Human rights and Islam

[tegwini]

"You comment on muslims spreading their faith by the sword - but isn't that what the crusaders did?"  quote Scooby

 

No- suggest you read up on this. 

Admittedly many crusaders were  not very 'Christian', and there were times when they were totally wrong. and even evil - eg the sacking of Constantinople, a Christian city (now Istanbul), but they mainly went with good intentions to free the Holy Lands from the Infidel.

You probably are not aware, but Christianity was the main religion of the middle east - eg Cairo, Damascus, in fact all of the important cities were Christian before Islam, and the spread of Islam stopped the pilgrimages to the Holy Lands.  It was a duty to free the Holy Lands -   and they did not aim to conquer more than this.

Islam did,  and  used violence,  and thankfully they were stopped by the grandfather of Charlemagne near Poitiers.  But, they still plan to set up a Caliphate in Europe.  And the way they reproduce might mean they will do this. 

Our  descendents,  most especially females  are going to regret our present liberal policies. 

Tegwini

[pachapapa]

[quote user="tegwini"]

Well, that's the GOG- sometimes ...

Tegwini

[/quote]

GOG & MAGOG       Nice guys I could really emphathise with...

[Clarkkent]

Post duplicated below.

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Dog"]

 

I would think as many people have little freedom through poverty as through Islamic standards today.

UK law has come indirectly from Muslim law and has some simularites today.

 

[/quote]

 

Dog was clearly listening to Law in Action on Radio 4. This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm may be of interest.

Perhaps someone will correct me, but isn't one of the "problems" with Islam that there are no central authority figures (like the pope) but many scholars with differing interpretations of the Koran and each individual imam is able to impress his own beliefs on anyone prepared to listen to him? (Note use of masculine pronouns.)

[sparkapuss]

I was receently sent a very descriptive e-mail showing an 8 year old boy who had been caught stealing a loaf of bread in an Iranian market. His arm was placed under the wheel of a truck which was then driven over it to presumably,"teach him a lesson", bad enough in itself but the photo's were obviously taken by someone and also showed an adult man holding down the child whilst in his other hand is a microphone so he can perhaps, give a running commentary. All this by people who will, one day, take over the world, glad I won't be around to see it.

[Dog]

I was a chorister at Lincoln Cathedral. The Magna Carta was kept in the safe with the silver and gold chalices, jewelled crooks and other treasures. If someone was getting something from the safe we would have a look at all the stuff and were shown and held the Magna Carta. Various stuff was stolen from the safe in the 1900s. For a price I can tell you where the safe is and also where the tunnels are under the cathedral that is kept secret.

There is also an amazing set of passages in the walls, ceilings etc. You can enter a small door in a pillar and pop out just about anywhere within the cathedral. We used to climb into the cloisters from our school yard and into the Wren Library through an unsecured window- it may be where I got my love of old books. We could have liberated many - when I last visited there is now amazing security. Mind you if we had been caught we would have been thrashed with the cane on bare behind bent over cast iron bath.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="sparkapuss"]I was receently sent a very descriptive e-mail showing an 8 year old boy who had been caught stealing a loaf of bread in an Iranian market. His arm was placed under the wheel of a truck which was then driven over it to presumably,"teach him a lesson", bad enough in itself but the photo's were obviously taken by someone and also showed an adult man holding down the child whilst in his other hand is a microphone so he can perhaps, give a running commentary. All this by people who will, one day, take over the world, glad I won't be around to see it.[/quote]

 

Another load of nonsense designed to have us all up in arms about the barbarism of Islam

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushboy.asp

I find it highly suspicious that someone with their first post just happens to have received an e mail recently, allegedly relevant to this debate.

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Clarkkent"][quote user="Dog"]

 

I would think as many people have little freedom through poverty as through Islamic standards today.

UK law has come indirectly from Muslim law and has some simularites today.

 

[/quote]Dog was clearly listening to Law in Action on Radio 4. This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm may be of interest.

[/quote]

When I was  in my early teens, a great bit of fun was listening to Radio Moscow, on the massive burr walnut radiogram, with all its bands and lights and press buttons: even had a motor drive to change stations (Preselected)!

Now at this point; a few years after the Berlin Airlift, Soviet Russia were bent on World domination. And Radio Moscow employed a number of American English (If that is not an oxymoron!) speaking announcers who extolled the wonders of the Soviet and went on to explain how Russia had invented most modern things like cars, tractors, aeroplanes: but the devious venal West, particularly the USA had stolen all their ideas! Henry Ford came in for a lot of stick! he had - allegedly - not only stolen the design for both Models T and A but also the moving assembly line from Russian engineers!

When setting out to dominate morally bankrupt and disolute societies (Which in my view both UK and USA are, in so many ways) it is good to use Goebellian style Propoganda, or as the KGB used to call such ploys, dezinformatsiya.

It's very effective.

[quote]Perhaps someone will correct me, but isn't one of the "problems" with Islam that there are no central authority figures (like the pope) but many scholars with differing interpretations of the Koran and each individual imam is able to impress his own beliefs on anyone prepared to listen to him? (Note use of masculine pronouns.)[/quote]

From my experience of Iran particularly, just after the revolution, most "Rules" and Diktats of Islam are disseminated by Mullahs: who themselves are not necessarily scholars or even fully literate; their audiences invariably are illiterate at worst and quasi-literate at best.

In my view, much of Islam is still surely rather like Europe was until people such as John Wycliffe challenged clerical power and completed his first English translation from the Vulgat etc. And paid a heavy price!

Few if any commoners could read Latin: indeed, they were not allowed to even possess a bible if they could! Bearing ion mind it was not until the 15th Cent. that easier book printing on bindable materials became possible: and monks and abbots who had laboured for hours over illuminated Bible scripts were not about to scatter them to hoi polloi!

Thus the majority had to accept what they were told by clerics as "Gospel Fact": even when and where these clerics (Who of course were intensely political animals) abused their position and taught their own convenient rhetoric!

Parts of Catholic Europe was much later in having free access to a Bible translated into their mother tongue.

 

[Dog]

Glue said:

Few if any commoners could read Latin: indeed, they were not allowed to even possess a bible if they could! Bearing ion mind it was not until the 15th Cent. that easier book printing on bindable materials became possible: and monks and abbots who had laboured for hours over illuminated Bible scripts were not about to scatter them to hoi polloi!

Binding had been about well before 15th century. What was the big jump in printing technology was the use of moveable type which was a lot quicker than printing from woodblocks. It meant relatively cheap books could be produced. Monks could no longer produce books quick enough or cheap enough to compete with printers. It was relative though, books were still very expensive for the time. I wouldn't mind having a few Guttenberg Bibles.

http://www.waytebinding.co.uk/pr02.htm

Interesting site with chronological history of bible production,

http://www.clausenbooks.com/biblepre1500.htm

[Dog]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

[quote user="sparkapuss"]I was receently sent a very descriptive e-mail showing an 8 year old boy who had been caught stealing a loaf of bread in an Iranian market. His arm was placed under the wheel of a truck which was then driven over it to presumably,"teach him a lesson", bad enough in itself but the photo's were obviously taken by someone and also showed an adult man holding down the child whilst in his other hand is a microphone so he can perhaps, give a running commentary. All this by people who will, one day, take over the world, glad I won't be around to see it.[/quote]

 

Another load of nonsense designed to have us all up in arms about the barbarism of Islam

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushboy.asp

I find it highly suspicious that someone with their first post just happens to have received an e mail recently, allegedly relevant to this debate.

 

[/quote]

 

Beware Two Pillars may have sneaked back in....

[Dog]

When I first read the description of having a vehicle friven slowly over an arm I thought well that won't hurt much. Having looked at the picture it is obviously a street magician making a few bob.

It even mentions that it is an established magic act in the text below the pictures. If they meant to hurt the lad they wouldn't have wrapped his arm in a towel. The boy looking sad is part of the act.

Sorry - debunked I think.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Dog"]

Glue said:

Few if any commoners could read Latin: indeed, they were not allowed to even possess a bible if they could! Bearing ion mind it was not until the 15th Cent. that easier book printing on bindable materials became possible: and monks and abbots who had laboured for hours over illuminated Bible scripts were not about to scatter them to hoi polloi!

Binding had been about well before 15th century. What was the big jump in printing technology was the use of moveable type which was a lot quicker than printing from woodblocks. It meant relatively cheap books could be produced. Monks could no longer produce books quick enough or cheap enough to compete with printers. It was relative though, books were still very expensive for the time. I wouldn't mind having a few Guttenberg Bibles.

http://www.waytebinding.co.uk/pr02.htm

Interesting site with chronological history of bible production,

http://www.clausenbooks.com/biblepre1500.htm

[/quote]

The collection of Guttenberg Bibles still preserved in the library of the town of Guttenberg in Bavaria are in fact of a much later date than those printed by that Gutenberg erk who dossed down in Strasbourg during his youth.

[Dog]

Sorry one to many T in the word. Was typing from memory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Dog"]

Glue said:

Few if any commoners could read Latin: indeed, they were not allowed to even possess a bible if they could! Bearing ion mind it was not until the 15th Cent. that easier book printing on bindable materials became possible: and monks and abbots who had laboured for hours over illuminated Bible scripts were not about to scatter them to hoi polloi!

Binding had been about well before 15th century. What was the big jump in printing technology was the use of moveable type which was a lot quicker than printing from woodblocks. It meant relatively cheap books could be produced. Monks could no longer produce books quick enough or cheap enough to compete with printers. It was relative though, books were still very expensive for the time. I wouldn't mind having a few Guttenberg Bibles.

http://www.waytebinding.co.uk/pr02.htm

Interesting site with chronological history of bible production,

http://www.clausenbooks.com/biblepre1500.htm

[/quote]

Did I say "Binding" per se?

Nope!

Of course vellum et al were bound into books! How do you think the Monks finished their illuminated manuscripts? In an arch lever file?

However, until relatively cheap paper was possible due to improvements in its manufacturing technology, plus moveable type, acquisition costs of a book were beyond most men and women's purse. As I stated, 16th Cent. http://www.paperonline.org/history/16th/16th_frame.html

Books had been printed for many years using blocks of wood: which was also used to print on cloth, e.g.

 

[Scooby]

[quote user="tegwini"]

"You comment on muslims spreading their faith by the sword - but isn't that what the crusaders did?"  quote Scooby

 

No- suggest you read up on this. 

Admittedly many crusaders were  not very 'Christian', and there were times when they were totally wrong. and even evil - eg the sacking of Constantinople, a Christian city (now Istanbul), but they mainly went with good intentions to free the Holy Lands from the Infidel.

You probably are not aware, but Christianity was the main religion of the middle east - eg Cairo, Damascus, in fact all of the important cities were Christian before Islam, and the spread of Islam stopped the pilgrimages to the Holy Lands.  It was a duty to free the Holy Lands -   and they did not aim to conquer more than this.

Islam did,  and  used violence,  and thankfully they were stopped by the grandfather of Charlemagne near Poitiers.  But, they still plan to set up a Caliphate in Europe.  And the way they reproduce might mean they will do this. 

Our  descendents,  most especially females  are going to regret our present liberal policies. 

Tegwini

[/quote]

So the cruelty of the Crusaders was not a problem because they did what they did with the best intentions!  I'm sure musliims would argue those same good intentions.  Both aimed to 'convert' unbelievers and were cruel and barbaric in the process.

As to generalisms v specifics - anyone here making a sweeping statement (like the many generalisations about muslims in this thread) are asked for specific examples.  Where they have been provided to demonstrate islamic cruelty these have been debunked as urban myths / set ups.  I provided a specific and verifiable example of such cruelty and cover up in a christian church.  I could quote many 'general' examples: sexual abuse of young boys by catholic priests, the cover ups which followed, maltreatment of single pregnant girls (particularly in Ireland), denial of contraception resulting in unwanted pregnancies, acute poverty and the spread of aids....  

[Dog]

[quote user="Gluestick"][quote user="Dog"]

Glue said:

Few if any commoners could read Latin: indeed, they were not allowed to even possess a bible if they could! Bearing ion mind it was not until the 15th Cent. that easier book printing on bindable materials became possible: and monks and abbots who had laboured for hours over illuminated Bible scripts were not about to scatter them to hoi polloi!

Binding had been about well before 15th century. What was the big jump in printing technology was the use of moveable type which was a lot quicker than printing from woodblocks. It meant relatively cheap books could be produced. Monks could no longer produce books quick enough or cheap enough to compete with printers. It was relative though, books were still very expensive for the time. I wouldn't mind having a few Guttenberg Bibles.

http://www.waytebinding.co.uk/pr02.htm

Interesting site with chronological history of bible production,

http://www.clausenbooks.com/biblepre1500.htm

[/quote]

Did I say "Binding" per se?

Nope!

Of course vellum et al were bound into books! How do you think the Monks finished their illuminated manuscripts? In an arch lever file?

However, until relatively cheap paper was possible due to improvements in its manufacturing technology, plus moveable type, acquisition costs of a book were beyond most men and women's purse. As I stated, 16th Cent. http://www.paperonline.org/history/16th/16th_frame.html

Books had been printed for many years using blocks of wood: which was also used to print on cloth, e.g.

 

[/quote]

Calm down you are doing your blood pressure no good.

There were far more literate people in this period than generally thought.

I thought the monks invented comb binding - joke.

There was no real improvements in paper technology - the Chinese were well ahead and even had coated papers much earlier - what did happen was that simple hand manufacturing of unsized paper had arrived in europe. The growth of paper production in Europe was fueled by rapid urbanisation and rags become easier to get hold of. It was cheaper than using animal skins - though guess who can still afford to use animal skins? UK Parliament at tax payers expense!

Interesting mill I visted near Bergerac. http://www.pays-de-bergerac.com/english/assos/pays-bergerac/rouzique.asp there is a second page.

Interestingly they did use watermarks very early on -  there is a display of sheets of paper going back to 1400 nearly all with watermarks.

Somewhere I have a book on early French paper mills.

Presses were licensed as governments were scared of information spreading.

PS Early ink production methods are fascinating I am sure you will find them interesting.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="Scooby"]
So the cruelty of the Crusaders was not a problem because they did what they did with the best intentions!  I'm sure musliims would argue those same good intentions.  Both aimed to 'convert' unbelievers and were cruel and barbaric in the process.

As to generalisms v specifics - anyone here making a sweeping statement (like the many generalisations about muslims in this thread) are asked for specific examples.  Where they have been provided to demonstrate islamic cruelty these have been debunked as urban myths / set ups.  I provided a specific and verifiable example of such cruelty and cover up in a christian church.  I could quote many 'general' examples: sexual abuse of young boys by catholic priests, the cover ups which followed, maltreatment of single pregnant girls (particularly in Ireland), denial of contraception resulting in unwanted pregnancies, acute poverty and the spread of aids....  
[/quote]

 

Scooby I said the self same thing on page 2 but was studiously ignored by the islamaphobes

[powerdesal]

I have read all the posts on this thread, some more than once, purely out of interest in how those forum members in Europe (predominantly but not necessarily) view Islam.

I live in an Islamic country and have done for approximately 23 years (UAE + KSA) and I believe that I have gleaned a little knowledge about the way the Islamic world works and the mindset of the various shades of Islam.

I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that BaF and Scooby are somewhat anti Christian and possibly pro-Muslim. I wonder about their depth of knowledge vis a vis the Muslim world. No doubt they will inform me (us). ie,  real knowledge, on the street type knowledge, not the 'I have visited a Muslim country' type of knowledge.

There are numerous instances of Muslim country behaviour that are not compatible with our Western ''civilisation'', the majority of those instances do not get reported in the Western press but they do get known here. These range from such things as the weekly (generally) beheadings in KSA for such crimes as rape ,( whilst I dont have a problem with the punishment, I do think the public nature is a bit OTT), to the public hanging from a tower crane in Iran for whatever crime (I cant remember the specifics but it did happen). There are an awful lot of 'minor' instances of course.

There is no doubt that, historically, some very good things came out of the Muslim society but it is also apparent that whilst Western society has 'moved on' over the centuries and become more tolerant of other religions, more open, more free, the Muslim world has to a very large extent stood still, rooted in concepts that are centuries old and are now incompatible with the Wester world view of how society should be.

There are aspects of Sharia Law that are very laudable but.....you cant 'buy in' to selected bits, its 100% Sharia or nothing, I prefer the nothing approach.

Western Christian history is not perfect, even recent religious history shows serious flaws but that in itself is a demonstration of how imperfect the human species is. The fact is that we are aware of it, can debate it, can critiscise it. Try that with Islam, the Muslims dont take critiscism very well at all.

[Boiling a frog]

You have me totally wrong I am not pro muslim/anti christian

 

What I am  anti  is extreme  right wing propaganda  designed to make us  think that all Muslims are a danger to our western culture and civilisation and they are  hell bent on  making western europe another Islamic state.

 

 

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

You have me totally wrong I am not pro muslim/anti christian

 

What I am  anti  is extreme  right wing propaganda  designed to make us  think that all Muslims are a danger to our western culture and civilisation and they are  hell bent on  making western europe another Islamic state.

 

 

[/quote]

Thats clarified a point then Baf, I agree. The majority (in fact all) my Muslim friends are not concerned at all about the Islamisation of Europe et al (at least to my face !) They just want to get on with their lives.

Unfortunately the agenda is being driven by extremists who seem to want the good bits of Western civilisation whilst campaigning for the introduction of their own 'perceived' good bits of Sharia. I dont think they have given sufficient thought to it but, realistically speaking, which bunch of extremists have ever thought through their wishes / actions etc.?

[sparkapuss]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

You have me totally wrong I am not pro muslim/anti christian

 

What I am  anti  is extreme  right wing propaganda  designed to make us  think that all Muslims are a danger to our western culture and civilisation and they are  hell bent on  making western europe another Islamic state.

If you take out the negatives in that statement, you've hit the nail right on the head.

 

[/quote]

[Scooby]

I too am not pro muslim.  There are good and bad, extremists and moderates in both the muslim and christian communities.  To tar all muslims with the wrongs of the extreme islamists / talibans is wrong.  The OP stated a presumption that arab = muslim = backward and evil.  I disagree.  I know many muslims who are well educated (females included) and moderate.  Equally I can cite those with extreme views and behaviours in the 'so called' christian community.

[Théière]

All this defending the faith stuff, It's about club membership, no different to tribal disputes anywhere in the world. Its bullying with some form of higher god and eternal damnation as the ultimate threat,

The UK was a Pagan stronghold before the murdering Italians invaded and threatened every one. Some people have even posted their support of this murdering regime. 

The problems with all this bickering discussion is people only go back in time far enough to justify their argument.

 

[tegwini]

I could quote many 'general' examples: sexual abuse of young boys by catholic priests, the cover ups which followed, maltreatment of single pregnant girls (particularly in Ireland), denial of contraception resulting in unwanted pregnancies, acute poverty and the spread of aids....    quote Scooby

Well at least in the west we have remedies for such - priests are imprisoned, the RC  church has been sued, and many ignore the RC church on contraception- without fear of violence or death.  

 And, we do not stone to death pregnant unmarried girls - which does happen under Islam.  The RC Church opposes abortion to preserve the life of the unborn child (and we can disagree with that in the West), but under Islam is that even a consideration ?

Even criticism of Islam can lead to death threats, and murder.

Tegwini

[tegwini]

What I am  anti  is extreme  right wing propaganda  designed to make us  think that all Muslims are a danger to our western culture and civilisation and they are  hell bent on  making western europe another Islamic state. quote BAF

 

Well that's what many of them are saying!

Tegwini