We're not at war with Islam?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

What is multiculturalism?

1. All ethnic groups socially keep themselves to themselves, while participating in many of the economic activities of the country ?

2. Some individuals try to indoctrinate others into their own ethnic affiliation?

3. All ethnic groups observe the law of the land , and feel loyalty towards the larger collective which contains the diverse ethnicities ?

4. All ethnic groups encourage and permit free associations and free speech within the law with other ethnic groups ?

5. Multiculturalism while it will obviously include the ability and freedom to enjoy others' festivals such as Christmas and Mela includes also the encouragement and freedom to compare opinions and attitudes to religion and religious customs ; and to freely and without prejudice adopt such ethnic customs (within the law) as observing Ramadan or Lent if so desired ?

6. What is it about Britain and America that allows diverse ethnicities to live together without harming each other but on the contrary enriching each other?



Which version of 'multiculturalism' benefits all the individuals in a society?
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Londoner »

bobevenson wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 12:57 pm The whole damn family has been arrested!!!
And have all since been released uncharged.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by bobevenson »

But you can't escape the fact that the world is, indeed, at war with Islam and Sharia law.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Belinda, I think your question is a good one because Multiculturalism is one of those words which in the absence of a clear definition can be used variously by different people. The term also conceals a great deal of complexity and this becomes apparent when one attempts to define it and see what it is made up of. The way that you define it seems to me to be, in part (some of your items) a kind of a postwar usage. I would imagine that a philosophy or doctrine of multiculturalism became necessary in the aftermath of the Second War as Europe was being pieced back together.

I start --- as you well know! --- from a different basic position and my core position is that of Eurocentrism. My first definition, my base-predicate, is that Europe needs to reestablish a clear sense of self-identity. That is a somewhat radical statement in and of itself because, obviously, to state such a thing implies that something-or-other operates against that identity. Therefor, to define identity is just as much a project of defining what stands against or operates against it. And that gets suddenly complex as all likely see.

I would have to admit a number of things about my primary definition or my *desired definition*: it is not complete but is tentative, exploratory. You cannot base much on an incomplete ideal. So, the Eurocentristic 'identity project' that attracts me requires better and fuller definitions. Because that is so, because it is incomplete and tentative, it would have trouble in specifying if Islam is an 'enemy' and if it is necessary to 'battle' it (to employ the term used here: 'war'). But right there is some part of the problem. I'll explain. If 'European Identity' were established, strong and understood by all, it seems quite possible to me that the interpenetration of Muslim people, the invitation to them basically, would not ever have opened up. The doors would have remained closed and policies would have been established to make immigration difficult, and too that policies would have been encouraged to promote repatriation.

So the question becomes: What is it that produced and led to 'open doors' within some European nations? One would have to seek out and interrogate the people and the groups who defined certain versions of 'multiculturalism' which promoted the circumstances now common in many European cities: Muslim enclaves, economies-within-economies, separate and distinct cultural zones which have little or limited cultural affiliation with the national culture, and last but not least a cultural and also a religious base from which to proselytize Islam, et cetera. Who stood behind this? And what precisely was their motive, their philosophy, their 'anthropology' if you will?

And if now there is activism against these forms of 'multiculturalism', who are those who oppose it, and what is the philosophy and rationale and also the 'anthropology' that defines their opposition?

My position, even though my core defintions are somewhat indistinct and remain to be better defined, is that 1) European self-identity needs to be tremendously increased. This is a radical act which turns against many 'received ideas' and a general ease in the face of cultural conflict, and 2) Islam needs to be defined in a clear sense as an 'enemy'. That means of course a concerted effort to expose it, to define why it is 'bad' or dangerous to Europe and within Europe, and to present these perspectives to other people in such a way that they can make them their own. As you likely see this is a problematic project because it involves making hard definitions, becoming decisive. The 'Islamic invasion' therefor must be turned back, resisted, stopped, and the numbers of Muslims must be reduced as a conscious and rational choice. It is a hard definition to make, and yet it is one that is not unintelligible and certainly not irrational.

Obviously (!) I am aware that making a statement such as this in the climate of today tends to inspire a great condemnation (of the idea, what stands behind the idea, and the action it requires) and I accept this. I accept it because I think it can be morally and ethically defended. And I am fairly sure I can confront and also defeat other moral and ethical arguments that oppose it.

The essence is, of course, precisely in the moral and ethical core.

PS: A 'European Identiy project', according to my own tentative definitions, must involve a profound reencounter with exactly what it is in and about Europe that made Europe Europe. Sorry for that strange way of putting it. In my view, the encounter-with-self that must be at the core of European identity is bound up with metaphysics and also with religious view. To define a cultural renewal that opens the door to 'metaphysical regeneration' is in no sense an impossibility because I suggest an intellectual renewal and intellectual effort as the core method of discovery. I oppose this 'intellectuality' to emotionalism, religious fanaticism, passing appetite, 'evangelical sentiment' and a great deal that is based in feminized relationship to idea and to ideals. (My antifeminism is thus intense and problematic!)

I absolutely see the need for spiritual regeneration and a strengthening of specific Christian forms. To be even more precise I see Christian regeneration as a necessity and I mean this in the metaphysical sense. I know that none of this is at all popular, and I also know that such definitions and propositions are fought against tooth and claw, but it would be dishonest if I did not reveal this aspect. Therefor, what I propose is a fundamental redefinition of a European Catechism. And you will also have noted that everything I write tends toward such a 'catechism'.

PPS: The concept of 'intellect' is core to my understanding and must be fully defined. The following is simply cut and pasted from a Wiki page on 'intellect' to provide a pointer to what I mean:
  • "Intellect and nous in philosophy. In philosophy, especially in classical and medieval philosophy the intellect or nous is an important subject connected to the question of how humans can know things. Especially during late antiquity and the middle ages, the intellect was often proposed as a concept which could reconcile philosophical and scientific understandings of nature with monotheistic religious understandings, by making the intellect a link between each human soul, and the divine intellect (or intellects) of the cosmos itself. (During the Latin Middle Ages a distinction developed whereby the term "intelligence" was typically used to refer to the incorporeal beings which governed the celestial spheres in many of these accounts.) Also see: passive intellect and active intellect".
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Belinda, I think your question is a good one because Multiculturalism is one of those words which in the absence of a clear definition can be used variously by different people. The term also conceals a great deal of complexity and this becomes apparent when one attempts to define it and see what it is made up of. The way that you define it seems to me to be, in part (some of your items) a kind of a postwar usage. I would imagine that a philosophy or doctrine of multiculturalism became necessary in the aftermath of the Second War as Europe was being pieced back together.
Children usually are aware of emotional attitudes of grown ups. Pre war , 1930s Scotland, my parents expressed horrified disdain for Mosley's fascists. I remember the incident. My parents despised no other group in society, including Jews, Roman Catholics, Lascars, tinkers, black skinned people, brown skinned people, the poor generally, Irish, mentally ill, or women. This is anecdotal and I have no other records to hand. However for what it's worth my parents and their friends would not been prejudiced against any groups except fascist groups, although they did not like individual blowhards or snobs. I retain my childhood attitudes, of course, and my attitude to ethnic minorities is the same as it was in the 1930s. My father fought in Macedonia during WW1 and he admired the work of the Red Crescent which is the Muslim version of the Red Cross.
I start --- as you well know! --- from a different basic position and my core position is that of Eurocentrism. My first definition, my base-predicate, is that Europe needs to reestablish a clear sense of self-identity. That is a somewhat radical statement in and of itself because, obviously, to state such a thing implies that something-or-other operates against that identity. Therefor, to define identity is just as much a project of defining what stands against or operates against it. And that gets suddenly complex as all likely see.
Again, for what it's worth, I feel European, and my family members feel European. My friends feel European. I do not buy the Daily Mail.I voted to Remain in Europe. We are all educated people who have travelled in and made friends in Europe, traded within Europe. What more could you want from Eurocentrism?
I would have to admit a number of things about my primary definition or my *desired definition*: it is not complete but is tentative, exploratory. You cannot base much on an incomplete ideal. So, the Eurocentristic 'identity project' that attracts me requires better and fuller definitions. Because that is so, because it is incomplete and tentative, it would have trouble in specifying if Islam is an 'enemy' and if it is necessary to 'battle' it (to employ the term used here: 'war'). But right there is some part of the problem. I'll explain. If 'European Identity' were established, strong and understood by all, it seems quite possible to me that the interpenetration of Muslim people, the invitation to them basically, would not ever have opened up. The doors would have remained closed and policies would have been established to make immigration difficult, and too that policies would have been encouraged to promote repatriation.
How to integrate immigrants from exotic cultures. As always the incentive comes from within the immigrant culture which adapts and evolves alongside the host culture which also adapts and evolves. I see your vision as unworkably top-down.
So the question becomes: What is it that produced and led to 'open doors' within some European nations? One would have to seek out and interrogate the people and the groups who defined certain versions of 'multiculturalism' which promoted the circumstances now common in many European cities: Muslim enclaves, economies-within-economies, separate and distinct cultural zones which have little or limited cultural affiliation with the national culture, and last but not least a cultural and also a religious base from which to proselytize Islam, et cetera. Who stood behind this? And what precisely was their motive, their philosophy, their 'anthropology' if you will?
Shall we inform ourselves by googling this question among respectable , impartial, sources such as those with 'ed' or 'ac' in their addresses? Or shall we look at the archives of The Daily Mail and The Telegraph?

You seem to use the word anthropology where I would use 'ethnicity'. 'Anthropology' sounds more weighty and intellectual. Likewise for your usage of 'metaphysics'. You seem to use 'metaphysics' where I would use 'worldview'. Perhaps you are more au fait with academic language than I am, but I'd say that your use of English is occasionally eccentric.
And if now there is activism against these forms of 'multiculturalism', who are those who oppose it, and what is the philosophy and rationale and also the 'anthropology' that defines their opposition?
I don't know of anyone who proselytises Islam , most people would be hard nuts to crack. Most people don't like backward religions or indeed any religions at all. Maybe the proselytisers are keeping a low profile. In fact, the social world is split in two and increasingly so not by religious difference ,or as Gustav might say "metaphysics" , but by the difference between rich and poor.
My position, even though my core defintions are somewhat indistinct and remain to be better defined, is that 1) European self-identity needs to be tremendously increased. This is a radical act which turns against many 'received ideas' and a general ease in the face of cultural conflict, and 2) Islam needs to be defined in a clear sense as an 'enemy'. That means of course a concerted effort to expose it, to define why it is 'bad' or dangerous to Europe and within Europe, and to present these perspectives to other people in such a way that they can make them their own. As you likely see this is a problematic project because it involves making hard definitions, becoming decisive. The 'Islamic invasion' therefor must be turned back, resisted, stopped, and the numbers of Muslims must be reduced as a conscious and rational choice. It is a hard definition to make, and yet it is one that is not unintelligible and certainly not irrational.
I try to integrate with Muslims by being pleasant when I meet Muslims. What would you have?

'Enemy' is an emotive word for indigenous people and immigrants alike. This is not a war, it's large movement of people and ideas in a fast changing world of international travel, improved education for all, and electronic media.
Obviously (!) I am aware that making a statement such as this in the climate of today tends to inspire a great condemnation (of the idea, what stands behind the idea, and the action it requires) and I accept this. I accept it because I think it can be morally and ethically defended. And I am fairly sure I can confront and also defeat other moral and ethical arguments that oppose it.

The essence is, of course, precisely in the moral and ethical core.

Your ideas about Muslims and Islam are not entirely wrong but your fact -finding is unbalanced.

PS: A 'European Identiy project', according to my own tentative definitions, must involve a profound reencounter with exactly what it is in and about Europe that made Europe Europe. Sorry for that strange way of putting it. In my view, the encounter-with-self that must be at the core of European identity is bound up with metaphysics and also with religious view. To define a cultural renewal that opens the door to 'metaphysical regeneration' is in no sense an impossibility because I suggest an intellectual renewal and intellectual effort as the core method of discovery. I oppose this 'intellectuality' to emotionalism, religious fanaticism, passing appetite, 'evangelical sentiment' and a great deal that is based in feminized relationship to idea and to ideals. (My antifeminism is thus intense and problematic!)


I agree that man's story about himself has profound effects on individuals' identity. However unlike you I support the what you call "feminized" which I would call rational and sympathetic. I don't think that political reaction is masculine it's rather less than masculine present company excepted.
I absolutely see the need for spiritual regeneration and a strengthening of specific Christian forms. To be even more precise I see Christian regeneration as a necessity and I mean this in the metaphysical sense. I know that none of this is at all popular, and I also know that such definitions and propositions are fought against tooth and claw, but it would be dishonest if I did not reveal this aspect. Therefor, what I propose is a fundamental redefinition of a European Catechism. And you will also have noted that everything I write tends toward such a 'catechism'.
I too see the need for spiritual regeneration. I wonder at you that you talk about "specific Christian forms" as if those were homogenous. Even if you had read much among the posts on these discussions you would know that Christians are a heterogeneous lot.

I gather that there is a European catechism sort of. Any immigrant knows full well that there are laws and customs wherever they go. European morality is historically Christian with some Greek and Judiac in the mix. It's a matter of history that Europe and its cultural descendents have been the conqueror and imperial force for a considerable time , and so the " European catechism" is well established . It's also dynamic . If it were not dynamic there would be no possibility of learning from experience. Political reaction is Conservative, against change not simply because of some attachment to the good old days when knights of the Cross went out to fight the Saracens, but because of the ruling elite's attachment to its money.you are a Romantic, aren't you! You must be a Romantic unless you are yourself one of the rich elite who naturally wants to hang on to their money and power.
PPS: The concept of 'intellect' is core to my understanding and must be fully defined. The following is simply cut and pasted from a Wiki page on 'intellect' to provide a pointer to what I mean:
  • "Intellect and nous in philosophy. In philosophy, especially in classical and medieval philosophy the intellect or nous is an important subject connected to the question of how humans can know things. Especially during late antiquity and the middle ages, the intellect was often proposed as a concept which could reconcile philosophical and scientific understandings of nature with monotheistic religious understandings, by making the intellect a link between each human soul, and the divine intellect (or intellects) of the cosmos itself. (During the Latin Middle Ages a distinction developed whereby the term "intelligence" was typically used to refer to the incorporeal beings which governed the celestial spheres in many of these accounts.) Also see: passive intellect and active intellect".
But intellect is ability to adapt and change. The age of faith the old certainty is passed away. Genies, bottles.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Belinda wrote:Children usually are aware of emotional attitudes of grown ups. Pre war , 1930s Scotland, my parents expressed horrified disdain for Mosley's fascists. I remember the incident. My parents despised no other group in society, including Jews, Roman Catholics, Lascars, tinkers, black skinned people, brown skinned people, the poor generally, Irish, mentally ill, or women. This is anecdotal and I have no other records to hand. However for what it's worth my parents and their friends would not been prejudiced against any groups except fascist groups, although they did not like individual blowhards or snobs. I retain my childhood attitudes, of course, and my attitude to ethnic minorities is the same as it was in the 1930s. My father fought in Macedonia during WW1 and he admired the work of the Red Crescent which is the Muslim version of the Red Cross.
I guess I might say that here you can discover the beginnings of the dissolution of a 'proper' sense of identity. What I mean is that though I understand and respect your feelings toward your parents, and assume good faith on their part, perhaps it is possible that their open attitude, with little decisiveness, with little sense of understanding of 'something to be preserved and defended', maybe that is part of the present problem?

Were your parents affiliated with the Communist Party or pro-Russia? (many were at that time).

I would imagine that were that true it would be a difficult realisation to face and process. Instead, you present their position as one to be emulated. But it is exactly that attitude, if you look into it, that has in some situations at least opened the door to some of the problems of the present.

What is the alternative? I am not sure. But I will say this: Now, today, there are people in various countries who are confronting the outcomes of certain liberal policies and ideas (ideals too) and have revisualized the entire situation. I am one of them though I am a mere theorist. Therefor I would say that *we* do not desire to reconstruct positions of intolerance randomly and arbitrarily, but rather to seek to discover and articulate a position in relation to the present. I do not think that you could successfully deny that incipient nationalism and 'identity' postures are occurring: they are. You likely do not regard them as valid, and yet I do and others do too. There are large and looming issues. Whether you like it or understand it or not they are being reacted to and it is not just because of difficult economic situations.

I agree that ethical people need to strengthen their ethics and act ethically. That in my view is part of the regeneration-process. But self-understanding can also involve defence and establishing limits.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
What is the alternative? I am not sure. But I will say this: Now, today, there are people in various countries who are confronting the outcomes of certain liberal policies and ideas (ideals too) and have revisualized the entire situation. I am one of them though I am a mere theorist. Therefor I would say that *we* do not desire to reconstruct positions of intolerance randomly and arbitrarily, but rather to seek to discover and articulate a position in relation to the present. I do not think that you could successfully deny that incipient nationalism and 'identity' postures are occurring: they are. You likely do not regard them as valid, and yet I do and others do too. There are large and looming issues. Whether you like it or understand it or not they are being reacted to and it is not just because of difficult economic situations.
I wonder how you got to be mistrustful of non-Europeans and liberals and yet are enthralled by political reaction against social change. Don't you see that the disadvantage of insisting upon stopping social change is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Unless you are yourself one of the wealthy exploiters you are fooling yourself if you think that the far Right are on the side of the Christian- European hoi polloi.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Arising_uk »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:So the question becomes: What is it that produced and led to 'open doors' within some European nations? One would have to seek out and interrogate the people and the groups who defined certain versions of 'multiculturalism' which promoted the circumstances now common in many European cities: Muslim enclaves, economies-within-economies, separate and distinct cultural zones which have little or limited cultural affiliation with the national culture, and last but not least a cultural and also a religious base from which to proselytize Islam, et cetera. Who stood behind this? And what precisely was their motive, their philosophy, their 'anthropology' if you will?
There are bugger all Muslims in the UK. Germany has the Turks and they were brought in by the Germans to do the hard grotty work when rebuilding their country. Not sure where else you mean?
PS: A 'European Identiy project', according to my own tentative definitions, must involve a profound reencounter with exactly what it is in and about Europe that made Europe Europe. ...
Nothing made Europe Europe as there was no Europe until the EU and that was made due to the French and Germans wanting no more war with each other. Oh! You could have the Habsburgs and the Austro-Hungarian Empire I guess and what made them was Kings and Queens but no-one considered themselves European in any real sense.
Boca
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:07 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Boca »

I don't think Westerners have chosen to fight muslims, that's manipulation of western, and especially the american foreign policy by the strong jewish lobby, who is using NATO for their own vision for Israel in the Middle East. But interestingly, there is a backlash. Islam has become the fastest growing religion in Western countries, despite all this media demonization. and in Middle East, Islamic world has been activated to the point of No-Return, The Caliphate is a Trending idea among the Muslims these days. Even a new Islamic Union of 57 Muslim Countries to Fight ISIS is coming out with Trump. No doubt, it can also be used to liberate Palestine in the the future from Jewish Rule.
in Summary, Westerners in general have no ill feelings towards Muslims, many are actually sympathetic towards us, and We too harbor no ill feelings to Europeans/ Americans. I think The Westerners are the Closest to Muslims than any other people. There's even the Chapter or "Rum" in Qur'an which talks positively about Romans.
I believe, this mutual love and respect comes from the fact that Arabs and Europeans are Brothers by origin, both are children of from Prophet Abraham(pbuh). Arabs are descendants of Ismael while Europeans appear to be the descendants of Isaac. There's also Islamic prophecy that in end times, there will be Alliance between Islamic World and Europeans against a Common enemy, which might be Russia.
Also, after Prophet Jesus (pbuh) comes back to Earth, His Original Religion will be restored, and The Two, Islam and True Messianic religion, together will fight the Evil forces.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

Boca, I welcome you especially as that regrettably rare event, a Muslim participator in these forums.

I don't feel hostile to Muslims . My dog's excellent vet is a Muslim, my good neighbours are Muslims, Many helpful pharmacists and shopkeepers are Muslims. Indeed I know of at least two Muslim shopkeepers who have gone out of their way at personal inconvenience to help an old or disabled person. On the other hand I am afraid of hurting Muslims' feelings as Muslims seem to be so ready to take offence at perceived insults to the Holy Prophet, and also many Muslims hate dogs. I also disapprove of Halal slaughter. Also many more Muslims than atheists are islamists.

The history of Abrahamic religiosity I doubt is very relevant. What is relevant is that some people dislike Muslims because Muslims are often ostentatious about identifying as Muslims. Maybe these symbols of Muslim identity are limited to the poorer, more rural sort of Muslims.
Even so, when I see somebody in Muslim dress I immediately form a positive opinion about their honesty and kindness. One outstanding example of mercy and kindness among Muslims is Bangladesh where already poor people have shared all they could with the Rohingya refugees including taking them into their homes. I understand that Muhammad urged mercy, pity, and generosity, and the Bangladesh people near the border with Myanmar have illustrated mercy, pity, and generosity.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

Boca, I welcome you especially as that regrettably rare event, a Muslim participator in these forums.

I don't feel hostile to Muslims . My dog's excellent vet is a Muslim, my good neighbours are Muslims, Many helpful pharmacists and shopkeepers are Muslims. Indeed I know of at least two Muslim shopkeepers who have gone out of their way at personal inconvenience to help an old or disabled person. On the other hand I am afraid of hurting Muslims' feelings as Muslims seem to be so ready to take offence at perceived insults to the Holy Prophet, and also many Muslims hate dogs. I also disapprove of Halal slaughter. Also many more Muslims than atheists are islamists.

The history of Abrahamic religiosity I doubt is very relevant. What is relevant is that some people dislike Muslims because Muslims are often ostentatious about identifying as Muslims. Maybe these symbols of Muslim identity are limited to the poorer, more rural sort of Muslims.
Even so, when I see somebody in Muslim dress I immediately form a positive opinion about their honesty and kindness. One outstanding example of mercy and kindness among Muslims is Bangladesh where already poor people have shared all they could with the Rohingya refugees including taking them into their homes. I understand that Muhammad urged mercy, pity, and generosity, and the Bangladesh people near the border with Myanmar have illustrated mercy, pity, and generosity.

The Jewish Zionist lobby in the USA is a pest.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Boca wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:28 am I don't think Westerners have chosen to fight muslims, that's manipulation of western, and especially the american foreign policy by the strong jewish lobby, who is using NATO for their own vision for Israel in the Middle East. But interestingly, there is a backlash. Islam has become the fastest growing religion in Western countries, despite all this media demonization. and in Middle East, Islamic world has been activated to the point of No-Return, The Caliphate is a Trending idea among the Muslims these days. Even a new Islamic Union of 57 Muslim Countries to Fight ISIS is coming out with Trump. No doubt, it can also be used to liberate Palestine in the the future from Jewish Rule.
in Summary, Westerners in general have no ill feelings towards Muslims, many are actually sympathetic towards us, and We too harbor no ill feelings to Europeans/ Americans. I think The Westerners are the Closest to Muslims than any other people. There's even the Chapter or "Rum" in Qur'an which talks positively about Romans.
I believe, this mutual love and respect comes from the fact that Arabs and Europeans are Brothers by origin, both are children of from Prophet Abraham(pbuh). Arabs are descendants of Ismael while Europeans appear to be the descendants of Isaac. There's also Islamic prophecy that in end times, there will be Alliance between Islamic World and Europeans against a Common enemy, which might be Russia.
Also, after Prophet Jesus (pbuh) comes back to Earth, His Original Religion will be restored, and The Two, Islam and True Messianic religion, together will fight the Evil forces.
What country are you from, and do you speak for all muslims? You don't harbour any ill feelings for the US for destroying your countries and fucking up the world for everyone else, because you think the 'Jewish lobby' is to blame for everything?
Boca
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:07 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Boca »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:29 pm
Boca wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:28 am What country are you from, and do you speak for all muslims? You don't harbour any ill feelings for the US for destroying your countries and fucking up the world for everyone else, because you think the 'Jewish lobby' is to blame for everything?
I'm from one of the muslim countries, I don't want to name which. it would be wrong to say US is innocent, clearly US caused much destruction in Arab Islamic world, Iraq, Afganistan are the best examples. However, American people overall aren't hostile to Muslims, While Russians and Jews are outright Enemies of Islam on a State Level.
There're many Americans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans converting to Islam. USA also helps Political Islamic movements in Middle East. for example, US is supporting the Islamic Republic of Afganistan, US helped the Mujahideed fighters in the war against Soviet Union. US also supported Arab spring, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Syria.

No doubt, We are still different civilizations, We Muslims have different lifestyle and different beliefs than yours, however, it's possible to build friendly relations between two civilizations. USA can and should co exist with united Arab Islamic Caliphate. I believe the Rise of Russia will strengthen the cooperation between Islam and the West. Both civilizations will benefit from this Alliance.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

bobevenson wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 1:57 pm Unfortunately, there was no prior indication of terrorist intentions. ]


That's total shite. The West has been at way with Islam since it was invented. 9/11 was predictable and justifiable.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Boca wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:28 pm
I'm from one of the muslim countries, I don't want to name which. it would be wrong to say US is innocent, clearly US caused much destruction in Arab Islamic world, Iraq, Afganistan are the best examples. However, American people overall aren't hostile to Muslims, While Russians and Jews are outright Enemies of Islam on a State Level.
There're many Americans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans converting to Islam. USA also helps Political Islamic movements in Middle East. for example, US is supporting the Islamic Republic of Afganistan, US helped the Mujahideed fighters in the war against Soviet Union. US also supported Arab spring, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Syria.

No doubt, We are still different civilizations, We Muslims have different lifestyle and different beliefs than yours, however, it's possible to build friendly relations between two civilizations. USA can and should co exist with united Arab Islamic Caliphate. I believe the Rise of Russia will strengthen the cooperation between Islam and the West. Both civilizations will benefit from this Alliance.
I think you live in a dream world. You can't get much more hostile than blowing up a country. Of course, the US is careful to leave Saudi Arabia in tact. You might not even be from the ME.
Post Reply