The Spin Doctors: Angola Becomes 'First Country to Ban Islam'
NOVEMBER 24, 2013 10:21 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER
(https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10690168_652649364880328_5388568440763099049_n.jpg?oh=87826ad67ccbda4576e4eff7efa0d352&oe=55178681)
Seems the story has gone VIRAL Cudos for the Portuguese owned Angola
The African nation of Angola has reportedly become the first country to ban Islam and Muslims, reports On Islam. Concerning the ban, Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos said Sunday "this is the final end of Islamic influence in our country."
Angola's ban was first announced last Friday, when Angolan Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva said "the process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human rights, their mosques would be closed until further notice."
India Today reports Silva's statement was made at the 6th Commission of the Angolan National Assembly, and that the ban includes orders to demolish mosques in the country.
Silva reportedly said the ban was necessary since Islam is "contradictory to the customs of Angola culture."
Angola's population of 16 million is predominantly Christian, with only 80,000-90,000 Muslims, the majority of whom are migrants from West Africa and families of Lebanese origin, according to the US State Department.
The crackdown on Islam comes as Christians in the Middle East are being forced from Muslim countries.
Israeli Source
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174445#.VIZIh9LF-t0
Britain First reports on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/britainfirstgb/photos/a.347167375428530.1073741829.300455573433044/652649364880328/
Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-reportedly-bans-islam-destroys-mosques
Angola denies it banned Islam, destroyed mosques
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 6:30 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER
More on this story. "Angola Denies It Banned Islam, Destroyed Mosques," by Connor Adams Sheets for International Business Times, November 25:
Angola became a hot topic in the international media over the weekend, as news outlets around the world wrote about reports that the Southwest African nation had banned Islam and had begun to dismantle mosques.
But an official at the Angolan Embassy in Washington, D.C., who did not want to be identified while discussing the sensitive matter, said that there is no such ban, and that the reports are erroneous.
"The Republic of Angola "¦ it's a country that does not interfere in religion," the official said via telephone Monday afternoon. "We have a lot of religions there. It is freedom of religion. We have Catholic, Protestants, Baptists, Muslims and evangelical people."
News of Angola's supposed ban on Islam originated in the African press, which went so far as to quote the nation's president and minister of culture offering statements that suggested the premise of the reports was accurate.
A second official at the Angolan Embassy in the U.S. reiterated that the diplomatic seat has not been made aware of any ban on Islam in the country
Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques
So A news story created...NOVEMBER 25, 2013 6:30 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER goes viral and then the rebuttal posted NOVEMBER 25, 2013 6:30 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER
Yet the only story that went VIRAL was the first one
8)
The problem with banning Islam, or taking any action against it whatsoever, is that it renders said non-Islamic actor who does so, as bad as Islamic extremists themselves. There is a quote from the Old Testament, which sums up what in my saner moments, I consider the proper moral course to take, when contemplating Islam. I have probably cited this before, but it is worth remembering.
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes:
Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
-- Genesis 18:20-33
Quote from: petrus4 on December 09, 2014, 01:37:24 AM
And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
So this Abraham dude... sees three MEN walking up to him and recognizes one as being his Lord. They have tea and crumpets and chat awhile and this Lord says he has to go see whats up in Salem (guess he didn't have all knowing all seeing eye powers at the time)
So fater battering about over righteous people seems there ere none because we all know Sodom and Gomarah were NUKED. I gues that is what all that yellow desert glass they find is all about eh? Fused city remnants
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 12:59:00 AM
Seems the story has gone VIRAL Cudos for the Portuguese owned Angola
Angola is not owned by the Portuguese.
In fact, some companies from Angola have been buying some big Portuguese companies, so it's more like Portugal is owned by Angola. ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 02:02:55 AM
Angola is not owned by the Portuguese.
Well okay so you cut them loose in 1975 still....
Did you recognise the point that I was trying to make, Zorgon?
Quote from: petrus4 on December 09, 2014, 03:26:46 AM
Did you recognise the point that I was trying to make, Zorgon?
Yeah You want to NUKE THEM because so far we have yet to find a rigtteous one. If there were any, they would stand up against their own atrocities. Since they do not,...
Send them an Xmas present
(http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/fat-man-model.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 04:54:07 AM
Yeah You want to NUKE THEM because so far we have yet to find a rigtteous one. If there were any, they would stand up against their own atrocities. Since they do not,...
Send them an Xmas present
(http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/fat-man-model.jpg)
Do you genuinely believe that a non-violent solution is possible, where Islam is concerned?
Quote from: petrus4 on December 09, 2014, 05:49:14 AM
Do you genuinely believe that a non-violent solution is possible, where Islam is concerned?
"The solution to Islam"
What exactly is the problem? lmafo.
Quote from: petrus4 on December 09, 2014, 05:49:14 AM
Do you genuinely believe that a non-violent solution is possible, where Islam is concerned?
No I have said nuking the entire region is likely the only solution MANY TIMES :P
Not saying we SHOULD do it but they have been at it for over 2000 years
I don't see any improvement
Quote from: Sinny on December 09, 2014, 01:48:44 PM
"The solution to Islam"
What exactly is the problem? lmafo.
There is no problem....
(http://www.hedweb.com/animimag/ostrich-head.jpg)
Lol - okay, well obviously 'Islam' is an extremely broad term which includes a large global population - so when I ask 'what's the problem', I want to know if you mean Islam based on religious differences, racial differences, political differnces etc etc etc.
Or is the elephant in the room 'radical Islam'? Or is it all bad?
Should we 'nuke em all' ? If that's the case you'll have to nuke Britain too, we're full of 'em!
Hense, my confusion.
Quote from: Sinny on December 09, 2014, 11:40:24 PM
Or is the elephant in the room 'radical Islam'? Or is it all bad?
As a religion, Islam's main problem is its' perceived divine imperative, to subjugate the rest of the planet. While it is true that not all Muslims follow said mandate on a practical basis, I know of no denomination of the religion (other than perhaps Sufism) that does not believe in it, at least theoretically.
As a religion, and again, this is a case where it is possible to speak generally, Islam does not recognise the right of an individual to choose whether or not to convert. The meaning of the religion's name is, "submission." Apostasy is punishable by death. Said rule is itself universal, although enforcement of it is not.
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130901090944/memoryalpha/de/images/c/c9/Injektionsr%C3%B6hrchen.jpg)
In other words, at least theoretically, Islam is really a form of spiritual rape; and in my mind, it is therefore no surprise that rape is the one crime which tends to spike whenever Islamic populations increase, within a given country. As above, so below.
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 08:46:22 PM
No I have said nuking the entire region is likely the only solution MANY TIMES :P
Region? It's a religion, not a region, how can you nuke an idea?
QuoteNot saying we SHOULD do it but they have been at it for over 2000 years
Islam is 2000 years old? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on December 10, 2014, 01:54:55 AM
... how can you nuke an idea?
Bringing a better idea to the place :)
Quote from: ArMaP on December 10, 2014, 01:54:55 AM
Region? It's a religion, not a region, how can you nuke an idea?
No I meant REGION The entire Middle East :P Don't need to nuke an idea Just send em all back to the STONE AGE for a few hundred years
(http://makethemaccountable.com/images/0802/CowboyBushRidingTheBomb.jpg)
QuoteIslam is 2000 years old? ???
What I said was " they have been at it for over 2000 years"
THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.
Of course another solution is put an Israeli flag on one bomb and drop it on Mecca and put an Iranian flag on another and take out Jerusalem...
::)
No I am not seriously saying we DO IT but IF we did that would be an interesting spectacle N'est pas?
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11114/111142124/3898460-8864152835-)
Quote from: zorgon on December 10, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.
People of these religions have not been at each others throats.
Godless people (usually in the form of their political leaders) have led the confrontations, not the actual people of God.
Quote from: zorgon on December 10, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
No I meant REGION The entire Middle East :P
I know you meant region, I just don't understand why bomb a region because of something that has no borders like religion. ???
QuoteDon't need to nuke an idea Just send em all back to the STONE AGE for a few hundred years
That area is not the only one where there are people with those ideas.
QuoteWhat I said was " they have been at it for over 2000 years"
THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.
No, Jews have been there (and everywhere) for around 3000 years, Christians for 2000 and Muslims for 1400.
Sigh.....
you DO tend to take everything to literally :P
Quote from: Sinny on December 10, 2014, 01:42:58 PM
People of these religions have not been at each others throats.
Godless people (usually in the form of their political leaders) have led the confrontations, not the actual people of God.
For a "godless leader" to have led a confrontation... would that not require the people of that religion to follow that leader into confrontation?
Personally I think you are an Ostrich using selective wording to confuddle the issue :P
The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[1] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east.
Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe;
Jihad , is an Islamic term referring to a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jih?d is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen. The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".
Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Within the context of the classical Islamic law, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic God (Allah) and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims,[6] and so is often translated as "Holy War",[7][8][9] although this term is controversial.[10] According to the Dictionary of Islam[3] and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis, in the large majority of cases jihad has a military meaning.[11] Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[12] It was generally supposed that the order for a general war could only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which has been vacant since 1923)—such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states—always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad
But hey believe what you will... I will be worm food soon so not MY problem :P
We shall see what Europe looks like in 10 years...
Haha, Ostrich :D
Your right, my words are selective, partly because its effective for not having to explain myself (in theory), and partly because I'm in a constant state of wonderment in regards to definitions of words and context of concepts...
Its hard to formulate thoughts into words.
Meh..
Back on topic: by 'people of the religion', I mean the true 'religion' which is obviously a *means to an end* in order to reach what people in your circle might deem as *attainment*.
As goes the 'New Age' mantra, "there are many paths to the ulitmate goal", or something like that.
Anyone who partakes in death/destruction/'evil' in their beliefs is obviously not on the 'right path' to 'attainment'.
But I'm well aware some of the above concepts may have challenged definitions.
To skip ahead a bit - I'm just pointing out that the word 'Islam' has been thrown around too easily and too loosely to serve any constructive purpose.
Which is unusual for our members.
Hm.
Quote from: zorgon on December 10, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
Sigh.....
you DO tend to take everything to literally :P
Yes. ;D
Quote from: Sinny on December 10, 2014, 11:22:34 PM
Back on topic: by 'people of the religion', I mean the true 'religion' which is obviously a *means to an end* in order to reach what people in your circle might deem as *attainment*.
From my perspective, Semitic monotheism generally (and Islam particularly) are not about liberation or union with the divine, to anywhere near the same extent as they are about the social and political control of large populations. There are individual exceptions to that rule, of course. Sufism exists in Islam, and Catholicism tends toward mysticism at its' outer limits as well; but those are, again, exceptions to the norm.
QuoteAs goes the 'New Age' mantra, "there are many paths to the ulitmate goal", or something like that.
Actually, that mantra is Hindu; as is, of course, the word "mantra" itself. The prototypical New Age and hippie movements were primarily Hindu in origin. The British colonialism of India led to an export of Hinduism back to England and America, and interest in Hinduism in turn led to many of the original gurus (such as Vivekananda, and more notoriously Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishnas, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation) travelling to America.
The latter two men, unfortunately, were largely (although not completely; much good has come from both ISKCON and to a lesser extent Transcendental Meditation, despite their founders' intentions) con artists. Vivekananda on the other hand was a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, wrote several books on the different forms of Yoga or paths to liberation, and gave lectures in New York which were attended by Nikola Tesla, during the last days of Tesla's life.
QuoteAnyone who partakes in death/destruction/'evil' in their beliefs is obviously not on the 'right path' to 'attainment'.
My own earlier comment about a mushroom cloud in reference to Islam was not meant seriously. I can not lie, however. In my own ideal world, Islam as one specific religion, simply never would have existed in the first place at all, so there would be no cause for violence against its' adherents; and on an emotional level at least, I genuinely am inclined to view the religion's existence as a miscarriage of divine justice. The world would be infinitely better off without it. It is truthfully also the only religious system in existence that I know of, that I feel that way towards.
The above perspective is also, it must be said, antithetical to my more usual moral view; which is that the maximisation of diversity is one of the foremost goals of the observable universe. If said maximisation of diversity is one of the primary definitions of good, however, the minimisation of diversity is in turn one of the primary definitions of evil; and it is, more than anything else, the religion's drive towards uniformity and the subjugation of the entire planet, which is the source of my central grievance with Islam.
I will also make another point here. I have two younger brothers; Jeremy and Lachlan. Jeremy is the middle child, Lachlan is the youngest, and I am the eldest. My relationship with Lachlan is very positive. My relationship with Jeremy, however, is extremely negative; as also is Jeremy's relationship with Lachlan. While Jeremy has friends, if sufficient alcohol is poured into said friends to loosen their lips, they will admit that even they at times find his behaviour, highly morally objectionable.
There is a single common, negative element within the above scenario; a single instigator, regardless of the other parties involved, and that is Jeremy himself. A person might say (and indeed, both he and my father consistently have) that my negative relationship with him is my own responsibility; yet who is to blame if he has conflict with virtually everyone else he interacts with?
In the same manner as Jeremy, as a specific body of theology, Islam is a source of conflict, strife, and discord. It is completely and diametrically opposed to peace. War has characterised the religion's history for as long as it has existed, and that is a matter of public record. It seeks total uniformity and monoculture within Islamic majority countries, yet even when that is attained, when there are no more infidels to be attacked, Muslims can often be observed killing each other.
A demonstration of this can be seen in the fact that, just recently, the Buddhist population of Myanmar rioted against the Islamic population of the region. The point here is that adherents of what is usually one of the most peaceable and compassionate religious groups in existence, found it necessary to take up the sword against Muslims. I would invite you to let the magnitude of that, sink in for a few moments. In every religious or political conflict in which Muslims are involved, there is always a single constant; Muslims themselves.
I did not believe, in the case of the Cold War, that Communism was a genuine threat. I did not believe, and still do not believe, that Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews was in any way based on anything remotely legitimate.
Yet Islam represents the very first case where I believe that the threat is genuinely real. It is an ideology which the rest of humanity legitimately needs to defend itself against.
Quote from: Sinny on December 10, 2014, 11:22:34 PM
But I'm well aware some of the above concepts may have challenged definitions.
"challenged definitions" are of use only to the political mind :P
QuoteTo skip ahead a bit - I'm just pointing out that the word 'Islam' has been thrown around too easily and too loosely to serve any constructive purpose.
Which is unusual for our members.
Well the thing is once you have decided that the only solution to that region is to NUKE it semantics no longer matters :P
For ArMaP the term "region" refers to THIS region... 90% of the worlds grief centers on that little spot :P (yeah okay I made up that percentage :P )
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1891144_850026561681478_1042662130_n.jpg?oh=a18e0304052fa2b535cc78b2c6ff2a0f&oe=5511DD7D&__gda__=1426791252_48b6a88f4c5e75aa449ebaab4e9b71e2)
Quote from: petrus4 on December 11, 2014, 03:19:57 AM
A demonstration of this can be seen in the fact that, just recently, the Buddhist population of Myanmar rioted against the Islamic population of the region. The point here is that adherents of what is usually one of the most peaceable and compassionate religious groups in existence, found it necessary to take up the sword against Muslims. I would invite you to let the magnitude of that, sink in for a few moments. In every religious or political conflict in which Muslims are involved, there is always a single constant; Muslims themselves.
When Muslims attack other people is the Muslims' fault, when Muslims are attacked by other people it's still the Muslim's fault. ::)
Quote from: zorgon on December 11, 2014, 04:09:55 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1891144_850026561681478_1042662130_n.jpg?oh=a18e0304052fa2b535cc78b2c6ff2a0f&oe=5511DD7D&__gda__=1426791252_48b6a88f4c5e75aa449ebaab4e9b71e2)
According to their respective books, what's written in the above image is not true, as the creation of the world didn't happen just in that region. :P
Quote from: ArMaP on December 11, 2014, 01:57:46 PM
When Muslims attack other people is the Muslims' fault, when Muslims are attacked by other people it's still the Muslim's fault. ::)
A good point ArMaP.. #
Interesting to note that it is the Muslim faith that our leaders have been trying to control and demonise over the last 30 years..
It appears to be working.
Heck I've chatted to Arab's who also think they should nuke the region as they find all these wars insane. :D
These people are good Arab Folke who are following/swindled by the same GOD as a couple of others too :D