the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

My last word on Muslims conflicts topic:

Couple hundreds years ago there was crusaders...
Officially ideological wars - in reality fired by economic .
Now situation is reversed .

If I give shelter on my ground, my rules are law.
It is so simple, and easy to understand, even by uneducated desert tribe member.
But,
NO, they came and complain, that Europe is not" how they image it".../ you don`t find it strange, lightly speakin`?/
and they are not "uneducated desert tribe members" any more /in most of the cases/

what? I can not throw stone on a woman in the shorts?, WTF!, have to blow something!

@leifeng , problem is that they don`t change verses. It is quite understandable, you cannot change something, what is sacred for you .
We need to ask a new holly entity for brand new book.

wiesiek wrote:We need to ask a new holly entity for brand new book.

No worries, they already did. A brand new civilization is in the works!

, problem is that they don`t change verses. It is quite understandable, you cannot change something, what is sacred for you .
We need to ask a new holly entity for brand new book.

The Bible has even more vicious verses but Christians don't seem to be as violent as Muslims. I think Islam has lots of loopholes and it is possible to take advantage of them for example in the Shiite Islam there are fringe groups that believe since the twelfth Imam(something like a messiah) has not come yet therefore the Islamic law should not be executed or something like that(I'm sure the Sunni Islam also has such loopholes). This idea has great potential for making Muslims more secular if all the imams in the country would agree to preach it. By definition religious people are very gullible and it is not that difficult to manipulate them but if you confront them directly then they suddenly get violent. They just need to hear it from the preachers.

Christians don't seem to be as violent as Muslims.

It really depends on who one can call "Christian," though. Imo, it's better to avoid comparisons or looking for moral differences. Christians believe that "Jesus is the answer." Maybe, just maybe, the current Pope responds in a "Christian" way, but it's entirely absent from solutions heard in the US --which almost always involve guns and money.

So, when it comes to changing Muslims, I think it's a joke. In fact, Americans are going to fight for Daesh. I keep hearing people say that we are losing the propaganda war. Go figure.

So what's your solution?

There are only three options:
1-Do nothing and accept Islamic terrorism as part of our lives
2-Ban Muslims
3-Fix the ideology

I believe 3 is the most realistic and humane option. You can't change Islam worldwide but you can regulate it within the borders of a western country.

For Christians? It's Jesus, because they're taking care of their souls. For Americans, I'd say, follow your best principles; and, do unto others ... because you're next. For atheists or people without any particular faith, there's fatalism. Then again, maybe that's why people have religion.

I can tell you solutions that don't work? Killing people has never been a permanent solution unless it's extermination or genocide. Unfortunately, even Christians have tried it in the past. It generally doesn't work, but it's worse if it does.

Otoh, non-violence has worked. I've seen it. Btw, I'm also quite certain that it's not Muslim violence that will change the US. This country was never more united as a people as on 9/12/01. It felt really "re - ligous" and something that tied people together. Anything that goes toward that end will help. Anything that separates people or makes them feel separate won't make things better, and won't make people feel any better either.

leifeng wrote:So what's your solution?

There are only three options:
1-Do nothing and accept Islamic terrorism as part of our lives
2-Ban Muslims
3-Fix the ideology

I believe 3 is the most realistic and humane option. You can't change Islam worldwide but you can regulate it within the borders of a western country.

This is the Maajid Nawaz/Quilliam Foundation option:

Born in Essex to a British Pakistani family, Nawaz is a former member of the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This association led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he remained imprisoned until 2006. Reading books on human rights and interacting with Amnesty International, which adopted him as a prisoner of conscience, resulted in a change of heart. This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".

(II wish them luck; the theological justification for "Secular Islam" is apparently very complex; preachers simply quoting the violent admonitions from the Islamic cannon will probably have an easier time getting their messages across.)

Dmitri wrote:

wiesiek wrote:We need to ask a new holly entity for brand new book.

No worries, they already did. A brand new civilization is in the works!

I know,
`cause "we" cannot send all religious extremists to meet of All Mighty at once, or even to the Mars yet,
I should write / for clarity/: `cause we have let`s say - 10 religions principles shared by all kind /we may squeezing it to the 3-5/, anybody can/is able to write his own book.
Tom Cruse is just to lazy
ant
to be honest - I like Hubbard sci-fi book

and to answer leifeng :
we have somehow learn to live with terror around , me thinkin`.
Your 2 and 3 points are contemporary impossible,

On Jan. 2, Saudi Arabia beheaded 47 people across 13 cities. Among the executed was cleric Nimr al-Nimr, a leader from the country’s Shia religious minority who was arrested for leading peaceful protests against the regime in 2011-12.

Sheikh al-Nimr was known throughout the Islamic world for his staunch opposition to sectarianism.
The outspoken Saudi dissident firmly insisted that Sunnis and Shias are not enemies, and should unite against the sectarian regimes oppressing them. “The oppressed should unite together against the oppressors, instead of becoming tools in the hands of the oppressors,” he declared.

By executing a dissident who challenged sectarianism, the Saudi monarchy was only further fomenting it.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_a ... ic_nation/

This is how they control it with in their own world, they cut off peoples heads.
The US supports this by supporting them.

The oppressed should unite together against the oppressors, instead of becoming tools in the hands of the oppressors

They follow what is written, one can not view what is happening and what they do without understanding this.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, the nephew of the murdered cleric, was arrested at age 17 for attending a peaceful pro-democracy protest in 2012. He was allegedly tortured, before being sentenced to death by beheading and crucifixion.

Saudi Arabia is one of the last places on the planet where crucifixions are still practiced — ordered by the government itself.
In recent years, the Saudi monarchy has also arrested at least two other peaceful teenage pro-democracy activists and sentenced them to death.

Journalist Abby Martin devoted an episode of her show “The Empire Files” to exploring the Saudi-U.S. relationship. The episode, aptly titled “Inside Saudi Arabia: Butchery, Slavery & History of Revolt,” displays the brutality of the monarchy in excruciating detail.

“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.” .... Barack Hussein Obam

Until it as an ideology is viewed for what it does and continues to do countries that allow large amounts of peoples from areas where this is practiced are underwriting their own demise.

By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope [this] will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/musl ... z44OaW0xZg

What happens in every place where they reach a certain population level.

I can tell you solutions that don't work? Killing people has never been a permanent solution unless it's extermination or genocide. Unfortunately, even Christians have tried it in the past. It generally doesn't work, but it's worse if it does.

It would seem that it is a solution is one that has worked and continues to work for those that follow this ideology.

leifeng wrote:You can't change Islam worldwide but you can regulate it within the borders of a western country.

Aside from that being a perfect setup for a whole lot of future trouble -- may I remind you of this little bit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (...)"

Dmitri wrote:Aside from that being a perfect setup for a whole lot of future trouble -- may I remind you of this little bit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (...)"

But we can prevent people from carrying out extreme sentences rendered via Sharia Law, such as killing or maiming people.

chud wrote:

Dmitri wrote:Aside from that being a perfect setup for a whole lot of future trouble -- may I remind you of this little bit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (...)"

But we can prevent people from carrying out extreme sentences rendered via Sharia Law, such as killing or maiming people.

Of course, but that's conceptually completely different from "regulating religion" -- that's just "normal" handling of murder, etc.

But we can prevent people from carrying out extreme sentences rendered via Sharia Law, such as killing or maiming people.

Two points: one, murder is the crime, the manner is irrelevant. "Our" law does not distinguish between Muslim and Christian criminals. It is (supposed to be) blind. And, one can argue that it's not, but that's "our" system.

Two: it's perfectly reasonable to say that a US citizen can't break the law, even if the law is against his or her religion. That works fine, as long as it's applied to everyone, and all religions. If a Muslim (or a Jew) applies a religious law and commits a crime, he's punished for the crime, not because the crime was prescribed by his religion.