Muslim Speaker on Danish Tv

[HurtingSpirit]

I think you all should check out this video. I am unsure of its age, but it did come out sometime after the offensive cartoons.

Edited April 5, 2006 by HurtingSpirit

[__Kratos__]

Alright, I'm roughly half way through and this really ircked me so before I lose my thought here it is:

He said that when the Muslims were trampling over the Danish flags that the Danish then can get angry but then, not take it out on the Muslims?

So you tick off the Muslims they can get angry at you but you can't get angry at them?

A better world, respect and a better understanding from Islam to the west is laughable. What he is saying is a better world, respect and a better understanind from the West to Islam.

I wonder how many people are going to like them very much after they find out how intolerable they are to unbelievers and to the world.

[Talon]

Why is this guy saying the west has to reach out and embrace Islam? We're not the ones blowing ourselves up, burning embassies and just acting like savages in general. Why is there rarely any call for the Muslim world to embrace the west since it’s pretty obvious they're the ones at the root of the conflict? It’s always the west who are being told to make concessions, and our bloody weakling governments are all to happy to bend over and make them.

[Irani]

Why is this guy saying the west has to reach out and embrace Islam? We're not the ones blowing ourselves up, burning embassies and just acting like savages in general. Why is there rarely any call for the Muslim world to embrace the west since it’s pretty obvious they're the ones at the root of the conflict? It’s always the west who are being told to make concessions, and our bloody weakling governments are all to happy to bend over and make them.

not all muslim are terorist but in overal view they are seen as terorist, western people are smarter then muslims, so that why i think west should reach out to. but most muslims should graw up and stop cry about cartoon it is dumb

[StalingradK]

Ugh, how is it that when Christianity, Islam, and Paganism thrived in Europe, Africa, and Asia minor before the middle ages, Muslims nations were the most intelligent and developed, but now, it's like most ARE stuck back in the middle ages...

[Irani]

Ugh, how is it that when Christianity, Islam, and Paganism thrived in Europe, Africa, and Asia minor before the middle ages, Muslims nations were the most intelligent and developed, but now, it's like most ARE stuck back in the middle ages...

yes i think also most muslim are stuck back in midle ages, the most tolerant and good muslim countries are ex-sovjet countries (azerbaijan, kazachstan, turkmenistan and uzbekistan). they are only countries in world who celebrate both religion feest (both islam and christian).

but i think islam messed up everyting, because for that islam came all irani empire people were zoroasters and were among worlds most advanced people. islam and zoroaster fighted big war and last zoroaster king was: babak khorram din

this is why irani people are different muslims then other, we are muslims but we are all still proud on babak and ancient zoroasters, which were enemy of muslims. so we actually love two opposite things.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Irani

[RedEyeJedi]

I haven't seen this yet, got some internet problems, but I realised it was Hamza Yusuf. I've met him!!! He was a really good speaker, with lots of valid points and an enlightening perspective.

Will comment on this vid when I've seen it.

[RedEyeJedi]

I've only briefly skimmed you guys comments and still haven't seen the video, but I was wondering - Talon, StalingradK and _Kratos_: Do you guys know any Muslims personally? If so, in what capacity?

Edited April 6, 2006 by RedEyeJedi

[HurtingSpirit]

Alright, I'm roughly half way through and this really ircked me so before I lose my thought here it is:

He said that when the Muslims were trampling over the Danish flags that the Danish then can get angry but then, not take it out on the Muslims?

So you tick off the Muslims they can get angry at you but you can't get angry at them?

A better world, respect and a better understanding from Islam to the west is laughable. What he is saying is a better world, respect and a better understanind from the West to Islam.

I wonder how many people are going to like them very much after they find out how intolerable they are to unbelievers and to the world.

What I took from it, is that he is saying both sides need to open up dialect between eachother instead of bickering and fighting. Also he seemed to point out that the radical islam voice is usually not a voice of the people at all, but instead just a radical voice with few follwers.

He said he would be offended if someone was burning any flag, or degrading any persons god.

[Talon]

I've only briefly skimmed you guys comments and still haven't seen the video, but I was wondering - Talon, StalingradK and _Kratos_: Do you guys know any Muslims personally? If so, in what capacity?

Yes, I work with several why?

[dantheman2435]

Religon needs to stop. Otherwise we will destroy ourselves to the point of extinction.

[RedEyeJedi]

Yes, I work with several why?

Because you are so anti-Islam, I wondered if you know any Muslims. You generalise a lot and make sweeping statements.

Religon needs to stop. Otherwise we will destroy ourselves to the point of extinction.

I totally agree. Down with Religion.

[StalingradK]

Do you guys know any Muslims personally?

My best friend is Muslim... thank you for being an ignorant ****. I was in no way anti-islamic, i purely mad a statement that before the Middle Ages Islamic nations were the most advanced where everyone was educated. But now it's like most nations whose major religion is Islam in the Middle East are stuck in the Middle Ages of Europe...

Add-On: I also mean the government and groups of certain persons, not muslims as a whole.

I totally agree. Down with Religion.

Without religion we'd still be hitting each other with sticks and stones and fighting over little pieces of land. Religion allowed everyone to unite and form nations in the old days.

Edited April 6, 2006 by StalingradK

[Talon]

Yes, I work with several why?

Because you are so anti-Islam, I wondered if you know any Muslims. You generalise a lot and make sweeping statements.

I hate all religion, what’s you're point?

And where do I make generalist 'sweeping statements'? Is this another one of you're deliberately misunderstanding what I say? Nowhere except in you’re head and Julianpenrod’s highly edited quotes of my statements have I ever said anything like ‘all Muslims are evil’ or ‘all Muslims are terrorists’.

For the record I work with two guys called Hassan, one’s a really nice guy and I get one well with him (he aggrees with me, the cartoon rioters are barbarians no matter what the multiculturalists claim), but the other’s an egotistical git who moans constantly about Scottish culture being ‘corrupt’ and that if I don’t stop being an Atheist I’m going to hell (although to be fair, I know a lot of Catholics too who also say I’m going to hell). The third one I know is called a guy called Zeid (sp?) from Jordon, the guys at work like him but personally I think he’s a chauvinist **** from how he speaks to the girls. And there’s another guy called Kurami (sp?), and… he’s… well I don’t really know him that well since he only really talks to the other Asians at work.

Without religion we'd still be hitting each other with sticks and stones and fighting over little pieces of land. Religion allowed everyone to unite and form nations in the old days.

Er… nonsense. Nations are simply the result of tribes becoming bigger and occupying more lands. Most nations are based around ethnic backgrounds, not religious ones. Also religion is one of the biggest causes of war, since different factions, sects, faiths are always killing each other. I didn’t see the Crusades for example doing anything for world piece. Also religions such as Christainity and Islam banned science for 7000 years under the dark ages and called it witchcraft and killed anyone caught practicing it... hardly evidence they were trying to get us beyong the sticks and stones era of history.

[StalingradK]

Nations are simply the result of tribes becoming bigger and occupying more lands. Most nations are based around ethnic backgrounds, not religious ones. Also religion is one of the biggest causes of war, since different factions, sects, faiths are always killing each other. I didn’t see the Crusades for example doing anything for world piece. Also religions such as Christainity and Islam banned science for 7000 years under the dark ages and called it witchcraft and killed anyone caught practicing it... hardly evidence they were trying to get us beyong the sticks and stones era of history.

If you look at old nations before the middle ages, you will see that many of them unite under ethnic backround yes, but in many empires iand countries there was diveristy, mainly pagan issues, but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity helped shaped many empires which helped religious programs build up cities and provide better services for their people.

But banned for 7000 years? You sure it's not like 1700? Because Christianity only really picked up in the 4 century and Islam developed in the fifth.

Yeah religion causes wars, but if you look at the progress vs destruction, you will see what good it actually does. The present days are not a very good example of what religion does for people though...

Edited April 6, 2006 by StalingradK

[dantheman2435]

If you look at old nations before the middle ages, you will see that many of them unite under ethnic backround yes, but in many empires in countries there was diveristy, mainly pagan, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity helped shaped many empires which helped religious programs build up cities and provide better services for their people.

But banned for 7000 years? You sure it's not like 1700? Because Christianity only really picked up in the 4 century and Islam developed in the fifth.

Yeah religion causes wars, but if you look at the progress vs destruction, you will see what good it actually does. The present days are not a very good example of what religion does for people though...

Religon has always caused wars, and it will procede to cause wars, or be used as an exscuse to start wars.

Edited April 6, 2006 by dantheman2435

[__Kratos__]

I've only briefly skimmed you guys comments and still haven't seen the video, but I was wondering - Talon, StalingradK and _Kratos_: Do you guys know any Muslims personally? If so, in what capacity?

No. I've looked into their religion and such, just not from the TV and the news stories either.

I must be nailing something right because their actions seem to speak for them as well as their holy book. Not to mention their ways to disagreeing with people compared to other religions.

Because of their religion, Muslims will never be able to fix into a society like the wests.

[Talon]

If you look at old nations before the middle ages, you will see that many of them unite under ethnic backround yes, but in many empires iand countries there was diveristy, mainly pagan issues, but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity helped shaped many empires which helped religious programs build up cities and provide better services for their people.

An Empire is formed when a country invades and occupies another. That's not exactly a symbol of peace.

But banned for 7000 years? You sure it's not like 1700? Because Christianity only really picked up in the 4 century and Islam developed in the fifth.

No, not 1700, 700 years, the dark ages historically only lasted around 700 years.

Yeah religion causes wars, but if you look at the progress vs destruction, you will see what good it actually does. The present days are not a very good example of what religion does for people though...

Present day pacifism has come about through science creating more leisure activities not because of religion. And the peaceful secular societies which don't burn witches and kill heretics are a result of increasing atheism, not religion.

In the present world religion is the reason for Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up, many civil wars in Africa and the bloody conflict between the Unionists and Republicans in Ulster etc.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Talon

[StalingradK]

An Empire is formed when a country invades and occupies another. That's not exactly a symbol of peace.

Not all the time, many Empires were formed with tribes and clans coming together. Look at the Franks I believe it was?

No, not 1700, 700 years, the dark ages historically only lasted around 700 years.

Oh, it was a typo, I thought you meant 7,000 years, I was like "WHAT!?!"

Present day pacifism has come about through science creating more leisure activities not because of religion. And the peaceful secular societies which don't burn witches and kill heretics are a result of increasing atheism, not religion.

In the present world religion is the reason for Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up, many civil wars in Africa and the bloody conflict between the Unionists and Republicans in Ulster etc.

I'm not really talking about European Empires that much. More like Asia, Asia Minor, North African, and the Balkans.

Before the Dark Ages, societies for the most part were more advanced and had better concepts/technologies than most Medieval European nations.

And as I said before, I'm talking about Humanity developing throughout history, not present day events. Think about it, without religion, the world wouldn't really be where it is now.

[PadawanOsswe]

Religon has always caused wars, and it will procede to cause wars, or be used as an exscuse to start wars.

no, religion DOES NOT cause wars, EXTREMISM does!

[StalingradK]

Well said^

[Talon]

Not all the time, many Empires were formed with tribes and clans coming together. Look at the Franks I believe it was?

No that would be a country. The term 'empire' in the English language refers to a nation created by many countries being subjugated by another. That’s what the difference between Empire and Country is. E.g. the British empire was the UK + all the territories it had conquered. The Japanese empire was Japan + all the territories it had conquered. The Spanish Empire was Spain + all the territories it had conquered. Each stopped being an empire when the other territories gained their independence. A country cannot be an empire unless it has subjugated other nations.

Its also the difference between a King and an Emperor. A King rules a country, an Emperor is the King of one country which has dominated others to create an empire.

I'm not really talking about European Empires that much. More like Asia, Asia Minor, North African, and the Balkans.

Well if you want to pick and choose it kind of defeats you’re argument. But if you want to talk about Asia then if we look at it the most secular nations tend to ones occupied by the USSR were their extreme elements of religion were suppressed, areas such as Iran and Afghanistan which have the hardline religious governments were not occupied by the USSR, they were left to their own devices under that religion. Also the Balkans aren’t really a good example of peacefulness since they’ve been in turmoil since the USSR broke up, also the Balkans weren’t are formed on Ethnic grounds not religion, that’s what they’re wars are all about, the ethnic groups trying to make their territories larger.. North Africa is Muslim, and Africa is full of civil war and conflict between the Muslims and Christians so I don’t see how its a prime example of religion uniting people in peace.

Before the Dark Ages, societies for the most part were more advanced and had better concepts/technologies than most Medieval European nations.

Yeah, because Christianity and Islam suppressed science.

And as I said before, I'm talking about Humanity developing throughout history, not present day events. Think about it, without religion, the world wouldn't really be where it is now.

Exactly, we would be more advanced. We wouldn’t have had the dark ages holding backs science and all this terrorism which is root of most modern conflict, since its clear ethnic conflicts disappear through economic prosperity and scientific advancement (e.g. the old wars over increasing national territory has pretty much ended in the most economic and advanced nations because there is not need for it anymore).

[StalingradK]

No that would be a country. The term 'empire' in the English language refers to a nation created by many countries being subjugated by another. That’s what the difference between Empire and Country is. E.g. the British empire was the UK + all the territories it had conquered. The Japanese empire was Japan + all the territories it had conquered. The Spanish Empire was Spain + all the territories it had conquered. Each stopped being an empire when the other territories gained their independence. A country cannot be an empire unless it has subjugated other nations.

Its also the difference between a King and an Emperor. A King rules a country, an Emperor is the King of one country which has dominated others to create an empire.

No, you do not need nations to take nations over to create an empire. An empire is a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. Yes, most empires grew through war, but some grew through people coming together.

"1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

-Definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

It does not mean taken by force. An Empire can just be a unity of smaller tribes and clans under the rule of an Emperor and (possibly vassals).

Well if you want to pick and choose it kind of defeats you’re argument. But if you want to talk about Asia then if we look at it the most secular nations tend to ones occupied by the USSR were their extreme elements of religion were suppressed, areas such as Iran and Afghanistan which have the hardline religious governments were not occupied by the USSR, they were left to their own devices under that religion. Also the Balkans aren’t really a good example of peacefulness since they’ve been in turmoil since the USSR broke up, also the Balkans weren’t are formed on Ethnic grounds not religion, that’s what they’re wars are all about, the ethnic groups trying to make their territories larger.. North Africa is Muslim, and Africa is full of civil war and conflict between the Muslims and Christians so I don’t see how its a prime example of religion uniting people in peace.

For the last time, I'm not talking about the modern day. I'm talking about the times before the Middle Ages.

Yeah, because Christianity and Islam suppressed science.

No, when Christianity and Islam started out, they did not suppress science. Most Inpendent countries and Empires controlled by the two religions knew that education was key and that science, history, math, and written language was important. It's only when you do get to Medieval times that Christians and Islamic people censor the knowledge that was pass on generation after generation to make it look like god was all knowing, all powerful and controlled the world without need for explanation.

Exactly, we would be more advanced. We wouldn’t have had the dark ages holding backs science and all this terrorism which is root of most modern conflict, since its clear ethnic conflicts disappear through economic prosperity and scientific advancement (e.g. the old wars over increasing national territory has pretty much ended in the most economic and advanced nations because there is not need for it anymore).

Exactly but I wasn't mentioning the Middle Ages, I was talking about the times before and it all started out on how Muslim nations prospired faster and more efficient than Christian, Jewish, and Pagan nations before the Middle ages in almost every aspect. Only after the Middle ages and crusades did the Islamic nations decline.

Edited April 6, 2006 by StalingradK

[PadawanOsswe]

actually from Religion came the first morals, from the first morals came the first laws, and from the first laws came civilization.

without religion we would be in the cave age.

[Talon]

major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority

...er ... exactly what I said, one nation (the authority) dominating a number of others.

It does not mean taken by force.

No it doesn't, India for example practically welcomed the British since they lived in a caste society where paler skin made you superior, thus when Europeans arrived we were considered gods. However, between you and me I don't think the rest of Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americans were so willing to be taken over. Believe it or not, historically, most empires are built on force.

For the last time, I'm not talking about the modern day. I'm talking about the times before the Middle Ages.

You can't have it both ways. You want to argue religion binds people together in peace more than other issues, yet you also what to ignore any time periods were its clearly doesn't. That’s like claiming "Nazism as a good thing since it unified Germany... we’ll just ignore the 1918-1945 period of its history".

No, when Christianity and Islam started out, they did not suppress science. Most Inpendent countries and Empires controlled by the two religions knew that education was key and that science, history, math, and written language was important. It's only when you do get to Medieval times that Christians and Islamic people censor the knowledge that was pass on generation after generation to make it look like god was all knowing, all powerful and controlled the world without need for explanation.

And so thus they banned science for 700 years... which is what I said.

Exactly but I wasn't mentioning the Middle Ages, I was talking about the times before and it all started out on how Muslim nations prospired faster and more efficient than Christian, Jewish, and Pagan nations before the Middle ages in almost every aspect. Only after the Middle ages and crusades did the Islamic nations decline.

Again, you can't have you're cake and eat it. You can't argue religion is a peaceful force in the world bringing people together in harmony, and then reject massive junks of history because it doesn't fit in with you're argument. Throughout history religious organisations (not just fringe sects, but also supported by their churches) have murdered, burned, skinned, hanged, crucified, enslaved and tortured untold number because they were 'heretics'. Religion is the basis of modern Islamic terrorism, all that talk about infidels is religiously based. Religion is the cause of many of Africa’s unending civil-wars. Religion sparked the crusades and other wars to "save people’s souls by killing them". Even in modern day western world Protestants and Catholics kill each other in Ulster over religion, the biggest joke being their both Christian sects and what they kill each other over is essentially just the issue of whether going to heaven pre-determined at birth. The old testament itself is one of the most gory books on the planet, filled with stories of god murdering people for no apparent reason other than he felt they where 'sinners'.

So yes, StalingradK religion can united countries in peace so long as everyone follows the same religion, and yes their are followers of religion who dedicate themselves to helping others. However, it does not change the fact that millions of people have died because of it, and that’s historic fact.

actually from Religion came the first morals, from the first morals came the first laws, and from the first laws came civilization.

Actually that’s untrue. Morals come from social laws that almost all social animals, including humans follow. You notice practically all religions share the same main rules about not killing members of society, not stealing etc etc. How did they come up with these separately? Why are they followed by most other social animal groups? Because they are the basic laws of living in a interdependent group. You’re argument is the typical ‘Atheists don’t have morals one because they don’t follow religion'… but its rubbish, because atheists have pretty much the same moral code as everyone else, because they are also a social animal, we just don’t need it to be written down for us to realise murdering our neighbour isn’t a good idea.

Religious morals are based on behaviour developed through evolution. The prophets were simply smart enough to write them down and market them.