Banned Dutch MP "Geert Wilders" to be sent home
- Thread starter Beskar
- Start date
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Well, you sure know what I am referring to. You were on that thread.
Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
All for becoming Famous..you know the easiest formula.
Good work done by Britain.
You guys flatter yourselves.
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
where? from the first post down to yours, the comments didn't even touch the borderline of "extremism". no words like "killing" are used. you're blind and you're deaf without knowing it.
Check out this post. This is approvingly saying the same thing that the likes of Mr Wilders claims!
Now if some non-Muslim points this out, one starts hearing of the "context". I saw this post written by a TT being thanked by a mod but no one talked of any so called "context"!
Let's turn this around and say that God won't blink an eye in exterminating all Muslims for the sake of one non-Muslim. Won't this invite howls of "Islamophbia" rants! But then such people were never known to respect (or be even aware of) the Golder Rule!
Last edited:
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Yes, and it has nothing to do with any one religion or the followers of any one religion!
Well, I have seen that documentary (I guess, most of us have) and there was nothing in it that was made up. You can claim he did not provide all facts or the "context" (supposedly the previous or next verses etc.), but it did present "facts". The same facts that when presented by Muslim preachers themselves from their pulpits don't evoke the same howls of protest!
May be, he gave only one side of the story. There are a billion outspoken Muslims to give the other side of the story! Why not present your facts rather than just denounce anyone who is expressing what he has seen around him.
Jihad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 0
Leonblack is 100% right, I challenge you to prove so otherwise.
It's been ALL OVER THE WESTERN MEDIA INCLUDING THE DUTCH ones that he has played a smart game and has gained alot of media attention by being denied acces and by still going to Britain even so.
This man is trying to gain sympathy in order for more people to join and support him, he's weak, helpless, and he cannot bear with the consequenses of insulting and trashing the Muslim religion and people as a whole.
You are probably living in India and all so obsessed with your "democracy" and your "freedom of speech", well there ain't even freedom of speech in India or otherwise the media would be allowed in Indian part of Kashmir to check and see what really happens.
What this man does and says is NOT freedom of speech, it simply is not, it is pure HATRED, you can criticize Islam, Muslims, you can go further then that, but this man goes too far, have you done some research?
Do you honestly know what he has said about Islam other then comparing our holy book to "Mein Kampf"? That's nothing compared to his other statements.
And yet he continues to hide under his freedom of speech umbrella.
It's a lame excuse of trying to express his hatred, and it certainly does not help our society and a small country like the Netherlands at all.
He is a pro-Israeli moron, and has been to Israel a million times or so.
He says he loves Israel, and it's like his 2nd home nation, he has been invited to Israel countless of times, and why is that? Because those Zionists share the same ideals like he has about Muslims.
Mr. Wilders is the biggest hypocrit of all, he said he wanted to get ridd of foreigners in the Netherlands, with the essence on Muslim foreigners, and he has indeed received quite some support from within the Netherlands, luckily, the majority isn't as narrowminded and stupid like he is.
The hypocrisy is, that he does not want foreigners to have 2 passports, one of their birth nation, and one of the Netherlands, it must be either 1 or another, now here comes the good part, the women he's married to, also has 2 passports and also comes from outside the Netherlands.
So much for his credibility, he is completely anti-Islam and a racist.
Often people have said that a person like Mr. Wilders should not receive the attention he seeks, it's best to leave such sad people in their own little hate-filled world.
But then again, the dutch media smiles upon anything that has sensation and especially some news papers love the anti-Islam sentiment due to alot of Muslims living in the Netherlands including myself.
Last edited:
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Reflections on a fatwa
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Friday, February 13, 2009
BATH, England:
Until the inappropriate date of St. Valentine's Day 1989, not many people in the West had ever heard of a "fatwa." The news that a British writer had been sentenced to death for blasphemy by Muslim religious authorities in Iran was not only horrifying, it was incomprehensible. Such things don't happen any more, do they?
Mercifully, it didn't, in that Sir Salman Rushdie, as he is now known, survived the ordeal. After years in hiding, he emerged safe and sound. Even though some zealot in Tehran has just said that the fatwa remains in force, he now leads a comparatively normal life, and "The Satanic Verses," his novel that caused such real or factitious indignation, is still on sale.
But all too much else has happened in these 20 years, and we still live in the shadow of that affair. It was the first taste of a new conflict, which has since become much more bitter. Not only have there been far too many wars in the Middle East, there has been ever-increasing tension between Muslims and the European countries where they live, from the Danish cartoons affair (in which, as in the Rushdie affair, innocent people were killed) to the stunt on Thursday when a Dutch parliamentarian who compares the Koran with "Mein Kampf" was turned away at Heathrow airport.
Whether this is a "clash of civilizations" - and the late Samuel Huntington might have felt entitled to cite the Rushdie case on behalf of his thesis of that name - what unquestionably emerged were two quite different world views dividing "the West and the rest." And the irony of Rushdie's own story is that he wasn't on the side he once thought he was.
It would be a little sweeping to say that almost no one came out of the affair well. Rushdie himself playfully wrote a provocative book, was bewildered by the response, then chopped and changed, at one moment insisting that he had returned to the Muslim fold, at another that he had renounced religion. But much must be forgiven a man living literally in fear of his life.
He must have been startled too by the venomous contempt directed at him in England, both from the nativist Right and the multicultural Left. One of Margaret Thatcher's closest colleagues, Norman Tebbit, damned Rushdie as a man whose "public life has been a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality."
A fine historian, Lord Dacre (Hugh Trevor-Roper), joined in, I'm sorry to say, mused whimsically about the possibility that some Muslims who deplored Rushdie's manners might "waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them." And John Le Carré said - in a comically inapt phrase - that "Nobody has a God-given right to insult a great religion." There was much more in that vein from self-appointed friends of Islam.
What some of these effusions illustrated all too vividly was the intellectual and moral tangle that "multi-culti" had got itself into. For one thing, in the case of "The Satanic Verses" and others since, sauce for the Muslim goose was plainly not sauce for the Christian gander.
The very same people as those who affected such horror at Rushdie's blasphemy against Islam derided anybody who claimed to be upset by blasphemy against Christianity. In the case in London some years earlier when Gay News published a lurid (if not very good) poem about a supposedly homosexual Jesus, chattering-class opinion unanimously supported the magazine.
As to those who asserted that criticism of Islam was akin to racism, they were if anything the real racists, albeit unconscious. They not only willfully confused race with religion, they patronizingly applied different standards to dark-skinned Muslims, from whom, it seemed, nothing better than mindless violence could be expected. Most poignant of all was Rushdie himself. Behind the spiteful Tory sneers was the memory that, for years before the fatwa, and not content with his literary success, he had tried to parlay his Third Worldliness into a career. In one remarkably silly television talk he conceded with heavy sarcasm that, as racist states go, modern England might not be quite as bad as the Third Reich.
And in words he would later regret, he had written that the revolution that brought the ayatollahs to power in Iran "was a genuine mass movement." So it might have been, but that was small consolation to those put to death - or threatened with death - under that sanguinary rule of the saints.
For all his attitudinizing as a tribune of distant masses and "the other," the truth was that Rushdie was in his heart and mind entirely a man of the West - a truth he unwittingly demonstrated. He might have been Indian by birth and Pakistani by first citizenship, but he was a brown Briton in much more than adoptive nationality.
From when I first became conscious of him, he struck me simply as one more British writer who happened not to share one's own blotchy pinkish hue. Why, the fellow was educated at Rugby and King's, the same public school and Cambridge college as Rupert Brooke. One could almost envisage Salman's resting place as a corner "that is forever England."
He forgot all that when he pretended to be something he wasn't, and thereby showed how little he understood "the other." At the time, William Pfaff wrote about the case here, and couldn't help thinking that Rushdie's conduct, though understandable, "has not been entirely edifying," which was possibly true. But he also put his finger on something far truer.
For centuries, certainly since the Enlightenment, the prevailing sensibility of the West has been skepticism, the critical and often derisive questioning of all established beliefs and institutions. It is thanks not least to that (as well as to a hedonistic culture) that Western Europe today is the most irreligious corner of the globe, with the Christian churches an enfeebled minority.
Anyone who derides Christianity now finds nervous tolerance even from those beleaguered and demoralized Christians. But, as Pfaff said, "Rushdie's potentially fatal error was to apply this modern European standard of discourse to a religion that still believes in itself."
Twenty years on, this fellow-countryman is delighted to congratulate Sir Salman, and to wish him a long life. But I still wonder whether he ever knew what his famous case was really all about.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft's books include "The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma."
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Friday, February 13, 2009
BATH, England:
Until the inappropriate date of St. Valentine's Day 1989, not many people in the West had ever heard of a "fatwa." The news that a British writer had been sentenced to death for blasphemy by Muslim religious authorities in Iran was not only horrifying, it was incomprehensible. Such things don't happen any more, do they?
Mercifully, it didn't, in that Sir Salman Rushdie, as he is now known, survived the ordeal. After years in hiding, he emerged safe and sound. Even though some zealot in Tehran has just said that the fatwa remains in force, he now leads a comparatively normal life, and "The Satanic Verses," his novel that caused such real or factitious indignation, is still on sale.
But all too much else has happened in these 20 years, and we still live in the shadow of that affair. It was the first taste of a new conflict, which has since become much more bitter. Not only have there been far too many wars in the Middle East, there has been ever-increasing tension between Muslims and the European countries where they live, from the Danish cartoons affair (in which, as in the Rushdie affair, innocent people were killed) to the stunt on Thursday when a Dutch parliamentarian who compares the Koran with "Mein Kampf" was turned away at Heathrow airport.
Whether this is a "clash of civilizations" - and the late Samuel Huntington might have felt entitled to cite the Rushdie case on behalf of his thesis of that name - what unquestionably emerged were two quite different world views dividing "the West and the rest." And the irony of Rushdie's own story is that he wasn't on the side he once thought he was.
It would be a little sweeping to say that almost no one came out of the affair well. Rushdie himself playfully wrote a provocative book, was bewildered by the response, then chopped and changed, at one moment insisting that he had returned to the Muslim fold, at another that he had renounced religion. But much must be forgiven a man living literally in fear of his life.
He must have been startled too by the venomous contempt directed at him in England, both from the nativist Right and the multicultural Left. One of Margaret Thatcher's closest colleagues, Norman Tebbit, damned Rushdie as a man whose "public life has been a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality."
A fine historian, Lord Dacre (Hugh Trevor-Roper), joined in, I'm sorry to say, mused whimsically about the possibility that some Muslims who deplored Rushdie's manners might "waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them." And John Le Carré said - in a comically inapt phrase - that "Nobody has a God-given right to insult a great religion." There was much more in that vein from self-appointed friends of Islam.
What some of these effusions illustrated all too vividly was the intellectual and moral tangle that "multi-culti" had got itself into. For one thing, in the case of "The Satanic Verses" and others since, sauce for the Muslim goose was plainly not sauce for the Christian gander.
The very same people as those who affected such horror at Rushdie's blasphemy against Islam derided anybody who claimed to be upset by blasphemy against Christianity. In the case in London some years earlier when Gay News published a lurid (if not very good) poem about a supposedly homosexual Jesus, chattering-class opinion unanimously supported the magazine.
As to those who asserted that criticism of Islam was akin to racism, they were if anything the real racists, albeit unconscious. They not only willfully confused race with religion, they patronizingly applied different standards to dark-skinned Muslims, from whom, it seemed, nothing better than mindless violence could be expected. Most poignant of all was Rushdie himself. Behind the spiteful Tory sneers was the memory that, for years before the fatwa, and not content with his literary success, he had tried to parlay his Third Worldliness into a career. In one remarkably silly television talk he conceded with heavy sarcasm that, as racist states go, modern England might not be quite as bad as the Third Reich.
And in words he would later regret, he had written that the revolution that brought the ayatollahs to power in Iran "was a genuine mass movement." So it might have been, but that was small consolation to those put to death - or threatened with death - under that sanguinary rule of the saints.
For all his attitudinizing as a tribune of distant masses and "the other," the truth was that Rushdie was in his heart and mind entirely a man of the West - a truth he unwittingly demonstrated. He might have been Indian by birth and Pakistani by first citizenship, but he was a brown Briton in much more than adoptive nationality.
From when I first became conscious of him, he struck me simply as one more British writer who happened not to share one's own blotchy pinkish hue. Why, the fellow was educated at Rugby and King's, the same public school and Cambridge college as Rupert Brooke. One could almost envisage Salman's resting place as a corner "that is forever England."
He forgot all that when he pretended to be something he wasn't, and thereby showed how little he understood "the other." At the time, William Pfaff wrote about the case here, and couldn't help thinking that Rushdie's conduct, though understandable, "has not been entirely edifying," which was possibly true. But he also put his finger on something far truer.
For centuries, certainly since the Enlightenment, the prevailing sensibility of the West has been skepticism, the critical and often derisive questioning of all established beliefs and institutions. It is thanks not least to that (as well as to a hedonistic culture) that Western Europe today is the most irreligious corner of the globe, with the Christian churches an enfeebled minority.
Anyone who derides Christianity now finds nervous tolerance even from those beleaguered and demoralized Christians. But, as Pfaff said, "Rushdie's potentially fatal error was to apply this modern European standard of discourse to a religion that still believes in itself."
Twenty years on, this fellow-countryman is delighted to congratulate Sir Salman, and to wish him a long life. But I still wonder whether he ever knew what his famous case was really all about.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft's books include "The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma."
qsaark
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 0
You are a hindu and biased towards Islam by default. Dont tell us what you think, your 'thoughts' are meaningless to us. Yes if you were an educated Muslim who happened to have good insight into Quran, Fiqah, and Hadith, I would have taken you seriously.
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I can tell you that I as a Hindu, am much less biased towards other religions than you. You feel by default that all non-Muslims (85% of the world) is going to rot in hell! Most can't wait to see the spectacle from their seats in heaven!
BTW, I did post the original Hadhith for you in the other thread. You never came back!
qsaark
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 0
I had told you before and telling you again. Only six books of Hadiths (Saha Sitta) are acceptable among muslims. Out of these, Bukhari and Muslim are most acceptable. Any haidth that is not from Bukhari or Muslim is taken with a grain of salt. And any hadith that is not from the rest of the 4 books is not credible at all. So, post any hadith that is from these two or atleast from the rest of the four books with correct reference. I'll be glad to explain it to the best of my understanding.
Note: Do not blame me for things that I have not said in my post. I have never said that I believe non-muslims will rot in the hell.
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
It was Bukhari. Here is the link to my post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/21375-offtopic-post-ss-thread-3.html#post296210
Please reply in that thread if you want to.
qsaark
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 0
As far as sex with captured women and slave girl is concerned, I (to the best of my understanding) have no doubt that Quran and Haidth allowed it. Those women whom "thy right hand possess" are slaves who do not have the same rights as the free women. However, It is also important to remember that we are talking about the world of 1500 years ago. These things (war booty, male and female prisoners) were common not only among the Arabs (Muslim or non-Muslim) but also among the rest of the world. In those days, there did not exist something like Geneva Convention. Norms of those days are no longer acceptable today. I do however, find it true that even though the Prophet (PBUH) and his disciples freed slaves and encouraged other Muslims to do the same, they did not prohibit slavery.
Similar threads
