One dead in knife attack in Hamburg supermarket, motive unclear

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Here2008 said:

 

I might have given you more credit ---- however, YOU clearly believethat Sweden has not suffered a wave of violence/rape committed by new comers.  I suggest you ask a Swede for his/her opinion.

You posted an Off Topic Swedish Government report that that refuted your claims - rather odd, but your choice. Not happy with the report, complain to the Swedish Government, with facts, to support your argument.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, ISIS and their ilk do, indeed, use certain verses in the Quran to justify their terrorism.

 

Yes, Islamaphobes use the same verses to justify their bigotry.

 

But both groups, either deliberately or through ignorance, take those verses out of context in order to justify themselves.

Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

 

"Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"

 

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

No women's rights; condemnation of homosexuality and support for the slave owners right to do as they wish to their slaves.

 

All these verses come from the New Testament, where you will find many more similar if you care to look.

 

As for the Old Testament; way worse.

 

However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely.

 

The only good thing about monotheism is there is only one god left to dump. Most of have gone past believing we have to shape our lives on old myths.

OTOH it seems many have yet to reach that stage of enlightenment.

[simple1]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Here's another quote by the author, made on a separate interview: "I never said I speak for others. According to me, I do represent mainstream Islam. But mainstream Islam does not accept me. I represent the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam to the best of my ability."

 

Qasim Rashid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_Rashid#Controversy

 

 

I'm sure you are aware of the implication of the author exact religious affiliation, those who don't may want to read up here:

 

Ahmadiyya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

 

 

Ahmadiyya are not the only group in Islam who question / reject abrogation; it's an ongoing debate. Also there are schools of thought within Islam that focus on the spiritual rather than the political. As you well know the Islamic world is not solely constructed on the Salafi POV as some members try to assert.

[Orton Rd]

Thousands of dead by the hand of Muslims inspired by the Quran and the prophet:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

[i claudius]

Thousands of dead by the hand of Muslims inspired by the Quran and the prophet:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Its a waste of time trying to get those who do not want to see on here that Islam is an evil religion."there are none so blind as those who do not want to see"

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Ahmadiyya are not the only group in Islam who question / reject abrogation; it's an ongoing debate. Also there are schools of thought within Islam that focus on the spiritual rather than the political. As you well know the Islamic world is not solely constructed on the Salafi POV as some members try to assert.

 

I'm well aware that there are multiple schools of thought within Islam, and that not all are the same or subscribe to the same interpretations. The post was actually directed exactly at that - presenting a position associated with a relatively minor group within (well...some, or even many, Muslims may argue the point) as representative of a wider point of view is misleading. The same way that picking one of ISIS's nutters interpretation as reflecting the views of all Muslims is wrong.

 

I'm not the one attempting to paint a picture of Islam globally leaning this or that way, or among those marketing extreme, fringe or minority views as other than what they are.

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's exactly what it is - a cop out. Same old story.

You ignore the issues touched upon in favor of re-hashing a bunch of faux "points, most having little to do with the post commented on. Then you whine about "ignoring" your "points", while tossing all them dishonest misrepresentations of views to boot.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

Exactly the response expected; you don't disappoint.

 

As i have said, i have previously answered every point you have raised. until you can come up with some sort of argument instead of your usual dismissing of everything that disagrees with your view as 'faux' I see no point in further indulging your ego.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Thousands of dead by the hand of Muslims inspired by the Quran and the prophet:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

 

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

Its a waste of time trying to get those who do not want to see on here that Islam is an evil religion."there are none so blind as those who do not want to see"

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 Thousands dead and maimed at the hands of Irish terrorists.

 

So, using your logic, all Irish people must be evil!!!!!!

[manarak]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, ISIS and their ilk do, indeed, use certain verses in the Quran to justify their terrorism.

 

Yes, Islamaphobes use the same verses to justify their bigotry.

 

But both groups, either deliberately or through ignorance, take those verses out of context in order to justify themselves.

Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

 

"Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"

 

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

No women's rights; condemnation of homosexuality and support for the slave owners right to do as they wish to their slaves.

 

All these verses come from the New Testament, where you will find many more similar if you care to look.

 

As for the Old Testament; way worse.

 

However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely.

 

 

well, maybe you can elaborate on the correct context in which the above sentences are acceptable.

 

second, regarding the old testament, most Christians evolved into ignoring the precepts of the bible thanks to the catholic church's conciles and changes made to the bible. no sensibly thinking person can today really believe the texts were originally meant to be "metaphorical", lol.

The Christians ditched most of what made up the earthly strength of their religion and replaced the rest with a nice story.

Now we just need to convice Muslims to do the same with the "exact words that Allah dictated to Muhamad"

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Exactly the response expected; you don't disappoint.

 

As i have said, i have previously answered every point you have raised. until you can come up with some sort of argument instead of your usual dismissing of everything that disagrees with your view as 'faux' I see no point in further indulging your ego.

 

You haven't addressed the issues raised. Rather, you claim you did. Actually, you brought up the same old talking point you air on each and every related topic, attempting to attach them to my post. And, of course, not a word about all them misrepresentations of my positions peppering your tirade.

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You haven't addressed the issues raised. Rather, you claim you did. Actually, you brought up the same old talking point you air on each and every related topic, attempting to attach them to my post. And, of course, not a word about all them misrepresentations of my positions peppering your tirade.

 QED

[Morch]

Just now, 7by7 said:

 QED

Obvious troll is obvious.

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

well, maybe you can elaborate on the correct context in which the above sentences are acceptable.

 

second, regarding the old testament, most Christians evolved into ignoring the precepts of the bible thanks to the catholic church's conciles and changes made to the bible. no sensibly thinking person can today really believe the texts were originally meant to be "metaphorical", lol.

The Christians ditched most of what made up the earthly strength of their religion and replaced the rest with a nice story.

Now we just need to convice Muslims to do the same with the "exact words that Allah dictated to Muhamad"

The verses I quoted are all, as I said, from the New Testament!

 

There are many articles available online to show the context of objectionable verses in the Quran, the Old Testament and the New; I linked to one such regarding the Quran previously.

 

I also said that ISIS and their ilk use out of context quotes to justify their atrocities. It is not the majority of Muslims who need convincing of something they already know; that these verses should not be taken in isolation in order to justify atrocities. 

[Scott]

From the Thaivisa version of the Quoran, or the Bible:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
 

[simple1]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

<snip>

I'm not the one attempting to paint a picture of Islam globally leaning this or that way, or among those marketing extreme, fringe or minority views as other than what they are.

 

Just highlighting the closed minded attitude / ignorance of some members who claim all Muslims follow a singular interpretation of Islam, not aimed at you. No argument extremists do cause a great deal of harm, more so in Muslim majority countries, though so far as I know such groups are in the minority and eventually will be defeated by other Muslims putting their lives at risk.

 

I am surprised there is not a firmer crackdown on ultra conservative Imams across the EU. French authorities claim some success with more than 40 Imams deported in three years from 2012 for hate speech. Wonder how some members representing the far right would stack up in an investigation by security agencies; perhaps they're only keyboard warriors. Haven't bothered to look up other EU member countries, though from memory UK has been taking action in the past few years as an outcome to changes in legislation.

 

https://www.thelocal.fr/20150629/france-40-imams-deported-for-preaching-hatred.

Edited August 5, 2017 by simple1

[Morch]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Just highlighting the closed minded attitude / ignorance of some members who claim all Muslims follow a singular interpretation of Islam, not aimed at you. No argument extremists do cause a great deal of harm, more so in Muslim majority countries, though so far as I know such groups are in the minority and eventually will be defeated by other Muslims putting their lives at risk.

 

I am surprised there is not a firmer crackdown on ultra conservative Imams across the EU. French authorities claim some success with more than 40 Imams deported in three years from 2012 for hate speech. Wonder how some members representing the far right would stack up in an investigation by security agencies; perhaps they're only keyboard warriors. Haven't bothered to look up other EU member countries, though from memory UK has been taking action in the past few years as an outcome to changes in legislation.

 

https://www.thelocal.fr/20150629/france-40-imams-deported-for-preaching-hatred.

 

I agree with much of what you posted.

 

That said, my point was that making such arguments is not faithfully served by misleading presentations, such as suggested previously in the topic. Making a general claim about Islam based on the writing of a person belonging to a fringe (like it or not) element doesn't cut it. All the more so when the person quoted doesn't make such assertions.

 

It's all very well to point out that ISIS's and others' extreme interpretations of Islam as fringe minority views. But this doesn't make the alleged "majority" of Muslims into the exact opposite of those extremists. There's a whole range of interpretations, positions and views in-between. Making unfounded claims as to how most feel about things does not usually rest on solid ground.

 

And ahead of some expected (not from you) comments - the above is not a position which sees "all Muslims as". Rather, it recognizes that as with any similar mass of people, there will be diversity of opinions. And like other people's opinions, these aren't set in stone, one way or the other.

 

With regard to deporting extremist clergymen and such - worthwhile to address the figures. 40 imams (and this refers only to those reportedly deported) does not quite sound as indicating a fabled "tiny minority", that's without (need to point this every time, it seems) making them the accepted voice of the majority.

 

Getting a handle on what is actually done by authorities and what is the effective legal landscape isn't always easy to ascertain. And all the more so when it comes to efforts and their effectiveness over time. Most reports are snapshots. Not even getting into issues of ideological-political bias. A similar situation, or worse, exists with regard to scaremongering and overblown reports coming from extreme right wing sources, as you often point out in your posts.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You're being naughty, didn't say, nor do I view "ISIS's point of view as legitimate". I'm saying 'they' would do so.

 

Didn't mean to imply you do, apologies if it was taken that way.

Question is if it's reasonable to expect the average not-hyper-interested person to dwell upon all factors or to be able to see things from ISIS point of view. Would be better if this was the case, I just don't think it's realistic.

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Didn't mean to imply you do, apologies if it was taken that way.

Question is if it's reasonable to expect the average not-hyper-interested person to dwell upon all factors or to be able to see things from ISIS point of view. Would be better if this was the case, I just don't think it's realistic.

OK. Yes, true, though I'm really addressing those on this forum who do seem to see themselves as subject matter experts concerning Islamist terrorism. Not taking aim at you as I believe in fact you are a subject matter expert or at the very least very well informed concerning Islamist terror related matters.

Edited August 6, 2017 by simple1

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, manarak said:

 

well, maybe you can elaborate on the correct context in which the above sentences are acceptable.

 

second, regarding the old testament, most Christians evolved into ignoring the precepts of the bible thanks to the catholic church's conciles and changes made to the bible. no sensibly thinking person can today really believe the texts were originally meant to be "metaphorical", lol.

The Christians ditched most of what made up the earthly strength of their religion and replaced the rest with a nice story.

Now we just need to convice Muslims to do the same with the "exact words that Allah dictated to Muhamad"

 

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The verses I quoted are all, as I said, from the New Testament!

 

There are many articles available online to show the context of objectionable verses in the Quran, the Old Testament and the New; I linked to one such regarding the Quran previously.

 

I also said that ISIS and their ilk use out of context quotes to justify their atrocities. It is not the majority of Muslims who need convincing of something they already know; that these verses should not be taken in isolation in order to justify atrocities. 

maarak was right in asking "well, maybe you can elaborate on the correct context in which the above sentences are acceptable." 

 

They're not acceptable in any "context".  You made a mistake when saying:-

"However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely."

 

I was about to 'like' your post - until reading that last sentence.....

 

You're right in pointing out that the bible is just as bad as the quran - which is why so many of us realised at a very young age, that religion(s) aren't the 'answer' to life.

[Morch]

52 minutes ago, simple1 said:

OK. Yes, true, though I'm really addressing those on this forum who do seem to see themselves as subject matter experts concerning Islamist terrorism. Not taking aim at you as I believe in fact you are a subject matter expert or at the very least very well informed concerning Islamist terror related matters.

 

There are many posters commenting on these topics. The so-called "usual suspects" adhering to one extreme or the other, and quite a few somewhere in-between. Trouble is, when positions are polarized to such a degree, hard to acknowledge such differences and some are all too willing to label anyone not seeing things their way. Tends to push people in the opposite direction. More opinionated posters being more "vocal" or prolific on forum doesn't necessarily indicate general trends among posters. I think that sieving out the obvious nutters, many echo common sentiments, worries and fears. Lumping it all together and ignoring it as bigotry misses the point.

 

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

maarak was right in asking "well, maybe you can elaborate on the correct context in which the above sentences are acceptable." 

 

They're not acceptable in any "context".  You made a mistake when saying:-

"However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely."

 

I was about to 'like' your post - until reading that last sentence.....

 

You're right in pointing out that the bible is just as bad as the quran - which is why so many of us realised at a very young age, that religion(s) aren't the 'answer' to life.

 As you, rightly, point out; I never said the verses were acceptable.

 

Perhaps you are correct about my mistake, though, and I should have said ""However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context often changes the meaning completely."

 

Which is as true of the Quran as it is of the Old and New Testaments.

 

[simple1]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are many posters commenting on these topics. The so-called "usual suspects" adhering to one extreme or the other, and quite a few somewhere in-between. Trouble is, when positions are polarized to such a degree, hard to acknowledge such differences and some are all too willing to label anyone not seeing things their way. Tends to push people in the opposite direction. More opinionated posters being more "vocal" or prolific on forum doesn't necessarily indicate general trends among posters. I think that sieving out the obvious nutters, many echo common sentiments, worries and fears. Lumping it all together and ignoring it as bigotry misses the point.

 

 

After filtering out those who subscribe to right of centre messaging (whom I assume you refer to as 'nutters'), IMO very few members remain in these type of topics.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

After filtering out those who subscribe to right of centre messaging (whom I assume you refer to as 'nutters'), IMO very few members remain in these type of topics.

Let me suggest that most people not holding extreme views dropped from these topics over time. Not everyone is a glutton for dealing with verbal onslaughts and abuse. 

[simple1]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

Let me suggest that most people not holding extreme views dropped from these topics over time. Not everyone is a glutton for dealing with verbal onslaughts and abuse. 

Correct, I have been informed by members who have had to deal with abuse from the 'right of centre' and decided to no longer use this forum. Especially having to deal with constantly being accused of sympathising with / supporting Islamists, takes some fortitude, behaviour which includes a number of posters in this topic, including the member 'liking' your posts in this topic.

Edited August 7, 2017 by simple1

[Morch]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Correct I have been informed by members who have had to deal with abuse from the 'right of centre' and decided to no longer use this forum. Especially having to deal with constantly being accused of sympathising with / supporting Islamists; takes some fortitude; behaviour which includes the member 'liking' your posts in this topic.

 

I hope that you'll at least acknowledge that this cuts both ways.

[simple1]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I hope that you'll at least acknowledge that this cuts both ways.

Would do if falsely accusing, though don't recall too many denials, who in any case mostly quickly resort to far right messaging or continuously 'like' the same.

[dick dasterdly]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

Let me suggest that most people not holding extreme views dropped from these topics over time. Not everyone is a glutton for dealing with verbal onslaughts and abuse. 

I suspect its more likely that most can't be bothered arguing the same point topic after topic....

 

"onslaughts and abuse" tend to result in retaliating the same way/reporting the poster/ignoring their posts.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Would do if falsely accusing, though don't recall too many denials, who in any case mostly quickly resort to far right messaging or continuously 'like' the same.

I can refer you to a lengthy post directed at myself on this topic. Contains a whole lot of attributed stuff which doesn't represent my views. Hardly the worst of it.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I suspect its more likely that most can't be bothered arguing the same point topic after topic....

 

"onslaughts and abuse" tend to result in retaliating the same way/reporting the poster/ignoring their posts.

 

Well, regardless how one sees it, the end result is that most topics dealing with contested issues tend to be populated by posters feeling strongly one way or the other. Taking it as being representative of much is quite a leap.

[metisdead]

Off topic generalizations about the IRA have been removed as well as the replies.  Other posts attacking other posters have been removed.