Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


God: An Anatomy by France...
by zeca
Today at 01:04 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
by zeca
Today at 08:02 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
September 23, 2021, 11:00 AM

The essence of the facts
by akay
September 21, 2021, 05:40 AM

Qur'anic studies today
September 19, 2021, 10:26 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 15, 2021, 10:15 PM

Apostasy Alternative
September 14, 2021, 09:25 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
September 12, 2021, 01:14 PM

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
September 11, 2021, 11:02 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 01, 2021, 05:58 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
September 01, 2021, 11:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims

 (Read 94222 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #270 - September 19, 2009, 02:53 PM

     Afro @ Cheetah. I was going to mention that nazism IS a political movement, and that's why, but I thought it's was such a dumb thing for Mr H to give that there must've been something I missed...not so it seems.

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #271 - September 20, 2009, 12:58 PM


    Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what you do. (Koran 2:85)

    Therefore a "Muslim" who claims to reject ON PRINCIPLE the violent stuff in the Koran is either:

    a) ignorant of those verses

    b) lying to themselves

    c) lying to the non-Muslims

    d) a Koran-defined hell-bound hypocrite (munafiq)



    I'd say many are 'honestly' lying to themselves.

    I feel that you're trying to apply similar principles to all people like the fundies as the Taliban are doing; precise geometrical principles for the real world and humanity.

    Quote

    Go to your nearest mosque at Friday prayer and persuade the assembled congregation to close the place and emigrate to the Arabian peninsula on the basis that Allah only meant Islam to be practiced and propagated within the confines that land area. If on the way there you happen upon a behijabbed Muslim female tell her to remove her Islamic garb because Allah did not intend for it to be worn outside Arabia.  If you can persuade THEM of this you'll have persuaded me.


    The verse you originally quoted was about conquest and control, not about practise of religion.

    Quote
    And how exactly do they rationalize this position?


    How is creationism rationalized when there is overwhelming evidence of evolution?

    "God is a geometer" - Plato

    "God is addicted to arithmetic" - Sir James Jeans
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #272 - September 20, 2009, 01:04 PM

    That's because Nazism was a political movement whereas Islam is a religion.


    Islam is a movement with a political program: the enforcement of a system of law and government - sharia - on the entire world through jihad. Therefore Islam is a political movement. That it presents its political program in a religious guise is neither here nor there. To quote Ayatollah Khomeini: "Islam IS politics".

    Quote
    If the Nazis had survived and generations had been indoctrinated into their ideology before they were old enough to know any better, any fair minded person would draw a distinction between those people and the Hitlers, Mengeles, etc.


    Nazism survived long enough to indoctrinate millions of young German minds "before they were old enough to know better". If the Nazis had surivived till modern times why would it be unreasonable to suppose that any randomly selected member of that party fully subscribed to its ideology of race hatred and military conquest? Would you take seriously party members who claimed to follow a "peaceful non racist" "interpretation" of Mein Kampf?

    Quote
    It would be more in tune with reality if you did.  Reality tends to be nuanced, it doesn't lend itself to simplistic equations like a 1400 yr old religion = a 20th century political movement.


    Islam is a 1400-yr-old political movement the manifesto of which is the Koran. Furthermore, because the political program of Muhammad is presented as "the final and perfect revelation" of an omnipotent creator deity there is no way that members of "The Party of Allah" (Hizbullah: Koran 58,22) can alter it.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #273 - September 20, 2009, 01:22 PM

    Quote
    Islam is a movement with a political program: the enforcement of a system of law and government - sharia - on the entire world through jihad. Therefore Islam is a political movement. That it presents its political program in a religious guise is neither here nor there. To quote Ayatollah Khomeini: "Islam IS politics".



    There is certainly a political form of Islam, there is also an apolitical, personal form of it, hence the title of this thread.  How much textual integrity the non-political Islam holds is really a matter for muslims to discuss among themselves.  I think all their texts are made up stuff anyway, so why would I care which one has the "true" interpretation?  What counts is the way people who believe in it interpret it, not some purist judgement on which is the True Islam, whether from outside or from Khomeini.

    Quote
    Nazism survived long enough to indoctrinate millions of young German minds "before they were old enough to know better". If the Nazis had surivived till modern times why would it be unreasonable to suppose that any randomly selected member of that party fully subscribed to its ideology of race hatred and military conquest? Would you take seriously party members who claimed to follow a "peaceful non racist" "interpretation" of Mein Kampf?


    I wouldn't judge a person indoctrinated from childhood up into Nazism in the same light as someone who voluntarily embraced it as an adult.  Most other people wouldn't either - eg, other than those who attack the Catholic church on any excuse, nobody judges the current Pope for having been a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a kid. 

    Now, add in the factor that Islam has survived for over 1400 years.  If Nazism had survived that length of time it would have spawned different branches and schools of thought, and undergone various schisms, all of which would have no doubt claimed to be the "true Nazism."  Its hard to see how anyone could come up with a non-racist version of Mein Kampf, but its not impossible, especially among people who speak no German and are given versions translated by someone who softened the text, and/or are dependent on tafseers that give nice interpretations that would have Hitler spinning in his grave.


    Quote
    Islam is a 1400-yr-old political movement the manifesto of which is the Koran. Furthermore, because the political program of Muhammad is presented as "the final and perfect revelation" of an omnipotent creator deity there is no way that members of "The Party of Allah" (Hizbullah: Koran 58,22) can alter it.


    Says you.  The Ayatollah Khomeini and Hizbullah may agree with you, but given that they follow a minority sect within Islam, there is no reason why I should take their claim, or yours, seriously.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #274 - September 20, 2009, 01:32 PM

    I'd say many are 'honestly' lying to themselves.


    Expand on this concept of "honest lying" if you would. What do you mean by it?

    Quote
    I feel that you're trying to apply similar principles to all people like the fundies as the Taliban are doing; precise geometrical principles for the real world and humanity.


    That is because the Koran is precise in the distinction it makes between "believers" and "unbelievers" etc.

    Quote
    The verse you originally quoted was about conquest and control, not about practise of religion.


    Muslims who take the practice of Islam to non-Muslim lands that hitherto had NO Islam are clearly propagating Islam whether or not they are actively prosyletizing native non-Muslims. They are therefore following the command of surah 9:33 to make Islam "prevail over all religion". That they haven't yet achieved total domination (in some localities they are coming close) doesn't alter the fact. If, as some Muslims claim, this verse only applied to the Arabian peninsula then the Islamization of other lands must be reversed and Muslims who wish to continue to practice Islam are Koranically obliged to relocate to Arabia. If you can convince the majority of Muslims of verse 9:33's "Geographical context" then that's fine by me.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #275 - September 20, 2009, 01:38 PM

    lol ACCORDING to geert wilders. I firmly object to the UN passing a draft resolution against defaationof religion since we should all have the right to expression and criticise anything. However just because it was sponsored by the OIC does not mean it gives Islam exclusive rights from criticism - it implies all religion. I'll reiterate I am aginst the resolution. Also iti is a draft resolution, it has not been made into legislation in Europe.


    Even though I disagree with DH or Wilders for the most part,  I'd say 'lol'ing was not the best way to address that argument. I am on agreement with Wilders that leftists nuts shouldn't be entertained just as much as I think rightist nuts like himself shouldn't be.

    "It implies all religion". True, superficially. But Islam is the religion currently most shielded from criticism as there is no scope for it in the Islamic countries. Christianity and Judaism are well criticized in the West and reformed already and can survive only as much as their reformed versions can, so by having the defamation rule applied to all countires, it best benifits the meme of Islam and those who want to use it to control the masses like the OIC, rather than any other religion. I won't be surprised if somebody call the bill as one against 'defamation of Islam'.

    "God is a geometer" - Plato

    "God is addicted to arithmetic" - Sir James Jeans
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #276 - September 20, 2009, 01:46 PM

    Expand on this concept of "honest lying" if you would. What do you mean by it?


    Though they are lying to themselves, they don't know it since they are deluded. Hence they are honest.

    Quote
    That is because the Koran is precise in the distinction it makes between "believers" and "unbelievers" etc.


    I'm not sure about that. But the point is Humans will find ways to make it compatible with their conscience unlike machines.

    Quote

    Muslims who take the practice of Islam to non-Muslim lands that hitherto had NO Islam are clearly propagating Islam whether or not they are actively prosyletizing native non-Muslims. They are therefore following the command of surah 9:33 to make Islam "prevail over all religion". That they haven't yet achieved total domination (in some localities they are coming close) doesn't alter the fact. If, as some Muslims claim, this verse only applied to the Arabian peninsula then the Islamization of other lands must be reversed and Muslims who wish to continue to practice Islam are Koranically obliged to relocate to Arabia. If you can convince the majority of Muslims of verse 9:33's "Geographical context" then that's fine by me.


    It could be argued that the holy land should be striclty Islamic, and the whereever else is a bonus. Besides, you can see why Bin Laden gets more itchy on "Infidels troops in Saudi" rather than the Russians occupying Chechnya.


    "God is a geometer" - Plato

    "God is addicted to arithmetic" - Sir James Jeans
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #277 - September 20, 2009, 02:11 PM

    There is certainly a political form of Islam, there is also an apolitical, personal form of it,


    Islam is "apolitical" and "personal" only where it has no option to be otherwise eg the original Muslims in Mecca. Islam in the west is presently only able to advance its shariaization goals mainly through the established political system. I say MAINLY because enforcement of sharia through physical force and intimidation has already arrived in the west - the assassination of Theo Van Gogh being an infamous example.


    Quote
    hence the title of this thread.  How much textual integrity the non-political Islam holds is really a matter for muslims to discuss among themselves.


    Why?

    Quote
    I think all their texts are made up stuff anyway, so why would I care which one has the "true" interpretation?


    Because people other than Muslims have a vital interest in the matter. Every time there is a terrorist attack committed in the name of Allah a Muslim is invariably wheeled out in the media who claims that the terrorists are acting "against Islam" - usually misquoting the Koran as saying "killing an innocent person is like killing all humanity". This is a misrepresentation and it is a valid point of discussion as to whether Muslims who make such statements  genuinely believe what they are saying or are lying for various reasons.


    Quote
    I wouldn't judge a person indoctrinated from childhood up into Nazism in the same light as someone who voluntarily embraced it as an adult.  Most other people wouldn't either - eg, other than those who attack the Catholic church on any excuse, nobody judges the current Pope for having been a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a kid.


    That is the point. He WAS a member of the Hitler youth. He no longer CLAIMS to belong to a movement with a core ideology of race hatred and military conquest. If he still CALLED himself a Nazi and wore a swastika on his arm I would be sceptical if he claimed that he no longer subscribed to Nazism's core ideology and goals. Likewise, if someone CALLS themselves a Muslim and proudly proclaims "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's messenger" and proudly dresses as one then I am going to be sceptical if they claim to reject ANY part of the Koran - the "message" allegedly sent from heaven via Muhammad.
     

    Quote
    Its hard to see how anyone could come up with a non-racist version of Mein Kampf,  but its not impossible,


    There is of course a crucial difference between Mein Kamf and al-Qur'an: Hitler did not claim it was "handed down" to him from a god as a "perfect and final revelation". Therefore "Nazis" are under no religious obligation to morally endorse Hitler's philosophy lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, a "reformed" Nazism, however implausible, is still more plausible than a "reformed" Islam.


    The sunni religious authorities show every indication of agreeing with Khomeini.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #278 - September 20, 2009, 02:21 PM

    Before we go on....trawling through various news pubications worldwide I came across the following article in the UK Sunday Telegraph - more evidence of shariaization of western law enforcement:

    Christian hoteliers charged with insulting Muslim guest

    A Christian couple who run a hotel have been charged with a criminal offence for allegedly insulting a female Muslim guest about her beliefs.
     
    By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
    Published: 9:30PM BST 19 Sep 2009

    Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act ? causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of ?2,500 each and a criminal record.

    The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.

    It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.

    Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

    The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over the incident.

    After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three months later before being charged on July 29 with a religiously-aggravated public order offence. They appeared in court on August 14 and are now awaiting trial.

    Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang do not accept that they were threatening or abusive in any way. David White, who is representing them, said that they believe they have the right to defend their religious beliefs.

    Their case is being funded by the Christian Institute, which has backed a number of Christians in legal disputes.

    A spokesman for the Institute said: "We are funding Ben and Sharon's defence because we believe important issues of religious liberty and free speech are at stake.

    "In many instances we have detected a worrying tendency for public bodies to misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity more than other faiths."

    A police spokesman said: "Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This follows an incident on 20 March 2009."


    What kind of "moderate" Muslim reports someone to the police for "insulting" their religion?Huh? If this woman had done the same thing in an Islamic state the couple in question could well have been killed. If before this incident I had seen this behijabbed Muslimah in the street, why would I have been wrong to deduce from her attire that she harbored strong pro-sharia tendencies?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #279 - September 20, 2009, 02:24 PM

    Quote
    There is of course a crucial difference between Mein Kamf and al-Qur'an: Hitler did not claim it was "handed down" to him from a god as a "perfect and final revelation". Therefore "Nazis" are under no religious obligation to morally endorse Hitler's philosophy lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, a "reformed" Nazism, however implausible, is still more plausible than a "reformed" Islam.


    It'd only be the other way round. People deluded to believe in supernatural stuff, and that God and Religion stands only for good, could interpret their holy books in anyway they want, but this is simply impossible with Nazism.

    "God is a geometer" - Plato

    "God is addicted to arithmetic" - Sir James Jeans
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #280 - September 20, 2009, 02:28 PM

    Quote from: brainyape
    Even though I disagree with DH or Wilders for the most part,  I'd say 'lol'ing was not the best way to address that argument. I am on agreement with Wilders that leftists nuts shouldn't be entertained just as much as I think rightist nuts like himself shouldn't be.


    What makes Wilders a "rightist nut" exactly?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #281 - September 20, 2009, 02:32 PM

    Quote
    Islam is "apolitical" and "personal" only where it has no option to be otherwise eg the original Muslims in Mecca. Islam in the west is presently only able to advance its shariaization goals mainly through the established political system. I say MAINLY because enforcement of sharia through physical force and intimidation has already arrived in the west - the assassination of Theo Van Gogh being an infamous example.



    Islam is also personal and apolitical in various countries where muslims make up the vast majority of the population - see Senegal, Tunisia, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey (depite its recent set backs), Bosnia.

    Taking isolated examples of murderous extremism and misrepresenting them as "sharia has arrived in the west" won't convince anyone.  Am I supposed to believe a Christian theocracy has arrived in the US because of the murder of George Tiller?

    Quote
    Why?


    Because for the rest of us Mohammed's teachings are no more the truth than the fairytales of Hans Christian Andersen.

    Quote
    Because people other than Muslims have a vital interest in the matter. Every time there is a terrorist attack committed in the name of Allah a Muslim is invariably wheeled out in the media who claims that the terrorists are acting "against Islam" - usually misquoting the Koran as saying "killing an innocent person is like killing all humanity". This is a misrepresentation and it is a valid point of discussion as to whether Muslims who make such statements  genuinely believe what they are saying or are lying for various reasons.


     

    That's only a reason to worry about which type of Islam has the most followers, not which is the closest to the original text of The Ugly Duckling the Qur'an.

    Quote
    That is the point. He WAS a member of the Hitler youth. He no longer CLAIMS to belong to a movement with a core ideology of race hatred and military conquest. If he still CALLED himself a Nazi and wore a swastika on his arm I would be sceptical if he claimed that he no longer subscribed to Nazism's core ideology and goals. Likewise, if someone CALLS themselves a Muslim and proudly proclaims "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's messenger" and proudly dresses as one then I am going to be sceptical if they claim to reject ANY part of the Koran - the "message" allegedly sent from heaven via Muhammad.
      


    That's misrepresenting the analogy I made.  Extend Nazism over 1400 years, and across countries where the majority don't speak German, then get back to me on the point I really made.

    Quote
    There is of course a crucial difference between Mein Kamf and al-Qur'an: Hitler did not claim it was "handed down" to him from a god as a "perfect and final revelation". Therefore "Nazis" are under no religious obligation to morally endorse Hitler's philosophy lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, a "reformed" Nazism, however implausible, is still more plausible than a "reformed" Islam.



    Even if Hitler had claimed that it was handed down to him, etc, it wouldn't have stopped different interpretations arising if it had lasted as a political force for more than a generation.  We know that because Islam has split into different factions, and produced different schools of thought even within each faction, and had already done so within a generation of the Prophet's death.

    Quote
    The sunni religious authorities show every indication of agreeing with Khomeini.


    They don't agree with him about much.






    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #282 - September 20, 2009, 02:45 PM

    Quote from: brainyape
    It'd only be the other way round. People deluded to believe in supernatural stuff, and that God and Religion stands only for good, could interpret their holy books in anyway they want,


    And the actual state of affairs is that a very high proportion of self-proclaimed "Muslims" have expressed pro-sharia sympathies to some extent in a number of polls and the alleged "vast majority of moderates" has failed to prevent fanatical killers arising from their midst.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #283 - September 20, 2009, 02:51 PM

    Must knock this on the head for the time being. I will return.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #284 - September 20, 2009, 02:51 PM

    So what's the plan DH? What are you gonna do about it? Rant on Internet forums? They must be quaking in their boots Smiley

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #285 - September 21, 2009, 03:14 PM

    Islam is also personal and apolitical in various countries where muslims make up the vast majority of the population - see Senegal, Tunisia, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey (depite its recent set backs), Bosnia.


    You mean "recent setbacks" in "moderate" Turkey like the election to power of an Islamic Party led by a obvious shariaist? That sharia in the countries you list are is not presently being enforced with the full power of the state no more makes Islam apolitical than any other political movement that is not presently able to enact its political program to the extent it would like.

    Quote
    Taking isolated examples of murderous extremism and misrepresenting them as "sharia has arrived in the west" won't convince anyone.


    However much you wish to close your eyes to the facts, killing people for "insulting" Islam or its "prophet" is part of sharia. It was implimented by state officials in supposedly "tolerant" Islamic Spain. The killing of Theo Van Gogh is therefore a bloody demonstration that sharia has arrived in the west. That it is not YET being fully implimented everywhere does not alter the fact of its presence. In Islamic states the knowledge that one could be so killed is a powerful disincentive to criticism of Islam and such murderous acts in the west and the threat thereof has clearly had its effect on peoples willingness to say or print anything Muslims might find "offensive".

    Quote
    Am I supposed to believe a Christian theocracy has arrived in the US because of the murder of George Tiller?


    It could be reasonably argued that the USA has advanced some way down the path of theocratic control with the influence of powerful religious groups on government policy. However "Theocratic Christianity"cannot seriously be said to pose the same level of threat to the USA as Islam which, aside from trying to advance its sharia agenda through such faux moderate organizations as CAIR, has been responsible for an unprecedented act of terrorism on US soil.

    Quote
    Because for the rest of us Mohammed's teachings are no more the truth than the fairytales of Hans Christian Andersen.


    The concern is not with the effect of Muhammad's teachings on those of us who do not believe in them, but their likely effect on those who regard him as a divine messenger and the Koran as the divine word. To quote Theo Van Gogh's murderer:

     "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."

    Get that?

    "I shot [at police] to kill and be killed."

    Somehow this self-proclaimed "Muslim" managed NOT  to "interpret" the words "kill and be killed" in Koran surah 9:111 as "kiss and be kissed". How do you think he  managed to do that - particularly when he was an apparent "moderate" before he became supposedly "radicalized"?

     
    Quote
    That's only a reason to worry about which type of Islam has the most followers, not which is the closest to the original text of The Ugly Duckling the Qur'an.


    So which "type" of "Islam" has the most followers?

    Quote
    Even if Hitler had claimed that it was handed down to him, etc, it wouldn't have stopped different interpretations arising if it had lasted as a political force for more than a generation.


    And those "interpretations" would have been as intellectually dishonest as your continued assertion that Islam can be anything anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" wants it to be.

    Quote
    We know that because Islam has split into different factions, and produced different schools of thought even within each faction, and had already done so within a generation of the Prophet's death.


    But neither Sunni nor Shia have ever "interpreted" Islam in a sharialess, jihad-rejecting fashion.

    Quote
    They don't agree with him about much.


    They were shoulder to shoulder with him on the issues that matter eg the desirability of murdering Salman Rushdie

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #286 - September 21, 2009, 04:39 PM

    Wow, people are still debating with DH (guess what I think that stands for)? Woulda thought people had grown bored with Mr. Head by now.

    So what's the plan DH? What are you gonna do about it? Rant on Internet forums? They must be quaking in their boots Smiley


    I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.

    fuck you
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #287 - September 21, 2009, 05:00 PM

    Quote
    You mean "recent setbacks" in "moderate" Turkey like the election to power of an Islamic Party led by a obvious shariaist?


    Yes, the election of Erdogan is what I meant, and the way he is pushing the envelope of Islamism as far as he can get away with.  Which isn't all that far, thanks to Turkey's secular constitution.

    Quote
    That sharia in the countries you list are is not presently being enforced with the full power of the state no more makes Islam apolitical than any other political movement that is not presently able to enact its political program to the extent it would like.


    The populations of those countries are overwhelmingly muslim.  So what would you say is stopping them from enacting the full programme of political Islam?  Could it possibly be that the populations of those countries won't support the agenda of political Islam?

    Quote
    However much you wish to close your eyes to the facts, killing people for "insulting" Islam or its "prophet" is part of sharia. It was implimented by state officials in supposedly "tolerant" Islamic Spain. The killing of Theo Van Gogh is therefore a bloody demonstration that sharia has arrived in the west.


    There were plenty of things implemented by the governments of medieval Europe in the name of religion.  The presence of Islamic or other religious nutters who would like to bring them back does not mean they stand any prospect of success.

    Quote
    That it is not YET being fully implimented everywhere does not alter the fact of its presence


    You can drop the big dramatic "YET".   Roll Eyes  Sharia is not going to be implemented in Europe, end of.

    Quote
    In Islamic states the knowledge that one could be so killed is a powerful disincentive to criticism of Islam and such murderous acts in the west and the threat thereof has clearly had its effect on peoples willingness to say or print anything Muslims might find "offensive".


    There is a problem with self-censorship in some of the more spineless areas of the western media, but still - Theo Van Gogh's death didn't stop the Danish cartoons, the publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel", the knighting of Salman Rushdie, and it has had no discernible effect on the career of Geert Wilders other than a pathetic decision by the UK Home Secretary to ban him from the country, (which seems to have won him more votes among the Dutch).


    Quote
    It could be reasonably argued that the USA has advanced some way down the path of theocratic control with the influence of powerful religious groups on government policy. However "Theocratic Christianity"cannot seriously be said to pose the same level of threat to the USA as Islam which, aside from trying to advance its sharia agenda through such faux moderate organizations as CAIR, has been responsible for an unprecedented act of terrorism on US soil.


    Political Islam and its Sharia agenda stand even less chance in the US than they do in Europe, in large part because of 9/11.  The Christian fundie nutters are more of a threat, especially if you work in an abortion clinic, or you want to teach science to High School students without a religious agenda.

    Quote
    The concern is not with the effect of Muhammad's teachings on those of us who do not believe in them, but their likely effect on those who regard him as a divine messenger and the Koran as the divine word. To quote Theo Van Gogh's murderer:

     "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."

    Get that?

    "I shot [at police] to kill and be killed."

    Somehow this self-proclaimed "Muslim" managed NOT  to "interpret" the words "kill and be killed" in Koran surah 9:111 as "kiss and be kissed". How do you think he  managed to do that - particularly when he was an apparent "moderate" before he became supposedly "radicalized"?



    He wasn't an apparent "moderate", he was a total fucking loser all along.  

    Quote
    Mohammed Bouyeri, was born in Holland, though his parents were from Morocco. As a teenager he tried to conform to the culture of his native city. He got drunk, smoked dope, and tried to seduce Dutch girls. After all, everything in the culture, from pop music to TV commercials, promises sex. This is a world away from home, where the saintly mother and virginal sisters must be protected from lustful eyes.

    But things began to go wrong for Mohammed. The Dutch girls were not as easy as he thought. He lost interest in his studies. Subsidies for this and that failed to materialise. There were nasty brushes with the police. And his sister got a boyfriend. This enraged Mohammed. He felt dishonoured, useless, excluded. He was, in short, a radical loser, and Islamism promised righteous murder, martyrdom, and the feeling, however fleeting, of total power.

    The reason Van Gogh became Mohammed's target was a short film he made with the Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script. The film, Submission, showed Koranic texts projected on to the half-naked bodies of veiled women who had been abused by men. Hirsi Ali blames Islam for the sexual subjugation of women and the misguided and frustrated machismo of men. Her take on secular European society is the exact opposite of Mohammed's. Where she sees liberation - above all, sexual liberation - he sees dishonour, decadence, filth and confusion. The freedom of living in Holland allowed her to flourish, while it made him feel small and hateful. And that is why he wanted to destroy her, and with her the civilisation that made him feel like a radical loser.
     



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/25/terrorism.comment

    Quote
    So which "type" of "Islam" has the most followers?


    The various types that don't prey on total losers and give them the comforting illusion that they're Pinky and the Brain.

    Quote
    And those "interpretations" would have been as intellectually dishonest as your continued assertion that Islam can be anything anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" wants it to be.


    Or as intellectually dishonest as the Anglicans allowing gay bishops, or the Methodists allowing women to preach, or the Catholics and Reform Jews suddenly deciding to interpret the Book of Genesis metaphorically after they realised Darwin wasn't going away after all.  

    I have pointed this out to you before, ALL religious people cherry pick.  It would be impossible to live completely by the book of any of them, so which bits they pick will depend on the psychology of the person.


    Quote
    But neither Sunni nor Shia have ever "interpreted" Islam in a sharialess, jihad-rejecting fashion.


    But they do interpret "sharia" and "jihad" in different ways, don't they?  You've been given various examples of that in this thread.

    Quote
    They were shoulder to shoulder with him on the issues that matter eg the desirability of murdering Salman Rushdie


    That's one of the few issues that they ever have agreed on, and despite their unity Salman Rushdie is still alive, he married a hottie half his age,  he's more famous than ever, and his oh so "offensive" book is a bestseller.  So where did it get them?

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #288 - September 21, 2009, 11:53 PM

    Sorry but I do not agree with you that Islam can not or will not reform. Actually most Muslims are kind, peaceful people and I do not understand why u believe in this idea that we should hastily drag Muslims out of Islam.

    You know you made some absurd generalisations. Most Muslims who do integrate into Western society or adopt such values do at least reinterpret or pick and choose the values of Islam they consider best to suit their situation.

    There are many different Islams Rashna and actually many Muslims do not believe in killing innocent people or committting acts of terrorism in the name of religion, I think we ought to let their voice be heard before we adopt your approach.

    Also a further point. Islam's problem is that it is also a political movement.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #289 - September 22, 2009, 12:31 PM

    Wow, people are still debating with DH?


    Indeed....something you and JT have obviously given up on

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #290 - September 22, 2009, 02:37 PM

    Right where were we?

    Quote from: Cheetah
    Yes, the election of Erdogan is what I meant, and the way he is pushing the envelope of Islamism as far as he can get away with.  Which isn't all that far, thanks to Turkey's secular constitution.


    That is right. Not because of a "vast majority of moderate Muslims" who told him to stick his sharia ideals at the ballot box, but because of Turkey's secular constitution drawn up best part of a century ago by a dictatorial ruler and backed  by the threat of a military coup. It was a military coup - remember? - that stopped a "vast majority of moderate Muslims" in Algeria from voting a shariaist-jihadist party into power there. But for that ever present threat Erdogan would have brought that country back under full-blown sharia with Turkish women forced to cover themselves up whether they want to or not. As it is, he and his colleagues have to tread carefully and present their  attempts at stealth re-shariaization as the pursuit of a western-style "freedom to choose". To quote "a close aide" of the Turkish president, Egeman Bagis:

    "We want to lift all ridiculous bans in Turkey; we want everyone to freely walk and receive education, either with their miniskirts or head scarves,"

    And if you believe that you'll believe anything. Do you approve of the decades-old Turkish Islamic headscarf ban btw? I'd like an answer to that question in particular.


    Quote
    The populations of those countries are overwhelmingly muslim.  So what would you say is stopping them from enacting the full programme of political Islam? Could it possibly be that the populations of those countries won't support the agenda of political Islam?


    Let's go through each country:

    Bosnia: example of Kashmir-style Islamic terrorist separatism which succeeded with western military assistance and shameless demonization of Serb people in western media. Its former "moderate" president Izetbegovik granted large-numbers of vicious international jihadists citizenship there.

    Kosovo: Where dozens of churches have been destroyed and thousands of non-Muslims driven out since "independence" - a veritable haven of Muslim "moderation" of course!

    Tunisia: The fact that a shariaist political party has not come to power there obviously due to their being ruthlessly suppressed by a dictatorial regime. Therefore so-called "vast majority of moderate Muslims" not a factor in containing so-called "Islamists"

    Actually, I'll leave the examples of Senegal and Albania to you. So explain their (alleged) "moderation" please....

    Quote
    There were plenty of things implemented by the governments of medieval Europe in the name of religion.


    The key word being "Were".
     

    Quote
    You can drop the big dramatic "YET".   Roll Eyes  Sharia is not going to be implemented in Europe, end of.


    To repeat my earlier question which I do not believe I received an answer to: how do you define "sharia" exactly? And what do you think is going to stop its progress in Europe?

    Quote
    There is a problem with self-censorship in some of the more spineless areas of the western media,


    As a result of violence and the threat thereof by Muslims whose antics the supposed "moderate sharia-rejecting majority" are patently unable or unwilling to seriously challenge.

    Quote
    but still - Theo Van Gogh's death didn't stop the Danish cartoons, the publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel", the knighting of Salman Rushdie, and it has had no discernible effect on the career of Geert Wilders other than a pathetic decision by the UK Home Secretary to ban him from the country, (which seems to have won him more votes among the Dutch).


    So people still feel safe enough to defy those who would murder them given half a chance.True, Europe is not yet a total Islamic basket case like Pakistan where, by now, the Muhammad cartoonist would have been slaughtered in his own home by a frenzied Muslim mob (unopposed by pakistan's "vast majority of moderate Muslims") and any females living there brutally raped. But don't confuse lack of strength with lack of intent.


    Quote
    Political Islam and its Sharia agenda stand even less chance in the US than they do in Europe, in large part because of 9/11.  The Christian fundie nutters are more of a threat, especially if you work in an abortion clinic, or you want to teach science to High School students without a religious agenda.


    Could you provide the  figures for the number of Americans killed on American soil by violent anti-abortionists and Muslim jihadists respectively?



    Quote
    He [Theo Van Gogh's Muslim Killer] wasn't an apparent "moderate", he was a total fucking loser all along.  ..The various types that don't prey on total losers and give them the comforting illusion that they're Pinky and the Brain.


    So the fact that Van Gogh's killer ended up killing him IN THE NAME OF ISLAM had nothing to do with his initially having a basic "muslim" identity that could be built on? Atheist sexually frustrated guys are equally prone to end up carrying out such murderous actions are they?


    Quote
    Or as intellectually dishonest as the Anglicans allowing gay bishops, or the Methodists allowing women to preach, or the Catholics and Reform Jews suddenly deciding to interpret the Book of Genesis metaphorically after they realised Darwin wasn't going away after all.


    Agreed, anybody who claims that practicing homosexuality can be reconciled with the bible is being intellectually dishonest. However, that is where it ends: intellectually dishonest gays clinging to a faith that is inherently antagonistic to their sexual activities. By contrast, whether or not Islam can be validly "interpreted" in a  non-jihad/sharia manner is crucial in determining how those societies now being targeted by so-called "Islamists" with their global sharia agenda should respond. If the root of the problem is Islam per se - my position - then permitting the continued spread of this  cult in any shape and form in the west and permitting the continued large-scale immigration of its self-defined members into western countries is clearly wrongheaded.

    Quote
    I have pointed this out to you before, ALL religious people cherry pick.  It would be impossible to live completely by the book of any of them, so which bits they pick will depend on the psychology of the person.


    The psychology of the person? You mean psychotic people will cherry pick the violent bits of the Islamic texts to suit their own propensities and "nice" people will cherry pick the "nice" stuff? If that is your position please explain the case of Cat Stevens - former hippy peace and love poster boy - who after he changed his name to "Yusuf Islam" supported the murder fatwah against Salman Rushdie.


    Quote
    But they do interpret "sharia" and "jihad" in different ways, don't they?  You've been given various examples of that in this thread.


    What are the differences in Sunni and Shia "interpretations" of sharia exaclty?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #291 - September 22, 2009, 03:38 PM

    Indeed....something you and JT have obviously given up on


    Yeah, because it's kinda like going over to Stormfront and debating with someone as to why Jews aren't bad-- fuckin pointless. All pointless debating and no play make Jack a dull boy.

    You gonna answer the question Jack posed? As I recall, osmanthus posed a similar question. I guess I wouldn't want to answer either if my only answer to what I was doing to promote/fight for secularism in the Muslim world was "I just sit on my ass and bitch about Muslims online"

    P.S.-- One last thing, Mr. Head, having known many Bosnians (including some who served in the militia-- far from being "Islamic terrorist separatists", they are fine people to share a drink with, freely socialize in mixed company, and who don't keep their women's heads wrapped in hijab) and a friend from grade school having served in the NATO peacekeeping force as an infantryman, your characterization of the conflict is nothing short of slanderous. Yes, some Islamists from other countries volunteered there, but the Bosnians took them in because, ya know, they didn't want to be fuckin slaughtered and took any help they could get. I'll be heading to Sarajevo in a few months, and if you like, I'll take along a video camera, go into the bars and read people your statement on camera, then show you the clips of riotous laughter at your dumbass shit. Would you like that, Mr. Head?

    fuck you
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #292 - September 23, 2009, 07:24 AM

    Bosnia: example of Kashmir-style Islamic terrorist separatism which succeeded with western military assistance and shameless demonization of Serb people in western media. Its former "moderate" president Izetbegovik granted large-numbers of vicious international jihadists citizenship there.

    Kosovo: Where dozens of churches have been destroyed and thousands of non-Muslims driven out since "independence" - a veritable haven of Muslim "moderation" of course!

    Actually, I'll leave the examples of Senegal and Albania to you. So explain their (alleged) "moderation" please....

    I though that some of your posts were a bit strange but this bit is in a league of its own.

    Bosnia
    1. Former Yugoslavia dissolved (see Banditer Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badinter_commission) hence you allegations of separatism are ridiculous.
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina held an independence referendum prior to the start of the war which was in favour of independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#Independence_referendum_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina).
    3. Bosnian military (by that I mean the so called "Muslim" part) was multiethnic, the same cannot be said for Serbian and Croatian armed forces during the war. General Jovan Divljak who was in charge of Sarajevo defence and a deputy commander of the Chiefs of Staff was an ethnic Serb. Lots of grunts were non-Muslims too; a story of one such man (ethnic Serb who fought on "Muslim" side) is described in Joe Sacco's The Fixer:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fixer-Story-Sarajevo-Joe-Sacco/dp/0224073826/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253686630&sr=1-2.
    4. There was no need for media demonization because Serbian side did a great job on their own. I am sure you have heard of Srebrenica and that is just a tip of the Iceberg.
    5. Out of Milosevic-Tudjman-Izetbegovic trio, Alija Izetbegovic was by far the most moderate one; he constantly promoted multicultural Bosnia as opposed to the other two.
    6. It is true that quite a few jihadist types helped Bosnian army during the conflict but that was purely because Bosnians were in such desperate situation and took all help they could get. But mercenaries and other bloodthirsty psychotics were to be found on all sides, for example Russian nationalists helped Serbian side.
    7. Have you ever seen a "Muslim" girl in a mini skirt? Not an uncommon sight in Sarajevo. In former Yugoslavia term "Muslim" referred to a sort of ethnicity and it did not necessarily have religious connotations.

    Kosovo
    You might want to recall that Serbia was running a half apartheid system in Kosovo since late '70 and a full blown one since late '80. And then tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Albanians in 1999. What happened afterwards was a simple act of revenge for years of oppression. Regrettable but not unexpected. Religion had absolutely no part in it. Ethnic Turks and Egyptians in Kosovo that sided with Serbs during the apartheid era paid the same price as Serbs did even though they were nominally Muslims.

    I am no expert on Tunisia or Senegal but as far as Albania goes I can tell you that I do know quite a few Albanians. Some declare themselves as Muslims, some as atheists and one as Orthodox, but they are all strictly secular.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #293 - September 23, 2009, 07:40 AM

    You haven't run out of steam have you DH? Was waiting on the reply as to what you're doing about this subject that means so much to you? Don't fall over yet?


    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #294 - September 23, 2009, 12:38 PM

    DH, in order not to distract your attention I'll wait for you to answer the question Os and Jack asked you a few pages back before I respond to your last post.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #295 - September 23, 2009, 05:04 PM

    I think he's done a runner....or maybe he's out canvassing?

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #296 - September 24, 2009, 03:52 PM

    Quote from: Jack Torrance
    You haven't run out of steam have you DH? Was waiting on the reply as to what you're doing about this subject that means so much to you? Don't fall over yet?


    Quote from: Q-Man
    You gonna answer the question Jack posed? As I recall, osmanthus posed a similar question. I guess I wouldn't want to answer either if my only answer to what I was doing to promote/fight for secularism in the Muslim world was "I just sit on my ass and bitch about Muslims online"


    Quote from: Jack Torrance
    I think he's done a runner....or maybe he's out canvassing?


    Quote from: Cheetah
    in order not to distract your attention I'll wait for you to answer the question Os and Jack asked you a few pages back before I respond to your last post.


    To remind readers of JT's post:

    Quote
    So what's the plan DH? What are you gonna do about it? Rant on Internet forums? They must be quaking in their boots



    I am not interested in playing along with JT's spoiler tactics clearly intended to divert attention from the fact that nobody here - least of all his good self -  has been able defend with cogent arguments the fallacy of so-called "non-political Islam" as distinct from a so-called "political" variety.  That Cheetah and others are now trying to bog the debate down in this non-issue merely highlights their inability to support their unsupportable position.

    Anyway, what do you mean "do about IT" JT? What is this IT exactly?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #297 - September 24, 2009, 04:46 PM

    Yeah, because it's kinda like going over to Stormfront and debating with someone as to why Jews aren't bad-- fuckin pointless.


    Nice try with the white supremacist slur. Sorry to disappoint you but that ain't me.


    Quote
    P.S.-- One last thing, Mr. Head, having known many Bosnians (including some who served in the militia-- far from being "Islamic terrorist separatists", they are fine people to share a drink with, freely socialize in mixed company,  and who don't keep their women's heads wrapped in hijab)


    "Muslims" who, among other Koran-prohibited practices, drink alchohol aren't technically Muslims are they? Why do you insist on regarding them as such?


    Quote
    and a friend from grade school having served in the NATO peacekeeping force as an infantryman, your characterization of the conflict is nothing short of slanderous. Yes, some Islamists from other countries volunteered there, but the Bosnians took them in because, ya know, they didn't want to be fuckin slaughtered


    Bosnian Serbs didn't want to be slaughtered either - as they were in large numbers before Srebrenica. Nor, having experienced the joys of Muslim rule for 500 years, did they wish to be forced into Izetbegovic's "multi-cultural" paradise. Do you have any sympathy for their position?

    Quote
    and took any help they could get. I'll be heading to Sarajevo in a few months, and if you like, I'll take along a video camera, go into the bars and read people your statement on camera, then show you the clips of riotous laughter at your dumbass shit. Would you like that, Mr. Head?


    While you were there you might like to seek out some Bosnian Serbs and ask them if there were any atrocities committed against their people by Muslim forces and their al-Qaeda friends during the Balkans conflict. Could you do that?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #298 - September 24, 2009, 05:30 PM

    Quote from: Kenan
    4 There was no need for media demonization because Serbian side did a great job on their own. I am sure you have heard of Srebrenica and that is just a tip of the Iceberg.


    So there were no atrocities committed by Muslim forces against Serbs before Srebrenica?

    Quote
    Out of Milosevic-Tudjman-Izetbegovic trio, Alija Izetbegovic was by far the most moderate one; he constantly promoted multicultural Bosnia as opposed to the other two.


    Are you really that naive? The "multiculturalism" Izetbegovic believed in was the Ottoman Islamic empire variety with non-Muslims reduced to a state of quivering subservience. The Bosnian Serbs were well aware of this, wanted no part of it and decided to do something about it. And I don't blame them. Do you? Or do you REALLY believe Isetbegovic had changed his views since writing ""there can be no peace between Islam and other forms of social and political organization"Huh??

    Quote
    It is true that quite a few jihadist types helped Bosnian army during the conflict but that was purely because Bosnians were in such desperate situation


    They were on the losing side in a civil war - just like the cesessionist forces in the US civil war.

    Quote
    But mercenaries and other bloodthirsty psychotics were to be found on all sides.


    True, but the Bosniak ones didn't get quite the media coverage that the Serb ones did. Did they? That would have undermined the simple black and white media narrative of "poor innocent little Muslims" and "evil ethnic cleansing SERBS" being sold to the western public to justify murderous NATO bombing of Serbia.

    Quote
    Have you ever seen a "Muslim" girl in a mini skirt?


    How would I identify one on sight as "Muslim"?

    Quote
    KosovoYou might want to recall that Serbia was running a half apartheid system in Kosovo since late '70 and a full blown one since late '80. And then tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Albanians in 1999.


    And the same justifications are used by Muslim secessionist movements in Islam-related trouble spots around the world eg Kashmir: "we are being oppressed, discriminated against.....we must have our own state".


    Quote
    What happened afterwards was a simple act of revenge for years of oppression.


    Standard Muslim justification for their murderous antics from the time of "prophet" Muhammad. You have obviously swallowed the myth of Muslim victimhood lock, stock and barrel.

    Quote
    Regrettable but not unexpected.


    Would you have regarded it as "regrettable but not unexpected" if the US had started large-scale expulsions of Muslims and the demolition of mosques in the wake of 9-11? Sorry my naive friend....what has happened to the Kosovo Serbs since Kosovo's secession would have happened to them if they had just sat back and lamely accepted it.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #299 - September 24, 2009, 06:31 PM



    Anyway, what do you mean "do about IT" JT? What is this IT exactly?



    S'okay, you just answered the question, thanks Dicky boy Wink

    Now please, don't let me hold you up, you have some urgent bollocks to talk, ranting doesn't just do itself you know Afro

    Ha Ha.
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »