European Secularism?

[Khandro]

Can European Secularism Provide a Sufficient Bulwark Against Islamic Encroachment?

[Khandro]

andy-hughes; My reference on another thread to ADD, was not aimed at you at all, it was a light-hearted jibe at baldric, who had said, "40 minutes - you must be joking!" to which he didn't even respond, but then he's probably made of sterner stuff than you, who took it upon yourself to facilitate its removal.

What you did say was;
"Thanks, but I don't have forty minutes to waste on this kind of stuff.
I am busy living my happy life, which is unpolluted by trying to achieve impossible standards set by egotistical ancients."

Once again informing us of just how happy you are; but oddly, using your post above as an example, you never quite seem to sound so.

[Baldric]

///to which he didn't even respond///

Oh yes I did, I reported it, so not AH's fault at all.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // ... who took it upon yourself to facilitate its removal. //

Although I am not prepared to enter another personal spat with you, I will remind you that Moderators are not permitted to remove posts referring to the personally.

And as Baldric has advised, he reported your post and it was removed - though not by me.

Please don't confuse a lack of courage with an unwillingness to be, or to see others, insulted.

[Khandro]

andy-hughes; I apologise and take back my inference that it was you who had removed my post.
baldric, you surprise me.

[Baldric]

I can take a joke anytime, but that was downright offensive.

[Khandro]

baldric; what surprises me is that you didn't say so.

[Baldric]

There's more than enough pontificating on this Site without me encouraging even more imo.

[Khandro]

baldric; it isn't about pontificating, it's about if you are offended by something, pointing it out and not running straight to mummy without giving the 'offender' the opportunity to withdraw the remark.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //andy-hughes; I apologise and take back my inference that it was you who had removed my post. //

Thank you for your apology and withdrawal - accepted of course.

[Baldric]

Khandro,
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Yet another offensive post @ 13:09.

[keyplus90]

I would also say the same thing, education. Education for Muslims to learn about Islam and not the culture they are holding onto. Refresher course for Westerner None Muslims about pre 9/11 Islam and above all they need to come out of the fictional Islam they know since crusades. Education for the people in the West that Islam (as West knows it) has been around over 1400 years. Education that known Islamic terrorism only started when West started invading a few counties, mainly in the Middle East.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //Education that known Islamic terrorism only started when West started invading a few counties, mainly in the Middle East. //

Educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

[vetuste_ennemi]

Islamic terrorism started a few years after Mohammed was welcomed into Medina. In fact it started just as soon as he'd got enough converts willing to fight. After only five years in Medina the prophet had expelled two Jewish tribes and expropriated their property - in accordance with Koranic (i.e. God-given) mandate, and had slaughtered the adult male populaton of a third, the Banu Qurayza, and enslaved the women and children.

The slaughter and rape continued with the campaign against Khaybar, another Jewish community. Khaybar is still remembered by Muslims today; I did see a demo not that long ago when "Khaybar" was being chanted. In fact I think it's the first time that "Allahu Aqbar!" ("My God greater!") is mentioned in the literatur.

Safiyah, wife of one of Khaybar's leading men, is an interesting case. She lost her father and brothers in the attack, as well as her husband (who was tortured first because he'd tried to conceal the whereabouts of some treasure). The next day she found herself married to the man responsible for all this, Mohammed. Quite an eventful two days for this young woman.

I have an award-winning biography of Muhammed called for some reason "The Sealed Nectar". It records all these facts (except for the torture) with no comment at all on the woman's ordeal but to say that "the wedding was celebrated by the eating of dates". Karen Armstrong's hagiography "Muammed" mentions none of these facts at all, saying only that "Safiyah, who had lost here husband in the battle, converted to Islam and Muhammed took her as his wife".

This looks like a TV series about Khaybar (for those of you who know modern Arabic):

http://ahlamtv.com/en/Khaybar/t_160_Serie-khaybar-Ramadan-2013.htm

[Khandro]

keyplus; I'm sorry, but long before naomi's list, there has been terrorism throughout the history of Islam. Mohammad/Koran demanded the Arabian peninsular to be completely cleared of all Jews and Christians and to be a place for only Muslims to live, and yet it had been theirs since biblical times.
If they didn't wish to convert to Islam they had the choice of being beheaded or paying a tax to remain (a nice little earner for the Muslims, that).
If that isn't terrorism, what is?

[naomi24]

Khandro, I’ve read it and as usually happens these days when I read something of that nature I’m left feeling that I’ve just wasted a little chunk of my life. Other than for use in superfluous academic debate on the whys, wherefores, ifs and buts of Christianity, for someone who has reached the conclusions I’ve reached the undoubted paradoxes that Christianity engenders are irrelevant. I read a statement like, “Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, He must have been Antichrist”, and think, “Why?” In all likelihood the subject, whom the author erroneously assesses to be ‘The Founder of Christianity’ was neither, but that option doesn’t occur to him. Therefore, since he doesn’t deem that third, and by far the most rational possibility, to be a consideration, such deliberations serve only to demonstrate the extent to which religion dominates and engulfs the psyche.

Your question here really relates to what amounts to a struggle for supremacy between Christianity and Islam, but in the absence of religion no such struggle would exist. Whilst people continue to cling to idealistic notions of their own superiority in a world of the non- existent supernatural religion will continue to be detrimental to peace on this planet and to the well-being of human-kind as a whole – and all the philosophising and proselytising in the world won’t change that. Frankly, I despair.

[Khandro]

naomi; I was neither intending nor anticipating a sudden conversion from you :0) but the whole point of GKC's argument is that there are two faces of Christianity, the passive and the active. What he says and my point of the OP is, given that the success of Europe is founded on 2,000 years of Christianity and has remained so, because it has given the cohesion and strength to be been able to resist all attempts to overrun it. I believe the burgeoning secularism and ignorance of Christianity is insufficient to prevent its capitulation.
The European churches are led by feeble spokespeople and there is no support from the politicians, unlike Russia where both Christianity is strong and it is well supported by the government, and more churches are being built, not mosques.

You say "Your question here really relates to what amounts to a struggle for supremacy between Christianity and Islam, but in the absence of religion no such struggle would exist." this is to miss the point completely, you might as well say if there were no vehicles there would be no traffic accidents. We are where we are, a week form of Christianity and a very strong and invasive Islam.

Christ did lay the foundation of Christianity and he was no pussycat, he drove the moneylenders out of the temple.

Also remember the old testament, Ecclesiastes 3 - there is a time for everything, .....a time for war and a time for peace.
The war is being brought amongst us and our response is feeble, when you're fighting a fierce hippogryph you need more than a water pistol, you need firm resolve and action. (imo) .

[Zacs-Master]

Possibly the most out of touch comment I've ever seen on here Khandro. You can't seriously think that stronger Christianity will prevail over Islam, surely?

[naomi24]

Khandro, I know what the point of his argument is and I don’t think I’ve missed anything. Are you suggesting that had Europe clung more rigidly to Christianity it would have armed itself and done battle with the new invaders?

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Christ did lay the foundation of Christianity //

That was never his intention.

[Khandro]

n. // Are you suggesting that had Europe clung more rigidly to Christianity it would have armed itself and done battle with the new invaders?//
Yes I am, just as it has done in the past, driving them back from Cordoba and the gates of Vienna. Don't get me wrong I've nothing against Islam as long as it stays where it belongs and it doesn't belong in Europe.
Zacs, // You can't seriously think that stronger Christianity will prevail over Islam, surely?// I have given the example of Russia. When the great cathedrals of Europe have been dynamited, Christianity will prevail there.