in 15 mins for us in the uk today will be yesterday. and today will be tomorrow.

Admin, extraordinary!

i'm a hypocrite, I say one thing and only live up to it 10%. But I figure if I start to speak with greater conviction on principle perhaps that will make my 10% more effective - so it is important.

I agree with your conclusion - people get lost searching for dogmatic axioms, no wonder there are so many non practicing catholics.

"100" wrote:

No. Jews were not allowed to trade anything with gentiles but money. Interest rates were capped. It was a longstanding practise enforced by Christian monarchs. Those Jews were thus very competitive, and supported a number of communities and initiatives. Gentile suspicions grew and it seemed there literally was no way for the Jew to 'keep himself to himself' unless he wanted to watch his village burn. Anyway, that is the Jewish thing with finance, and politics. In places it was like this up until the turn of the 20th Century.

Well the impression I got from my time at university was that there was collaboration between the european elites and the jews and that what prevented christians from engaging in usury was their religious beliefs. Quite a few of my courses focused on early modern europe and this theme arose a number of times.

And there we have it. Very nicely put.

Call me stupid, But I cannot see any diference between dave's and 100's explanations... of the medieval banking system.

"Admin" wrote:

Call me stupid, But I cannot see any diference between dave's and 100's explanations... of the medieval banking system.

His answer is more complete. I didn't know that Jews were barred from other forms of trade and I didn't include the suspicion that arose as a result of the Jews "mysterious" wealth.

This isn't really banking we're talking about though. Its just money lending.

So the banking system is a symptom of the historic oppression of the jews?

No, banking is banking. At one time everything was bartered. The banking system is just as much a symptom of bird-flu, but I was explaining the Jewish link, in the context of other remarks, Admin, mate.

So your comment in a discussion about history of banking had nothing to do with banking?

was it relevant? was it humour?

I am sorry, but we both need some sleep. I do not seem to be understanding you at all.

"Admin" wrote:

Call me stupid

"100" wrote:

irfghan

Just the ones that are, and the ones that aren't facing up to it. It doesn't help that when people go on about challenging kufar and instituting a khalifah you say the neo-nazis have all become ventriloquists, coupled with some comeback about Straussians.

After looking at this in the cold light of day, I still don't get you.

Break it down to my level of intelect please.

If there's any misunderstanding I'd like to clear it up.

Are you saying that I'm implying that neo-Nazis have got their hands up someone's backside? If so, who?

Straussians? I didn't say anything about them as far I know.

Proverbial turd Mark Steyn is at it again in [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/15/do...'s Telegraph[/url].

This time France is on course to become a Muslim nuclear power.

And Europe only has one immigrant culture - Muslim culture.

And, in true a-house-divided-cannot-stand style, he is offering civil war as a solution to the Muslim problem.

Steyn and the happy-shaggers at the Spectator - Liddle and Boris - should take a leaf out of [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22369-1872150_1,00.html]Aaronavitch's[/url] book.

irfghan, good point, that was salaf. My mistake, my apologies.

"irfghan" wrote:

And, in true a-house-divided-cannot-stand style

10 points for Jesus

613 points for Moses.

"100" wrote:

613 points for Moses.

He said that first too?!

He should have some points.

"100" wrote:

He should have some points.

Indeed

Just read the Aaronovitch article linked by Irfghan:

Quote:

So why, Ye’or was asked, if the Muslims were behind the riots, were the most Islamic areas also the calmest. “Yes,” replied Bat, “the most radical Islamic areas are indeed the quietest. That is because these people are not fools. They are positioning themselves to play the role of honest brokers with the French Government.”

interesting.

I did not know the Islamic areas were the most quiet.

(btw, who does this research? how do they know?)

Just tidying up the Website, and I came across this:

Quote:

[size=18]Liberty, equality and the headscarf[/size]

French President Jacques Chirac has widespread popular support for the proposal to ban the wearing of religious symbols in state schools. And everyone knows that it is really about the Islamic headscarf.

I was sitting in a cafe with a friend, Antoine, soon after I'd arrived in Paris this June. It was a glorious sunny summer's evening, and we sat outdoors to watch the world go by. I live in the Marais, a gay and very touristy area, full of young men sauntering past in search of a good night out.

Two men in tight T-shirts, showing bulging biceps, walked past hand in hand, occasionally stopping to kiss one another affectionately. "That's disgusting!" exclaimed Antoine, a middle-aged, rather conventional French businessman. "What, the two men?" I asked.

"No, no, not them. Behind them, the two women."

I looked but I couldn't see anything amiss. All I saw were two young women, walking past chatting to one other.

I turned to Antoine, mystified.

"The veils!" he exclaimed.

"Veils?" I asked.

"Yes, those headscarves," he said. "That shouldn't be allowed here in France."

I was utterly baffled....

[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/women/liberty_headscarf_beeb.php]The Revival Nicking from BBC News[/url]

Those who looked saw the signs long before anything happened...

not sure if its been posted already?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4521442.stm

Nasty.

[size=18]Downtown LA comes to Cronulla Beach[/size]

Over the weekend, an estimated 5,000 people descended on North Cronulla Beach chanting racist slogans and attacking anyone deemed of Middle Eastern origin. The violence spilled over into other parts of Sydney, with car windows being smashed at other waterfront locations across Southern Sydney.

What we saw were scenes of violence, thuggish behaviour and lawlessness at the otherwise fashionable Cronulla Beach located at the Southern tip of Sydney. What made the violence even more tragic was that most of it was draped with Australian flags and perpetrated in the name of Australian nationalism.

What appears to have sparked the riots was an unprovoked attack on two surf lifesavers at Cronulla Beach by a group of young men reportedly of Middle Eastern appearance. Police have already arrested one man in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown, which has a large community of Middle Eastern Australians.

A number of tabloid newspapers seemed to encourage the tribal nature of the violence. In the days leading upto the violence, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph repeatedly made reference to locals planning to take on “Middle Eastern thugs”. More responsible broadsheets (including The Australian, owned by the same group that publishes the Telegraph) were more restrained. Police and mainstream politicians (including local government leaders from the Cronulla area) also refused to buy into the racial overtones underpinning much of the reporting.

Once the violence was captured by television crews, it was obvious who would cop most of the blame. And it certainly wasn’t Aussies presumed Middle Eastern. Nor was it the Australian women of Muslim background who had their headscarves ripped off by drunken and stoned rioters.

TV crews showed images of young locals attacking innocent bystanders with beer bottles and bare fists. Many carried Australian flags. During attacks on anyone deemed Middle Eastern, the drunken crowd often frowned out the victims’ screams by singing “Waltzing Matilda” and “Advance Australia Fair”.

Reporter Damien Murphy, reporting from the scene of the riots for the Sydney Morning Herald, wrote on December 12 of “200-odd ringleaders, many clutching bottles or cans of beer and smoking marijuana, led assaults on individuals and small groups of Lebanese Australians who risked an appearance during the six-hour protest”.

Police also reported the presence of neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups having a strong representation at the riots. Deputy Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione acknowledged that police had received reliable information of the involvement of groups such as the “Patriotic Youth League”.

Many have been taken by surprised by the ferocity of the tribalism at Cronulla. But as Paul Sheehan wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 December, gang violence is nothing new to Cronulla. During the 60’s and 70’s, Cronulla Beach was the scene of gang warfare between “westies” and “surfies”, both Anglo-Australian based “tribes”.

Responses from political leaders varied. As expected, the Prime Minister refused to label the rioters’ actions as racist, instead referring to longstanding “grievances” from the largely Anglo-Australian community. NSW Premier Morris Iemma appeared to contradict the PM’s stance, labelling the “sloganeering” as clearly racist.

But perhaps most concerning was the analysis of the local Member of Parliament Bruce Baird, regarded as a moderate small-“l” Liberal. Mr Baird referred to events of September 11 and the death of 6 locals in one of the Bali terror attacks as setting the foundation for simmering resentment toward anyone deemed Middle Eastern.

Unlike the Prime Minister, Mr Baird did not seek to whitewash the violence. He merely sought to explain its causes, many of which were based on the peculiar parochialism of the local “sufie” culture.

The resentment has only been reinforced by recent comments of some Muslim leaders, including comments concerning Australian model Michelle Leslie’s modelling of swimsuit fashion. Further, the often less-than-convincing condemnation of terrorist attacks by a number of Australian Muslim leaders have been widely reported and condemned even by their own communities.

[b][url=http://planetirf.blogspot.com/]Irfan Yusuf[/url][/b]
Sydney lawyer and lecturer