Hat tip: Steen.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
6 comments:
What is it with this man? says everything I think only expresses it better.
It is especially noteworthy to see just how Condell prioritizes matters.
Islam is the greatest threat to Muslims first and foremost.
He could not be more right. Islam's entire historical trajectory tells a story with the unhappiest of endings. Just as Islam has progressed atop the backs of numberless Muslim corpses, so will it be the death of them all. Nuclear annihilation awaits all pious Muslims, be it by an outside agency or their own internecine conflicts. Death awaits Islam's followers more surely than any dose of arsenic can promise.
Islam's institutionalized misogyny is a total deal-breaker all by itself.
This is something I've maintained for many years now. It is gratifying in the extreme to see someone so wise as Condell affirm this idea. Applying abject gender apartheid to over half of this world's population is a non-starter. Period. Full Stop.
Even if terrorism and jihad could somehow be decoupled from Islam − and it most certainly CANNOT − its incorrigible abuse of women is still intolerable every bit as much as the entire remaining rubbish tip known to us as shari'a law.
Condell − with his unvarnished truth and clarity of speech − continues to be a modern day incarnation of Winston Churchill and, should the free world manage to survive Islam's onslaught, it will owe him a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.
Everyone reading this ought to know that Pat Condell is an atheist.
There used to be (still is?) a lot of bad feeling toward atheists here at GoV. Pat Condell is proof positive that there are atheists out there who can be your best allies in the counterjihad. After all, if Islam wins, there's no room in the world for ANYTHING else.
@ EP: I am an Atheist, too. I am arguing with Christians (most of it in German forums) and there is a lot of "bad feelings" against my views.
I just want to point out that an Atheist in a christian world is not the same as an infidel in the Muslim world. An infidel in the true sense of the word is not a Jew or Christian, but a polytheist or atheist, a non- believer. Whereas christians and jews can become "dhimmi" infidels have to die. This is because of the historic circumstances: In medieval arabia there where many christian and jewish tribes that Mohammed (shXX be upon him) thought to suppress instead of killing them all.
So we true infidels have the same, if not more reason to hate islam than our christian brothers.
I respect Christendom as a religion that offered people to critizise it and stood back from political manners. But this process was not unbloody!
Islam today is (politically) like Christendom in medieval times. And it is worse, because it knows no Good Will to Man.
One of Pat Condells Videos convinced me last year to create my own blog and speak out loud what I for years just thought and shared with my nearest:
Islam has to leave this world!
For this task all Atheists and Christians (and Buddhists and so on) with their heart on the right place have to work togehter. When we waste time fighting each other we will lose.
Islam today is (politically) like Christendom in medieval times.
No, Islam is categorically worse. 'Categorically' because Christianity acknowledges Reason as a gift from God that man should apply to investigate Creation. Islam rejects Reason.
For a while, in the 9th century, Islam actually did acknowledge Reason in a way similar to Christianity. Unfortunately, that line of thinking lost out to the alternative interpretation, where the Will of Allah rules supreme (that is quite similar to fascism), and Islam has stagnated ever since.
BTW, Christianity in medieval times was much better than is generally assumed. It was only later, when it descended into sillyness like witch hunting and the (unexpected) Spanish Inquisition it became repressive.
Kairos: For this task all Atheists and Christians (and Buddhists and so on) with their heart on the right place have to work together.
It is nice to see this sentiment being echoed with increasing frequency.
Should all of the truly valid spiritual institutions wish to survive, they need to join ranks with those who believe in freedom of conscience and, as one, defy Islam with physical force where necessary.
Any disarray of such much needed unity only serves to further empower Islam and each increment of exta impetus gained by Muslims translates directly into the death of even more innocent people.
This is not an acceptable outcome.
Henrik R Clausen: For a while, in the 9th century, Islam actually did acknowledge Reason in a way similar to Christianity.
I trust that you are referring to the period when Islam still recognized ijtihad.
The loss of ijtihad has been a central reason for the intellectual conservatism and stagnation in Muslim societies up until the modern age.
An earlier portion of the linked article notes how:
The 11th century philosopher and theologian, al-Ghazzali, has been credited with the idea of the "closure of the door of ijtihad." This came to mean that the religious and legal doctrines had been laid down once and for all.
One can only imagine how advantageous it was, both politically and financially, for Islam's elite class of scholars and clerics (the ulema) to suddenly become the sole font of all accepted wisdom. It is much like when Catholicism sought to become the singular conduit between Christian man and his God but without so much of the slicing, dicing and chopping for which Islam is quite justly (in)famous.
It was only later, when it descended into sillyness like witch hunting and the (unexpected) Spanish Inquisition [that] it became repressive.
I'm rather confident that, for many of us, your mention of the la Inquisición Española was entirely unanticipated.
Post a Comment