Israelian attack on help convoy

[mnemon]

For the Danish, its just a sign. Our culture that we assumed to be superior turns out to be not so superior after all. If our culture was superior, it would mean that people come over from these lands, take a little bit of their own culture with them, but in general, wholly embrace our culture. They dont, so that means there is something wrong with our cultural superiority.

I don't think it's possible to make any such deductions...

People don't act rationally, and they don't generally choose the best and most logical option.
There's a saying that "despair teaches a naked woman to sew clothing", but it's not true.
despair teaches people to single out some other people and sacrifice them to the sun god.

Most people choose the option they think is the best, I'd say most devout muslims consider their religion/culture to be better choice than some random foreign one.

In my experience, most people rarely want to change their ways, beliefs, preferences or habits and usually only do so when forced to.

In this case Denmark with its tolerance when it comes to foreign cultures and religions probably wouldn't force them.

[Lexus]

For the Danish, its just a sign. Our culture that we assumed to be superior turns out to be not so superior after all. If our culture was superior, it would mean that people come over from these lands, take a little bit of their own culture with them, but in general, wholly embrace our culture. They dont, so that means there is something wrong with our cultural superiority.

I don't think it's possible to make any such deductions...

People don't act rationally, and they don't generally choose the best and most logical option.
There's a saying that "despair teaches a naked woman to sew clothing", but it's not true.
despair teaches people to single out some other people and sacrifice them to the sun god.

Most people choose the option they think is the best, I'd say most devout muslims consider their religion/culture to be better choice than some random foreign one.

In my experience, most people rarely want to change their ways, beliefs, preferences or habits and usually only do so when forced to.

In this case Denmark with its tolerance when it comes to foreign cultures and religions probably wouldn't force them.

If thats the case, then why do they go to a country that isnt ruled by Muslim law? If they like their Muslim culture so much, then why dont they stay in the middle east in some country like Iran or Saudi Arabia? What the fuck are they doing over here if they dont like our rules, customs, culture, religion, language, climate and god knows what else. Just shows they are here for the money. Get rich by being lazy.

If they wanna profit from the wealth we have worked for, they are most welcome, but only under the condition that they adapt to our rules and our culture. They are welcome to practice their religion, wear the clothes they like, eat the food they like and read the books they like, but they better work just like everyone else, speak our language just like everyone else and obey our laws, just like everyone else. Personally, I think thats a very reasonable thing to ask of any immigrant. If they got a problem with that, they should fuck off.

[xeno]

If they wanna profit from the wealth we have worked for, they are most welcome, but only under the condition that they adapt to our rules and our culture. They are welcome to practice their religion, wear the clothes they like, eat the food they like and read the books they like, but they better work just like everyone else, speak our language just like everyone else and obey our laws, just like everyone else. Personally, I think thats a very reasonable thing to ask of any immigrant. If they got a problem with that, they should fuck off.

Most immigrants do that. To be honest, I'm impressed by how good most of them are at learning the native language and fit in, but I guess that varies a lot, and also is a result of the policy and treatment in the host country.   pretty impressive if you ask me, given that you can expect to fill in 175 job applications that doesn't get answered if you're name is Omar, you get heat for any wrong done by someone born in the same continent as you (or a continent nearby) and you have mainstream political parties dedicated to get you deported...

There are some bad apples of course, just like there are bad native apples...

However, as long as they obey the laws and do their part when it comes to work and social responsibilities, I don't think it's fair to extend the requirements further...  It's their duty to contribute to the society, but it's not their duty to help preserving our historic culture and tradition as untainted as possible... at least I don't consider that my duty so I won't impose that on others...

also, there's all kinds of reasons to immigrate. Some do it to get work, while others do it to avoid being killed with machetes in a genocide.

[Lexus]

If they wanna profit from the wealth we have worked for, they are most welcome, but only under the condition that they adapt to our rules and our culture. They are welcome to practice their religion, wear the clothes they like, eat the food they like and read the books they like, but they better work just like everyone else, speak our language just like everyone else and obey our laws, just like everyone else. Personally, I think thats a very reasonable thing to ask of any immigrant. If they got a problem with that, they should fuck off.

Most immigrants do that. To be honest, I'm impressed by how good most of them are at learning the native language and fit in, but I guess that varies a lot, and also is a result of the policy and treatment in the host country.   pretty impressive if you ask me, given that you can expect to fill in 175 job applications that doesn't get answered if you're name is Omar, you get heat for any wrong done by someone born in the same continent as you (or a continent nearby) and you have mainstream political parties dedicated to get you deported...

There are some bad apples of course, just like there are bad native apples...

However, as long as they obey the laws and do their part when it comes to work and social responsibilities, I don't think it's fair to extend the requirements further...  It's their duty to contribute to the society, but it's not their duty to help preserving our historic culture and tradition as untainted as possible... at least I don't consider that my duty so I won't impose that on others...

also, there's all kinds of reasons to immigrate. Some do it to get work, while others do it to avoid being killed with machetes in a genocide.

Sure, a lot of them do. People from Eastern Europe do their best to fit in. People from America and Asia also do their best to fit in. People from Africa and Southern America do their best to fit. Muslims? Not so much as the rest over here. Sure, there are plenty of them (mainly from Turkey, maybe because that is a secular county) that do their best and succeed.

In fact, there are whole groups of Muslims who actively undermine the whole integration process. We had Imams saying that good Muslims should ignore our laws, not learn our language, because only the Islamic laws are the laws that count for Muslims. We have much more Muslims (compared to other minorities) that just dont work because they can get a welfare check from the state. We have Muslims that still practice illegal (as well as retarded) things like honor killings and women
circumcisions. Muslim minorities tend make up much more of the crime statistics then say Chinese, Eastern European or South American minorities. We found a Muslim terrorist cell and it was a Muslim that assassinated a columnist thats was extremely critical on the Islam. These things dont lie, Muslims in general, have much more trouble with integrating then other groups. They cause more trouble, cost us more and there is in certain circles even a resistance against our culture, morals and laws.

And that leaves me only wonder why the hell these people came here in the first place?

[Leviathan]

Mohammed specifically mentioned that the Jewish and Christians were tolerable because they believed in the same god, they just weren't up to date. Somewhere along the line Arabic Muslims got all twisted up over Judaism and Christianity, but for a long time they coexisted together just fine.  I thought the only reason he attacked the Arabic Jewish population at the time was to subjugate them, or rather get them out of Medina altogether. He was still trying to establish himself, and they were being ... Jewish! ;D (I'm totally kidding!)

I don't remember the details, it's been a few years since I read up on all of this. It's actually pretty fascinating stuff to read. A good, concise book on the history of Islam (and the direction it is heading) is No God but God, by Reza Aslan.
[/quote]


but he also wrote things that encouraged violence against me.  such as "a day will come, when even the stones will cry 'there is a jew hiding behind me, come and cut off his head'."  how is that tolerance?



Levi

[Lexus]

For Arabs and Jews, it should be noted that, despite the fact everyone there hates Israel, they do not hate all the Jews. Best example is Iran, Israels arch nemesis, who has a population of I believe about 5 million Jews living in peace within the borders of Iran, free of any political and religious oppression.

When it comes to saying they hate one group or encouraging violence against a certain group, all the holy books are pretty inconsistent. The Quran for the most part is all about peace and love, and then you got a few verses that talk about killing stuff for some silly reason. But also look at the Bible, when in the old testament, God is a huge dick to pretty much everyone, and in the new Testament he comes down as his own son and is suddenly the worlds first recorded true pacifist. The contrast between the two books can hardly be any bigger.

[Leviathan]

"kill them where you find them" and the part about being cast into hell for tolerating the existence of kaffirs where you live.  yep; pretty peaceful.  according to the koran, your muslims neighbors are damned for not beheading you.  and that includes jews and muslims.  free from oppression is not true.  in order to gain that limited freedom, kaffir al dhimmi, or monotheistic infidels, must pay a hefty tax called "jizya" which is about 20% of your income.  that doesn't sound free of oppression to me.  don't forget that i was raised abroad.  my father once had a high level post at the egyptian embassy, and that i am a counter terrorism studies student at a military college.  it is my business to know about islam.  further, i have had many islamic friends growing up.  and i still do.  even though i am a classic example of a zionist (not the modern definition) i still have close friends that are muslims, in fact being in one's wedding last summer.  but the fact is that islam is a mixed up religion with so many conflicting messages coming from the same source.  part of the turmoil in the mideast  right now is from muslims trying to come to terms with a modern definition of their religion.  In a sense, they never had one.  at least with christianity a modern scholar can look at it and say, this or that practice is not biblically correct.  The sabbath was changed and dates were changed to appease pagans, and christianity also became a self righteous finger pointing doomsday cult in the middle ages.  modern groups are trying to return to the original compassionate and loving teachings by, honestly, seeking to become more jewish in interpretation.  In contrast the orthodox jews turned judaism into a draconian legalistic burden that has no meaning.  what is the point of dressing like you are in 16th century poland in december when you are really in 21st century israel in august?  fur hats and fur coats that go to your ankles and all.  where the hell is that in the bible?  the problem with islam is that sunni islam has always been practiced one way.  other sects broke off and got into mysticism and sainthood.  because of this the other sects such as suffi and shiite can be reformed by leaders.  but in the sunni purely koranic islam there is a vast majority of factors that prevent unity, including one interpretation that will unify all muslims.  even in the same verse the koran often contradicts itself before the benefit of even a period ending the statement.  that is why islam has ALWAYS been in turmoil and has never had peace.  and the people are tired of it and they are trying to reform and the jihadists are resisting.  the best any foreign power can do is stay the hell out of it.  We would do well to remember the example of the Romans in the balkans.  they conquered the people but then had to deal with a civil war in their new terriroty.  our best bet is to just leave and let them duke it out.

Levi

[Lexus]

"kill them where you find them" and the part about being cast into hell for tolerating the existence of kaffirs where you live.  yep; pretty peaceful.  according to the koran, your muslims neighbors are damned for not beheading you.  and that includes jews and muslims.  free from oppression is not true.  in order to gain that limited freedom, kaffir al dhimmi, or monotheistic infidels, must pay a hefty tax called "jizya" which is about 20% of your income.  that doesn't sound free of oppression to me.

Hmm, no, Jews and Christians dont fall under the infidel group. At least, they are not supposed to. Politics have changed it in certain Qurans though. The point is though that its just very very inconsistent. If you have a book thats for the most part about love and peace, and then you get these few verses that are about hate and war, you have a contradiction. And contradictions allow for schisms and different interpretations.

And I was talking about Iran, a country where the Muslims oppress each other with a secret police and shit, a country that repeatedly has made claims it will wipe Israel from the map, etc. Youd think that any Jew there would be shot on sight, yet you have this huge Jewish enclave living in peace in Iran. Sure, they do their best to stay on the background as much as they can, but still, they are not actively attacked by the Iranian secret police.

part of the turmoil in the mideast  right now is from muslims trying to come to terms with a modern definition of their religion.  

I think its important to remember that the Islam is several hundred years behind Christianity. Its the year 14something for them now. Look at Christianity during that time. Witch burnings and stuff like the Inquisition trying to stop progress. Any religion is by definition ultra conservative, the Islam is no exception. Give it another few 100 years and their conservatism will break as well.

[mnemon]

Muslims(even the radical ones) aren't really against judaism or christianity, they're against zionism. Which is what led to the creation of Israel in the first place and which is supported among other things by large groups in US. Many jews don't support zionism either.

For the quaran telling muslims to kill part, there are very similar parts in christian bibles old testament too... doesn't mean christians go around killing their unbelieving neighbours/family members.

[Leviathan]

they DO fall under the infidel group.  in surah 8 christians and jews are called apes and pigs and specifically, undeniably identified as infidels.  in the koran they are called khaffir al-dhimmi.  a monothiestic khaffir, but a khaffir nontheless.  in their views, we are acceptable infidels.  the only ones who deserve to live -  but only if we fork over 20% of our annual income for jizya, which serves to force non muslims into poverty and ensures that it is unlikely that a jew or christian will ever acheive any status and therefor besubjugates by muslims forever.  you need to read the koran in arabic.  even muslims admit that the translations in other languages were watered down.  this is why converts are pressured to immediately begin learning arabic so that they can really read the koran.  further, you need to read the all of the texts as well, not just the koran.  muslims themselves do not trust the translations.  there is good reason for it too.  the christian translations of the bible are horrible and have lead to all sorts of twisted doctrine.

[Lexus]

they DO fall under the infidel group.  in surah 8 christians and jews are called apes and pigs and specifically, undeniably identified as infidels.  in the koran they are called khaffir al-dhimmi.  a monothiestic khaffir, but a khaffir nontheless.  in their views, we are acceptable infidels.  the only ones who deserve to live -  but only if we fork over 20% of our annual income for jizya, which serves to force non muslims into poverty and ensures that it is unlikely that a jew or christian will ever acheive any status and therefor besubjugates by muslims forever.  you need to read the koran in arabic.  even muslims admit that the translations in other languages were watered down.  this is why converts are pressured to immediately begin learning arabic so that they can really read the koran.  further, you need to read the all of the texts as well, not just the koran.  muslims themselves do not trust the translations.  there is good reason for it too.  the christian translations of the bible are horrible and have lead to all sorts of twisted doctrine.

Man, Muslims cant even read their own book. The original Quran was written in what is now a dead language (although you will never hear one admit it). Ancient arabic isnt spoken by more then a handful of scholars and even their knowledge and understanding of the language is limited. So yeah, Muslims are still reading a translation.

Translations to modern languages (like English) are even worse. Ive heard about versions talking specifically about tanks and rockets when its about how you can fight your enemies. It is in those versions where they specifically call Jews and Christians infidels. Mind you, these translations are printed in Saudi Arabia, backed by a group of extremist Muslims (whahabis sp?)

And then there are the supplement texts in the Islam. At the one hand youve got the Quran which is pretty much about love and peace and the value of the human life etc and you got these extra texts, written centuries later. Some of them tend to focus on these texts a little more since those texts do say its okay to beat your wife, stone everyone for the slightest offense and kill everyone else that isnt a Muslim. These texts are pretty violent and these texts are pretty much the exact opposite of whats written in the Quran.

[Leviathan]

Comparing the evolution of a language to the translation of a completely unrelated language with many incompatibilities is absurdity.  Ancient hebrew does not exist any more.  But modern hebrew speakers have no trouble reading the antiquated language; even if a Germanized accent in the case of the Ashkenazim or an Arabized accent in the case of the Sephardim (or an Sinosized accent in the case of the Yu-tai of Kaifeng, China, or Kushesized accent n the case of the Beta Israel in Ethiopia) would not seem correct to the speakers back then they would understand us.  Can Swedish not understand Greenlandic?  The Peedee Indians in SC can understand the Sioux in the Dakotas even though they split long before the arrival of white men.  The same goes for Cherokee and Iroquois.  A fluent Sioux speaker can understand all of the place names in South Carolina, 1500 miles away from where they live.  But there would be no compatibility between Germanic English and Semitic Arabic.  The only Germanic speaking people that may have had contact with Semitic people that may have continued on in migration are the Hittites, but they have disappeared to history.  In other words, Arabic and English have nothing in common.  And to compare those differences between in contrast to the differences between a modern version of the same language is a stretch.

Levi

[Lexus]

Comparing the evolution of a language to the translation of a completely unrelated language with many incompatibilities is absurdity.  Ancient hebrew does not exist any more.  But modern hebrew speakers have no trouble reading the antiquated language; even if a Germanized accent in the case of the Ashkenazim or an Arabized accent in the case of the Sephardim (or an Sinosized accent in the case of the Yu-tai of Kaifeng, China, or Kushesized accent n the case of the Beta Israel in Ethiopia) would not seem correct to the speakers back then they would understand us.  Can Swedish not understand Greenlandic?  The Peedee Indians in SC can understand the Sioux in the Dakotas even though they split long before the arrival of white men.  The same goes for Cherokee and Iroquois.  A fluent Sioux speaker can understand all of the place names in South Carolina, 1500 miles away from where they live.  But there would be no compatibility between Germanic English and Semitic Arabic.  The only Germanic speaking people that may have had contact with Semitic people that may have continued on in migration are the Hittites, but they have disappeared to history.  In other words, Arabic and English have nothing in common.  And to compare those differences between in contrast to the differences between a modern version of the same language is a stretch.

Levi

Except that its a fact that only a handful of scholars can read the Quran in ancient Arabic. Its not merely some change of accent here and there, and some words being replaced with newer words and stuff like that. Its simply a language no one can read anymore.

Didnt the 50 virgins if you die turn out to be 50 vases or something? Translation error.
Compare it with the bible. The original thing was written in Latin, then the middle ages came along and nobody spoke Latin anymore except a handful of monks and their grasp on Latin was flawed at best. So they rewrote it, over and over, translated it, and now you have a book that probably isnt the same as the original anymore. 

[Drewthetexan]

Comparing the evolution of a language to the translation of a completely unrelated language with many incompatibilities is absurdity.  Ancient hebrew does not exist any more.  But modern hebrew speakers have no trouble reading the antiquated language; even if a Germanized accent in the case of the Ashkenazim or an Arabized accent in the case of the Sephardim (or an Sinosized accent in the case of the Yu-tai of Kaifeng, China, or Kushesized accent n the case of the Beta Israel in Ethiopia) would not seem correct to the speakers back then they would understand us.  Can Swedish not understand Greenlandic?  The Peedee Indians in SC can understand the Sioux in the Dakotas even though they split long before the arrival of white men.  The same goes for Cherokee and Iroquois.  A fluent Sioux speaker can understand all of the place names in South Carolina, 1500 miles away from where they live.  But there would be no compatibility between Germanic English and Semitic Arabic.  The only Germanic speaking people that may have had contact with Semitic people that may have continued on in migration are the Hittites, but they have disappeared to history.  In other words, Arabic and English have nothing in common.  And to compare those differences between in contrast to the differences between a modern version of the same language is a stretch.

Levi

Except that its a fact that only a handful of scholars can read the Quran in ancient Arabic. Its not merely some change of accent here and there, and some words being replaced with newer words and stuff like that. Its simply a language no one can read anymore.

Didnt the 50 virgins if you die turn out to be 50 vases or something? Translation error.
Compare it with the bible. The original thing was written in Latin, then the middle ages came along and nobody spoke Latin anymore except a handful of monks and their grasp on Latin was flawed at best. So they rewrote it, over and over, translated it, and now you have a book that probably isnt the same as the original anymore. 

Actually, the old testament would have been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, which is now dead, and Greek. Even the new testament was translated into Greek pretty early on, so there is both Latin and Greek translations to draw upon.

Greek is so old a written language with such a varied and complex vocabulary that ambiguities in the language are rare.  So even though the language varies today, the basis for study remains. Idioms are the hard thing to translate. When an idea is expressed in an idiom, coming up with an equivalent expression is difficult, if not impossible. It's like reading Shakespeare. Anyone with a basic command of the English language can read it.  But only someone with insight into the historical perspective of the text can understand it.  That's why seminaries teach Greek and Latin, especially in the context of original translations of the bible.  The idea is that priests and pastors can understand what modern translations are actually saying - I won't get into abuses, etc...

I'm fairly confident that word for word copies made it through the centuries mostly unmolested. Particularly in Greece since the Greek language never died and the Greek orthodox church still uses their original churches and texts from the Byzantine Era.