpriestsupport wrote:So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Techpriestsupport wrote:Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

I put these three quotes together because those are in a way interconnected:

Nazi imagery is not banned per se but holocaust denial an glorification of Nazi Germany (and other unconstitutional organisations) is. There are also exceptions for art, science, research, and teaching if you want/need to use those symbols. We still have Neo-Nazis and they use all kinds of Nazi imagery in their protests even if they don't use a swastika and try to fly a bit under the radar and play civilised yet concerned citizen.

Like Disciple of Fate has mentioned, Germany has very much done the opposite of blotting out the past (unlike other countries, I could even point out some examples from the USA but that would get political). Neo-Nazis get regularly rather sad about this because it's just too much (and Germany is way too apologetic about the Holocaust for their taste). According to them the holocaust didn't happen but if it did (but it didn't) then it wasn't that bad, besides Hitler did nothing wrong, and so on

I looked the book up, and the following also goes for video games. If something ends up on the German index then it's usually not banned. It's just made harder to get for kids and you are restricted when it comes to advertising it. I just bought imported games as a teenager in the 90s and the index worked more like the Parental Advisory stickers that some CDs got and every teenager had to have those games (instead of shunning them). What can end up on the index also changes as public perception of things changes and you can also contest it if you think your work was wrongfully indexed. It even says in the book's wikipedia article that they were able to sell the book while it was on the index (it was just less accessible and later removed from the index). A lot of countries have some mechanic to make undesirable work less accessible to kids, even the USA

This means if you want to blame someone for the changes in video games, you might as well blame capitalism. Companies are so afraid to lose sales that they compromise their vision to standards they assumed from decades ago even thought the perception has changed (they could even contest the decision and change it). They compromise their standards all the time in the name of profit (for example when they want a lower rating from the ESRB or similar groups). That's not an "German only" problem as it exists in different degrees all over the world. And the self-censorship needed for mass appeal of popular work already compromises whatever creative vision people had with an efficiency that the index never could. The process is a bit opaque but the results are transparent, it's just that companies don't like to do the least bit of extra work

What we as society deem as acceptable depends on where you live and everybody draws the line somewhere, even the "free speech zone USA". Or are you all protesting against laws that forbid LGBTQ-inclusive sex-ed in public schools in some US states? Just because the USA has a first amendment in theory doesn't guarantee that it's actually a thing in practice. And that goes for quite a few topics even if it should all be allowed according to the constitution. And just bleating about free speech doesn't automatically make it reality

Speaking of Germany and things not allowed there, is it true Germany banned Scientology?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking of Germany and things not allowed there, is it true Germany banned Scientology?

You might be thinking about France, which has ruled it a cult/sect. Germany like many other countries actually has it exist in legal limbo, not actively banned, but not recognized as religion either. For example in the Netherlands we don't classify it as a religious organization for the overwhelming private profit motivation of scientology.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Wow, this thread took quite a turn in the last few pages! Just a quick update on the grand coalition politics:

Schulz (SPD) is now expected to officially vote for the re-confirmation of Angela Merkel (CDU) for the position of chancellor. He states that he is "going to vote for a government that [he] was decidedly involved in forming". - And again, this coming from a guy that very clearly stated, in public - on twitter and otherwise - that he would not be open for a coalition with Merkel's CDU, right after last year's elections.

We are, of course, all used to politicians flip flopping, but in this case it just so very blatant that it irks me. I'm also not really sure what Schulz's end game is - he was aiming for the position of chancellor before the elections, and since then he has only lost influence and approval. It's clear to everyone he won't ever be chancellor in the future. Is this just his way of staying relevant in politics after his defeat?

Merkel wins.

However she probbly will be dragging one big ass trail of her past years in office as baggage. It might not be the time now.

So at some point someone's going to have to take the europeen queen's Place. I'm not sure that her time in office will be easy more will her past events leave her alone.

Add Italy sliding dangerously put of there control, and anti EU.

Greece is still a basket case and anchor dragging on rocks.

Theres still issues in esstern Europe to face and Russia now growing potentially dangerous.

Disciple of Fate wrote:For example in the Netherlands we don't classify it as a religious organization for the overwhelming private profit motivation of scientology.

Same in Germany, there more on wikipedia if somebody's interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany#Legal_status

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One thing I see is people yelling ''racism! '' because people are opposed to radical Islam. Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

Sort of but not really. I agree with you that opposing some broad idea isn't racism, however everything else there is a bit of a mess. For starters, Islam isn't an ideology, it's a religion. The distinction there is massive.

Second of all, to be opposed to something, your target needs to be on some level a clear, singular. But that isn't possible with Islam - I mean by all means oppose the ultra-oppressive, middle ages bs embraced by many muslims living in little villages in rural Iran, but also know that has basically nothing to do with Islam as its practiced by a Turkish Sufi, or some third generation Muslim of Indonesian descent who's last prayer was to during the Superbowl as he hoped his beloved Eagles could finally win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

No, a majority of Muslims are not Arabic. It isn't even close, less than 15% of Muslims are Arabic. In fact, the number of Muslims living in Indonesia is greater than the total of all arabic Muslims. Pakistan almost has more Muslims than all Arab Muslims as well.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

No, but not knowing these basic facts about Islam does make you ignorant. Now I don't mean that as an attack, it's just the reality of the situation - you are ignorant of the basic facts of Islam.

 LordofHats wrote:
Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

Just as a point of interest, Indonesia is the closest major nation. We have close relations with them for lots of things, particularly trade and security. There's a pretty decent immigration flow from Indonesia to Australia, and the single most popular tourist destination for Australians is Bali, which is a province of Indonesia.

Despite this, most Australians still associate Islam almost entirely with the Middle East. So its not just about which parts of Islam you deal with. It's more how Islam is presented to you and debated, and which parts of that debate a person wishes to hear.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion.

You thought Islam was majority Arabic. So you might need to spend some time thinking about how poorly your studies prepared you for the realities of Islam.

Now what you do show is a fair understanding of the fairly standard form attacks on Islam - it says this bad bit, or that bad bit, and unlike the bible the bad bits in the Koran count because its meant to be the word of God etc... Bleh. It's all crap of the silliest kind. None of it means a damn thing.

Here's what actually matters - Muslims are like Christians and like everyone else - they pick and choose which bits of a holy text works for them, which bits give them guidance they actually want to follow. And what bits they follow will be primarily determined by the culture surrounding them.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Ok, LoH did say most muslims were non arab, and that might be true. But most arabs are muslim.

Most Ugandans are Christian. But trying to define Christianity by how it is practiced in Uganda would be obviously ridiculous. But that's what you've tried to do with Islam.

Also, there's no 'might be true'. It's a fact, and one you were ignorant of.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

Sure, but it'd be completely wrong, and fairly ridiculous to claim that Catholicism was defined by Italy, and it'd be even sillier still for people to think Italy defined all of Christianity. But that's what people do when they KSA or the whole of the ME defines Islam.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

The Kaba is the heart of Islam, which happens to be located in Saudi Arabia along with a large number of major holy sites, but it's completely false to take that as the country of Saudi Arabia itself being the heart of Islam. How Saudi Arabia handles a lot of holy sites and the holy cities in particular is a major stress point between the Saudi state and the rest of the Islamic World, especially the parts of it outside the Middle East. The Saudi's are really big on pushing Wahhabist interpretations, but most Muslims are not Wahhabists and majorly disagree with their brand of fundamentalism. This is especially true in South-East Asia where Sufism is wildly popular among Muslims, and Sufi's are very much hated by Wahhabist dogma. They have to cooperate with the Saudi state because the Haaj is a required religious tenet, i.e. Indonesia can't go full bore and attack Saudi Arabia for being sacrilegious donkey-caves trying to force their particular interpretation on everyone else because the Saudi's could easily hold their access to Mecca and the great Mosque of Mecca hostage.

They're all forced to play nice with each other, and Saudi Arabia by virtue of claim and geography holds a lot of big cards, but that doesn't mean they like each other.