Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Polytheists
David Blue    11/12/2002 8:38:17 AM
Hi. Partly as a holdover from my days as a no-nukes peace-marcher, I know a bunch of polytheists. They fall into three classes, none of them capable of defending themselves against Islam. (1) Wiccans, and other magic-workers. In my experience, these warlocks and witches are likely to do things like work spells and offer prayers to the great motherly nature goddess, to appeal to the great roach spirit to keep her babies away, so that the magician need not to resort to (gasp!) lethal (to roaches) poison! It stands to reason that not much can be expected in a military sense from people who can't summon up enough ruthlessness to kill a roach. (2) Northern Heathens. These I meet only on the Internet. They worship the gods their (distant) ancestors did: Thor, various Celtic gods etc.. These are a tougher lot, and many have time in the military. But Europe is their sun and their moon, which means that America is in the wrong in fighting Islam now, and the form of religious oppression that concerns them is American style multiculturalism. Islam is not on their radar screen, as it is neither American, nor capitalist/consumerist/multiculturalist. Yep, not even self-identified modern Viking want to fight, or not on America's side anyway. (3) Other "serious" neo-pagans etc., mostly interested in reconstructing and reliving pre-Christian religions like Hellenismos (the religion of Classical Greece). These generally feel that in a religious sense "something serious has gone wrong" (and they care very much about that), so they have backtracked across the history of religion to bits of history where they feel things made more sense. Quite a bright and sincere crowd in a lot of ways, they get their opinions on religion and much else from respected academic authorities. If the universities say it, it's true, and if not, not. So while the ancient religions themselves were noted for tough and ruthless people, for the modernists this is filtered through academic political correctness. (Islam can only mean "diversity", and encouraging "diversity" is always right, because we don't want to be RACIST, do we? Etc..) If academia would tell them it was all right to defend yourself, they probably might, but in reality, that won't happen. In America, all these people are free to worship Wodem, Hermes or empty beer bottles if they so choose: the constitution guarantees it. In Australia, Canada and the UK, a tolerant culture offers polytheists similar protection in practice. And why not? They're colourful, often interested in good works (like animal shelters), and they hurt nobody. If you can live with the Amish, you can live with some of these. Of course many of them are also extremely annoying, like true believers of any stripe. The witless, dogmatic teen witches can get pretty snotty. But where I live that's no crime.) Now let's discuss how they will or would all do under Sharia (Muslim holy law). They won't fight or flee, and couldn't really hope to make it another country with another language etc. if they tried. The Northern Heathens of various stripes practically can't, for "blood and soil" religious reasons. Though others may mock their religions, most of these polytheists seem very genuine about doing what they think is right: they won't convert. Given that they are who they are, and there they stay, what are their rights, under pure, strict, militant Islam? How will they stand, in a future Muslim Europe, or a future Muslim World? David Blue Riyadh delenda est!
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
muslim    RE:According to strict Islam interpetation Christians are Polytheists   11/15/2002 3:51:15 AM
"Christians are considered polytheists because we worship the trinity. So that makes us fair game for slaughter." Regarding this, I hope you would take David's approach and accept the by-the-book answer (I like this, I'm going to start using it if you don't mind David... :-) ). I don't know how accurate your source is, but I have heard some debate about this same issue, and I heard the opinion that modern day christians are considered polytheists, but it is not correct. The modern day christians you see today aren't very different from the ones who lived during the prophet's life, they too believed Jesus was God's son, and they too believed in the trinity, yet, the prophet still treated them as christians. The point here isn't that Islam creates a distinction between polytheists and monotheists, if you read the Quran, the jews and christians are called by one of two, either the people of the book, or by the religion's name, NOT TYPE. SO it doesn't make any difference if the christians started to worship all 12 apostles, or the jews started to worship Moses himself, as long as they call themselves jews and christians, that is all that counts. If you consider yourself a christian (regardless of the sect) you are treated like a christian. The other point I would like to point out is that the only people the prophet fought because of their religion were the arab polytheists. The prophet never fought the jews in Madinah because they were jews, he fought them because they disobeyed a treaty. The prophet never fought the christians in modern day Ethiopia, actually, he sent some muslims there so that the christians can protect them. also, there is no such people who are fair game for slaughter. There are very strict rules about who can and can't be killed in Islam, and NONE of them include being polytheist. Muslims aren't even allowed to chop down trees DURING a battle, how could we be allowed to kill a person who didn't commit a crime? I am sorry to inform you this, but you are confusing the ACTUAL rules with the people who are misusing them. NOBODY is fair game for slaughter. This is not just my own personal opinion, this is the truth, this is how Islam should be implemented, not the way the Taliban or the Saudis do it.
 
Quote    Reply

David Blue    By the book (and Melbourne)   11/16/2002 7:20:52 AM
Hi, Jeff from Michigan. It's always good to speak to old friends. But I'm in Sydney, I don't travel, and I don't know anyone in Melbourne. Enjoy your visit anyway. Hi, Muslim. Go right ahead: you are now an official, licensed user of the phrase "by the book Islam". :) Mind you, it makes no difference. The party-goers at Kuta Beach, Bali, could have all converted to Hinduism or Islam for that matter, and it wouldn't have made any difference to their chances of survival. If you were on one of the hijacked airliners on 11 September, 2001, you were dead, regardless of your religion. Etc.. Our practical actions towards Islam have to be based on the reality of Muslim terrorism, not theory, not whether we like turbans or burquas or how many wives had or anything else. Muslim terrorist violence, in many cases government supported and abetted by laws victimising non-Muslims, isn't an issue, it's the only issue. If Muslim could convince me that Islam was the sweetest religion ever invented in theory, I'd still be in favour of "regime change" in as many Muslims states as necessary, at the price of whatever carnage is necessary, in conjunction with whatever anti-terrorist measures are necessary >to convince these nutter that their licence to kill has been well and truly cancelled<. But still, we do sometimes discuss Islam, and when we do I prefer to do so on a basis of facts, not angry prejudice. David Blue Riyadh delenda est!
 
Quote    Reply

David Blue    RE:By the book.   11/16/2002 1:59:30 PM
Hi. Oops. I posted that last one too casually, on too little sleep, and it came out confused. Corrections follow. "Mind you, it makes no difference." That is, the whole discussion over what theoretically happens to polytheists is interesting, but makes no difference. People are being killed in practice, not in theory. The only point of the discussion is that when we refer to theory, I'd rather get it right than wrong. "Our practical actions towards Islam have to be based on the reality of Muslim terrorism, not theory, not whether we like turbans or burquas or how many wives had [Mohammed] or anything else." David Blue Riyadh delenda est!
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:By the book (and Melbourne)   11/16/2002 4:52:14 PM
"Mind you, it makes no difference. The party-goers at Kuta Beach, Bali, could have all converted to Hinduism or Islam for that matter, and it wouldn't have made any difference to their chances of survival. If you were on one of the hijacked airliners on 11 September, 2001, you were dead, regardless of your religion. Etc.." I compeletly understand what you are saying, and I agree. The people who commited those crimes obviously didn't care or know what the by-the-book rules are. I realize that this discussion isn't going to change what happened, how you look at that situation, or what reaction your or the US is/about to take. The point of this discussion is to clarify that there is a difference between the rule and the application. In this case, the application doesn't even consider the rules. Almost everything seen in the news about Islam is anything but Islam. Sucide bombings, Murdering civilians, etc. all are condemned by Islam yet these people commit those crimes in the name of Islam. "If Muslim could convince me that Islam was the sweetest religion ever invented in theory, I'd still be in favour of "regime change" in as many Muslims states as necessary, at the price of whatever carnage is necessary, in conjunction with whatever anti-terrorist measures are necessary >to convince these nutter that their licence to kill has been well and truly cancelled<." And to add to that... I have no right to tell your or propose to you different ways in dealing with this problem. I, as a muslim, have problems within my society that I must deal with before dealing with others. Alos, I would like to change one of your statements "I'd still be in favour of "regime change" in as many Muslims states as necessary" from my POV is "I am in favour of regime change in ALL so-called muslim states". No so-called muslims country today applies Islam as it should be applied, and it is my job as a muslim to turn the "theory" of Islam into a reality. Maybe that is the difference between you and me, you want to discuss the facts and maybe sometimes the thoeries, I want to make the thoery into a reality.
 
Quote    Reply

David Blue    RE:By the book~~~angry prejudice   11/16/2002 7:08:20 PM
Hi. I'll give you a point too, Ump: Australians are just starting to think about this in a new way. From 11 September 2001, we were really only fighting for the Yanks, because they're our friends. We weren't really fighting against anyone; it wasn't personal in that sense. After 12 October, 2002, it is personal. And if there's much more "education" like that, all the calm and reasonable words I or anyone else might say will make no difference. I understand that for quite a few Americans, it's not a question of where we're going on this: you're already there. David Blue Riyadh delenda est!
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff from Michigan    RE:According to strict Islam interpetation Christians are Polytheists   11/18/2002 9:01:09 PM
Muslim, I don't disagree with your answer but during the Chechen hostage stand-off that was one of the points that the Chechens made regarding their rights to take the hostages. I tried to find the article in the IHT but couldn't. I have to admire you for standing up for your version of Islam but there other strands of Islamic thought that have captured the imagination of Arab world. Those diseased strands have to be cauterized with no mercy. That is why even minded people like David Blue are so bent on destruction of the terrorist organizations AND the states that support them like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Pakistan. Pakistan is playing a double game and I am sure that one day it will overplay it and be destroyed. Dave: I like your reference to Riyadh delente est. Cato the Elder would be proud. You spotted the ultimate source of trouble.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:According to strict Islam interpetation Christians are Polytheists   11/22/2002 2:04:40 AM
to Jeff, There is always one important point to keep in mind whenever doing ANY type of research, ALWAYS GO TO THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION. Now, I realize that there are probably a million different ways Islam is being misimplemented this day of age, and I can name more than anyone on this board can ever try, and I realize that some of those misapplications or deviations are not only giving Islam a bad image, but also taking innocent lives at the same time, and I have made it clear that I don't support that. That's why I insist that whenever Islam is disscussed on this board, the ONLY sources being used in the discussion aren't what Osama is doing, or what the Saudis are doing, but what the Quran and Sunnah says. Also, another important point that you need to understand is that even though Islam allows more than correct application in some issues, it leaves others with ONLY one correct answer, one of those is how Islam looks at jews, christians and polytheists. so you must understand that regardless of what was said about the christians being polytheists, it is untrue, I have shown that. Even if they were considered polytheists by Islam, that doesn't make them fair game, they would stil be treated as people of the book excpet that we can't eat their slaughtered meat or marry their women, EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE THE SAME. I respect David for not taking the first answer he read and instead asking for what Islam says about the subject, that shows me maturity on his part and open mindness, a rare thing on this board. Also to you jeff, it's good to see someone who can disagree while remaining humble and respectful, also rare on this board.
 
Quote    Reply

123456    people who should be opposed to Islam   1/21/2009 4:34:04 PM
It's too bad about the people who don't understand how their lives will be affected under an Islamic regime. Not just Wiccans but gays, pro-choicers, feminists, children's rights advocates, people who aren't anti-semites, you name it and these are often the same people who think that defending Islam somehow has the same liberal validity as defending all the other things liberals like to defend. I'm pretty liberal myself but I've looked at Islam and it seems clear to me that A) Muslims support Islam, B) Islam supports sharia law, C) sharia law supports the execution of children, rape victims, Jews, gays...so it is really a use of terror to keep people in line. That would be terrorism. Therefore, all Muslims support terrorism and are, in their hearts, terrorists. Liberals seem to be oblivious to the idea that it's arrogant to believe you're right all the time about everything and this blinds them to trying to examine their beliefs to find out which ones are really well supported and which ones are hogwash. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing so they take stands about issues that make it easy for liberals to keep voting Democrat.Things like creationism in schools, bans on gay marriage and so on. It's almost like the conservative voters want to lose elections. Conservative voters need to make this whole thing about Islam. Gay ? Cool -join the Republican party. Wiccan? Cool-join the Republican party. and so on. Just don't accept dhimmis or Muslims.Make the dhimmis attack the gays , the prochoicers and so on every time they vote Dem. So, I look out at the world and I see an Islamic totatitarianism is likely and I think then about peak oil and the probable loss of 95 percent of humanity to famine and thirst and plague and war and I think about the possible extinction of humanity from runaway global warming and somehow peak oil and an earth as hot as Venus don't seem so bad anymore. With any luck, the peak oil will stop the global warming from killing us all and the massive die off will destroy the political correctness that keeps people from admitting the truth.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy