Has anyone read 'Inside Islam' by R Spencer and D Ali

  • Thread starter Thread starter men0wjv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m changing Mick’s name to Scrooge McIslam 😛 You’re a Christmas terrorist man 😛
SSTeacher said:
So sorry for not only apparently getting the wrong impression from the reviewers but also for causing you great annoyance by posting the aforesaid impression. I’m at a loss to explain what on earth gave me such an idea. Hopefully, I haven’t totally spoiled your Christmas. 🙂

Festively,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
 
Re question 2
I have heard that the number of Muslims is rapidly increasing each year throughout the World. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Europe’s Muslim future by Eric Kaufmann in Prospect Magazine may throw some light on the topic as regards Europe.

Here are some pertinent quotes:
Let’s begin with the current Muslim share of the population (see chart, below). In all European nations these are small minorities, but they will rise sharply even without immigration because Muslim populations, like all immigrant groups, are much younger than average. In Britain, 4.7 per cent of those under 16 are Muslim compared to just 0.6 per cent of those over 65. And Muslim families are larger than others—in Britain, the total fertility rate (TFR) of Muslim women is about two-thirds higher than that of the median British woman.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
So, what does the future hold? Our projections for many west European countries find that Muslims will make up between 4 and 14 per cent of the population by 2030, a large increase from the 2-6 per cent range today, but a far cry from Eurabia. Sweden will be the most Islamic country in Europe. Britain’s Muslim population will be close to 7 per cent, compared to 2.8 per cent in 2001 (and a 2009 estimate of 4 per cent). Some might be tempted to glide from careful projection to a prophecy of a doubling of the Muslim share every 20 years. This would produce a Muslim majority in a few generations and vindicate the predictions of extreme Eurabianists.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
…. It seems to me that the bigger worry by the second half of the 21st century will be an emerging “culture war” between fundamentalists of all faiths and those who back the secular status quo. Muslim-origin seculars will make common cause with white seculars against Islamists and other fundamentalists. Sadly, this is a clash that fundamentalists are poised to win because fertility differences based on theology do not fade like those based on ethnicity. This phenomenon, which political science professor James Guth dubs “religious restructuring,” is well in train in the US. Once upon a time, Catholics had larger families than Protestants. Catholic fertility converged to Protestant levels by 1980, but the fertility gap between mainly secular pro-choice and pro-life (read: fundamentalist) women across all religions widened: from 22 to 38 per cent between 1972 and 2006.
Click to expand...
You can see a more detailed discussion in:

The Demography of Islam in Europe.

Depending on various scenarios the proportion of Muslims in Austria could be anywhere between 12% and 27% by 2051.

What does emerge from this paper is the continuing higher fertility of religious women. As I said in a previous post, I think atheists are an endangered species.
 
In November there was a UN resolution condemning religious defamation. The Catholic League is an anti-defamation organization and, as such, makes use of First Amendment guarantees as freedom of religion, speech and assembly to protest Catholic bashing. This resolution was promoted by countries noted for disrespecting human rights, including most of all, religious liberties. Pakistan has been pushing for this anti-blasphemy resolution since 1999. Other countries calling for the resolution are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But rather than restricting religious defamation, “it is designed to give Islamist nations the right to plunder the religious rights of non-Muslims–under the guise of fighting religious intolerance!”

Catholic League reports that the reason the Christian community in the Middle East has dropped to less than 2% of the population is because they’ve been driven out. The League “supports all democratic remedies that thwart religious intolerance, but it will never support fascistic laws. These Muslim nations already kill Christians and Jews with impunity; they don’t need any further excuses.”

See the latest edition of the League’s magazine Catalyst online:

catholicleague.com/catalyst.php?year=2010&month=December
 
4Horsemen

I’m glad to see that the Catholic League supports freedom of expression. I wish I could say the same for the Anti-Defamation League.

Right now the biggest threat to freedom of expression arises from attempts to appease Muslims. You do not have to be an admirer of Terry Jones to see that the reaction to his intention to burn his own property was over the top. It included a phone call from the secretary of defence and a visit from the FBI.

Just how do you stop people barbecuing their own property?

For my part I think the following is a necessary component of freedom of expression.

Any belief system, any ideology, and religion including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, Hinduism, Holocaust denial, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, Sikhism, socialism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a legitimate target for critique, analysis, satire and even scorn. The critic is under no obligation to consider the feelings of believers or to abide by rules of “fairness”. The right to free expression specifically includes the right to say things and commit acts that some may find deeply wounding.

The hypocrisy of the liberals on this issue is stunning. In 1989 they lauded a Supreme Court decision (Texas vs Johnson) that declared the desecration of the American flag to be permitted free speech protected by the first amendment. In 2010 liberals declare themselves outraged because someone wants to burn a koran. Do liberals think protecting the koran is more important than protecting the flag?
 
well, I was actually reading what OP was posting as response to all the “questions” in this book.

😦
 
MaxRosen said:
The hypocrisy of the liberals on this issue is stunning. In 1989 they lauded a Supreme Court decision (Texas vs Johnson) that declared the desecration of the American flag to be permitted free speech protected by the first amendment. In 2010 liberals declare themselves outraged because someone wants to burn a koran. Do liberals think protecting the koran is more important than protecting the flag?
Click to expand...
Maybe they weren’t the same liberals? 🙂

Undecidedly,
Mick
👍
 
MaxRosen said:
4Horsemen

I’m glad to see that the Catholic League supports freedom of expression. I wish I could say the same for the Anti-Defamation League.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, though, the ADL and ACLU are on the conservative side but very rarely. I’ve been reading Catholic League’s newsletter for a while now, and have come across a few incidences (that of course I can’t find now) that the ACLU, especially, joined with conservatives.

People of good will of all religions should work together for peace. I know there are organizations that promote dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims. The pro-life movement has brought together Catholics and Evangelicals but not many Jews and Muslims.

However, the pro-life movement has the stalwart Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who joins the March For Life in Washington D.C. every year. He blows on the shofar to call attention to the proceedings.
Right now the biggest threat to freedom of expression arises from attempts to appease Muslims. You do not have to be an admirer of Terry Jones to see that the reaction to his intention to burn his own property was over the top. It included a phone call from the secretary of defence and a visit from the FBI.
Click to expand...
There have been 36 attempts at terrorist acts in the U.S.A. since 9/11. One day, the terrorists (all of Islamic faith) might just succeed in the U.S. You’re right about Muslims getting a pass from the government (which is unable to verbally associate the terrorist attempts with the word Muslim) and the major newsmedia. Catholic League has many examples. One example is regarding the Muslim murder of Christians in Nigeria. Thirty-four headllines cited “religious” violence; four mentioned Christian-Muslim violence, and only one, The Times of London said anything like “Rampaging Muslim Gangs Trap Christian Victims in Nets.” (The bloody details are gory, including the scalping of children and limbs all over the place).
For my part I think the following is a necessary component of freedom of expression.
Click to expand...
Any belief system, any ideology, and religion including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, Hinduism, Holocaust denial, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, Sikhism, socialism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a legitimate target for critique, analysis, satire and even scorn. The critic is under no obligation to consider the feelings of believers or to abide by rules of “fairness”. The right to free expression specifically includes the right to say things and commit acts that some may find deeply wounding.
Click to expand...
I agree that the rules should be fair concerning all religions and beliefs, but anti-Catholic bigotry is on the rise. Some of our legislators and others like women on The View were horrified that several justices on the bench just happened to be Catholic. Like the Vatican is going to run the U.S.? :eek:

Then there’s the story about a woman at NPR who fired Juan Williams for a statement that he’d be concerned about flying with certain kinds of people dressed a certain way (I don’t think he said the word ‘Muslim.’) Now the woman who fired him accidently said she was at a CHRISTMAS party. NOT politically correct! Of course she should have said Winter Party, Soltice Party or even Pagan Party, but not Christmas. How dare she?
Maybe she’ll get fired now.
The hypocrisy of the liberals on this issue is stunning. In 1989 they lauded a Supreme Court decision (Texas vs Johnson) that declared the desecration of the American flag to be permitted free speech protected by the first amendment. In 2010 liberals declare themselves outraged because someone wants to burn a koran. Do liberals think protecting the koran is more important than protecting the flag?
Click to expand...
Yes. Think about all the newspapers afraid to print jokes referring to Muslims, but when it comes to Catholics–no holds barred! Editors at the Washington Post chose not to run a cartoon that mentioned, but did not depict, Muhammad. The response of the editor was that it was “a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” The article goes into a list of other print media that refused to publish a rather mild, inoffensive cartoon.
 
MaxRosen said:
Hi MaxRosen,

I just wanted to add something about demography from an article I read in the Notre Dame magazine entitled “How Religion Impacts the U.S.”

The article says that both positive and negative influences that religion has on society are the subject of a new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us by Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell and Robert Putnam of Harvard Univerity. (He also wrote a popular book called Bowling Alone about the collapse ane revival of community in America).

What they are saying is something of the same thing Eric Kaufman spoke about in the YouTube video. The authors surveyed thousands of people across the nation on civic life and religious beliefs and behavior. They studied the same group of people the following year noting that 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. marriages are interfaith, 1/3 of Americans have switched religious traditioons during their life, and even strong-minded evangelicals believe that people of other religions can go to heaven.

The book also identifies a shift in religion’s role on political identification. People used to vote denominationally, like the Catholic support for John Kennedy. Today, the more devout of different faiths tend to vote with each other and differently from those less religiously inclined. An example given was of John Kerry finding out this development.

Of course different societal issues bring together voters of different faiths, like abortion and gay marriage, but now the trend is changing so that the divergence is showing up in young people who tend to oppose abortion but not gay rights.

Anyhow, I think there will be more studies and more articles and books out there on the subject. Thanks for starting the conversation on this interesting topic.

Many Blessings,
4Horsemen
Click to expand...
 
4Horsemen said:
MaxRosen;7384857:
Hi MaxRosen,

I just wanted to add something about demography from an article I read in the Notre Dame magazine entitled “How Religion Impacts the U.S.”

The article says that both positive and negative influences that religion has on society are the subject of a new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us
Click to expand...
by Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell and Robert Putnam of Harvard Univerity. (He also wrote a popular book called Bowling Alone about the collapse ane revival of community in America).

What they are saying is something of the same thing Eric Kaufman spoke about in the YouTube video. The authors surveyed thousands of people across the nation on civic life and religious beliefs and behavior. They studied the same group of people the following year noting that 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. marriages are interfaith, 1/3 of Americans have switched religious traditioons during their life, and even strong-minded evangelicals believe that people of other religions can go to heaven.

The book also identifies a shift in religion’s role on political identification. People used to vote denominationally, like the Catholic support for John Kennedy. Today, the more devout of different faiths tend to vote with each other and differently from those less religiously inclined. An example given was of John Kerry finding out this development.

Of course different societal issues bring together voters of different faiths, like abortion and gay marriage, but now the trend is changing so that the divergence is showing up in young people who tend to oppose abortion but not gay rights.

Anyhow, I think there will be more studies and more articles and books out there on the subject. Thanks for starting the conversation on this interesting topic.

Many Blessings,
4Horsemen

I actually tend to agree with this statement, at least in regards to the young people I know. In conversations, it seems that science has convinced them that the fetus is a small, living child & a gay person is born that way. My teenaged daughter identifies herself as conservative (:eek:) is very pro life & just wants gay people to live their lives the same as everyone else. She sees it in the civil rights mode where the pro life is a black/white life/death thing with scientific proof we can see of a beating heart etc.

Sorry to get off topic!
Click to expand...
 
The reasons for banishment from CAF are described in detail in this thread. You may therefore infer that anyone who is banned has broken one or more of those rules. It is not really appropriate to speculate beyond that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top