F00028:

Islam is more than just a religion. its a complete integral system, guidence from God for every facet of human existence but you say that's all absolute tosh!

-fine. what do you have that's better?

As a religion, in my view, Islam is the most inferior out of all major religions purely because of its intolerance and violence.

As a civilisation, it has been said that the Western civilisation is superior to the Islamic one, I could not concur more to that statement.

Even Yoruba civilisation was better.

ndu_chucks: It seems to me as if any generalization should require the exhibition by a majority, of the acts or behavior being generalized. To take the behavior or a minute number of muslims or christians to conclude that any of these religions is evil, or its practitioners are evil, is actually senseless and possibly bigoted

Good point!

But make no mistake: the majority have for years been silent on the behaviour of the minority as a sign of passive support or they give excuses to justify the behaviours of the minority as a sign of defending their own, instead of outright condemnation.

Hence, as long as the minority are justifying their actions from the holy book used by the majority and the majority REFUSE to correct/condemn them, the majority cannot abjugate themselves from the values espoused by the minority.

No one is targeting muslims. Muslims are the cause of their own fate and international reputation.

Sagamite:

As a religion, in my view, Islam is the most inferior out of all major religions purely because of its intolerance and violence.

As a civilisation, it has been said that the Western civilisation is superior to the Islamic one, I could not concur more to that statement.

Even Yoruba civilisation was better.

so the western way is better? its system of government, legal system, financial system, etc?
(the youruba civilisation is defunct. it doesn't count.)

When Indian people come to England or any European country, they build and open Temples or shrines. When Chinese people come to England or any European country they build and open Temples or shrines; But when African people come to England or any European they build Churches and worship the images of their former slave masters. The Indians and Chinese have unity amongst themselves , they also have a good economy , Chinese is going to be the next super power ,forget America. These countries India and China have also gone nuclear , they worship their own images (their ancestors) who work for them. The Europeans have religion, however, it does not stop them from working together. They have european union (which is the european community = common unity). But black africans are still fighting and arguing over a religion that does not belong to them. Many Nigerians for example will not work with you if you have a different religion. It was many years ago that Bob Marley sang emancipate ourselves from mental slavery , yet our people are still mentally enslaved. We are the only species on earth that will side another species against their own. You will not see a Chinese person side with a Hindu against another Chinese, neither will you see an Hindu side with a Chinese against another Hindu. You will not see a Cat side with a dog against another cat, neither will you see a dog side with a cat against another dog. You will not see a rat side with a cat against another rat, neither will you see a cat side with a rat against another cat. We black are the only species on the planet that will side with another species, be it Asian, Caucasian or Arab against their own. When will we realize we have been tricked with these monothetic religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity?

Pakistan oil?

Sagamite:

As a religion, in my view, Islam is the most inferior out of all major religions purely because of its intolerance and violence.

Agreed.

As a civilisation, it has been said that the Western civilisation is superior to the Islamic one, I could not concur more to that statement.

Agreed.

Even Yoruba civilisation was better.

Debatable...certainly as far as science and stuff goes, we were far behind the Arabs/Persians/Turks. In what way would you say that we were superior up to say 1900AD?

I even wonder why you are involving the US in Pakistan's own.

Hindus (represented by India) have been the one kicking Pakistan's @ss up and down for the past 40-50, years

Nobody gets along with Islam...not Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, or Chinese.

ndu_chucks: It seems to me as if any generalization should require the exhibition by a majority, of the acts or behavior being generalized. To take the behavior or a minute number of muslims or christians to conclude that any of these religions is evil, or its practitioners are evil, is actually senseless and possibly bigoted

Wrong.

Any generalization as you term it must go back to the roots of that religion and the behaviour of its primary proponents. Mohammed was violent in his propagation of the religion and those have come behind (now termed extremists) have only maintained the propagation of the violence initiated at its start.

The fact that majority of (alleged) adherents of a religion are not violent does not negate the basic premise of a religion's implementation. That individual adherents of a religion have chosen to ignore/downplay violent aspects of their religion does not change the religion itself. One may even go as far as describing those who do not embrace the full spectrum of their religion as infidels.

Even if we move away from this and look purely at the behaviours, we cannot look only to a majority before reaching a conclusion. There is no country on earth where the majority of people are involved in violence, crime or any other form of malfeasance. Therefore, seeking for majority behaviour before concluding is an exercise in futility. If there is a large preponderance of violent behaviour in a particular religion, that is sufficient to identify it as a violent one, relative to others.

F00028:

so the western way is better? its system of government, legal system, financial system, etc?
(the youruba civilisation is defunct. it doesn't count.)

Yep!

ekt_bear: Pakistan oil?

He is a product of a failed education system. He just vomited that rubbish without much thinking because he wanted to say he spoke too.

ekt_bear:
Debatable...certainly as far as science and stuff goes, we were far behind the Arabs/Persians/Turks. In what way would you say that we were superior up to say 1900AD?

I don't think it is the theocracy that brought about their science stuff, that is just coincidental.

Yoruba civilisation was better because it was less barbaric, provided avenues for leadership based on merit, provided more balance of gender power and had a distributed power system (quasi-democratic).

Sagamite:

Yep!

those same westerners that left europe, went to america, killed off the natives, kidnapped millions of your black ancestors for forced labour?

the west that gave us two "world wars" , 60,000,000 people dead (a lot of them non westerners)?

that west

F00028:
those same westerners that left europe, went to america, killed off the natives,

I am sure the Arabs themselves killed of several people during their spread of Islam.

F00028:
kidnapped millions of your black ancestors for forced labour?

Are you saying if it was another racial group that had the kind of western powers during that era, they would not do the same thing?

Tell me which civilisation did not take slaves. Name them.

Even the holy Muhammed took slaves. The only leading religious icon that did that.

Or is it only if "it is my black ancestors" being servituded that it matters? You think I have such an under-developed mind of "our own"?

Did Islamic Arabs not take black slaves?

F00028:
the west that gave us two "world wars" , 60,000,000 people dead (a lot of them non westerners)?

that west

You mean they planned to kill themselves?

They woke up in the morning and thought "lets kill ourselves"? Lets pile it up and destroy our economies.

Cut this lame arguments.

Cut the BS history. Look at the modern day. Their history and their modern day are better than the Islamic one.

Till today, they are more humane and civilised than Arab/Islamic civilisation.

They are more socially, technologically and judicially advanced than Arab/Islamic civilisation.

Sagamite: I am sure the Arabs themselves killed of several people during their spread of Islam.

nothing even close to your western “civilization” even at the height of their power. and if you want a religion spread by the sword, it’s called ‘christianity’. your criticism is misdirected. we can compare notes if you like.

Sagamite: Are you saying if it was another racial group that had the kind of western powers during that era, they would not do the same thing?

yes. that's what I am saying

Sagamite: Tell me which civilisation did not take slaves. Name them.

Even the holy Muhammed took slaves. The only leading religious icon that did that...

no slavers in history can match the barbarity of the european slavers, from the traders down to the owners even with all their civilization and so called “religion of love” values.
if not for the industrial revolution they may still be taking slaves today.

Sagamite: You mean they planned to kill themselves?

They woke up in the morning and thought "lets kill ourselves"? Lets pile it up and destroy our economies.

60 million dead people was the result due to their deliberate actions and regardless of their motivation. that is not something you can overlook when consideration the merits of any “civilization”.

Sagamite: Cut the BS history.

you forget wole soyinka's warning: History matters. Records are not kept simply to assist the weakness of memory, but to operate as guides to the future...

Sagamite: Look at the modern day. Their history and their modern day are better than the Islamic one. Till today, they are more humane and civilised than Arab/Islamic civilisation. They are more socially, technologically and judicially advanced than Arab/Islamic civilisation.

will do…soon as I clear my desk.

F00028:

nothing even close to your western “civilization” even at the height of their power. and if you want a religion spread by the sword, it’s called ‘christianity’. your criticism is misdirected. we can compare notes if you like.

Historically, not even close, not because of their lack of will, it was lack of capability and the fact that their reputation for brutality results in unchallenged submission.

Today, some minority lunatics have submachine guns to replace the swords to spread their religion. Although the sword occasionally still becomes useful when they behead people to make "a symbolic statement". These minority lunatics in the 21st century are islamist.

F00028:
yes. that's what I am saying

BS!!!

If you believe a civilisation known for wiping out whole towns after surrender will not do the same if they had powers, then keep dreaming.

F00028:
no slavers in history can match the barbarity of the european slavers, from the traders down to the owners even with all their civilization and so called “religion of love” values.
if not for the industrial revolution they may still be taking slaves today.

No innovative society can match the Western society. Why?

Because they lacked the capability.

Simile! Abi na Sumaila I should say.

So how did the industrial revolution restrict them and stop slavery?

F00028:
60 million dead people was the result due to their deliberate actions and regardless of their motivation. that is not something you can overlook when consideration the merits of any “civilization”.

What a stewpid assertion!

People are fighting, so what did you expect? One party should not kill another party trying to kill it? They should say "59,999,999 people are dead, so I will not kill you"?

Don't waste my time with such senseless arguments!

F00028:
you forget wole soyinka's warning: History matters. Records are not kept simply to assist the weakness of memory, but to operate as guides to the future...

will do…soon as I clear my desk.

The western civilisation is better than Islamic civilisation in history and in, MORE IMPORTANTLY, present day.

Sagamite:
If you believe a civilisation known for wiping out whole towns after surrender will not do the same if they had powers, then keep dreaming.

decimating or wiping out subdued populations (especially non western) is what the western civilisation is notorious for.

Sagamite: So how did the industrial revolution restrict them and stop slavery?

they now had machines! they suddenly didn't need all those nig...i mean..africans by the ship load any more

Sagamite:
People are fighting, so what did you expect? One party should not kill another party trying to kill it?..

those 6 million jews were not fighting. they were non combatants herded in to concentration camps and murdered in cold blood. 6 million! but now that i come to think of it even 60,000 is dramatic enough to make the point.

Sagamite: The western civilisation is better than Islamic civilisation in history and in, MORE IMPORTANTLY, present day.

technological advancement, sure but at what expense. they have social decay and violent crimes: rapes, murders, paedophilia,
take the u.s for instance:

16,204 murders a year

9,369 murders with firearms in one year

2,019,234 prisoners and this has increased since 2002

95,136 rapes per year

420,637 robberies per year

11,877,218 total crimes per year

-https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
-The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
-UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on
crime victims. March.
-The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
-52 UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on
crime victims. March.

Sagamite:

I don't think it is the theocracy that brought about their science stuff, that is just coincidental...

"The Prophet of Islam placed great emphasis upon religious and scientific studies, thus, Islam’s conquerors, rulers, rapidly established the madrasa scholastic system in whatever land they controlled. This was the first institution installed after Salahideen’s re-conquest of Jerusalem. He regarded it as greater import than the mosques.

Without the madrasas, Salahideen realized, Islam would fail to be revived. During the 7th century Caliph ‘Umar ordered the construction of madrasas throughout the Islamic Empire."

debosky:
Any generalization as you term it must go back to the roots of that religion and the behaviour of its primary proponents. Mohammed was violent in his propagation of the religion and those have come behind (now termed extremists) have only maintained the propagation of the violence initiated at its start.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with the implied conclusion of the above i.e. Islam is a violent religion. The above is not enough, without the presence of bigotry, to reach such a conclusion.

I am however not surprised by your aggressive condemnation of Islam as a violent religion. You’ve chosen to ignore the presence of violence in many regions of the world ranging from Ireland to Lebanon to the Pacific Basin and involving many religions from Christianity to Hinduism, and decided to associate Islam more than any other religion with violence.

The Muslim conquest of Spain, the Crusades – which were not begun by Muslims -, and the Ottoman domination of eastern Europe have wrongfully provided a historical memory of Islam as being related to force and power. You and many in the western world continue use this as a basis to call Islam a violent religion.

Moreover, you are probably using the upheavals of the past few decades in the Middle East and especially movements using the name of Islam and seeking to solve problems of the Muslim world created by conditions and causes beyond the control of Muslims to justify your stance.

As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as 'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'. If there is nevertheless violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the Divine Message.

F00028:
decimating or wiping out subdued populations (especially non western) is what the western civilisation is notorious for.

That is absolute rubbish!

Although I can not think of any civilisation that takes it as a course of action to wipeout subdued populations, since every civilisation has its rational population. But if I was to think of the number of cases of decimating sub-dued populations, which should mostly be more attributed to individual leaders' philosophy rather than to the civilisation itself, then I would put the islamic population upper the list than Western ones. Topping the list would be the Mongols with Ghenghis Khan's brutality.

Even though, as I said, decimation of subdued populations should mostly be more attributed to individual leaders' philosophy rather than to the civilisation itself, it must not be forgotten that the some civilisations are completedly dominated by the philosophy and ideology of a singular person, e.g. Islamic civilisation and Muhammed. The western civlisation has no dominant personality.

My approach to critiquing the decimation of subdued population will involve developing a quadrant with one axis stating the number of cases per victory vs another axis with the level/intensity of impact of an individual leader's philosophy on the civilisation.

F00028:
they now had machines! they suddenly didn't need all those nig...i mean..africans by the ship load any more

BS!

Abolitionism started in the 16th century (mid 1700), was intense and unpopular by the early 1800s (already banned across Europe) and slavery was abandoned in the last bastion (USA) by the mid 1800s.

The technological industrial revolution was mostly established in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

This point is tosh. Hard labour was still a big factor in the western world by the time slavery was abolished. After that, for example, poor white people were still going down mines with their kids, working their butts off in tough conditions and dying like rats from hard labour. It was the increased civilisation of the society mixed with religion that ended the slavery, not technological industrial revolution.

Slavery would have even ended earlier than that but powerful people in society had invested heavily in it. It is a difficult message to tell people to destroy their "assets" (which they paid money for) without any compensation and pauperise themselves. There were even many slave owners that felt slavery was wrong but could not stop it without facing the rash realities of poverty. That was what made it exist longer than the early 1800s. They fought a fcking war over the abolition of slavery well before the technological industrial revolution ffs!

F00028:
those 6 million jews were not fighting. they were non combatants herded in to concentration camps and murdered in cold blood. 6 million! but now that i come to think of it even 60,000 is dramatic enough to make the point.

This is pure bollocks!

You want to use a singular lunatic's action that the whole of the West fought tooth and nail as a representation of the West?

Don't come to me with such BS again.

If Muslims were doing the same (i.e. they are the ones fighting the actions of their lunatics like they did in Libya recently), the reputation of Islam would not be in the doldrums internationally as it is today.

F00028:
technological advancement, sure but at what expense. they have social decay and violent crimes: rapes, murders, paedophilia,
take the u.s for instance:

16,204 murders a year

9,369 murders with firearms in one year

2,019,234 prisoners and this has increased since 2002

95,136 rapes per year

420,637 robberies per year

11,877,218 total crimes per year

-https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
-The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
-UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on
crime victims. March.
-The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
-52 UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on
crime victims. March.

More selective tosh!

So tell me the crime figures in UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Canada etc.

Or is the USA the sole representation of "Western"?

So how come this "backward civilisation", as you see it, is the one that attracts migrants? How come they are not heading to Arabia? Where do YOU live yourself?

Don't give me tosh!

F00028:
"The Prophet of Islam placed great emphasis upon religious and scientific studies, thus, Islam’s conquerors, rulers, rapidly established the madrasa scholastic system in whatever land they controlled. This was the first institution installed after Salahideen’s re-conquest of Jerusalem. He regarded it as greater import than the mosques.

Without the madrasas, Salahideen realized, Islam would fail to be revived. During the 7th century Caliph ‘Umar ordered the construction of madrasas throughout the Islamic Empire."

No doubt!

That said, any theocracy or intense religious environment where there is little tolerance for anti-clericalists would always be progressively and innovatively constrained.

It does not matter what the theocracy is, be it Islam, Xtianity, Judaism, Buddhism whatever. Religion is the art of people reluctant to use their brain to understand issues and succumbing to some mythical explanation and precedence (i.e. utter BS). People and environments like that are less likely to develop or enable development compare to those that are full of or led by free-thinkers where leadership is based on competence and merit.

Go and read Niall Ferguson's "Civilization: The West and the Rest" where he explained how the West was able to overtake the world.

He identified the presence of the following as the six competitive advantage they had over the rest:

- Science
- Democracy
- Free-market competition
- Medicine
- Consumerism
- Work ethic

This same model is now being adopted in Asia and they are on a path to overtake the West!

Lets look at another example, Northern Nigeria is practicing theocratic education, Southern Nigeria is practicing Western education. Nuff said!

Religion is the opium of the people -Karl Marx

Sagamite:

That is absolute rubbish!

Although I can not think of any civilisation that takes it as a course of action to wipeout subdued populations, since every civilisation has its rational population. But if I was to think of the number of cases of decimating sub-dued populations, which should mostly be more attributed to individual leaders' philosophy rather than to the civilisation itself…

no, that is absolute rubbish!

the individual leader doesn’t got out and kill all those people all by himself!

If you cant think of any then let me help you: western “civilisation”!

you should study the impact your western civilisation had on the indigenous people of places like america, canada, south america, austrailia and of course, africa. let me know if you still can’t see a pattern.

Sagamite: BS!

Abolitionism started in the 16th century (mid 1700), was intense and unpopular by the early 1800s (already banned across Europe) and slavery was abandoned by in the last bastion (USA) by the mid 1800s.

The Technological industrial revolution was mostly established in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Do you even consider this stuff you post?

according to you abolitionism took 100 (ONE HUNDRED) YEARS!

one hundred years to stop treating your ancestors like animals. you want we should give them a medal?

when the industrial revolution began to take hold britain, for one, realised they didn’t need slaves before then the humanitarian had been shouting themselves hoarse....for 100 years!

Sagamite: This point is tosh. Hard labour was still a big factor in the western world by the time slavery was abolished. After that, poor white people were still going down mines with their kids, working their butts off in tough conditions and dying like rats from hard labour.

at least your “poor white people” got paid fo’ it ‘cos them nig.g.ers didn’t get sh.i.t! for 300 hundred years (excuse my swahili)

Sagamite: You want to use a singular lunatic's action that the whole of the West fought tooth and nail as a representation of the West?

hitler had help. Between him and stalin they managed to exterminate about 14 million NON COMBATANTS!

ever hear of slobadan milosovic or enver hoxha?

Sagamite: So tell me the crime figures in UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Canada etc.

Or is the USA the sole representation of "Western"?

uk:
- 2,164,000 violent incidents during 2007/08 against adults in england and wales
- approximately 47,000 rapes occur every year in the uk
- increase in murder rates. Metropolitan Police reported the most incidents, with 167 murders in 2007/8, up from 158.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.doc http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-guncrime. html

if you want more use your own bandwith.

Sagamite: So how come this "backward civilisation", as you see it, is the one that attracts migrants? How come they are not heading to Arabia? Where do YOU live yourself?

That is a whole new subject of discussion.

Sagamite: …This same model is now being adopted in Asia and they are on a path to overtake the West!

well, if they are over taking the west then either the west has abandoned a clearly working model or niall ferguson didn’t get the full picture. in any case maybe we should be looking up to the “asian civilisation”…am just saying.

Sagamite:

Lets look at another example, Northern Nigeria is practicing theocratic education, Southern Nigeria is practicing Western education. Nuff said!

can you substantiate that or you just have the urge to say something bad about them because they are not yoruba and predominantly Muslim

Sagamite:

Slavery would have even ended earlier than that but powerful people in society had invested heavily in it. It is a difficult message to tell people to destroy their "assets" (which they paid money for) without any compensation and pauperise themselves. There were even many slave owners that felt slavery was wrong but could not stop it without facing the rash realities of poverty. That was what made it exist longer than the early 1800s. They fought a fcking war over the abolition of slavery well before the technological industrial revolution ffs!
!

Lord of Mercy! you didn't just say that!

"slavery is bad but we dont want to be poor so we'll keep and work these blacks like animals and work them till they drop dead a little while longer."

I bet Jesus is real proud of those poor white christian slave owners

F00028:

no, that is absolute rubbish!

the individual leader doesn’t got out and kill all those people all by himself!

If you cant think of any then let me help you: western “civilisation”!

you should study the impact your western civilisation had on the indigenous people of places like america, canada, south america, austrailia and of course, africa. let me know if you still can’t see a pattern.

What utter clunking rubbish!

You are saying it is not the leader that normally dictates the course of action of people especially in medieval times?

Don't waste my time!

You tell me the impact of western civilisation on the people and contrast it with the impact of islamic civilisation!

F00028:
Do you even consider this stuff you post?

according to you abolitionism took 100 (ONE HUNDRED) YEARS!

one hundred years to stop treating your ancestors like animals. you want we should give them a medal?

when the industrial revolution began to take hold britain, for one, realised they didn’t need slaves before then the humanitarian had been shouting themselves hoarse....for 100 years!

Well it is taking more than a 1000 years to tell muslims to stop behaving like animals and we are still at it till today, in the 21st century!

Some muslims even still had slaves up to 1981, years after the UN banned it.

Cut the conjectural BS about industrialisation causing end of slavery!

F00028:
at least your “poor white people” got paid fo’ it ‘cos them nig.g.ers didn’t get sh.i.t! for 300 hundred years (excuse my swahili)

So how come they let go of the free labour if industrialisation was what stopped them?

F00028:
hitler had help. Between him and stalin they managed to exterminate about 14 million NON COMBATANTS!

ever hear of slobadan milosovic or enver hoxha?

And your point is?

Did the westerners stand by and watch or give excuses like muslims do to "defend their brothers"?

F00028:
uk:
- 2,164,000 violent incidents during 2007/08 against adults in england and wales
- approximately 47,000 rapes occur every year in the uk
- increase in murder rates. Metropolitan Police reported the most incidents, with 167 murders in 2007/8, up from 158.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.doc http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-guncrime. html

if you want more use your own bandwith.

Can you use your bandwith to get the figures for Egypt, Iran, Iraq and co?

Can you use your bandwith to explain to me how their leaders treat them when they merely ask to vote?

Can you use your banwith to show us how many of them have died or been tortured in the last 30 years for asking for democracy?

Can you use your bandwith to show us why people are not trying to migrate to their "civilisation"?

F00028:
well, if they are over taking the west then either the west has abandoned a clearly working model or niall ferguson didn’t get the full picture. in any case maybe we should be looking up to the “asian civilisation”…am just saying.

They are deviating from some of the 6 competitive advantages and/or the Asians are imitating and implementsome of the 6 advantages more effectively.

F00028:

can you substantiate that or you just have the urge to say something bad about them because they are not yoruba and predominantly Muslim

Substantiate what?

That Northerners are not sending their kids to be almajiri who only know how to recite the Quran?

That Northerners are not rejecting/limiting western education for the sake arabic/islamic education?

Amsorry. What do you need substantiated about the obvious?

F00028:
Lord of Mercy! you didn't just say that!

"slavery is bad but we dont want to be poor so we'll keep and work these blacks like animals and work them till they drop dead a little while longer."

I bet Jesus is real proud of those poor white christian slave owners

And your point is?

ndu_chucks:
I’m afraid I don’t agree with the implied conclusion of the above i.e. Islam is a violent religion. The above is not enough, without the presence of bigotry, to reach such a conclusion.

I don't agree with your categorisation of bigotry - instead of appending labels, can you counter the statements I made or term them false? Islam has violence embedded in its roots - as such, it is not surprising to see that violence continuing to propagate itself today.

I am however not surprised by your aggressive condemnation of Islam as a violent religion. You’ve chosen to ignore the presence of violence in many regions of the world ranging from Ireland to Lebanon to the Pacific Basin and involving many religions from Christianity to Hinduism, and decided to associate Islam more than any other religion with violence.

I have not ignored anything - like I said, human beings (in spite of, regardless of, and in support of religion) are violent, but in the minority. However, when we are assessing religions, it is always beneficial to go to the root of the religion, rather than focus only on current behaviours of (alleged) adherents.

People claiming allegiance to all religions have/continue to carry out violence. However, not all religions have violence embedded in their origins. Coupling this with the observed violence among Muslims, it is illogical to come to any other conclusion.

The Muslim conquest of Spain, the Crusades – which were not begun by Muslims -, and the Ottoman domination of eastern Europe have wrongfully provided a historical memory of Islam as being related to force and power. You and many in the western world continue use this as a basis to call Islam a violent religion.

I never referred to any of these incidents in my assertion, so I do not accept you attributing these events to my characterization. I repeat, the origin/root of Islam is violent - that is incontrovertible. In the light of this, subsequent violence by adherents of Islam, in 'defence' of Islam is simply a reflection of the roots of that religion.

Moreover, you are probably using the upheavals of the past few decades in the Middle East and especially movements using the name of Islam and seeking to solve problems of the Muslim world created by conditions and causes beyond the control of Muslims to justify your stance.

Again this is not the case - I have not used any such happenings to justify my stance. But even if we consider this stance, there are numerous other regions/areas in the world where 'problems' have occurred which are not the fault of those resident there, where wanton violence is not resorted to. Why should we give Muslims a free pass for their violence?

As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as 'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'. If there is nevertheless violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the Divine Message.

If Mohammed who received the 'Divine Message' himself was engaged in violence, was he also 'imperfect'? I do not expect his (true) followers to do any different from him. That is my simple thesis - anything else is simply a product of the initiator.

debosky:

If Mohammed who received the 'Divine Message' himself was engaged in violence, was he also 'imperfect'? I do not expect his (true) followers to do any different from him. That is my simple thesis - anything else is simply a product of the initiator.

Nwanne m, e be like say this nut will be hard to crack and since the topic relates to religion, we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on all points. We can do this all week long with neither one of us backing down.

I'd recommend that you reread my last post with an unbiased and open mind. Ipade di beer parlor.

Sagamite:
You are saying it is not the leader that normally dictates the course of action of people especially in medieval times?

we are not talking about medieval times. you said to cut the history.

Sagamite: So how come they let go of the free labour if industrialisation was what stopped them?

Sagamite: Did the westerners stand by and watch or give excuses like muslims do to "defend their brothers"?

yes, they did.
the western allies didnt do diddley squat to stop the holocaust.

Sagamite: Can you use your bandwith to get the figures...
Can you use your bandwith to explain to me...
Can you use your banwith to show us...

really now. you want me to hold up both ends of this discussion ?

Sagamite: Substantiate what?

That Northerners are not sending their kids to be almajiri who only know how to recite the Quran?

That Northerners are not rejecting/limiting western education for the sake arabic/islamic education?

Amsorry. What do you need substantiated about the obvious?

it is not obvious. it's make believe...but if you can prove it....

Sagamite: You tell me the impact of western civilisation on the people and contrast it with the impact of islamic civilisation!

why do you keep bringing up the islamic civilisation? according to you it is without merit.
so we want something better from you. and according to you that's the western civilisation. we only ask that it meets the same standards by which you measured the islamic civilisation.

but since you asked:

within 30 years of the muslim’s arrival in spain they noticeably renovated the society. within a century they transformed it into one of the most grand, advanced civilizations ever to inhabit the earth. its great cities, cordoba, seville, toledo, and granada, became the centers for the dissemination of knowledge and the advancement of civilization for five complete centuries.

according to goldstein the islamic cities were ‘urban, commercial, sophisticated, exotic, and cosmopolitan”.

the fact is the muslims created the world’s first sophisticated, advanced civilization.

scholars and clergymen came from all over europe- italy, france, germany, denmark, holland, switzerland, and england- to learn from the immense islamic output.

this environment is aptly described by renan, who says there were “no barriers of race, culture, or nationality at the muslim institutions. muslims, christians, and jews studied on the same level with complete racial tolerance.”

AND THEY DIDN’T HERD AND MURDER JEWS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS

(“Science In The Name Of God: How Men Of God Originated The Sciences” by Kasem, Dr. Khaleel, Knowledge House Publishers (July 1, 2003).

F00028:

we are not talking about medieval times. you said to cut the history.

Okay. So tell me which is the superior civilisation in the last 30 years!

Which civilisation has triumphed?

F00028:
yes, they did.
the western allies didnt do diddley squat to stop the holocaust.

Stop chatting shyt.

That is why they put people on trial in Nuremburg?

F00028:
really now. you want me to hold up both ends of this discussion ?

No I want to educate you on how to make comparisons.

Someone can not be on an Okada to work and start criticising another person that his mates are driving Range Rover while the person is driving an Honda EOD to work!

The issues of the person in EOD, if he has any, must be minor when compared to the issue of the man on an Okada bike.

I would rather live in the USA than live in Bahrain or UAE talkless of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, North Africa etc. And I am not particularly a fan of living in the USA.

F00028:
it is not obvious. it's make believe...but if you can prove it....

Wow!

Yeah, Northern Nigeria is fantastic. It is nirvana.

It is the most developed, most progressive, the most educated, the most peaceful, the most harmonious part of Nigeria and with the most talented and richest population of Nigeria.

Let me go even further and support your logic: The Islamic countries are more developed than Western countries and the most developed countries in the world.

Fck Denmark, life is better in Egypt. It is obvious na.

F00028:

why do you keep bringing up the islamic civilisation? according to you it is without merit.

Show me where I said so.

Sagamite:
Okay. So tell me which is the superior civilisation in the last 30 years!

Which civilisation has triumphed?

I can show you which one is in decline:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362325/Niall-Ferguson-why-the-West-is-now-in-decline.html

Sagamite: Stop chatting shyt.
That is why they put people on trial in Nuremburg?

that's after the fact! they could have stopped it.

now who's chatting shyt?

Sagamite: No I want to educate you on how to make comparisons.

I already have my own education. you just worry about yours and let it shine through.

Sagamite: Someone can not be on an Okada to work and start criticising another person that his mates are driving Range Rover while the person is driving an Honda EOD to work!

that only makes sense to a materialist.

if the the rover and eod were obtained with ill gotten wealth then I'd rather be on the okada.

Sagamite: I would rather live in the USA than live in Bahrain or UAE talkless of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, North Africa etc...

I've lived in the u.s and saudi. I'd leave my hotel around 1am and walk to the mosque and walk back. I wouldn't even think about doing that in jersey.

Sagamite:
Show me where I said so.

the Islamic religion is central to the civilisation but you say the religion is tosh. so it stands to reason that to you the civilisation is tosh as well. but if never implied that then it's my mistake.

F00028:
I can show you which one is in decline:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362325/Niall-Ferguson-why-the-West-is-now-in-decline.html

But you can't show me how the Islamic civilisation is better?

That one was DOA?

I have noted your line of argument has been repeatedly to criticise or find faults in Western civilisation, hardly have you been able to show why you think Islamic civilisation is better. Obviously because you know it is inferior and full of worse faults.

Lets try again. Have another go:

Okay. So tell me which is the superior civilisation in the last 30 years!

Which civilisation has triumphed?

And don't waste my time!

F00028:
that's after the fact! they could have stopped it.

now who's chatting shyt?

What a moronic statement?

Let me drop down to your level: Why did YOU not stop it? Or maybe, why did Saudi Arabia not go and stop it?

Stop making moronic statements!

F00028:
I already have my own education. you just worry about yours and let it shine through.


that only makes sense to a materialist.

if the the rover and eod were obtained with ill gotten wealth then I'd rather be on the okada.

If?

As in Ify?

Or is it Ife?

So who is the materialist? The person going to work gently on his own and minding his business or the person on an Okada thinking the other person should have a bigger and better car?

Cut the crap and don't waste my time. Islamic civilisation is inferior and trying to find faults in Western civilisation IS NOT proof that Islamic civilisation is better when it is full of worse faults.

Western = EOD

Islamic = Okada

They will both get you to your destination, but fck me, I know which one any rational person would prefer to ride in considering quality, safety, comfort, status, value etc. No wonder people see the West as the ultimate migration destination.

F00028:
I've lived in the u.s and saudi. I'd leave my hotel around 1am and walk to the mosque and walk back. I wouldn't even think about doing that in jersey.

But you can not say what you like (freedom of speech) in Saudi?

You can not even walk on the road with a woman you are not related at that 1am or even 3pm in the afternoon?

Your wife can not drive in Saudi?

She cannot even bloody go out or go to work in Saudi on her own?

But you could do all that in the USA?

And I am sure there are people walking not only at 1am, but also at 2am, 3am, chicken am in New York. Just like I can do in London and several European countries and Miami when I go and partee.

So what crap are you chatting? Who are you trying to BS? Saga Saga?

Go back to the Okada vs EOD example for the education.

F00028:
the Islamic religion is central to the civilisation but you say the religion is tosh. so it stands to reason that to you the civilisation is tosh as well. but if never implied that then it's my mistake.

My saying a religion is tosh does not imply I mean the religion has no ounce of merit. Otherwise I would not have said the religion (that I regard as the least rated out of all the major religions of the world) is not bad. If I felt it had no merit at all, I would have said it was a horrible religion.

Sagamite:
I have noted your line of argument has been repeatedly to criticise or find faults in Western civilisation...

so just because you hold out western 'civilisation' as the best, we can't look below the surface? it shouldn't be scrutinized
you're a regular uncle tom. if malcolm x were here he'd call you a "house nig***"

Sagamite: Lets try again. Have another go:

let's not.
you really don't get it, do you?

its in decline because of its fanaticism and disregard for the other deep rooted civilizations existing in the world, among other things.
much to the dismay of huntington.

which means it won't be tomorrow. just like the islamic civilisation which flourished for centuries and sowed the seeds for your precious western civilisation.

Sagamite: What a moronic statement?
Let me drop down to your level: Why did YOU not stop it? Or maybe, why did Saudi Arabia not go and stop it?

Stop making moronic statements!

every time you call a statement moronic, bs, etc, you then go on to make the most moronic statement yet!

the genocide was going on in europe's backyard, the reining super power at the time was european and you are asking why saudi arabia didn't stop it ?!?

Sagamite: But you can not say what you like in Saudi?

You can not even walk on the road with a woman you are not related at that 1am or even 3pm in the afternoon?

Your wife can not drive in Saudi?

She cannot even bloody go outor go to work in Saudi on her own?

But you could do all that in the USA?

BULL!
you should really get out more.

I see men and women together in public all the time. I have never seen them stopped and asked to prove their identities...but if you have proof...

and your wife may go out freely in the u.s but she has contend with all those perpetrators: serial killers, rap.ist, muggers, and people who act out of sheer racial hatred.

do you have any idea of the rate of violent crimes against women in your free society?

F00028:

so just because you hold out western 'civilisation' as the best, we can't look below the surface? it shouldn't be scrutinized
you're a regular uncle tom. if malcolm x were here he'd call you a "house nig***"


let's not.
you really don't get it, do you?

its in decline because of its fanaticism and disregard for the other deep rooted civilizations existing in the world, among other things.
much to the dismay of huntington.

which means it won't be tomorrow. just like the islamic civilisation which flourished for centuries and sowed the seeds for your precious western civilisation.

This is absolutely senseless rubbish.

The point I made that you challenged was that: "Western civilisation was better than Islamic civilisation", not "Western civilisation is perfection".

Instead of you to address the former and provide your dialectics of why Islamic civilisation is better than, or at least on par with, Western civilisation, you come up with senseless criticism of Western civilisation. Despite the fact Islamic civilisation has more tons of fault. It is like a morbidly obese person laughing at someone that is slightly overweight for being fat.

That is where the problem is. Can you see were you are quite poor in a debate?

What you need to go and do is to look at the surface of Islamic civilisation, not even below it, and then you will find how inferior it is.

Whether Western civilisation is in a decline, which I honestly think is a moronic point, is irrelevant. That is another debate. What is germane to this debate is that, it is superior and Islamic civilisation is DOA in its totality in the 21st century.

And by the way, Malcolm X is a professional person, so I could not give a toss what his opinion is. He should be woken from death so he can benefit from my superior intellect.

F00028:

every time you call a statement moronic, bs, etc, you then go on to make the most moronic statement yet!

the genocide was going on in europe's backyard, the reining super power at the time was european and you are asking why saudi arabia didn't stop it ?!?

Yes, it was moronic! As I said before I made it: "Let me drop down to your level:"

How can someone be so moronic to say "that's after the fact! they could have stopped it"?

What should they or could they have done before it happened?

How could they know it was going to happen?

You bought hindsight for them and took it back to 1938?

Where did you buy it from? Alaba market or Challenge?

Why could the Mullahs in Saudi not see it happpening before it happened?

Why did they not take their "swords of Allah" and go and fight the German army?

How do you intend for the Western countries to stop it from happening before it happened?

Who was the reigning super power?

They should go to a military power of the region and stop it how?

Stop making moronic statements! I dropped down to your level to show you how moronic you were, hoping you would be able to comprehend then.

F00028:
BULL!
you should really get out more.

I see men and women together in public all the time. I have never seen them stopped and asked to prove their identities...but if you have proof...

and your wife may go out freely in the u.s but she has contend with all those perpetrators: serial killers, rap.ist, muggers, and people who act out of sheer racial hatred.

do you have any idea of the rate of violent crimes against women in your free society?

Really?

So you are now claiming women now drive in Saudi and go out as they wish?

Millions of American women go out freely everyday, more so than Nigerian women who themselves go out more than Saudi women. Stop giving moronic arguments. And when I state "freely", the encompasses the 'special privilege' of not needing a man to escort them. They have a right to walk alone.

When women of Saudi cannot even go out on their own, how can we know what violent crimes await them? Though, if they dared, we know violent legislation awaits them if not violent crimes.

Go and ask your wife, girlfriend, mother and all female acquaintances which they will prefer to settle in: USA or Saudi Arabia!

Stop chatting crap!

I hope you realise if the Saudis have taken their "Swords of Allah" and gone to fight the Germans to save the Jews (obviously with the benefit of unmatched, transcendental hindsight) then we would not have had the Isreal-Palestine conflict?

So how come the Saudis did not stop it before it happened?

Sagamite: I hope you realise if the Saudis have taken their "Swords of Allah" and gone to fight the Germans to save the Jews (obviously with the benefit of unmatched, transcendental hindsight) then we would not have had the Isreal-Palestine conflict?

So how come the Saudis did not stop it before it happened?

the genocide was going on in europe's backyard, the reining super power at the time was european and you are asking why saudi arabia didn't stop it ?!?