British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"

by Elsewhere 65 Replies latest jw friends

katiekitten

the gov wants them because students achieve better results at them and the pupils end up coming away with a sense of what is morally right and wrong. This is something the government feels is lacking at secular schools.

Sorry if its a bit off topic - church schools do get better results, but its not because the kids are believers and get taught a set of morals, its because the schools are allowed to interview prospective parents and therefore are able to do a backdoor academic selection.
My friend teaches at a catholic school, and I have spent some time there. None of the kids are catholic, and the only catholic content is a tedious monologue over the tannoy system at the end of the school day. BUT - the school is renown fo good results and therefore parents fight tooth and nail to get their kids in. Once there is a demand for places the school can cherry pick.
The local Moslem school gets terrible results. I guess theres not much time after 'bomb' lessons, 'Jihad' lessons and 4 hours of Koran a day for reading writing and arithmetic.
Spectrum

Abaddon,

"Oh yes, Zionists, of course... like the West needed help from Zionists to royally screw-up the Middle East? Consider my eyeballs rolled..."

I'm talking about since the Zionists gained control of the papers of the last two world powers. If you study the matter and read between the lines you'll see how anti-arabic these pro-semetic papers really are.

"Sorry Spectrum, your reading of the Christian message as enacted and delivered by its followers is as partial as Mary's reading of the Quaran."

Don't know what you mean. But the reason christ message didn't work is because humans by nature cannot implement a eutopian society. Christians realised this early on and just got on with what they knew best which was empire building.

Are you saying that islam didn't arise islamic doctrines that necessitated blood and gore?
Hellrider

This is turning out to be an interesting discussion. The sides are digging in in the trenches, lol. Personally, I am not an extremist in these things, so I`ll just add my (moderate) comments on this:
"Oh yes, Zionists, of course... like the West needed help from Zionists to royally screw-up the Middle East? Consider my eyeballs rolled..."
Yes, the royally screwing-up of the Middle East is something the west is responsible of, but: Zionism was an important part of the early stages of the establishing of the Israeli state. The Balfour declaration was the result of a combined effort by Zionists (yes, actual Zionists, they did exist, even had their own organisation) in the late 19th century (when the movement began) and in the early 20th century. You can read about the Balforu declaration here (and no, it`s not right-wing-webbies, this is common historical knowledge):
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
...the Balfour declaration is an important part of jewish history, as jewish organisations themselves acknowledge:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/baltoc.html
...but I agree, the responsibility for the travesty of establishing the state of Israel, a state which has absolutely no historical justification, must be placed on the shoulders of the western powers. They are the ones that had all the military and political power in this area, and could basically dictate whatever they wanted to. But Zionism did play an important role.
Robdar

Mary:
Abaddon, I will ignore you totally ignorant remarks about me and ask why do Muslim clerics specifically quote these scriptures in condemnation of the Jews if that's not what it's talking about?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/memrireport.html
Good Lord, Mary. You are quoting from a Division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise? Don't you think that they have their own agenda to support? Don't you think that they might have their own reasons for distorting facts? Please.
Besides, much like the Bible, clerics can quote out of context. Heck, anybody can twist scripture to mean most anything they want it to mean. But for people to make sweeping generalizations and judgments of Muslims or Christians based on what a few wacko have to say isn't a balanced view.
Hellrider:
But I don`t really agree in comparing the way to interpret the Quran with the way to interpret the Bible. The thing is, all "interpretation" of the Quran is done very cautiously, because the view on the Quran is that it is a work of revelation! It is not just "inspired" (what does "inspired" mean anyway, btw...), it is, according to the legend, given to mankind, literally whispered into the ear of Mohammad by an angel. The legend also says that the Quran has always existed in the heavens, and that the Quran that was given to Mohammad is just a copy of the (immaterial or material, here it is unclear) Quran that has always existed in the heavens. Needless to say, this leaves very little room for interpretation, and no room for reinterpretation. Of course, the Quran is and always was interpreted (tons of commentaries), but in my opinion, always in a very conservative and true-to-the-text-manner. My point is: It isn`t possible to compare the Bible and the Quran in matters of "literal interpretation". The Quran is the word of God, word for word, spoken directly from the mouth of Allah, via an angel (or Allah himself, the Quran gives at least three different versions of this), into the ear of Mohammad. I think personally that it is things like this that are some of the mayor obstacles to a secularisation of Islam.
How is that different from what the fundie Christians believe? The Fundies believe that the literal word of God was spoken to the various prophets. They go one step further: they also believe that throughout the ages God has protected the Bible from being altered in any way and so should be accepted as being the literal word of God.
Mary

Good Lord, Mary, You are quoting from a Division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

Oh, okay, so now you're saying that these quotes that were spoken in a sermon in April of 2002, by Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, who called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." is just "distorting facts" or is being taken out of context? Gee, I wonder what he really meant to say.
Don't you think that they have their own agenda to support; Don't you think that they might have their own reasons for distorting facts?

So, now they're distorting facts? I find this very interesting. Why is it that when I or someone else on this board accuse Islam of "having their own agenda" or "distorting facts" or being a bunch of murdering lunatics, that certain people on here will go to the ends of the earth to defend them? And when you offer proof of something, then it's just being "taken out of context" or "distorted"??
Besides, much like the Bible, clerics can quote out of context; Heck, anybody can twist scripture to mean most anything they want it to mean; But for people to make sweeping generalizations and judgments of Muslims or Christians; based on what a few wacko have to say isn't a balanced view.

Ah yes, and we all know that Islam have a "balanced view" of Jews or Christians. Muslim Clerics are the equivalent to a Circuit or District Overseer. The R&F Witness accepts and absorbs whatever these guys say, just like the R&F Muslim sits there and absorbs whatever their Clerics say. It's no secret that Islam teaches hatred of the "infidel". Why on earth would you want to defend them?
Author and researcher Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch says that while Ali's notes are particularly anti-Semitic, his rendering of the Quranic text largely is no different than any other version. "It's an indication that what we think of as extreme in Islam is not really extreme but mainstream," he told WND. "You won't find a translation that doesn't have Jews being turned into apes and pigs."

Some Muslim scholars say the text refers only to particular groups of Jews, such as those breaking the Sabbath, and is not meant to apply to Jews today. But Spencer says the global, mainstream understanding regards this as a current, universal reference to Jews. The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute , or MEMRI, includes in its archives many translated writings and texts of sermons by prominent Muslims leaders who make such references. For example, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" in a weekly sermon in April 2002.
In a TV program broadcast on Iqraa, the Saudi-Egyptian satellite channel, a 3-year-old "real Muslim girl" was interviewed about Jews. Asked whether she liked Jews, she answered, "no." Asked why, she replied Jews were "apes and pigs."
"Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Quran."

At the end of the interview, the obviously pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she. ... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims."
I guess this was just taken out of context and that the little girl really meant to say she loved Jews eh?
Robdar

Mary's quote:
a bunch of murdering lunatics,
Your state of mind shows that you cannot rationally discuss the problem. So, we wont.
Abaddon

Mary

Nice to see you're not willing to engage in debate Mary. The fact that some Islamic Clerics interpret passages in the QUran to justify their pathological hatred of those different to them, and to change, is of no more surprise than Churches in South Africa interpreted the Bible in a way to justify their hatred of those different to them, and to change.
In you eagerness to attack the bad people of one faith you ignore the bad people of your faith who also quote scripture and oppress and harm.
It isn't the religion; most Christians in 1800 were as pig ignorant as the problem Muslims today as regards human rights.
It is the culture; it is the social and political environment.
But hey, you're unwilling to defend your assertions, so enough said.
Your attitude of religious belligerence is exactly the same as that of problem Muslim's. It's just by accident of birth your culture is a hundred or more years advanced in many ways (nothing to do with technology), and you can see the great wrongs that extremist Muslims do; just as our great-great-grand fathers did things we now see as wrong. The problem Muslims don;t see what they do as wrong and justify themselves religiously - just as out great-great grandfathers. And that's not to say our Great-grandfathers, grandfathers or even fathers always did the 'right thing' viewed in a modern light.
If it hadn't been for Western greed and interference, Iran could have a democratic government celebrating it 50th year, liberal and secular, vastly educated and developed due to the massive natural wealth of their land, a beacon and example to the rest of the Islamic world. And you wonder why the bigot clerics can gain an audience? Pwwwwwwh...
Hellrider
It`s not just as simple as your analysis, because a religion is not just the religions holy texts, it is the religions history, the current and previous practices within the religion, the current (and previous) interpretations and commentaries of the religious texts.
Granted, which is why it is funny someone (not you) saying the Quaran says x about Jews when (a) in modern textual analysis any specific condemnation of Jews is not supported, and (b) traditional interpretations of any religious text through history are so diverse that at any point what anyone says it means is totally irrelevant as the meaning is NOT possible to determine (i.e. some Christian's quote scripture and do wrong, so what if some Muslims do too?).
katiekitten
Sorry if its a bit off topic - church schools do get better results, but its not because the kids are believers and get taught a set of morals, its because the schools are allowed to interview prospective parents and therefore are able to do a backdoor academic selection.
Yup!
Mary

Abaddon said: The fact that some Islamic Clerics interpret passages in the QUran to justify their pathological hatred of those different to them, and to change, is of no more surprise than Churches in South Africa interpreted the Bible in a way to justify their hatred of those different to them, and to change. In you eagerness to attack the bad people of one faith you ignore the bad people of your faith who also quote scripture and oppress and harm. It isn't the religion; most Christians in 1800 were as pig ignorant as the problem Muslims today as regards human rights. It is the culture; it is the social and political environment. But hey, you're unwilling to defend your assertions, so enough said. Your attitude of religious belligerence is exactly the same as that of problem Muslim's. It's just by accident of birth your culture is a hundred or more years advanced in many ways (nothing to do with technology), and you can see the great wrongs that extremist Muslims do; just as our great-great-grand fathers did things we now see as wrong. The problem Muslims don;t see what they do as wrong and justify themselves religiously - just as out great-great grandfathers. And that's not to say our Great-grandfathers, grandfathers or even fathers always did the 'right thing' viewed in a modern light.
If it hadn't been for Western greed and interference, Iran could have a democratic government celebrating it 50th year, liberal and secular, vastly educated and developed due to the massive natural wealth of their land, a beacon and example to the rest of the Islamic world. And you wonder why the bigot clerics can gain an audience?

Actually Abaddon, I agree with (almost) everything you said above. Christianity was no different 200 years ago than what Islam is today. And I actually think it's a shame that the Islamic countries are not democratic, because from what I've studied from them so far, they were actually extremely prosperous and expanded their science, culture, art, philosophy etc. when they they weren't being ruled by a bunch of fanatical nutbars where everything is reduced to being "the will of Allah".
However, I don't believe it's only a cultural, social and political problem, I believe it's also a religious problem simply because their culture and political structure are based so heavily on their religion, or their interpretation of their writings. Christianity and Christian lands have, for the most part advanced out of the Dark Ages, whereas Islam, at present, seems to be stuck there. Instead of this becoming a thread of further sneering insults, perhaps we can take advantage of this lull, and simply agree to disagree...........
Hellrider

Mary:
However, I don't believe it's only a cultural, social and political problem, I believe it's a religious problem simply because their culture and political structure are based so heavily on their religion, or their interpretation of their writings.
We think alike on this. I know its so politically correct to always free the religion of its responsibility, and blame it all on social and economic problems, but hey, why are we all then here on JWD? If no problems are based in the respective religions, what`s then the point of whining about the horrible JW-past most of us have? No,the problem is economic, social, but also, in many cases, religious! The problem is that if you say this about Islam, then you are, per definition, a racist. I`m not sure why this is the case, but it might be because most moslems are brown, or "brownish" or whatever (I`m not sure which words for "brown" that are PC these days, so forgive me if any of these words are racist, I don`t mean to be). Personally, I have no racial issues at all. I would much rather let african non-moslems into our country than white moslems from the Balkans. And I don`t understand why so many americans have a problem with the mexicans coming into their country either, but that`s a whole different issue, i guess. I see it this way: Luckily, christianity was able to develop, and become secularised. It sure took long, though, in my country, we burned the last witch in the 18th century. So 18 centuries of christianity, before it eventually started to cool down in its persecution, ignorance and arrogance. Islam has had 1300 years to evolve, but still, they have a medieval worldview. Christianity had a head start, but for the sake of the safety of our societies, Islam has to become secularised now! Right now! Or to hell with them, they can move back and have Sharia-law and have Jihad in their own countries. Otherwise, we might just experience a new rise of extreme nationalism (with all the uglyness that goes along with that) in Europe in the next 20-30 years, and unfortunately, then it would probably not just be a weeding out of a certain religion, it would probably also be racial. Remember Balkan 10-15 years ago? That could be all over Europe in a couple of decades. All because of the naivity of the left.
MuadDib

It's ironic to see you talk about the "naivete" of the left, Hellrider, when in the same breath you demand that the Islamic world be secularized RIGHT NOW. That's just as naive an idea as any I've ever seen, particularly when you admit yourself that these things take large amounts of time. The Islamic world will eventually embrace an enlightened, primarily secular world view just as the West has (well, excluding America), but it will take time - probably many generations. Probably we won't see it in our lifetime. But it will happen.
Mary: in pre-Enlightenment Europe the culture and political structure were based almost exclusively on religion and horribly bloody wars (much, much more vicious and destructive than any act of Islamic terrorism) were waged over the interpretation of certain writings. At the time all the smart money would have been on Islam as the religion of the future. Yet somehow Western society was able to progress to a point of sophistication and achievement unparalleled in human history. If you don't consider that Islam has the same potential, in spite of having stultified for the last few centuries, you're arguing from a pretty poorly informed point of view. Maybe checking out some more Zionist websites will help you out. Or not.

British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"

Share this