Crime 150+ dead after Terrorist attacks in Paris

[Tomenable]

Amazing, isn't it, that for months all we had were a few half-hearted raids, and now all of a sudden we miraculously have all of these "targets" such as training camps, fuel transport, and on and on.

AFAIK, already months ago ISIS publicly informed Europeans, that they were going to smuggle ISIS terrorists disguised as refugees into Europe, and also to recruit local Muslims as suicide fighters. So it is not so amazing. More amazing is why the EU was cheerfully embracing the process of cultural enrichment without seriously treating those warnings, or even just paying attention to them.

Maybe they thought, that ISIS guys were just bluffing. Well, they were not.

 

[LABERIA]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

[Angela]

This blogger has done a map of the percentage of Muslims by country who believe in the death penalty for apostasy.

I don't agree with everything he says, and most certainly not the tying of support for radical Islam with lowered IQ because of extensive cousin marriage. That sounds like outright racism to me. There was a lot of cousin marriage in Europe too up until the 20th century.

Still, it's sobering.

Tunisia is indeed one of the few bright spots. The figures for Turkey, after decades of secularization, are particularly worrying.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/map-death-for-apostasy/

 

[Rethel]

This blogger has done a map of the percentage of Muslims by country who believe in the death penalty for apostasy.

It is not matter of personal belive.
If you are a muslim, you must belive in what Islam teaches.
Otherwise, you are an apostate.

That sounds like outright racism to me.

And what is racism in that?
That author do not like muslims (who are not a race) or that muslims are trying
to make some race (like Darwin and his followers) by marrying own cousins?

There was a lot of cousin marriage in Europe too up until the 20th century.

1. It was not between 3 and 4 degree (at least very very rare).
2. It wasnt a religious rule, becasue religion banned every marriage until 8 degree
3. more over, it was a need of suspence of bishop or pope to make such legal marriage until 8 relation degree.
4. Mohammedians are marring cousins, not becasue they want to, but because Mohammed did. And this is the reason.

 

[LeBrok]

Another contradiction by Rethel's "logic":

]It is not [/B]matter of personal belive.

If you are a muslim, you must belive in what Islam teaches.
Otherwise, you are an apostate.

Either it is a belief or it is not. It can't be both.
Unless you meant "belief" as personal judgment, personal choice, but confused it with word "belief"?

 

[Rethel]

Quote was: Muslims by country who believe in the death penalty for apostasy.

I meant, that if you are a muslim, you cannot decide about this matter on your own.
You cannot say: I am a faithfull muslim, but I do not belive in death penalty for apostates.
If you say so, you are an unbeliver - maybe not so huge degree but still... you must obey
and imitate Muhammed. And he certainly belived in death penalty for apostasy, and even
was executing this belive - whatever your definition of this word is. Islam is a package so
you are taking all, or nothing.

Personal belive - what I think, like or want about something.
Muslim belive - what muslims should belive as Islam teaches.

Did you now uderstand what I meant?

 

[Angela]

It is not matter of personal belive.
If you are a muslim, you must belive in what Islam teaches.
Otherwise, you are an apostate.





And what is racism in that?
That author do not like muslims (who are not a race) or that muslims are trying
to make some race (like Darwin and his followers) by marrying own cousins?



1. It was not between 3 and 4 degree (at least very very rare).
2. It wasnt a religious rule, becasue religion banned every marriage until 8 degree
3. more over, it was a need of suspence of bishop or pope to make such legal marriage until 8 relation degree.
4. Mohammedians are marring cousins, not becasue they want to, but because Mohammed did. And this is the reason.

You are misinformed again.

First cousin marriages in Europe:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/people-stop-thinking-appropriate-cousins-marry/

The best analysis of consanguineous marriages in Europe that I've ever seen was the one done by Cavalli-Sforza, which focused on Italy but also discussed the phenomenon in broader pan European terms.

See:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v96/n4/full/6800801a.html

As to the role of Christian doctrine, the following summarizes the rules of the Catholic Church:
"Lateran Council in 1215 with the decision that the restrictions on consanguineous marriage applied to third-cousin relationships or closer (F ≥ 0.0039).⁷ This level of regulation was confirmed by the post-Reformation Council of Trent (1545–63) and remained in force until 1917 when the requirement for consanguinity dispensation was reduced to couples related as second cousins or closer (F ≥ 0.0156) and in 1983 to first cousins or closer."

These marriages could not be performed by the church unless the couple applied for and received a dispensation. However, records show that requests were often made and almost always granted. Royalty even received dispensations for uncle/niece marriages. Keeping the money and power intact was a powerful inducement for the upper and middle classes. In rural villages, particularly when serfdom was still in force, there was no choice.

These kinds of rules did not apply in Protestant Europe after the Reformation:

"As part of his criticism on the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther had condemned the requirement for consanguinity dispensation payments, since according to Divine Rule as revealed in Leviticus 18:7–18, there should be no impediment to marriage between first cousins. Accordingly, first-cousin marriages were accepted by the various Protestant denominations founded in much of northern Europe. "

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/1453.full

Cousin marriages began to be disfavored in Europe only in the mid-to-late 19th century. Mr. Natural Selection himself, Charles Darwin, was married to this first cousin.

As to the first part of your comment, there is no major religion which has only one branch. Catholics don't believe the same things as Protestants, even, as can be seen, with regard to consanguineous marriages. Mainline Presbyterians and Episcopalians have different tenets with regard to matters both theological and verging on the social, such as doctrine regarding homosexuality than do evangelical denominations such as the Baptists, much less groups like Church of the Nazarene and the Church of Christ.

You may not be aware of it, but there are reform movements within Islam, just as a Reform Judaism developed, and before that the Conservative Movement in Judaism, both of which are different from Orthodox Judaism. The problem is that Wahabism seems to be gaining ground.

Ed. I am not a world authority on Islam, but you know absolutely nothing about it. The Old Testament says that women taken in adultery should be stoned to death. Even the most ultra-Orthodox Jews don't do or advocate that. Religions. evolve and so therefore do interpretations of scripture. There are indeed Muslim Imans who preach that this particular stricture should not be interpreted literally. It's just that they seem to be losing ground. I would suggest you do some reading.

 

[Rethel]

You are misinformed again.

With what?
Read again please, and show me.

As to the first part of your comment, there is no major religion which has only one branch.

It doesn't matter. I was not talking abut sects, but about Islam. Islam = Mohammed.

Catholics don't believe the same things as Protestants, even, as can be seen, with regard to consanguineous marriages. Mainline Presbyterians and Episcopalians have different tenets with regard to matters both theological and verging on the social, such as doctrine regarding homosexuality than do evangelical denominations such as the Baptists, much less groups like Church of the Nazarene and the Church of Christ.

That only means, that some of them, or maybe all, are wrong.
One is certain - they all cannot be right simultaniosly. If some
church is teaching that homosexuality is ok, it is not christian
church who is teaching according to the scripture. He could
be call nominally "christian", but if you look into scriptures,
you'll see what is the right doctrine.

You may not be aware of it, but there are reform movements within Islam, just as a Reform Judaism developed, and before that the Conservative Movement in Judaism, both of which are different from Orthodox Judaism.

And what that means? That they changing Islam? No.
They are creating some silly imitation of this religion,
which became a new schisma or sect - uncoranic.

If you have a dollar, and you will try to change him,
becasue maybe you do not like Washington in front
on the blanquet, and you print dollar whith Mahatma
Gandhi - it will be still dollar, but not the original one.
This is a difference between sect and original religion.

The problem is that Wahabism seems to be gaining ground.

And salafism. Most of muslims are agree with that kind of "interpretation" - if you like this word.
And they will grow, becasue they are close to true Islam. Reform moovments will be destroyed
as an apostates, becasue you can't reform something what is perfect, eternal and godly. How
can you reform something like that? HOW? Yu must be someone who is more powerfull than
Ałłah, or someone who knows better than Mohammed. Are you?

Ed. I am not a world authority on Islam, but you know absolutely nothing about it.

Nothing at all. But it is normall, that atheists know evrything better. But after that, they are shocked...

The Old Testament says that women taken in adultery should be stoned to death.

Yes. It said this. You can obey or not. If you are not obeying,
then - according to that source, not me - you are an apostate.

Even the most ultra-Orthodox Jews don't do or advocate that.

I doubt such boldly conclusion.
But they never ever say, that this is wrong.
Their ancestors were stoning according to that verses.

Religions. evolve and so therefore do interpretations of scripture. There are indeed Muslim Imans who preach that this particular stricture should not be interpreted literally. It's just that they seem to be losing ground.

Did I say, that such imams do not exist?

I would suggest you do some reading.

Everything can be reading as a alegory and at the end, the book
become worthless, becasue everyone will read what he like to.

Do you read in such manner books, acts, or penalty codex?

When you break the law, and judge will jugde you, then say to
him, that you was reading in evolving interpretation and you was
not interpreted this stuff literally.. It will be certainly seem, that
judge will be loosing his ground... or you?

 

[Angela]

Rethel;471709]With what?
Read again please, and show me

.

I'm afraid it is you who must read again. Go back to my post and read the documentation which proves that you were totally incorrect about the history of cousin marriage, even first cousin marriage, in Europe. Did you somehow miss it, or you preferred to ignore it? I've personally always found that you garner more respect when you admit you've been wrong about something, but hey, do what you want.

It doesn't matter. I was not talking abut sects, but about Islam. Islam = Mohammed.

That only means, that some of them, or maybe all, are wrong.
One is certain - they all cannot be right simultaniosly. If some
church is teaching that homosexuality is ok, it is not christian
church who is teaching according to the scripture. He could
be call nominally "christian", but if you look into scriptures,
you'll see what is the right doctrine.

You don't get to decide what the one true version of Islam is, or Judaism, or Christianity, for that matter. That is something for the practitioners of those religions to decide, usually through their Synods or Convocations or with their Imans.

The entire tenor of many of your posts is that ALL Muslims are dangerous, and you attempt to prove that by quoting from their scripture. What is clear is that not ALL Muslims interpret the Koran literally, just like most Christians don't interpret the Old Testament literally. So, your argument logically fails.

And salafism. Most of muslims are agree with that kind of "interpretation" - if you like this word.
And they will grow, becasue they are close to true Islam. Reform moovments will be destroyed
as an apostates, becasue you can't reform something what is perfect, eternal and godly. How
can you reform something like that? HOW? Yu must be someone who is more powerfull than
Ałłah, or someone who knows better than Mohammed. Are you?

Now, in addition to being a theological authority, you have a crystal ball? Let's just hope it's cracked, which would be apt.

Nothing at all. But it is normall, that atheists know evrything better. But after that, they are shocked...

Who says I'm an atheist? Do you know what they say about people who assume things not in evidence?

Did I say, that such imams do not exist?

Then we're in agreement, which means that indeed all Muslims don't believe that apostates should be killed.

Everything can be reading as a alegory and at the end, the book
become worthless, becasue everyone will read what he like to.

That is indeed an argument that is made by fundamentalists. However, it's irrelevant to the point that there are millions of people following a variety of religions, including Muslims, who interpret certain parts of their scriptures as allegory. I assure you, for example, that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Creation Stories in the Bible should be read literally.

Let's try to keep the arguments within the realm of logic and not prejudice, shall we?

 

[Rethel]

.I'm afraid it is you who must read again. Go back to my post and read the documentation which proves that you were totally incorrect about the history of cousin marriage, even first cousin marriage, in Europe. Did you somehow miss it, or you preferred to ignore it? I've personally always found that you garner more respect when you admit you've been wrong about something, but hey, do what you want.

So, you do not even know what you were talking
about, if you do not know, what I said wrong

You see - you do not listen, what someone says,
but you based on your imagination what someone
should say according to you, becasue you know
better what someone is thinking.

You even didn't read enaough to mention, that I
was mention about Darwin, becasue you do not
must read what someone else write, becasue you
know before that, what someone was writing - so
you make an argument against me from the thing
which I admitted in my previous statement.

So, as alwawy it is poitless to talk with you.
I leave you with your imaginary world alone.

If you figurate out about what I was talking
about, and you come on earth again, than I
will return to this discussion. I really do not
have time ten times to explain what I wrote
expecially, if some one do not want listen.

Brave New World is wonderfull, but
the landing is very real and is hard

 

[Angela]

So, you do not even know what you were talking
about, if you do not know, what I said wrong

You see - you do not listen, what someone says,
but you based on your imagination what someone
should say according to you, becasue you know
better what someone is thinking.

You even didn't read enaough to mention, that I
was mention about Darwin, becasue you do not
must read what someone else write, becasue you
know before that, what someone was writing - so
you make an argument against me from the thing
which I admitted in my previous statement.

So, as alwawy it is poitless to talk with you.
I leave you with your imaginary world alone.

If you figurate out about what I was talking
about, and you come on earth again, than I
will return to this discussion. I really do not
have time ten times to explain what I wrote
expecially, if some one do not want listen.

Brave New World is wonderfull, but
the landing is very real and is hard

When you're already in a hole, the advice is usually to stop digging.

 

[Rethel]

When you're already in a hole, the advice is usually to stop digging.

As you like to think so, rather reflect - be my guest.

 

[Tomenable]

I understand their frustration:

 

[Angela]

I understand their frustration:

Of course it's a Muslim thing, in so far as ISIS followers, as part of their process of radicalization, have accepted a Wahabist version of Islam, although they, under the direction of their Imans, have their own "spin" on the Koran even in addition to that. I fail to see how anything I've posted contradicts that fact.

What frustrates me is the lack of rationality that surrounds this subject. None of the above means that ALL Muslims hold these beliefs. We know, for example, that not ALL Muslims are Wahabists, much less followers of ISIS.

There are bizarre Christian sects as well, and always have been. In the first centuries after the death of Christ there were Christian sects which promoted both male/female promiscuity and homosexuality, and which preached that union with the Godhead could be achieved through orgasm. At the other extreme, the Shakers, an American sect, didn't believe in sexual congress between man and woman, like the Cathars of the Middle Ages. Unsurprisingly, they're not around any more. The Shakers were few in number, but there were lots and lots of Cathars. It took a Crusade to burn them out. In the American heartland we periodically get weird Christian churches that highlight "snake handling" as well as speaking in tongues. Excommunicated offshoots of the Mormons still practice polygamy, and have been accused of sexual rape and abuse of underage girls.

No one says that all Christians believe this. Well, all Muslims aren't Wahabists either. The problem is that Wahabism is taught in a lot of Muslim schools because of Saudi money, and more and more young people are "converting".

 

[Boreas]

Quote was: Muslims by country who believe in the death penalty for apostasy.

I meant, that if you are a muslim, you cannot decide about this matter on your own.
You cannot say: I am a faithfull muslim, but I do not belive in death penalty for apostates.
If you say so, you are an unbeliver - maybe not so huge degree but still... you must obey
and imitate Muhammed. And he certainly belived in death penalty for apostasy, and even
was executing this belive - whatever your definition of this word is. Islam is a package so
you are taking all, or nothing.

Personal belive - what I think, like or want about something.
Muslim belive - what muslims should belive as Islam teaches.

Did you now uderstand what I meant?

How do you explain, countries whose population mostly Muslim but there is no death penalty in their law system?

 

[Angela]

Challenge to Islam From World's Largest Muslim State:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/indonesia-islam-nahdlatul-ulama.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0


@Boreas, You're not going to get logic from certain people. It's useless to expect it.

 

[Rethel]

How do you explain, countries whose population mostly Muslim but there is no death penalty in their law system?

1. Most muslim states have death penalty.
2. This couple which do not have this kind of penalty, are not governing by islamic law or are under some kind of secular influace.
3. Government of state of some forbidden country doesn't change the teachings of Mohammed.

@Boreas, You're not going to get logic from certain people. It's useless to expect it.

It is really hard to understand someone, if you do not read what someone writes, but you
over and over again imputing everyone, not only me, somthing what you want me to say.
If you are talkin about something else than your intelocutor, then you have problems with
understanding logic - but probably not mine, but your own.

 

[Boreas]

@Boreas, You're not going to get logic from certain people. It's useless to expect it.

Yeap, maybe that's why I feel like talking with a wall when I try to make conversation with him :grin:

1. Most muslim states have death penalty.
2. This couple which do not have this kind of penalty, are not governing by islamic law or are under some kind of secular influace.
3. Government of state of some forbidden country doesn't change the teachings of Mohammed.

It is really easy to forget your previous post.

You said this

I meant, that if you are a muslim, you cannot decide about this matter on your own.
You cannot say: I am a faithfull muslim, but I do not belive in death penalty for apostates.

According to your logic, if you change the rules, you can't be Muslim, so you can't say most Muslim, all or not. This is your logic.

Do you think we are stupid and won't see the inconsistency in your words?

Sorry Mate. :innocent:

 

[Sile]

How do you explain, countries whose population mostly Muslim but there is no death penalty in their law system?

What are you talking about ...The muslim women due to the fact they are second or third class citizens in the society are already walking around as if they are on death row

 

[Rethel]

Yeap, maybe that's why I feel like talking with a wall when I try to make conversation with him

Or maybe becasue you want proof, that you know better that Mohammed, what Islam is about?

According to your logic, if you change the rules, you can't be Muslim, so you can't say most Muslim, all or not. This is your logic.

Not mine, but islamic. This is a logic of Mohammed.
I never deny, that exists muslims like you, who want do what they want,
against teachings of Mohammed and still call themaselves muslims.
But according to standarts of Mohammed you are an apostate.

Do you think we are stupid and won't see the inconsistency in your words?

I use only language of your religion.

Btw - you cannot disscuse with Mohammed.
Either you do what he tells or not.
There is no third option if you want be a true muslim.

You cannot choose what you want - and be faithfull.

And you perfectly understand this, and this
is a reason why you telling that nonsense.