It would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic. Jews expect unequivocal gentile support - on pain of being branded an 'antisemite' - yet act in such a way that virtually ensures angering the very gentiles whose support they demand. I suppose we shouldn't be too shocked, though, as it's simply symptomatic of the world view that liberalism proposes: attitudes to groups must be independant of the way groups act. Yes, that's what the jihadists/islamofascists/fundamentalists/etc would want, but they wouldn't enjoy the silent support of the Muslim majority the way they do when the issue is Israel. Without that support, these folks are much easier to contain.
I could 'introduce' you to some (via the net) if you like. I suppose it's comforting for you to write me off as a 'virulent antisemite' (did you know that's the preferred spelling of professional, ADL-style, grievance mongers?), but if you're ever struck by a moment of genuine intellectual curiosity and seek to understand why I abandoned my blind support of Israel, you might want to investigate the facts lead me to the decision. If such a time ever comes, please let me know.
I wasn't aware that theosophy was a matter of great debate among Muslims. (Maybe this like the 'fierce debate' that only you, to my knowledge, has ever detected in eugenics about 'hierarchical rankings' of races. You must read some interesting material there, Nikky.)
Sorry it took me so long to respond. Was out. Those hijackers were not educated and middle class when they were recruited into the extreme Islam mindset. One an arab has been brainwashed to the belief that he will die for the greater glory of God, it doesn't matter what you give him. Everything in his life works towards that one goal. As for the poor Christians in Africa and Hindus in India, we have a religious difference. The more religious a Christian or Hindu gets, the more peace loving they become (for the most part). This is not necessarily so of the nation of Islam.
Sometimes this forum allows for considerate, intellectual debate I appreciate your comments as well. It's just a shame most of the nicks around here just troll.
Can I ask how you know that? And do you mean to generalize from the example of these particular Muslims, that every militant Muslim extremist becomes recruited to the movement before becoming educated? If so, again, I would ask you to support this contention with evidence.
The religion of Islam IS a peaceful one. Have you ever read the biography of the Prophet? He was the first to bring tolerance, equalization for women (to a point) and understanding of Christians and Jews (by calling them Dhimmi - "protected people") to the arab tribes and the Qurash (the ruling merchant party of Medina at the time). So there were battles. You wanna talk about how many battles there are in the Old Testament? Come on, mate. I suggest you pick up a copy of No god, but God by Azlan. It's an excellent read about the true nature of Islam. It's not a bad thing as long as the Muslims immigrating realize that the freedom of religion is a sacred thing. The main fight in the extremists is the belief that they should go out and destroy those who do not follow Islam. It's this intolerance that has been the base of every act they have put together. When in reality, the Prophet (PBUH) never said to kill Christians and Jews. In fact, and I think I mentioned this before, when Muhammad conquered the Qurash and retook Medina, he went to the Ka'ba (which was a square building that housed every statue and icon to every god the people of the land worshipped - they housed them there because the pilgrimage of these people caused trade to their city) the Prophet had his men destroy every and all statue of these false gods until he came to a statue of Mary and Jesus. Here, he paused, placed his hand over the statue and said "destroy all but that which is under my hand". He was all about tolerance. And that is why I believe that immigrating true followers of Islam does no harm. In fact, it may bring good as an understanding of Islam - as it is meant to be - will be among Christians and Jews. Incidently, I am Catholic. Not practicing, but Catholic - not muslim. I just read an enormous amount on Islam in my studies.
Research where they were born. I do not know for a fact that they were poor, and I cannot support this theory with statistics (which could be manipulated anyway). But it is clear to the Muslim community - the moderate side - that education of the world is the enemy of the extremists. They capture youths who do not know better, come from the poor underground, and teach them radical Islam. Muslims who already understand the proper teachings of Islam are not converted to radical Islam. I think education simply breeds a more tolerant view of the world.
Not only can't you support it with statistics, it appears you can't support it at all, except to say that "it is clear to the Muslim community...education of the world is the enemy of the extremists". In fact, it's not clear at all. How would you refute a radical Muslim? I have yet to see anyone accomplish this, and believe me, I've searched. The best effort I've seen was from a Sunni scholar on a bodybuilding forum (of all things!), but he only argued that 'Al Qaeda' style military tactics were un-Islamic, while being in support of the Muslim right (but not obligation) to beat your wife, of punishing apostasy with the death penalty and an assortment of other primitive but thoroughly Islamic doctrines that to any westerner would surely seem 'radical'. Yes, you think. But is that actually true? Is it in fact what we observe? If it isn't, shouldn't such mushy thinking be discarded and replaced with a more accurate appraisal of reality?
Nah, I'm not convinced. Perhaps you need to use four-point font, underlined and red. I'm familiar with the most significant aspects of his life without having read a complete work on it by any one particular author. Who have you read? This sounds like a bunch of mushy unreality that the likes of a Karen Armstrong would write. Come on, do you really expect me to buy into simplistic one-liners like "He was the first to bring tolerance"? What does that even mean? Tolerance didn't exist until Mohammed thought it up? Just what kind of 'tolerance' did he bring, specifically? The claim that Islam improved the lot of women can only be read by westerners as a damning indictment of their treatment by pre-Islamic Arab society; the claim that women are better treated under Islam than under, say, Christianity is so absurd only a committed Muslim could hold to it. The only sense that 'dhimmi' provisions protect Christians and Jews is to spare them the depravities the Islamic religion reserves for pagans; this is not remotely 'englightened' in any modern sense of the word. Yes, there were battles in the Old Testament, but that doesn't spare Islam being called a violent religion, it only means ancient Jews were violent, too. It's veritable fact that the first enterprise launched by the newly minted Muslims of 7th century Arabia was a campaign of military conquest with the purpose of brining the known world under the banner of Islam. And what if they don't? What if they reject that? If that is the condition on which Muslims are allowed to enter, shouldn't we have someone monitoring them to determine whether they do in fact consider freedom of religion 'sacred'? And is the mere fact that it's 'not a bad thing' reason enough to bring them here? 'It's not a bad thing' suggests it's merely tolerable, without any actual positive benefit to recommend to it. In that case, society is being transformed for precisely...nothing. How do you square such rampant violence with the idea that Muslims are supposed to hold freedom of religion sacred? Or does that only count for Christians and Jews? Hindus, too bad fellas. He was not 'all about tolerance' at all. That view is demonstrably wrong. If that is only justification for believing Islamic immigration 'might' (might? rather a risky gamble, wouldn't you say?) be a good thing, I think your case just vanished.