And I'd suppose Sharia law like a Taliban type run government is your cup of tea then.

Why don't you go live there then. It seems everything about Western values seems to disturb you.

It takes a special type of stupid for someone to get that out of my post. You don't seem to get that I am appalled by what is happening over there, in fact your halfwit mind is just so fixated on the fact that i think there is more than simply religion at play that you actually seem to block everything else out.

I would hate to live under any religious law, let alone Sharia. I enjoy the benefits that Liberal Democracy affords me. I would love to see the day when all countries, let alone the middle east can establish their own governments with Liberal Democratic values. But don't let that get in the way of your inner bogan getting out for some time in the sun, show everyone the "If you don't like straya, then fuck off" culture is just as strong as ever amongst the plebs.

As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked and if he does, he must commit suicide.
So on September 14th, at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time, all Aussie women are asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists.

Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort.
All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their houses to demonstrate their support for the women and to prove that they are not Muslim terrorist sympathizers.

Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your patriotism.

The Aussie government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity.

P.S.
If you don't share this, you're a terrorist-sympathizing,

This is coming from the nutter who thought a nuclear bomb on the middle east would actually fix anything........

Stopped Japan
Sly goat 1 Melbourne Terrace 0 ;)

Tick Tock, these threads never end well, but it does serve to highlight the differing views on religion and the tensions it causes, we could ban religious based threads with the punishment of death by permaban, but would that make us any better?

Anyway the point is, we can all disagree or have differences but lets try to keep it civil or the thread (and maybe a member or two) will end abruptly.

I feel like perms banning me for this thread would seem a little harsh, since I the thread is clearly not in favour of the anti-Islam agenda of the guy in question.

Oh yeah, I could go on but I think EG probably gets the idea.

Well all three would be justified through the doctrine of sin... However, it is very fucking morbid isn't it :lol:
And if you don't sit on the right side of a Christly justification, it seems got great for you.

Just context though, the first quite is one that Hitchens raises against Lennox before Lennox destroys it. I won't get his point exactly right but he states that Jesus wasn't talking about actual violence but rather that people will follow him despite their families disapproval. Jesus even put an end to the only violence that we are told he ever encountered when he told Peter to put his sword away and 'healed' the guard's ear.

Either way, thanks for those, that's very interesting.

The point was that anything can be justified by interpretation of religious texts. The vast majority of Muslims have interpreted their texts to be peaceful, as have Christians, with some notable exceptions on both sides.

I feel like perms banning me for this thread would seem a little harsh, since I the thread is clearly not in favour of the anti-Islam agenda of the guy in question.

No, that won't happen, It was more of an analogy, like the style of punishment by some of the religions we are discussing. No sweat there mate

ROFL

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=806212306065503&set=a.423769927643078.98119.100000302230518&type=1&permPage=1





Twats, twats everywhere.

Sorry to break up your circle jerk but congratulations, you've just gone up a notch on the nutcase rankings. Just because people looking at the factors behind terrorism beyond the simpleton approach of "hurr durr it must be islam" doesn't mean they hate their own country or they are sympathetic for actions of terrorists. The poor excuse for education, no representation of the population in government, the lack of basic supplies and the absence of any real order in the region are key blocks that lead to the creation of these violent fundamentalists. If you had everyone overnight in the middle east became Christian or Jewish, the place would still be a shithole run by dictators or inadequate democracies and violent insurgent groups would quite likely still form.

Having right wing psychopaths like you saying that ordinary Muslims just hate the west because the West aren't muslim is just fucking retarded considering plenty of young Muslims come to live in the west and actually enjoy it.

Its great to look at the reasons behind terrorism such as lack of education, etc but sometimes you gotta look at it from the front as well, especially when it's slapping you in the face with daily rhetoric about destruction of the west, flowing rivers of blood etc, forced conversation to Islams, jihadi caliphate bullshit and especially young lads strapping dozens of sticks of dynamite to and blowing themselves and others up to apparently please god and guarantee themselves a high place in heaven. I don't think that kind of extreme behaviour can be explained by bad grades in school and lack of food stuffs, clearly there's an intense ideological imperative here, there's lots of groups suffering in the world and they're not all going around committing genocide and posting executions on jihadi tube.

Now I'm not saying ordinary Muslims hate the west, ordinary Muslims realise indiscriminate killing of innocent people to spread religion and power is wrong, but it's clear many of those who are joining the fight, threatening, planning and committing terrorist acts are not ordinary people let alone ordinary Muslims and definitely do hate the west and would love the opportunity to convert or kill us. Australian imams must be in serious denial if they think the government is going to sit on it's hands and do nothing while there are people here in this country right now planning to do terrible things to it.

Sorry to break up your circle jerk but congratulations, you've just gone up a notch on the nutcase rankings. Just because people looking at the factors behind terrorism beyond the simpleton approach of "hurr durr it must be islam" doesn't mean they hate their own country or they are sympathetic for actions of terrorists. The poor excuse for education, no representation of the population in government, the lack of basic supplies and the absence of any real order in the region are key blocks that lead to the creation of these violent fundamentalists. If you had everyone overnight in the middle east became Christian or Jewish, the place would still be a shithole run by dictators or inadequate democracies and violent insurgent groups would quite likely still form.

Having right wing psychopaths like you saying that ordinary Muslims just hate the west because the West aren't muslim is just fucking retarded considering plenty of young Muslims come to live in the west and actually enjoy it.

So it's Western society's fault that people are converting into radical Islam?

Isis jihadi's aren't medieval – they are shaped by modern western philosophy

Kevin McDonald for The Conversation

We should look to revolutionary France if we want to understand the source of Islamic State's ideology and violence

Over recent weeks there has been a constant background noise suggesting that Islamic State (Isis) and its ideology are some sort of throwback to a distant past. It is often framed in language such as that used last week by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who said Isis was “medieval”. In fact, the terrorist group’s thinking is very much in a more modern, western tradition.

Clegg’s intervention is not surprising. Given the extreme violence of Isis fighters and the frequent images of decapitated bodies, it is understandable that we attempt to make sense of these acts as somehow radically “other”.

But this does not necessarily help us understand what is at stake. In particular, it tends to accept one of the core assertions of contemporary jihadism, namely that it reaches back to the origins of Islam. As one Isis supporter I follow on Twitter is fond of saying: “The world changes; Islam doesn’t”.

This is not just a question for academic debate. It has real impact. One of the attractions of jihadist ideology to many young people is that it shifts generational power in their communities. Jihadists, and more broadly Islamists, present themselves as true to their religion, while their parents, so they argue, are mired in tradition or “culture”.

It needs to be said very clearly: contemporary jihadism is not a return to the past. It is a modern, anti-traditional ideology with a very significant debt to western political history and culture.

When he made his speech in July at Mosul’s Great Mosque declaring the creation of an Islamic state with himself as its caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi quoted at length from the Indian/Pakistani thinker Abul A’la Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami party in 1941 and originator of the contemporary term Islamic state.

Maududi’s Islamic state is profoundly shaped by western ideas and concepts. He takes a belief shared between Islam and other religious traditions, namely that God alone is the ultimate judge of a person, and transforms this – reframing God’s possession of judgment into possession of, and ultimately monopoly of, “sovereignty”. Maududi also draws upon understandings of the natural world governed by laws that are expressions of the power of God – ideas at the heart of the 17th-century scientific revolution. He combines these in a vision of the sovereignty of God, then goes on to define this sovereignty in political terms, affirming that “God alone is the sovereign” (The Islamic Way of Life). The state and the divine thus fuse together, so that as God becomes political, and politics becomes sacred.

Such sovereignty is completely absent in medieval culture, with its fragmented world and multiple sources of power. Its origins lie instead in the Westphalian system of states and the modern scientific revolution.

But Maududi’s debt to European political history extends beyond his understanding of sovereignty. Central to his thought is his understanding of the French revolution, which he believed offered the promise of a “state founded on a set of principles” as opposed to one based upon a nation or a people. For Maududi this potential withered in France; its achievement would have to await an Islamic state.

In revolutionary France, it is the state that creates its citizens and nothing should be allowed to stand between the citizen and the state. That is why today French government agencies are still prevented by law from collecting data about ethnicity, considered a potential intermediary community between state and citizen.

This universal citizen, separated from community, nation or history, lies at the heart of Maududi’s vision of “citizenship in Islam”. Just as the revolutionary French state created its citizens, with the citizen unthinkable outside the state, so too the Islamic state creates its citizens. This is at the basis of Maududi’s otherwise unintelligible argument that one can only be a Muslim in an Islamic state.

Don’t look to the Qur’an to understand this – look to the French revolution and ultimately to the secularisation of an idea that finds its origins in European Christianity: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), an idea that became transformed with the birth of modern European states into extra stato nulla persona (outside the state there is no legal personhood). This idea still demonstrates extraordinary power today: it is the source of what it means to be a refugee.

If Isis’s state is profoundly modern, so too is its violence. Isis fighters do not simply kill; they seek to humiliate, as we saw last week as they herded Syrian reservists wearing only their underpants to their death. And they seek to dishonour the bodies of their victims, in particular through postmortem manipulations.

Such manipulations aim at destroying the body as a singularity. The body becomes a manifestation of a collectivity to be obliterated, its manipulation rendering what was once a human person into an “abominable stranger”. Such practices are increasingly evident in war today.

Central to Isis’s programme is its claim to Muslim heritage – witness al-Baghdadi’s dress. Part of countering this requires understanding the contemporary sources of its ideology and its violence. In no way can it be understood as a return to the origins of Islam. This is a core thesis of its supporters, one that should not be given any credence at all.

Is anyone else sick of hearing about 'Islamic violence?'

I am . What is Islamic violence ? Is it different to Catholic violence or Hindu violence? Pretty sure violence is violence no matter what religion , creed , and or colour

perhaps they should refer to it as "islamic extremist" violence????

seen any catholic or hindu be headings lately???

Nah, doesn't suit any media outlets agenda ;)

-PB

perhaps they should refer to it as "islamic extremist" violence????

seen any catholic or hindu be headings lately???

This . There was a spate of hindu led violence in Nepal but the media here just had a little write up . Also extremism isn't just a Muslim thing . There are extremist Christians , catholics, greens and capitalism

This . There was a spate of hindu led violence in Nepal but the media here just had a little write up . Also extremism isn't just a Muslim thing . There are extremist Christians , catholics, greens and capitalism