strichener Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 My point is that the Muslims who murder others around the world do believe the boolshit. Is there not a dedicated forum for debating the merits of different religions. Not really anything to do with either politics or immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Is there not a dedicated forum for debating the merits of different religions. Not really anything to do with either politics or immigration. We've imported Islam via the immigration system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 We've imported Islam via the immigration system. If you want to go back even further, we also imported christianity. An argument on the beliefs of each religion is still not relevant to politics or immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If you want to go back even further, we also imported christianity. An argument on the beliefs of each religion is still not relevant to politics or immigration. No lets just keep it to the past thirty of forty years. We've imported Islam. And Islam is causing a problem because elements wont integrate which has led to the likes of Merkel admitting that the multicultural experiment has "utterly failed". Even muslims themselves admitted this on Panorama on Monday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 the likes of Merkel The likes of Merkel? A right-wing conservative? Not that surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Is there not a dedicated forum for debating the merits of different religions. Not really anything to do with either politics or immigration. I would have thought Mr Salmond's support for the Muslim faith would have something to do with SNP immigration policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I would have thought Mr Salmond's support for the Muslim faith would have something to do with SNP immigration policy. Why? Scotland isn't allowed to have an immigration policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No lets just keep it to the past thirty of forty years. We've imported Islam. And Islam is causing a problem because elements wont integrate which has led to the likes of Merkel admitting that the multicultural experiment has "utterly failed". Even muslims themselves admitted this on Panorama on Monday night. er, there has been as Islamic community in Britian since the 18th century (thanks initially to the British East India Company); mosques in Britian since the late 19th century; and significant Muslim populations in London and Cardiff since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Cardiff Somali community is probably the oldest established Muslim community in the UK. The idea that "we've imported Islam in the last thirty or forty years" is laughable bullshit. Much like everything else you've claimed on here. Even if you want to focus on the development of Islamic communities in the UK since 1945, the communities in West Yorkshire and Birmingham mushroomed in the late 50s and early 60s- fifty - sixty years ago, in case you hadn't noticed. Further, the "Muslims" which you keep referring to from your programme do not back up your claims as you keep repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I would have thought Mr Salmond's support for the Muslim faith would have something to do with SNP immigration policy. Was just about to post that it was a reserved matter but beaten to it Baxter Parp. The proposed SNP Immigration policy was not based on religious beliefs so I still don't see the relevence. Additionally, it was the muslim vs christian argument that I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I expect that British expats will have to return from their sunny retirement havens too. It's not like we are renowned for integrating. Or does it not matter because they aren't Muslim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 so, in summary then; 1. Reynard "hates Islam" but not its adherents apparently, despite the fact that Islam is "breaking out all over Europe" and we're "20 years too late" to do anything about it. All Muslamics hate the West and its freedoms and the two are incompatible, apparently, despite the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds co-existing pretty happily for most of a millennium and a half. 2. Reynard is really desperate for a "leftie" to say something along the lines of "the Jews have brought it on themselves because Palestine", and has failed comprehensively to get anyone to say any such thing. Apparently some random person did on TV though, so, er, point proven. No one can quite remember what the original point was, but never mind. 3. Reynard thinks multiculturalism has failed because of Islam. He has admitted to having no idea what multiculturalism is, but anyway, that doesn't matter, because, er, Angela Merkel said something vaguely along those lines on the telly whilst Reynard was semi distrcted by the pages of either Art & Antiques or Guns & Ammo- probably the latter given the mood he's been in lately. 4. so, in spite of there being no evidence of well, pretty much anything Reynard has said, (catastrophist ramblings about Islam taking over and being out to do us all in and take away our red telephone boxes) he's right anway. Don't confuse him with the facts. Hope this short message has helped you all avoid the turgid clusterfuck of the last half dozen pages. The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression. Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. Early in the ninth century, the persecution grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christians cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection. Christians then moved from a defensive policy to an offensive policy towards the Muslims, and tried to recapture some of their territories, seized by Muslims. In 960 General Nicephorus Phocas carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims. In 969 he recaptured Antioch, and extended his campaign into Syria. In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever-and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of losses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Bagdad declared jihad. This followed yearly jihad campaigns launched by Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi’ite Hamdanid dynasty I Aleppo from 944 to 967. However, Sunni/Shi’ite disunity ultimately hamperred Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001 the Byzantine emperor Basil II concluded a ten year truce with the Fatimid (Shi’ite) caliph. Basil soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile, in 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu’Ali al-Mansur ai Hakim (985-1021) turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the holy Sepulcher and the Church of the Resurrection to be destroyed. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam or leave his dominion The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution of non-Muslims. This was probably due to his increasing tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. This allowed the Byzantines to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1027. In 1056, the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbad European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. When the Seljuk Turks sweapt down from central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor, making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims. After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine empoperor Ronanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered three thousand people. The new emperor Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118, swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 er, there has been as Islamic community in Britian since the 18th century (thanks initially to the British East India Company); mosques in Britian since the late 19th century; and significant Muslim populations in London and Cardiff since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Cardiff Somali community is probably the oldest established Muslim community in the UK. There would have been a good few Muslims merchants and functionaries in Elizabethan London. England had particularly good relations with Morocco as back then it was the Catholics who presented a "terror threat" and the Moors were at loggerheads with Spain so they were basically cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 screeds and screeds about seven instances of inter-communal violence / conflict in four centuries. what's your point? Edited to add: you also appear to be C&Ping your observations from various extremist anti-Islamic geocities websites. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 screeds and screeds about seven instances of inter-communal violence / conflict in four centuries. what's your point? I barely summarized the history. there were much more instances of Christian persecutions than seven. If you look at your post, you will see the part of the text that I have put in bold and was answering. I only took my post to the beginning of the Crusades. Which suggests to me you were being facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I barely summarized the history. there were much more instances of Christian persecutions than seven. If you look at your post, you will see the part of the text that I have put in bold and was answering. I only took my post to the beginning of the Crusades. Which suggests to me you were being facetious. What's your point ? That Christians were persecuted at some point in history ? We've invaded every country on the planet bar a couple. You can't moan about persecution of other races/religions when you stay in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I barely summarized the history. there were much more instances of Christian persecutions than seven. If you look at your post, you will see the part of the text that I have put in bold and was answering. I only took my post to the beginning of the Crusades. Which suggests to me you were being facetious. Did you write your own replies, or did you cut and paste paragraphs from various wingnut anti-Islam websites? of course there were some conflicts. Hence the use of the words "for most of" in the bolded bit you have replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Did you write your own replies, or did you cut and paste paragraphs from various wingnut anti-Islam websites? of course there were some conflicts. Hence the use of the words "for most of" in the bolded bit you have replied to. Well if you are just going to insult me, you can get lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Well if you are just going to insult me, you can get lost. sorry, where was the insult in my question? did you cut & paste your potted history from extremist anti-Islam websites, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairn Terrier Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The vast majority of German immigration has been Turks and Arabs in recent times. They havent "integrated". Why not? 99% Stop making stuff up an passing it off as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Stop making stuff up an passing it off as fact. That's your job, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.