The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe! - Page 69

June 11th, 2006  
Gladius, this one hasn't been asked... how does the caliphate differ from the government in Iran or is that the same thing? I ask because I am pretty familiar with the caliphates of the past and they weren't theocracies, at least not in the sense that I see Iran being one now. In the caliphates of the past the religious leader was an advisor whereas in the theocracy of Iran they are THE true leader.
June 12th, 2006  
The only way I see them forming a caliphate nowadays is by religious theocracy, since Islam is the what truly unites them. They will not be able to do it through anything else.

So yes, any future caliphate will have a government similar to Iran. Basicaly an empire ruled totaly according to Sharia Law. It would have to be able to hold together.

That and they believe a theocratic Muslim caliphate is their future destiny. Of which this caliphate is the stepping stone for world domination for the spread of Islam. Not to mention a theocracy will better serve them on the event of jihad.

In the past the reason the caliphates were not total theocraices was either, the empires were ruled by a leader who converted to Islam. Or the foundations of those caliphates were strongly Islamic theocracies to start with, but throughout the succestion of rulers by birth, the Islamic theorcracy was weakened as the succesions of rulers continued and shifted to the rulers since they had the power, although still remaining Islamic.

So if a caliphate were to start today it will at first be a total theocracy. And lets just say it were to last a long time, it would also degenerate into a monarcy but this would take several generations of rulers to shift the power structure.

The significance of the Mahdi to this, is if he were to show up, is that they could form a caliphate under his leadership virtualy overnite (within a year or so), without him it will take them possibly a decade or more.

In any case whether a theocracy like Iran, or a monarchy like Saudi Arabia, it will still be ruled under Sharia Law and deal with other nations accordingly since it would now have the power to do so.
July 11th, 2006  
All the Muslims (the ones with eyes on Europe that is) have to do is wait around peacefully for about 80 to 120 years to take over all Europe. Westerners are de-populating themselves out of existence. Italy's minus birthrate is a good example. A typical European Muslim couple have at least five children.
July 12th, 2006  
The Western Roman Empire was washed away in less time, so I think that would be a plausible outcome, Padre.
July 12th, 2006  
Originally Posted by Padre
All the Muslims (the ones with eyes on Europe that is) have to do is wait around peacefully for about 80 to 120 years to take over all Europe. Westerners are de-populating themselves out of existence. Italy's minus birthrate is a good example. A typical European Muslim couple have at least five children.
Can anyone say KOSOVO??? And now Europe wants to reward them by giving them the land of another sovereign nation. This is setting a dangerous president that will have ramifications for Europe’s future...
July 13th, 2006  
They may not wait for over half-a-century for assimilation, although they can.

If they are ever united and are powerful enough, they have enough radical hotheads over there that they will be happy to take the initiative and use military force instead.

It won't be to hard for them to think of using the military option in their minds, since it was mandated by Mohamed himself that they will someday conquer Rome.
July 14th, 2006  
16 September, 2005ISLAMIslam and Christianity: encounter/confrontation, but also conversionby Samir Khalil SamirBeirut (AsiaNews) -- A few day ago, we commemorated the attack of September 11, 2001, against the Twin Towers in New York. For many, this tragic occurrence marked the emergence of a clash between civilizations, between Islam and the West, between Islam and Christianity.
War of civlizations
Does a war of civilizations exist? Is Islam waging a war against Christianity? Since Samuel Huntington wrote his book ("The Clash of Civilizations"), it seems that one can only be either for or against such a clash. Clearly, the West has its civilization; the Islamic world also has its civilization. I say that a clash of civilizations has always existed. The point is that, in the world of terrorism, the world "clash" has become a synonym of "war". Muslim fundamentalists define Westerns as "crusaders": This word stems for its use in Saudi Arabia, where "Westerner" and "crusader" are synonyms. Up until 15 years ago, this term was used only in that country.
Islamic fundamentalism depicts the clash of civilizations as a religious clash: Islam against Christians. But can we define the West as "Christian"? I think not. First of all because the West refuses to define itself as such. It is a product of Christianity, but currently Western society has distanced itself from it. Thus, the West's answer cannot be defined in terms of a war of Christianity against Islam. Yet, nor can the West's answer be a war against Islam. A war must be waged against terrorism, against Islamic fundamentalism, but not against Islam. I can see the tendency in certain Italian and American groups of trying too easily to assimilate Islam as a counter-Christian civilization, and this is wrong.
Encounter and confrontation
What is needed instead is to strengthen a clash, a confrontation, a debate, a critique on Islam. In my view, there is a clash, just as there is a clash between all cultures: Islamic, Chinese, Indian... But this confrontation can also transform itself into an encounter, in mutual enrichment.
Throughout history, civilizations have always encountered and confronted each other. There have always between both one and the other. This is not tragic: alls groups take something and reject something when they encounter each other. This relationship, this encounter/confrontation, must take place in truth and clarity. There can be no reticence when it comes to saying that in Islam there are the makings of violence in the Koran, alongside the makings of peace. It must also be said in no uncertain terms that the makings of violence have been developed more than those of peace.
Unfortunately, certain Catholic intellectuals, out of "respect" for Islam, hide this element and thus do a favour neither to Islam nor to the truth. Some might say: the makings of violence can also be found among Christians. This is true but the violence expressed by Christians is not theorized in the Gospel. In Islam instead it is the religion's founding book that presents these seeds.
To purify the Koran's message, Muslims should distinguish between the original nucleus of the book (referring to Mecca) and the subsequent part (referring to Medina). But to do this -- as we saw in the previous instalments of this series -- the Koran must be studied as a historical book and the Western distinction between laicity and religion, between modernity and faith, must be assimilated.
A Westernized Islam
I am certain that hope for the Islamic world can come only from an Islam that has been acculturated in the West, and specifically in Europe. The only way for Islam to have a place in the modern world is by assimilating modernity with its critical spirit and its distinction between religion and politics, reason and sentiment, etc, in a sense that it westernizes, without disavowing faith.
There are many Muslims who westernize, but they only get so far. They do not understand that faith needs to defended with an interior choice. Unfortunately, if these Muslims are not able to synthesize Islam and modernity, as soon as a fundamentalist imam comes along, everyone will follow him. But which West can help Islam to modernize?
A part of the West maintains an attitude of total closure toward the Muslim world. In answer to Islamic violence in the world today, they close themselves off to any dialogue and Muslims are driven back into fundamentalism.
Then there are Western atheists. But if Muslims find help only among atheists, those who say that religion should not be a factor, they will refuse it. But if Muslims find Western Christians for whom religion is the fulcrum upon which modernity can be assimilated, then possibly they can be urged to find their own way of integration.
A Christian who achieves harmony between modernity and faith can help a Mulsim achieve this same harmony. I would like to point out however that another path is not to be excluded. If a Muslim is not able to achieve a synthesis between his faith and modernity, he could also decide to become Christian.
In the encounter with Christians, Muslims discover that, due to the Incarnation, Christianity has united heaven and earth, the divine and the human, religious culture and scientific culture. The Incarnation also suggests that there is no opposition between divine and human: there can be difficulty, but synthesis is possible.
Conversion to Christianity
Actually a young Muslim, today, will find himself alone in this dilemma: either be an atheist Westerner or be a Muslim who rejects the West. Instead a third way is also possible: become Christian.
A conversion to Christianity is something desirable, a choice which is worthy and full of value. Unfortunately, I come across clergy figures and even some bishops who fear thinking of such a thing, counting it out as a possibility, in the name of a false religious respect. It is as if priests and bishops did not understand that Christianity is the fullness of every religion's path. But it is only respect for a person and love for his struggle to live his faith in the modern world that urges me to announce the Gospel to him.
First of all, I will try to help a Muslim find a synthesis between modernity and faith, in his Islamic faith; but if this does not happen, if this is too difficult, I can also propose the Christian path. There exists more than just the rejection of modernity in the name of religion, or the rejection of faith in the name of modernity: there is also the path of synthesis offered by Christianity and witnessed by Christians.
July 14th, 2006  
6 September, 2005ISLAMIslam condemns violence? Sometimes it’s only opportunismby Samir Khalil SamirBeirut (AsiaNews) – Days ago, the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the posthumous video of Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the suicide bombers that killed 56 people and injuring dozens in London on July 7.
In the video, released by Al Jazeera, Khan says that the London attacks are a reply to the politics of Western countries that support governments which are responsible for crimes against humanity.
“Your democratically elected [Western] governments continuously perpetuate injustice against my people all over the world… Until you will stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight.”
Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, also appears in the video, defending the London attacks as “as a slap in the face of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy” in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, and promises further attacks in the future.
Al Zawahiri also accuses Muslim figures in the West for having harshly condemned the Al Qaeda attacks.
From a certain perspective, in fact, the Muslim world seems to be reawakening from its torpor and silence. In recent months, fatwas (Islamic ruling) against the attacks in London, Turkey, Egypt, and further back in Beslan and Madrid have multiplied. But these condemnations need to be studied. The Muslim Council that condemned Sidique Khan’s words was also quick to add that “the war in Iraq and our Middle East policy” have fueled “radicalism among a part of our Muslim youth.”
Is Islam really “peace and tolerance”?
All in all, Islamic reactions to terrorist attacks have been a bit free and easy, as well as sentimental and opportunistic. In the face of the violence exercised by some Muslim, the Islamic world does not follow clear principles, it freezes, it doesn’t know what to say or do, or it simply contradicts itself. It might say – as has been the case – that such violence “is not Islam”, that “Islam is peace and tolerance.” But we know that this is not true: Islam can also be violent, because faith is mingled with politics, including in the Sacred Book. To say that Islam is a religion of peace means not having gone full depth in considerations on whether violence is legitimized or not.
For this reason, I feel that those who speak out – much to Al Zawahiri’s irritation – often do so only as a gesture of political opportunism, more than out of a profound and absolute conviction of the basic wickedness of terrorism. When we hear “Islam is peace”, it is not from Islamic pacifists, but from opportunists who fear a strong anti-Islam backlash in the West. Currently, Muslims are worried about widespread Islamophobia and for this reason they are quick to speak out against terrorist acts, but they do so to protect Islam itself and, tomorrow, these same people could remain silent in the face of other misdeeds.
Our Muslims brothers do not realize that Islamophobia derives right from this sort of ambiguous behaviour from the Islamic world, which blindly defends the politics of Muslims and always finds something to condemn in the West.
In the name of certain principles, the Islamic world needs to go beyond the love for fellow Muslims. The same applies to me: love for the Church cannot overshadow love for truth or justice.
Islam needs to condemn its own deviations, to engage in self-criticism. But there’s a lack of courage. Al Zawahiri complains about all the ado of Islamic scholars. But when do Muslim intellectuals intervene to condemn violence without mincing their words? Hardly ever.
The roots of violence: mixing religion and politics
But courage is needed to say that violence in Islam stems from the conflation of politics and religion. This interweaving explains why the Muslim world, in the name of Islam, defends Palestinian terrorism: this is the worst harm that can be done to Palestine, as it complicates ever more the solution to the Palestinian problem.
It should be said, by the way, that it is unacceptable to defend Israel on the basis of religion or the Bible, just as it is unacceptable to defend Christian violence on the basis of faith.
Islam must be helped to separate religion and politics. And the West can do that, curbing all those Islamic fundamentalist requests being made in Europe on the question of head coverings, halal (acceptable) meat, freedom of Islamic teaching and freedom of mosques.
All these are in fact political requests under religious cover.
Behind the request to wear head coverings lies a political claim. Wearing head coverings is a sign of the affirmation of Islamic identity, as if to say: we are here, we’re visible, we’re strong, look! This is not to deny the existence of a real religious sentiment or a sincere reaction to West’s excessively liberal mores.
In various Western countries, fundamentalism has launched the campaign for halal meat.
More and more Muslims are asking that all places (restaurants, cafeterias in workplaces and schools, hospitals etc.) make halal meat (butchered according to Islamic criteria). They demand it as an expression of religious freedom: i.e. “everyone has the right to eat according to his religion.” But the Koran literally says. “The meat of the people of the Book [Jews and Christians] is halal for you” (Koran 5,5). All the fatwas released to date say that Muslims can eat meat prepared by Christians, because their meat is halal. But fundamentalism, in an attempt to create problems for the West, goes in the opposite direction. They push the faithful to demand a distinctive element of their religion, to put political pressure on governments. In fact, these requests are a form of terrorism, a form of cultural terrorism on the part of a group of citizens to get people culturally islamisized.
After the London attacks, the British government and, in part the Italian also, placed limits and checks on Islamic teaching and mosque life. All this is very positive because fundamentalism is born right in schools and mosque preaching.
The West has often made a fatal error in believing that the mosque is only a place of worship, like a church. Instead, a mosque is a place for doing politics, where problems are discussed, etc: it is a sort of public square for the Islamic community. For this reason it is necessary to check that these places are not used to exalt violence or for fanatical indoctrination. History shows us that terrorism always starts out from mosques: the Intifada began at the Al Aqsa Mosque: wars were declared from mosques on Fridays. This is why it is reasonable to monitor the teaching that goes on in these places, where actually, in the name of Islam, dangerous political plots can be created. In fact, such monitoring exists in all Muslim countries.

Sorry about the double post, it was too long for one. I found these both on Very interesting reading. Particularly interesting because this is the mouthpiece of the Holy See and they paint Islam in very uncompromising terms. The final paragraph is one I hope everyone digests.
July 15th, 2006  
yeah, but hell, we are the best in warfare. i dont know about you guys but i will win.

o yeah, and another good point.... we can s**g ourselves out of this: s**g more and make more babies and when they grow up they will rebel!!!!! w00t
July 15th, 2006  
Gives new meaning to the phrase, "make love, not war."