The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on August 14, 2010, 11:20:27 AM
-
The Muslim/Islamic culture, religion, and mindset has changed very little in hundreds of years, while our young country by comparison has a POTUS that touted "change".
Here's some "perspective" on what the flexibility of Islam, (or more realistically lack there of) is:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/why_we_cant_all_just_get_along.html
August 13, 2010
Why We Can't All Just Get Along
Jonathan David Carson
It would be nice to be able to just get along with the Muslim world. Unfortunately, mutual respect and tolerance is incompatible with characteristic aspects of Islam.
According to Bat Ye'or, dhimmitude, which Islamists call "protection" of non-Muslims or "toleration," but which is more accurately called "subjugation," rests on three principles:
(1) "compulsory degradation"
(2) "differentiation"
(3) "segregation"
For instance, subject peoples are required to wear different clothes and live in different quarters, and they must ride donkeys, not horses and camels.
One form of compulsory degradation is particularly relevant to the controversy over plans to build a "mega-mosque" near Ground Zero:
Some jurists recommend, while others -- and they are the majority -- state that it is compulsory to forbid infidels to have houses higher than their Muslim neighbors, even to have them of the same height.
Accordingly, Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) says that infidels "may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed."
This recommendation or compulsion applies with special force to houses of worship. Thus,
Under Caliph Ma'mun (813-33), the Muslims of Jerusalem complained that the dome of the (Christian) Church of the Holy Sepulcher had been enlarged, making it higher than the (Islamic) Dome of the Rock. The patriarch Thomas was cast in prison, but escaped flagellation and saved his dome on payment of a heavy ransom.
We can take from this that the prohibition of infidel houses and houses of worship higher than Islamic ones is not absolute: it can be waived as long as the principle of compulsory degradation is otherwise upheld.
Given this prohibition, we should not perhaps be too surprised that Islamic terrorists destroyed the lofty World Trade Center nor that Muslims now own the tallest building in the world, even if they had to pay for it with borrowed money and oil extracted by Western companies: it was designed by a Chicago firm and erected by Samsung--in Dubai. There seems to have been no real economic basis for such a tall building, only a desire to overawe the infidels.
The three principles of dhimmitude demonstrate the difficulty of coexistence -- or even of dialogue. We complain about unfairness. The Islamists think that there is supposed to be unfairness (degradation). We complain about double standards; the Islamists think that there are supposed to be double standards (differentiation). We say that we allow mosques here, but you won't allow churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The Islamists think that there aren't supposed to be any churches and synagogues there (segregation).
To all this, our craven ruling class says that we are opposed to the freedom of religion. Apparently, telling the truth about dhimmitude or shariah law is a violation of the First Amendment. And in a sense our critics are right: we cannot oppose Islam's opposition to freedom of other religions without opposing Islam itself, since Islam without opposition to freedom of other religions does not exist, has never existed, and probably never will exist. See Bat Ye'Or or Andrew Bostom. We can violate freedom of religion in the eyes of the ruling class by opposing the imposition of shariah law, or we can allow the Islamists to violate it. One way or the other, it is gone. We are in the same plight as Israelis, condemned around the world for building places to live. We are all Israelis now.
******
We change, THEY DON'T.
just my .02 from another Infidel...
-
Couple of links for the Infidels amongst us.
http://standinguptojihad.com/content/view/49/27/
http://www.zazzle.com/damn_proud_to_be_an_infidel_t_shirt-235568697825673702
-
Explain to me again why "Ethnic cleansing" and "Genocide" are bad things.
-
Explain to me again why "Ethnic cleansing" and "Genocide" are bad things.
Perhaps a Jefferson vs. Barbary Pirate strategy?
-
Perhaps a Jefferson vs. Barbary Pirate strategy?
It worked for 150 years, guess the need a "booster " like with your Tetanus shot.
I would suggest a healthy dose of the wonder drug U-235
-
Lets see a Ohio class sub surfaces and sheethead countries turn to glass. You got my vote tom.
-
It worked for 150 years, guess the need a "booster " like with your Tetanus shot.
I would suggest a healthy dose of the wonder drug U-235
Look they spent a lot of time and effort in inventing fission, seems bloody stupid not to explore all uses, just saying.
-
WWRD?
What Would Reagan Do?
Gee,... perhaps we should ask Quadaffhi.
like sledge, just wondering when someone will step up, tell the UN to piss off, and deal with clear intentions to infiltrate and otherwise gain an unstoppable foothold here in the States,
Can we use Europe as a model? They accepted Muslims with open arms, and the last stat I read, is more mosques than churches in England.
Switzerland, wants and even FRANCE, wants SOME immigration policy that limits Islamic influence en mass,,,,,,
Hmmmm, reminds me of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrA_9SoCitk
-
TACTICAL BACON!!!!
-
They hate us, there is not a single thing we can argue with them about, their religion forbids them to tolerate any one else.
The only practical solution is to beat them down to a manageable level, or exterminate them completely.
Any thing else is only a temporary fix.
Come to think of it, to them, this is just another round in that Barbary coast thing.
Jefferson showed the way.
-
Europe led the way. In the wrong direction of course. ;D Allowing mass immigration and fostering multi-culturalism which deliberately prevented assimilation. Now, no one will stand up and say this was a bad idea for fear of being labled a racist. Britain, the Netherlands and France, the three countries that gave us modern colonialism and missionary work cowed by a word? Their ancestors would shoot them all. We can still stop this. Personnally, I liked the 1964 immigration law just fine. Go back to national quotas while there is still time. Ask me, DILLIGAF what the world thinks?
FQ13
-
FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?
-
FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?
Ask the Romanized Brits what a good idea it was to bring in the Saxons. Hell, ask the average Native American how popular Squanto is. ;D.
FQ13
-
FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?
You're asking FQ for backup on history? WTF? ? ? ? ;D
Comparisons between the US and Rome are fraught with problems. Rome was a multi-cultural empire, made no bones about it. As long as you weren't seditious and sent your tithe to Rome on schedule, you could do what you wanted, say what you wanted, worship any cow, oryx, or stone effigy you wanted to - hell, if it was interesting enough, the Romans would probably join you in slaughtering some poor vertebrate in honoring said "deity".
The barbarians were invited into the army mostly, as auxiliaries, and later as Senators under Caligula. It was only 200 years after Julius Caesar when Rome had its first non-Roman as Emperor.
Hmm . . . about the same amount of time for us to have our first non-American as President. >:(
Ask the Romanized Brits what a good idea it was to bring in the Saxons. Hell, ask the average Native American how popular Squanto is. ;D.
FQ13
Uh, FQ? No one "brought" the Saxons into Romanized Britain. They kinda wandered in - swords in hand - all on their own. Same as the Pilgrims - sans swords of course.
Of course, for us to allow these un-assimilated people who do not give a flying f..k about us or our culture, whose goal is specifically to take over and dominate us and force us (contrary to our laws and very foundation) into a semblance of slavery, is a major mistake. Call it a religion, call it a movement, call it a cult - whatever, it must be stomped out and eliminated from our midst.
The "average" American is so dumbed down at this point that they will believe whatever the MSM tells them, and that is that it is racist and un-American to be against the mooslims.
-
Not really arguing Path because I agree with most of your post, minus that first part of course (jerk! ;D). Still I do take issue with this.
Quoted from Path
"Uh, FQ? No one "brought" the Saxons into Romanized Britain. They kinda wandered in - swords in hand - all on their own. Same as the Pilgrims - sans swords of course."
Actually, the Saxons were brought in as hired swords agianst the Scotts and Picts as the Roman Empire crumbled. Vortigern, the British ruler, brougt in the Saxons Hengst and Hora in in the 5th century. Oddly, they liked the country, but didn't care for the government much. ;D :-\
Fq13
-
P.S. England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were the "sloppy seconds" of the Vikings...Well ,........rape and pillage had to have some standards....
::)
The Roman Empire STOPPED the Northern advance into Britannia when bearded axe-wielding psycho Vikings kicked their ass in the North Sea...
I'll go back to by Swedish Herring and crackers to the Corner now,... ::)
-
P.S. England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were the "sloppy seconds" of the Vikings...Well ,........rape and pillage had to have some standards....
::)
The Roman Empire STOPPED the Northern advance into Britannia when bearded axe-wielding psycho Vikings kicked their ass in the North Sea...
I'll go back to by Swedish Herring and crackers to the Corner now,... ::)
I was going to reposte FQ, but this is a real WTF moment here TW.
The Vikings hit English shores in the 700s -about 300 years after the last Roman stomped out the torch on his way out.
The people the Romans hit in the north were tribal Scoti and Picti, the much feared blue-painted Picts. The Scots of history - and today - are Dalriadic Scots who came over from Ireland in the 500s IIRC - again, after the Romans left town. The Picts never kicked the Romans out - the Romans simply figured that there was little of value in the north and built the Hadrian Wall, and later the more northern Antonine wall, to regulate - and tax - any commerce moving through.
And, BTW, it did take a few 100 years for the Romans to leave. One can hardly say they were kicked out since it was their own shrinking empire and military demands elsewhere that caused them to pull the troops out of Britannia.
-
I was going to reposte FQ, but this is a real WTF moment here TW.
The Vikings hit English shores in the 700s -about 300 years after the last Roman stomped out the torch on his way out.
The people the Romans hit in the north were tribal Scoti and Picti, the much feared blue-painted Picts. The Scots of history - and today - are Dalriadic Scots who came over from Ireland in the 500s IIRC - again, after the Romans left town. The Picts never kicked the Romans out - the Romans simply figured that there was little of value in the north and built the Hadrian Wall, and later the more northern Antonine wall, to regulate - and tax - any commerce moving through.
And, BTW, it did take a few 100 years for the Romans to leave. One can hardly say they were kicked out since it was their own shrinking empire and military demands elsewhere that caused them to pull the troops out of Britannia.
Nice post Path. Indeed it was the Vikings, still a PITA in 1066, who arguably let the Normans conquer England. The Saxon King Harold was on his way back from fighting them, with a weary army in tow, when he had to face the fresh Norman forces with their cavalry.
Fq13
-
The Roman Empire in Britannia just sort of fizzled and died out from lack of interest, the serious problems to the East and North of Rome left nothing for Britian . That version of King Arthur that depicts him as a discharged Roman Officer seems closest to the truth.
-
The Vikings were too busy conquering territory, they just kind of exploited it and did the pillage thing.Empires were left to others with the time and patience,... The Picts, were originally outcasts in their own country and finally rose up in revolt against a tyrannical King....and the Romans were too far beyond their empire to maintain control. Sheep and lousy weather contributed....
Gee, the irony is getting deep by today's standards.
-
Most all of the worlds problems with Islam, (radical or otherwise), could be cured with massive amounts of swift and blinding violence. That we can produce with zero problems. What we can't seem to produce are the leaders who will use it. Or the ability to get them elected into power. I don't know about you, but I would be all in favor of seeing a little "Jihad" in defense of OUR Constitution and way of life. Let others be a "little more tolerant" of us for a change.
And by the way, where is the "World Bank" getting the $900,000,000.00, (900 MILLION) to give to Pakistan for their flood relief? "World Bank" = United States money with other countries names on the check. A bit like reverse money laundering. It appears we're becoming too stupid to take the credit for our own contributions for world aid to Islamic stink holes who want to kill us. Bill T.
-
They hate us, there is not a single thing we can argue with them about, their religion forbids them to tolerate any one else.
The only practical solution is to beat them down to a manageable level, or exterminate them completely.
Any thing else is only a temporary fix.
Come to think of it, to them, this is just another round in that Barbary coast thing.
Jefferson showed the way.
There is another way, but it would likely take an end of any tolerance and most likely a show of force also, although a show of force may hinder this effort.
The third choice for a permanent fix is for the reportedly vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists and do not support or believe in that part of their religion to purge it completely from it's teachings.
I know this would be a difficult solution to obtain because those teachings have been ingrained from near birth.
I also know it will not complete eliminate the radical followers, just like the Klan and NAZI still have followers, but they are "controlled" by the rest of society.
The only way this can happen is from within and it will take a few generations to become "inbred", but it needs to start soon if the Muslims are to salvage the good of their religion and culture.
-
The third choice for a permanent fix is for the reportedly vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists and do not support or believe in that part of their religion to purge it completely from it's teachings.
That will never happen because behind closed doors most all of them support hatred for Christians. Remember all those little muslim kids singing and dancing after 9/11? Who entrenched their minds with all of that crap? Who teaches their kids to throw rocks at tanks, and blow themselves up by age 14?
There are far more of these "radical" members of this totally screwed up "religion" than you think. I trust none of them simply because you have to be either an idiot, or else support these vermin. What decent person would want a damn thing to do with a "religion" that is responsible for so much death and violence world wide? Finding a "good" muslim is like trying to find a productive crack addict. If we awoke tomorrow and there wasn't a muslim anywhere on this planet, how would we suffer? Bill T.
-
The Vikings were too busy conquering territory, waiting for Favre to make a decision.
FIFY ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The third choice for a permanent fix is for the reportedly vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists and do not support or believe in that part of their religion to purge it completely from it's teachings...
The only way this can happen is from within and it will take a few generations to become "inbred", but it needs to start soon if the Muslims are to salvage the good of their religion and culture.
And that is the biggest difference between what happened in the Christian faith versus what has not happened with Mohammadinism. We had the Reformation. We changed to accommodate society and society changed to accommodate reformed Christianity. The majority of these iisloom idjits remain in the middle-ages--it is their true belief that the infidels must be converted by the sword. We have not yet begun to see the trouble this belief will cause.
-
Lets see a Ohio class sub surfaces and sheethead countries turn to glass. You got my vote tom.
they don't even have to surface... :P