It is interesting to watch a self-proclaimed "progressive" Muslim gradually let the facade down.

The majority of Malaysian Muslims want to execute apostates, in a country where the government has defined the indigenous population as Muslim, and these "Muslims" cannot escape this label and currently risk getting sent to "rehabilitation" camps if they do try. Gandalf considers it their "right" to execute these unfortunate people - not only this, but he insists that the ethnic Indians and Chinese (who hold a democratic balance of power on the issue) respect this so-called "right" of Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam - so long as it is the indigenous people that get killed, not the Chinese or Indians. Gandalf insists that it is lack of motivation on the part of Muslim extremists, rather than the Chinese and Indians who hold the balance of power, that is responsible for Malaysia not having these laws.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

This is from the same guy who insists Australians have a right not to feel intimidated or vilified and anyone who makes them feel that way is acting illegally.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

It is interesting to watch a self-proclaimed "progressive" Muslim gradually let the facade down.

What, are, you talking about freediver ?           :P


Don't you remember that gandalf has stated that he is a moslem who seeking to foster a harmonious relationship between the moslem community, and the non-moslem Australian community ?


the threats posed by Islam
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/15#15

Quote:

"For what its worth, I believe I contribute positively to my local (non muslim) community, through my every day behaviour and activities. I believe that the vast majority of muslims in Australia are doing similar things in their local communities - coexisting, contributing to the local community, and presenting the right face of islam. IMO these local behaviours all over the country feed into the national face of islam, which helps create a mainstream Australian muslim community that is loyal, integrated, pro-peace and anti-extremism."

See!

gandalf is a progressive moslem.      :P

gandalf does not support extremism, or head lopping.

Not even, lawful head lopping!

How could he ?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

It is interesting to watch a self-proclaimed "progressive" Muslim gradually let the facade down. The majority of Malaysian Muslims want to execute apostates, in a country where the government has defined the indigenous population as Muslim, and these "Muslims" cannot escape this label and currently risk getting sent to "rehabilitation" camps if they do try. Gandalf considers it their "right" to execute these unfortunate people - not only this, but he insists that the ethnic Indians and Chinese (who hold a democratic balance of power on the issue) respect this so-called "right" of Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam - so long as it is the indigenous people that get killed, not the Chinese or Indians. Gandalf insists that it is lack of motivation on the part of Muslim extremists, rather than the Chinese and Indians who hold the balance of power, that is responsible for Malaysia not having these laws. polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm: Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.

And as for others, who reject Islam, question Muhammad or the Quran or Muhammad's anti-religion, thereby causing "mischief in the land":

Quran Surah 5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

I wonder what Gandalf would say if we declared:

Surely the vilest of animals in Yahweh's sight are Muslims.

Of course a Christian would never make such a declaration for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, and even to love our enemies. Yet what did Muhammad declare about those of us that don't believe in Muhammad and his Muhammad-serving alter-ego "Allah"?

Quran (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

ho ho, I was about to move this thread back where it belongs, but there are some extraordinary claims here that are just too delicious. I'm tempted to let this thread stay just to expose the idiocy contained in it.


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

It is interesting to watch a self-proclaimed "progressive" Muslim

Gee FD, where did I ever "proclaim" that?


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Gandalf considers it their "right" to execute these unfortunate people

Um no, Gandalf "considers" nothing of the sort. Please stick to what I actually say FD.


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

not only this, but he insists that the ethnic Indians and Chinese (who hold a democratic balance of power on the issue) respect this so-called "right" of Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam

Again, stick to what I actually say FD.

Gandalf called your bullshit claim that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population oppose and block these laws from being implemented - pointing out that you have have no shred of evidence to support this claim. I said that in view of this complete lack of evidence, it was not unreasonable to suggest that the non-muslim population might not oppose the laws - when you insist so vehemently that they must.


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Gandalf insists that it is lack of motivation on the part of Muslim extremists, rather than the Chinese and Indians who hold the balance of power, that is responsible for Malaysia not having these laws.

Just to clarify, extremist = people who respond in a survey saying they support death for apostasy and stoning for adulterers.

Yes, what a hilarious and absurd position Gandalf has on this:

1. To question the claim that 2/3rds of the entire population are "passionately" blocking any attempts to have hudud laws introduced - because there is not a shred of evidence to support it

2. To question why Malays are overwhelmingly not actually voting for pro hudud parties election after election.

3. To have the temerity to suggest that when non-muslims respondents strongly agree that "hudud laws promise justice for all" - this puts a fairly big dent to the idea that these same people are "passionately" opposing hudud laws.

FD's far more reasonable, considered and objective assessment:


Quote:

a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through

Quote:

That is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388619982/52#52

yup, thats *EXACTLY* how it is - based entirely on the responses of one consequence-free survey, a majority of Muslim Malaysians are "frothing at the mouth" madly trying to get these barbaric laws through...

... that despite the fact that Muslims in Malaysia on the whole don't actually vote for these laws when given the opportunity at elections. And curiously we don't ever actually see these "frothing at the mouth" barbarians bombarding the streets with violent protests, terror campaigns etc to try and get what they can't through democracy.

Gandalf is still at it:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

FD's argument relies entirely on emotion - not on facts: 1. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?" compared to... 2. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims are in favour of allowing muslims to introduce laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers" compared to... 3. "How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?" number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws. And it also addresses the fact that non-muslims don't have to support, or be in "favour" of the laws to not be an obstacle for their implementation. And the correct and obvious answer must start with "the evidence indicates...".

Quote:

I said that in view of this complete lack of evidence, it was not unreasonable to suggest that the non-muslim population might not oppose the laws - when you insist so vehemently that they must.

... because they recognise that Muslims have a "right" to execute apostates? Why would you even think to spin it that way Gandalf, unless you have some pretty f***ed up views on human rights? And yes, it is unreasonable for you to suggest this crap.

God this would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Firstly we have a thread entitled "Gandalf's version of human rights" - based on FDs absurd fairy tale that "Gandalf considers it their "right" to execute these unfortunate people". After this little fantasy was exposed for the bullshit that it is, it then becomes a case of Gandalf having "bugger* up views on human rights" because he dares questions FD's baseless assertion that 100% 99.6% the vast majority of non-muslims "passionately" oppose a minority of Malaysians, who are frothing at the mouth "desperate" to get their "killing in the name of islam" laws through.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:05am:

... because they recognise that Muslims have a "right" to execute apostates? Why would you even think to spin it that way Gandalf, unless you have some pretty f***ed up views on human rights? And yes, it is unreasonable for you to suggest this crap.

We see FD seems to be getting quite unhinged and emotional that his rose-tinted view of the non-muslim community is being called into question: how dare I point out that his fairy tale world of non-muslim Malaysians heroically and "passionately" "opposing" the forces of evil (aka introducing hudud laws by muslims for muslims) is entirely lacking in evidence. How utterly unreasonable. The mere suggestion raises the possibility that the non-muslim community is not the rabid bunch of Islamophobes that FD is - and we certainly can't have that.

Quote:

how dare I point out that his fairy tale world of non-muslim Malaysians heroically and "passionately" "opposing" the forces of evil (aka introducing hudud laws by muslims for muslims) is entirely lacking in evidence. How utterly unreasonable.

Apostates are not Muslims. You claimed - three times so far, that the ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people. A point that you still have not even acknowledged, despite me starting a new thread on it.


Quote:

The mere suggestion raises the possibility that the non-muslim community is not the rabid bunch of Islamophobes that FD is - and we certainly can't have that.

Not letting Muslims kill people in the name of Islam is not "Islamophobia". You also claimed to oppose this. Are you islamophobic? Are the 48% or so of Malaysian Muslims who oppose it Islamophobic?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

You claimed - three times so far, that the ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people

Sorry, I've popped in a few times but may have missed this.  Where was this mentioned?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

Apostates are not Muslims.

You have to be muslim at the time the law is introduced to be affected by it. Again, it is a proposed law by muslims for muslims.

And no, the Malaysian non-muslim community is not comprised mainly of former muslims who have apostasised - in case thats what you are thinking. Its comprised overwhelmingly of non-muslims who never have and never will be muslim.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

Not letting Muslims kill people in the name of Islam is not "Islamophobia". You also claimed to oppose this. Are you islamophobic? Are the 48% or so of Malaysian Muslims who oppose it Islamophobic?

Islamophobia is saying that people who respond in a survey saying they believe in stoning for adulterers and death for apostasy are "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" to get their "killing in the name of islam" laws through.

It is islamophobia to assume that non-muslims living side by side with muslims must necessarily by default "oppose passionately" any attempts by the muslims to implement their own laws on themselves.

Stratos wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 11:13am: You claimed - three times so far, that the ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people Sorry, I've popped in a few times but may have missed this.  Where was this mentioned?

This is the bullshit I was trying to avoid - having to reference two completely different threads on the exact same discussion.

Your right though, I have never asserted this.

Rather I have pointed out that it is not the preposterous suggestion FD makes it out to be.

eg:


Quote:

non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388619982/39#39

note this is *NOT* saying that non-muslim Malaysians definitely do appreciate that muslims have this right. My argument has only ever been that FD has not a damn clue to claim that the vast majority of non-muslims "passionately oppose" muslims enacting hudud apostasy and adultery laws.

Apparently the distinction is a little too subtle for FD.

Quote:

You have to be muslim at the time the law is introduced to be affected by it. Again, it is a proposed law by muslims for muslims.

That does not even make sense. Are you suggested every person who is later born into Islam or converts escapes the law? Furthermore, in Malaysia the government decides who is a Muslim. People are not given a choice. There are people in rehabilitation camps in Malaysia right now because they attempted to apostasise.


Quote:

And no, the Malaysian non-muslim community is not comprised mainly of former muslims who have apostasised - in case thats what you are thinking.

Going by by references to ethnic Indians and Chinese?


Quote:

Islamophobia is saying that people who respond in a survey saying they believe in stoning for adulterers and death for apostasy are "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" to get their "killing in the name of islam" laws through.

Half of those were your words Gandalf, not mine. For the most part, Muslims are patient and superficially reasonable in ther pursuit of their "right" to kill people.


Quote:

It is islamophobia to assume that non-muslims living side by side with muslims must necessarily by default "oppose passionately" any attempts by the muslims to implement their own laws on themselves.

By "imposing their law", do you mean killing people?


Quote:

Sorry, I've popped in a few times but may have missed this.  Where was this mentioned?

I have quote Gandalf three times in this thread. Twice in the opening posts. The quotes include links to the original post.


Quote:

Your right though, I have never asserted this.

Quote:

Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.

Quote:

lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

Quote:

3. "How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?" number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws

Quote:

note this is *NOT* saying that non-muslim Malaysians definitely do appreciate that muslims have this right. My argument has only ever been that FD has not a damn clue to claim that the vast majority of non-muslims "passionately oppose" muslims enacting hudud apostasy and adultery laws.

Gnadalf spent several pages in the other thread insisting that a survey that did not even mention death for apostasy or stoning adulterers to death proves what non-Muslim Malaysians think on the issue and that despite having the vote and the balance of power on the issue, are not the reason Malaysia does not have these laws. he backpedalled to that position, and is still backpedalling. Framing it in terms of the "right" of Muslims to kill people did not come from the survey. It was Gandalf's warped contribution to the debate.

Are you sure he is not just arguing for a countries right to democratically elect people to represent them, regardless of their position?  Because that's what it sounds like.

Malaysia's elections are as corrupt as balls anyway FYI, look at their latest one if you want to see how to do rigged elections properly

I doubt it. I was trying to explain to Gandalf et al that democracy is the reason they do not have the most barbaric Islamic laws, as only 1/3 of the population support them. Gandalf has invented an alternative reality in which that 1/3 could enact those laws if they wished, but don't because they are nice people, or are too lazy, or always tick the wrong box on election day.

Malaysians already have the right to elect their leaders. We were talking about Muslims killing people in the name of Islam.

In case my quotes were too long for you, here is an abbreviated version of what gandalf said:


Quote:

we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.

Quote:

the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like

Quote:

How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?

Pretty messed up way of spinning it, don't you think?

Why not just ask him to clarify his point on the question then?  Might make things a bit clearer.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Malaysians already have the right to elect their leaders

eh, kind of.  You don't get to have the longest serving ever "democratically elected" government by playing by the rules.  In the most recent election the conut was close at one point, then there were mass blackouts, followed by a massive boost in votes for the government.  Dodgy as lol

Quote:

Why not just ask him to clarify his point on the question then?  Might make things a bit clearer.

I have already. Apparently he opposes executing apostates and he was making some kind of rhetorical point by spinning this issue as one of rights for Muslims to kill people. If you think you can get him to make sense, be my guest.


Quote:

eh, kind of.  You don't get to have the longest serving ever "democratically elected" government by playing by the rules.  In the most recent election the conut was close at one point, then there were mass blackouts, followed by a massive boost in votes for the government.  Dodgy as lol

There are all sorts of problems, including a complete lack of freedom of speech, which makes democracy tricky at best. If this issue were closer to a 50-50 split, the extremists would probably get their way, but it is hard for them when only 1/3 of the population support the policy, and barely a majority of Muslims support it.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Quote: You have to be muslim at the time the law is introduced to be affected by it. Again, it is a proposed law by muslims for muslims. That does not even make sense. Are you suggested every person who is later born into Islam or converts escapes the law? Furthermore, in Malaysia the government decides who is a Muslim. People are not given a choice. There are people in rehabilitation camps in Malaysia right now because they attempted to apostasise.

You are not making any sort of argument here. I'm perfectly happy to agree that 100% of these "muslim only by force of law" Malays are probably dead set against the laws.

But it doesn't mean anything in this discussion. The truth is, since these people are officially recognised as muslim, they make up part of the 48% of "muslims" who oppose the hudud laws in your PEW survey. So those people are already accounted for. You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact the laws on themselves.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Quote: Islamophobia is saying that people who respond in a survey saying they believe in stoning for adulterers and death for apostasy are "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" to get their "killing in the name of islam" laws through. Half of those were your words Gandalf, not mine.

No, they were *ALL* my words. But you were quite clear in your response:


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:20pm:

Quote: Which brings us back to the original topic: it is *NOT* a scenario where a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through - but are only held back by a majority of civilized "opposers" who are successfully holding the barbarians at bay. That is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

"Exactly how it is"?? Surely you didn't say that FD? Oh wait, you did.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

For the most part, Muslims are patient and superficially reasonable in ther pursuit of their "right" to kill people.

In case the other islamophobic rant wasn't clear enough.  ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Quote: we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Quote: How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?

There you go Stratos, this is me apparently asserting that  "ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people"  :P

Quote:

The truth is, since these people are officially recognised as muslim, they make up part of the 48% of "muslims" who oppose the hudud laws in your PEW survey.

I would expect the Pew people to go by who self-identifies as Muslim.


Quote:

You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact the laws on themselves.

Not what I said Gandalf. They may be perfectly happy with letting Muslims impose the less barbaric laws.


Quote:

No, they were *ALL* my words. But you were quite clear in your response:

Apparently not. I was trying to explain to you how democracy works, not how frothy the Muslims are.


Quote:

In case the other islamophobic rant wasn't clear enough.

Obviously not. Can you explain why you cry Islamophobia in response to me describing Muslims who want to kill apostates as patient and superficially reasonable? Or why you still think I was referring to the frothiness of Muslims rather than the functioning of democracy?


Quote:

There you go Stratos, this is me apparently asserting that  "ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people"

and here:


Quote:

The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.

and here:


Quote:

And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

You need to have a pretty messed up view of human rights to even think of spinning the execution of apostates this way.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Not what I said Gandalf. They may be perfectly happy with letting Muslims impose the less barbaric laws.

Oh for goodness sake  ::)

"You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves

Keep spinning away, but the simple fact is you cannot substantiate this. Thats why you fail.


freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Apparently not. I was trying to explain to you how democracy works, not how frothy the Muslims are.

Your "explanation" rests on the premise that these muslims are "desperate" to get their laws through, and are only stopped by a majority of "opposers".

Two obvious flaws:

1. muslims who state in a survey they are in favour of hudud apostasy and stoning laws are "desperate" to get these laws through = utterly baseless.

2. the majority of the Malaysian population oppose these laws = utterly baseless.


freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Can you explain why you cry Islamophobia in response to me describing Muslims who want to kill apostates as patient and superficially reasonable?

prejudice
ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices

    1.
    preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Accusing them of being "superficial" is particularly hilarious. All I've seen in this discussion is muslims being perfectly honest and upfront about their support for these hudud laws. What *DID* you actually mean by "superficial" FD? This implies deceit and dishonesty. Are muslims being deceitful about their pursuit of apostasy laws? Where? How?


freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

You need to have a pretty messed up view of human rights to even think of spinning the execution of apostates this way.

right, so let me get this straight: me opining about what other people might think about a particular human rights issue is me having a messed up view of human rights?

Presumably then the next time you offer an opinion about a particular group of muslim's views on sharia, I can start ranting about freediver having a messed up view of human rights?

8 January 2014
Malaysia: Move to outlaw human rights groups is an assault on freedom

Today’s attempt by Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs to ban the country’s leading coalition of human rights NGOs is a disturbing assault on the rights to freedom of expression and association, Amnesty International said.

The Ministry alleged that the majority of the 54 groups that make up the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs (COMANGO) are “un-Islamic”, lack official registration, and are therefore prohibited.
...
“It is concerning to see the Malaysian authorities increasingly taking their cue from hardline religious groups and others seeking to silence those who espouse views that differ from their own agenda,” said Galang-Folli.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/malaysia-move-outlaw-human-rights-groups-assault-freedom-2014-01-08

Quote:

"You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves

No I don't. Like I said, I am happy to defer to common sense. Not wanting Muslims killing people in the name of Islam is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make on behalf of these people. It makes a lot more sense than assuming they see it as a Muslim's right to kill people.


Quote:

Accusing them of being "superficial" is particularly hilarious. All I've seen in this discussion is muslims being perfectly honest and upfront about their support for these hudud laws.

Are you referring to yourself?


Quote:

What *DID* you actually mean by "superficial" FD?

I mean they sound thoughtful and considered, until you realise they are talking about killing people in the name of Islam. Think "the banality of evil", or Hannibal Lecter.


Quote:

right, so let me get this straight: me opining about what other people might think about a particular human rights issue is me having a messed up view of human rights?

Pretty much. That you even came up with the idea of spinning it as a rights issue is pretty messed up. That you would project this view onto non-Muslims is just deluded.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

No I don't. Like I said, I am happy to defer to common sense. Not wanting Muslims killing people in the name of Islam is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make on behalf of these people. It makes a lot more sense than assuming they see it as a Muslim's right to kill people.

Right, good, no evidence whatsoever for a baseless claim. You just project your own narrow prejudiced views onto other people and label it "common sense". Glad we've got that sorted.


freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

Pretty much. That you even came up with the idea of spinning it as a rights issue is pretty messed up.

Yep got it - completely messed up that I would even consider that non-muslims living amongst muslims might see the issue of hudud laws by muslims for muslims as an issue for muslims to sort out themselves.

Personally I don't agree with this stance either, but I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume that just about every non-muslim must necessarily think the same - just because I disagree with it.

So thinking that people have a right to choose their own religion, without getting executed, and also thinking other people likely share this view, is narrow and prejudiced? Where are you getting this crap from Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:31pm:

So thinking that people have a right to choose their own religion, without getting executed, and also thinking other people likely share this view, is narrow and prejudiced?

;D You are *NOT* saying that - thats the problem. You are saying they *DEFINITELY" share this view, and that there is no possibility that they might have a different view, and any suggestions that they might, is having a "messed up view of human rights". And every time I point out that this might not be the case, you haughtilly come out with your "take an honest guess" and "I'm happy to defer to common sense" schtick.

If you really did say that its "likely" they share your view, but also concede you have no evidence to support this claim - and acknowledge also that its possible they might share a different view, and that its not *UNREASONABLE* to suggest this possibility...

...then it would not be a narrow and prejudiced view.

Quote:

You are *NOT* saying that - thats the problem. You are saying they *DEFINITELY" share this view, and that there is no possibility that they might have a different view

We have been over the maths already Gandalf.


Quote:

and any suggestions that they might, is having a "messed up view of human rights"

No Gandalf. What you said is messed up, and not because it is an alternative view to mine. That you don't seem to even realise why it is so weird just adds to this.


Quote:

If you really did say that its "likely" they share your view,

Let's start by you agreeing that I did not say *DEFINITELY". It took me a few pages to get you to understand that I never said 100%. Now you have dreamt up another way of making the same idiotic mistake.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:14am:

Let's start by you agreeing that I did not say *DEFINITELY". It took me a few pages to get you to understand that I never said 100%. Now you have dreamt up another way of making the same idiotic mistake.

Ok good - so you must therefore acknowledge the *POSSIBILITY* that they might consider it an issue for muslims and muslims alone to sort out for themselves, and agree that this is not an unreasonable position given the complete absence of any evidence that says otherwise.

Oh wait, you don't  ::)

Apparently the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".

Quote:

Ok good - so you must therefore acknowledge the *POSSIBILITY* that they might consider it an issue for muslims and muslims alone to sort out for themselves

I am sure there are a few who would be glad to see the indigenous population kill each other over their idiotic beliefs. Out of these, a few would be cynical enough to spin it as a rights issue for them, just like you do.


Quote:

and agree that this is not an unreasonable position given the complete absence of any evidence that says otherwise.

I think it is pretty messed up to assume this on behalf of the Indians and Chinese. You would whine for pages if anyone made such an assumption about Muslims. That was the point of the survey - to actually prove just how buggered up these Muslims are, because people like Brian and yourself kept insisting they were "normal". Yet even with the survey you still attempt to paint the Muslims as the good guys.


Quote:

Apparently the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".

You still haven't explained where you pulled this idea from. Do you see it as natural to assume that other people think Muslims have the right to kill people in the name of Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

I think it is pretty messed up to assume this on behalf of the Indians and Chinese. You would whine for pages if anyone made such an assumption about Muslims.

And yet I'm not making any such assumptions. You are the only one making assumptions about how these people think.

Unbelievable. Trully.


freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

That was the point of the survey - to actually prove just how buggered up these Muslims are, because people like Brian and yourself kept insisting they were "normal". Yet even with the survey you still attempt to paint the Muslims as the good guys.

When they're actually the "bad guys"?

And don't forget 'little Hitlers'.

You are right FD, we absolutely should use this survey to demonize and exercise our prejudice against muslims. Its certainly a whole lot more constructive than trying to understand the clear inconsistency between this one survey and the demonstrated voting and political behaviour of Malays in the real world.

Quote:

And yet I'm not making any such assumptions.

Like that the Chinese and Indians support Muslims killing people in the name of Islam because it is their right to do so?


Quote:

When they're actually the "bad guys"?

When they actually support the most barbaric aspects of Islam.


Quote:

You are right FD, we absolutely should use this survey to demonize and exercise our prejudice against muslims.

We should use it to prove what Muslims actually think to those who automatically dismiss it out of some misguided belief that ignoring extremism will make it go away.


Quote:

Its certainly a whole lot more constructive than trying to understand the clear inconsistency between this one survey and the demonstrated voting and political behaviour of Malays in the real world.

There is no inconsistency. There is only your total confusion and hypocrisy about how democracy works.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

Quote: And yet I'm not making any such assumptions. Like that the Chinese and Indians support Muslims killing people in the name of Islam because it is their right to do so?

Feel free to quote me arrogantly "assuming" any such thing.

Quote:

Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.

Quote:

lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

Quote:

3. "How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?" number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws. And it also addresses the fact that non-muslims don't have to support, or be in "favour" of the laws to not be an obstacle for their implementation. And the correct and obvious answer must start with "the evidence indicates...".

Evidently you missed basic reading comprehension at school.

None of those even come close to me "assuming" what non-muslims think.

Right. You are just pointing out what the evidence suggests...

I would describe it as you cynically trying to spin it as a rights issue.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Right. You are just pointing out what the evidence suggests... I would describe it as you cynically trying to spin it as a rights issue.

No, its me cynically spinning this as a 'you don't have a damn clue what sort of issue these non-muslims see it as' issue.

So where did this crap about rights come from?

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:32am:

So where did this crap about rights come from?

If group A want to introduce laws that only apply for group A, then maybe just maybe group B see this as their right. I'm not saying they *DO* (as you falsely claimed I said), but it is not the outrageous possibility that you so arrogantly claim it is. Thats all I've ever said.

You introduced the rights issue. I had never mentioned it.

It all sounds very reasonable as long as you fail to mention that the laws are about allowing Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam.

Do you actually think the Chinese and Indians largely see it as the right of Muslims to execute apostates?

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

Do you actually think the Chinese and Indians largely see it as the right of Muslims to execute apostates?

Thank you for describing it accurately for once.

And I'd be amazed if even you can't see what a difference it makes - to say "...the right of muslims to execute apostates" as opposed to the tired old "...the right of muslims to kill people in the name of islam".

As to the question - I honestly don't know, and never claimed to know. I will say three things about it though:

1. It is not the outrageous question you make it out to be

2. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that they overwhelmingly oppose muslims enacting this law

3. The only evidence produced so far says that most Chinese and Indians either agree with the statement that "hudud promises justice for all" (actual question) or are undecided. And executing apostates is part of the proposed hudud law in Malaysia.

That's an awful lot of backpedalling for someone who entered this debate by claiming to know from first hand experience how Malaysians feel about these laws - without even needing to ask them.


Quote:

And I'd be amazed if even you can't see what a difference it makes - to say "...the right of muslims to execute apostates" as opposed to the tired old "...the right of muslims to kill people in the name of islam".

Of course I can see the difference. One gets you all wound up.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:

someone who entered this debate by claiming to know from first hand experience how Malaysians feel about these laws - without even needing to ask them.

Umm I was talking about Malaysian muslims. This discussion is about what you claim to know about what non-muslims feel.

... and about you spinning it as a rights issue.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:

That's an awful lot of backpedalling for someone who entered this debate by claiming to know from first hand experience how Malaysians feel about these laws - without even needing to ask them. Quote: And I'd be amazed if even you can't see what a difference it makes - to say "...the right of muslims to execute apostates" as opposed to the tired old "...the right of muslims to kill people in the name of islam". Of course I can see the difference. One gets you all wound up.

gandalf has no idea how appalled nonmuslims find his ideas that it is ok to murder anyone due to a belief/disbelief.

that is case 1 for any cult.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

gandalf has no idea how appalled nonmuslims find his ideas that it is ok to murder anyone due to a belief/disbelief.

Yes, my ideas  :P

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 9:56am: gandalf has no idea how appalled nonmuslims find his ideas that it is ok to murder anyone due to a belief/disbelief. Yes, my ideas  :P

Yes gandalf, your 'ideas'.

It is being drawn out of you,
....and you are telling us, how you believe moslem laws should be enacted and enforced.
....and you are telling us, how you believe that moslems should have the right to introduce and enforce ISLAMIC laws.


And remember FD [and others], this moslem law [that would allow the killing of apostates], is not a law that is allowing moslems to kill another moslem.

This is an ISLAMIC law which would allow moslems to kill a person who is deemed to be NOT [no longer] a moslem.




gandalf,

You are telling us, how you believe moslem laws should be allowed to lawfully 'strike out' a persons freedom of conscience.

And that is the 'human right' [i.e. the right of the moslem to kill persons who do not believe what moslems believe] which moslems 'struggle' for - here in Australia.

But moslems [and gandalf], would insist that removing a persons right to freedom of conscience, is NOT ISLAMIC/moslem oppression of those who are not moslems.

Yadda wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 2:54pm:

you are telling us, how you believe that moslems should have the right to introduce and enforce ISLAMIC laws.

No I'm not.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 3:09pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 2:54pm: you are telling us, how you believe that moslems should have the right to introduce and enforce ISLAMIC laws. No I'm not.

No ?

You are claiming that that is not, your position, and a position which you support ?

That so as long as it is lawful [i.e. so long as it is 'the law of the land'], moslems should have the right to kill apostates ?





polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm: You are trying to equate the most barbaric aspects of Islamic law with the most banal. lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

Quote:

"....to enact those laws on themselves..."

Not so!


And again, the point is, the ISLAMIC law on apostasy, is a law which would allow moslems the lawful right, to kill a person who is deemed [by moslems] to be NOT a moslem.

The ISLAMIC apostasy law would allow moslems, to 'LAWFULLY' kill persons who are non-moslems.

He is not advocating those laws Yadda, Freediver was making the same assumption.  I'm pretty sure (and stop me if I'm wrong Gandalf), that he is arguing for democratic process in terms of legislation.

Like how the Australian government locks up children in rat-infested crowded camps indefinitely, as much as it repulses me personally, I do recognise that governments have capability to make decisions, and it has very little bearing on me as a person other than who I vote for, regardless of personal opinion

Yadda wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

You are claiming that that is not, your position, and a position which you support ?

Now you're just trying to twist my words.

The issue is about whether I was "telling" you how I "believe that moslems should have the right to introduce and enforce ISLAMIC laws." Thats the point. My arguments only ever related to the issue of what non-muslims in Malaysia think, and whether or not they *MIGHT* consider it the muslims right to enact hudud laws on themselves.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 9:56am: gandalf has no idea how appalled nonmuslims find his ideas that it is ok to murder anyone due to a belief/disbelief. Yes, my ideas  :P

It was your idea to spin this as a rights issue. I doubt any Chinese or Indians put that idea into your head.

Actually it was my idea to spin it into a "its ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose the laws with no evidence whatsoever" issue.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 9:56am: gandalf has no idea how appalled nonmuslims find his ideas that it is ok to murder anyone due to a belief/disbelief. Yes, my ideas  :P

yes, your ideas. Mr deflector

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 7:01am:

Actually it was my idea to spin it into a "its ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose the laws with no evidence whatsoever" issue.

You came up with the idea of spinning it as a right's issue for the muslims who want to kill people.

And it is not ridiculous at all to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

it is not ridiculous at all to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam.

No it is not. Quite agree.

It is however ridiculous to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to muslims introducing their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws - without a shred of evidence.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:10am:

yes, your ideas. Mr deflector

Please quote me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:17am: it is not ridiculous at all to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. No it is not. Quite agree. It is however ridiculous to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to muslims introducing their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws - without a shred of evidence.

Killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death is killing people in the name of Islam. It is not Muslims applying their own laws to themselves. Killing apostates is killing non-Muslims. In Malaysia in particular, it is based on race.

My evidence is that they are human beings. Only a Muslim would see it as a workable debating strategy to demand proof that non-Muslims oppose this barbarity.


Quote:

Please quote me.

The opening posts in this thread contain three quotes of Gandalf introducing this as a rights concept (for the Muslims who want to do the killing) without any prompting.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:50am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:39am: freediver wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:17am: it is not ridiculous at all to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. No it is not. Quite agree. It is however ridiculous to assume that non-Muslims are opposed to muslims introducing their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws - without a shred of evidence. Killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death is killing people in the name of Islam. It is not Muslims applying their own laws to themselves. Killing apostates is killing non-Muslims. In Malaysia in particular, it is based on race. My evidence is that they are human beings. Only a Muslim would see it as a workable debating strategy to demand proof that non-Muslims oppose this barbarity. Quote: Please quote me. The opening posts in this thread contain three quotes of Gandalf introducing this as a rights concept (for the Muslims who want to do the killing) without any prompting.

I am so used to muslims lying I quite expect it now.
Which is a great advantage with a certain muslim I am privately discussing matters with now.
I have disproved almost his every deceptive word.
dirty filthy lying curs

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:50am:

Killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death is killing people in the name of Islam.

So is shooting up a shopping mall or blowing up a bus. Thats the beauty of using such a vague description. But only killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death is killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death.


freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:50am:

It is not Muslims applying their own laws to themselves. Killing apostates is killing non-Muslims. In Malaysia in particular, it is based on race.

Fine, call it "*MALAYS* introducing laws for themselves" if you like - it doesn't make any difference. You still have no leg to stand on to claim that non-Malays overwhelmingly oppose Malays introducing laws that apply only to Malays.


freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:50am:

My evidence is that they are human beings. Only a Muslim...

Non-muslims are human beings, but muslims are not?

Around a fifth of all humanity hold views that you find offensive, so there goes your "they are human beings" argument out the window. Here's a thought, maybe some non-muslims hold views that you consider repugnant. Radical though no?

Quote:

Fine, call it "*MALAYS* introducing laws for themselves" if you like - it doesn't make any difference.

Yes it does. You have gone from people wanting to freely subject themselves to certain religious laws to killing people based on their race.

Please explain why you think it is the same thing. Are you just trying to justify all the BS spin you have trotted out about it being a human right to execute apostates and about these people just wanting to apply the laws to "themselves"? You seem to be digging yourself further into a hole.


Quote:

Non-muslims are human beings, but muslims are not?

Wanting to kill people for having the wrong belief is an unusual position to hold. That was the point of posting the Pew survey - because all the spineless apologists refused to believe that Malaysian Muslims actually believed that crap. Even you went to great lengths to convince us that these Muslims did not really hold those views and would vote gainst them, despite the survey clearly showing that they do. When it comes to Muslims, even when they say they want to execute apostates and try to go through with it, you trip over yourself to make excuses. You even used the humanist argument yourself to defend these Muslims. But in a feat of hypocrisy, you assume the exact opposite for non-Muslims, even though they have no reason at all to support these barbaric laws, and every reason to fear them.


Quote:

Around a fifth of all humanity hold views that you find offensive, so there goes your "they are human beings" argument out the window.

Islam overcomes humanity. It is very effective at doing so. I see no reason at all to assume the same for ethnic Indians and Chinese in Malaysia.


Quote:

Here's a thought, maybe some non-muslims hold views that you consider repugnant. Radical though no?

Yes it is radical to assume minority groups in a Muslim country would support further Islamisation in the form of Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You are demanding that I prove the bleeding obvious, because every other argument you have put forward has been shown to be a transparent attempt to polish a turd.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Please explain why you think it is the same thing.

Its very simple FD - it doesn't make any difference because you still have no basis whatsoever to claim that non-Malays overwhelmingly oppose Malays introducing laws that apply only to Malays. Its still you claiming that 2/3rds of the population "oppose" the laws based on nothing at all.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Wanting to kill people for having the wrong belief is an unusual position to hold.

;D ;D no its not - and muslims certainly don't have a monopoly there.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Even you went to great lengths to convince us that these Muslims did not really hold those views

I think this is about the third time I've had to point out to you I never said that. Please stick to what I say FD.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

But in a feat of hypocrisy, you assume the exact opposite for non-Muslims

There you go again - I never assumed anything about non-muslims. Please stick to what I actually say. You're getting confused with your own argument - remember "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims think - and all that crap? Hillarious that you would (repeatedly) attempt to turn this into *ME* making stupid, baseless assumptions about what people think.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

You are demanding that I prove the bleeding obvious

I am demanding proof that the "vast majority" of one race would "oppose" another race applying laws that only affect themselves. Its really not that unreasonable - if you could only get off your irrational anti-islam bandwagon and consider that not all non-muslims share the same beliefs as you, then you might understand that.

Quote:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 6:24pm: Even you went to great lengths to convince us that these Muslims did not really hold those views I think this is about the third time I've had to point out to you I never said that. Please stick to what I say FD.

In each of your posts in this thread you attempt to argue that, for a variety of reasons, these Malaysian Muslims do not really think what they say they think:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522

Do you remember all the crap you spun about them only supporting it in an "abstract" sense and not in reality?


Quote:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 6:24pm: But in a feat of hypocrisy, you assume the exact opposite for non-Muslims There you go again - I never assumed anything about non-muslims. Please stick to what I actually say. You're getting confused with your own argument - remember "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims think - and all that crap? Hillarious that you would (repeatedly) attempt to turn this into *ME* making stupid, baseless assumptions about what people think.

Do you often argue positions that you do not hold and that you know nothing about? You introduced the argument that non-Muslim Malaysians consider it a Muslim's "right" to execute these people. Was this a case of "here is yet another stupid possibility that you must disprove before I accept the obvious?"


Quote:

I am demanding proof that the "vast majority" of one race would "oppose" another race applying laws that only affect themselves.

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way? Would you take me seriously if I demanded proof that white Australians oppose letting Aborigines or Arabs kill each other for exercising their fundamental human rights?

These Muslims support the barbaric laws because of Islam. It does not make sense to project that onto non-Muslim Malaysians.


Quote:

Its really not that unreasonable - if you could only get off your irrational anti-islam bandwagon and consider that not all non-muslims share the same beliefs as you, then you might understand that.

I am not arguing that they think exactly like me. I am arguing that they would oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. They do so because they are human. If not that, because it is in their own interest to oppose Islamic extremism in their own country. There are probably dozens of other good reasons. Yet you expect us to think they might support these laws for no good reason at all, other than to prop up your idiotic claim that the 1/3 who say they support this barbarity could achieve it if they really wanted to, but do not achieve it because they do not want what they say they want.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way?

Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of. I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite -  "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no". But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws" - is beyond stupid. And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be. And thats why you have to invent those silly and misleading phrasings.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 9:44pm: Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way? Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of. I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite -  "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no". But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws" - is beyond stupid. And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be. And thats why you have to invent those silly and misleading phrasings.

so, the same action. Just rephrasing it makes it all better ?
Murder is murder.
muslims always lie about such matters

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 3:50am:

so, the same action. Just rephrasing it makes it all better ?

It makes a big difference sprint. There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning. The landmark experiment in this field had respondents witness a car prang, and then were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it "bumped" "hit" or "smashed" into the other car. As you might have guessed, estimates from the respondents varied significantly according to what word was used to describe the prang.

Blind Freddy can tell you that non-muslim respondents will respond very differently between "do you oppose muslims killing people for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or "do you oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam" and "do you oppose muslims introducing an islamic law that would impose the death sentence on those who leave islam?"

The last is far less offensive sounding than the first (not to mention more accurate) - and this is why FD has to avoid it like the plague when rhetorically asking us to "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims would think about it.

Quote:

Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of.

Like I keep saying, it is not misleading. Whether you get your head chopped off after an unfair trial run by Muslims, or blown off in a shopping mall by Muslims, you are still dead, in the name of Islam, at the hands of Muslims. Filling out paperwork does not change this.


Quote:

I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite -  "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no".

Likewise, if you asked them whether they support Muslims executing people who do not want to be labelled as Muslim by the government because of their race, they would also say no - which is precisely why the BS survey you keep trotting out did not ask this question, or anything like it. It is only by failing to even mention it in any shape or form that you are able to delude yourself into seeing a positive response.


Quote:

But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws"

The BS survey you keep trotting out did not even ask this question either.


Quote:

And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be.

I reject it because it is idiotic to suggest it and idiotic to demand I prove the bleeding obvious.


Quote:

It makes a big difference sprint. There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning.

That is why the BS survey you keep trotting out did not mention executing apostates, did not mention stoning adulterers to death, and did not even ask them whether they support or oppose the proposed group of laws. The Pew survey asked specific, straight questions and got straight answers. Your survey was designed to fool the most gullible and ignorant. It is ironic that you claim to understand this but do not recognise such a blatant example when you see it. It is as if knowledge to you is nothing but another tool to create more lies in the name of Islam.

So according to FD, it is "not misleading" to ask someone their view about introducing laws to execute apostates and not once mention the word apostasy or apostates in the question - just describe it as "killing people in the name of islam".

Glad we've got that cleared up.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning. The landmark experiment in this field had respondents witness a car prang, and then were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it "bumped" "hit" or "smashed" into the other car. As you might have guessed, estimates from the respondents varied significantly according to what word was used to describe the prang.

We could also apply that theory to the Quran which was passed down by word of mouth with the hafiz(those who memorised that crappy book) until Uthman got worried about them getting killed in battles and made a book that muslims claim is gods words.

The Quran and hadith were passed down by word of mouth for many decades, what do the experts say about that for a reliable method of passing down information?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 12:13pm:

So according to FD, it is "not misleading" to ask someone their view about introducing laws to execute apostates and not once mention the word apostasy or apostates in the question - just describe it as "killing people in the name of islam". Glad we've got that cleared up.

The Pew survey asked Muslims directly about execution as a punishment for apostasy and stoning people to death for adultery.

The survey you trotted out mentioned neither. Yet you insist that non-Muslims understand that this is what hudud means (while also claiming that no-one talks about it in Malaysia because it is off the radar) and therefor a survey that asks vague questions about hudud (without ever mentioning stoning or execution) shows what these people think about stoning and execution.

So we have a Pew survey that asks the questions directly but does not reflect what Muslims really think because they would come to their senses if they got what they wanted, and a survey that completely avoids asking people what they think about the issue that you insist does show what they think - and you spin this as non-Muslims considering it the "right" of Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam (so long as they fill out the paperwork first...).

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

while also claiming that no-one talks about it in Malaysia because it is off the radar

pretty sure that was me

Not just you.


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 7:52am: here is Gandalf making excuses for his fellow Muslims Its not about apologising or excusing, its about coming up with an explanation for why their stated beliefs about this punishment is at odds with their demonstrated behaviour. Why doesn't Malaysia (a democracy) have stoning in their penal code if most muslims love it so much? Why isn't it even so much as discussed? Why do Malays simply don't care about the issue until asked to make a 'yes' or 'no' response to a completely detached and hypothetical survey?

Quote:

If you knew anything about Malaysia you would know that there are separate islamic laws that apply only to Malays. The point is though, if muslims were that passionate about introducing stoning, there would be at the very least some serious public debate about it. There is none. And like most things of this nature, once a public debate starts, public support for it will undoubtedly wane.

Quote:

Why isn't there, and never has been anything resembling a serious public debate on this issue in Malaysia - since the majority of the Malay population supposedly want these punishments?

Quote:

Thats ridiculous. You don't have to trust my word for it, even though I follow Malaysian politics closely and know for a fact you are so far off the mark its not funny - you just need to produce some evidence that it is happening. Its not called "public debate" for nothing. If there was a public debate going on, you would be able to find some record of it happening.

Quote:

When we hear hoofbeats, we can either scratch our heads and wonder where all the zebras are, or we can go with the obvious and put it down to horses. When there is no sign of a public debate going on about a particular issue, it generally means that it is not a hot issue that people particularly care about. People can act all principled on an issue they know only from stories, and know will never have any chance of becoming implemented in their society. But like all these things, if and when a serious debate actually arises, and the issue changes from abstract to "actual possibility", public opinion will change dramatically.

Quote:

Not at all. No one takes PAS seriously when they say these things, and everyone - especially PAS - knows they don't have a dogs chance in hell of ever implementing death for apostasy. Which is why they have considerably toned down their rhetoric in recent years (your quote was from 2000). Note my key words serious debate. This is not a serious debate.

Apparently, one of the states in Malaysia managed to pass the stoning of apostates into law without even discussing it.... just one of the many ways Gandalf has tried to spin this issue out of existence.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

The survey you trotted out...

...has nothing to do with the point you are doing well to avoid.

You are deflecting from the inconvenient fact that asking people their opinion on hudud apostasy laws without even mentioning the words "hudud" and "apostasy" is completely misleading and dishonest.

The point about the survey that you so spectacularly miss, is that it is literally the only evidence we have of the Malaysian non-muslim community's opinions on anything hudud.

But its irrelevant to this particular issue - and once again it needs to be pointed out to you that I am not the one making blind assumptions about what people (ie non-muslims in this case) think on a particular question. You assume - baselessly - that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian non-muslim population "oppose ... passionately" hudud apostasy laws. And without a shred of evidence to support this, you attempt to portray this is a "no-brainer" by framing it in the most misleading way you can - ie by not even mentioning the words 'hudud' and 'apostasy'. Thats the fantasy you need to address, and mocking me for "trotting out a bs survey" that neither confirms or rejects that fantasy of yours is a complete red-herring.

You are the only one insisting that we can read people's opinions about execution for apostasy from a survey that does not mention execution for apostasy. Why do you feel the need to explain to me that it would be completely misleading?


Quote:

But its irrelevant to this particular issue - and once again it needs to be pointed out to you that I am not the one making blind assumptions about what people (ie non-muslims in this case) think on a particular question. You assume - baselessly - that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian non-muslim population "oppose ... passionately" hudud apostasy laws.

Well done Gandalf. You quoted two of the words I used, and built a senstence around them with your own meaning. I guess it is one step closer to quoting what I actually said.

No idea where you get 2/3 of the non-Muslim population from. You always seem to struggle with the maths.


Quote:

And without a shred of evidence to support this, you attempt to portray this is a "no-brainer" by framing it in the most misleading way you can - ie by not even mentioning the words 'hudud' and 'apostasy'.

I framed it many ways, including "death penalty for apostasy". It is not at all misleading to describe it as killing in the name of Islam. I have never suggested, as you appear to imply, that it would be a good idea to frame a survey question about a specific law so vaguely.

Not sure why you think it might appear more benign because you fill out the paperwork before chopping someone's head off. It is still killing people in the name of Islam, and only a Muslim would even think of insisting that non-Muslims appreciate that they have the right to do it and demand proof otherwise. You refuse to have an actual opinion on the issue because you realise how stupid it would be to actually claim that, yet you still try to get mileage out of demanding I prove the obvious.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

No idea where you get 2/3 of the non-Muslim population from.

Sorry I meant 2/3 of the entire Malaysian population. But obviously your case relies on a lot more than 2/3rds of the non-muslim population "opposing".


freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

I framed it many ways, including "death penalty for apostasy".

You always avoid answering directly the very obvious point that asking respondents "do you oppose muslims killing in the name of islam" will result in vastly different responses to "do you oppose muslims introducing hudud apostasy laws".

You cannot deny this, so you just avoid it like the plague. Thats the only way you can keep framing it that way.

In short you are just being dishonest.

Quote:

You always avoid answering directly the very obvious point that asking respondents "do you oppose muslims killing in the name of islam"

Because it is a stupid point to make. No-one is suggesting this. You are the only one suggesting we should read into a survey result something that the survey never even mentioned. You went to absurd lengths to justify doing so.


Quote:

You cannot deny this, so you just avoid it like the plague.

I avoid it like an idiotic question.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:53pm:

Because it is a stupid point to make. No-one is suggesting this.

Whenever I ask for evidence for your claim that the vast majority of non-Malays in Malaysia oppose Malays introducing hudud apostasy laws on themselves, you describe it as "common sense" that non-muslims would "oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam". You must know that describing it this way without even mentioning the word "apostasy" is misleading and dishonest.

You simply can't bring yourself to say "its common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves" - because you know it really isn't such a no-brainer, and you would have to acknowledge that some actual evidence is required to support your position.

Quote:

Whenever I ask for evidence for your claim that the vast majority of non-Malays in Malaysia oppose Malays introducing hudud apostasy laws on themselves, you describe it as "common sense" that non-muslims would "oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam". You must know that describing it this way without even mentioning the word "apostasy" is misleading and dishonest.

Putting it on a survey and insisting the result tells you about apostasy laws is stupid - just as your attempt to judge support for apostasy laws from a survey that does not mention it is stupid.

It is still killing people in the name of Islam and that is why they would oppose it - not because the question phrases it that way, but because that is what it is. It takes some impressive Islamic mental gymnastics to come up with the idea that non-Muslims would see it as a Muslim's right to kill people in the name of Islam, and expect people to take you seriously.


Quote:

You simply can't bring yourself to say "its common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves"

It's common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

Putting it on a survey and insisting the result tells you about apostasy laws is stupid - just as your attempt to judge support for apostasy laws from a survey that does not mention it is stupid.

They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud. But we've flogged that dead horse enough times. In any case, is your point about all this that its "common sense" that non-muslims would oppose execution for apostasy, but not chopping off limbs for theft? Doesn't seem very common sense to me.


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

It's common sense that non Malays would oppose Malays introducing execution for apostasy laws on themselves.

Well congratulations, you really are able to say it.

It is utterly absurd though, to assume this about a group of people in a culture and society you know nothing about. They are not in a westernised liberal demoracy you know.

Quote:

They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud.

Apostasy laws are also part of killing people in the name of Islam. Why does your trick work but not mine? Is this some special Islamic logic you haven't told me about yet?


Quote:

But we've flogged that dead horse enough times.

Apparently not.


Quote:

In any case, is your point about all this that its "common sense" that non-muslims would oppose execution for apostasy, but not chopping off limbs for theft?

The less barbaric the law, the more support it is likely to find, both among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Pew survey demonstrates this for Muslims. I would expect the vast majority of non-Muslims to oppose amputations also, which is why it is still not law, despite an even bigger majority of the Muslim population supporting it. Note that your survey did not actually ask whether respondents support or oppose such laws.


Quote:

Doesn't seem very common sense to me.

That's because Islam requires self-delusion on your part. In order to delude others, you must first delude yourself.


Quote:

It is utterly absurd though, to assume this about a group of people in a culture and society you know nothing about. They are not in a westernised liberal demoracy you know.

Thanks to Islam. Not because of the Chinese. Not because of the Indians. Not because of the Thais. They would be well into the 20th century if not for the Muslims. It is a powerful retrograde influence on the society.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

Quote: They were asked about hudud, and apostasy laws are part of hudud. Apostasy laws are also part of killing people in the name of Islam. Why does your trick work but not mine?

Really FD?  ::) Ask someone about "hudud law" and its quite difficult to respond intelligently and not be thinking of apostasy and adultery laws - in fact I think its fair to say that these two aspects would be front and centre in most people's mind when they think of "hudud law".

But ask someone about "killing in the name of islam" then no one can seriously suggest its not a liitle bit more open-ended and non-specific phrase compared to "hudud law". "Killing in the name of islam" could be anything from terrorist acts (most likely) to an islamic state or group launching a jihad war, to finally (and least associated) - implementing islamic capital punishment.


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

The less barbaric the law, the more support it is likely to find, both among Muslims and non-Muslims.

That depends entirely on what people consider "less barbaric". Some might consider being permanently maimed and disabled for life as being more barbaric than simply being killed off in one stroke. Here's a thought: maybe the higher level of support for maiming for theft as opposed to killing for apostasy has nothing to do with the 'level of barbarity' - but the fact that theft is something that is much closer to people's heart than apostasy (certainly in Malaysia where theft is rampant) - and they feel more strongly about people being severely punished for that than apostasy.

No doubt though FD knows best in the 'blindly assuming what people think" stakes. All I ask is that you don't once again take these musings of mine as *ME* blindly assuming what people think - again.


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

Thanks to Islam. Not because of the Chinese. Not because of the Indians. Not because of the Thais. They would be well into the 20th century if not for the Muslims. It is a powerful retrograde influence on the society.

Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays?

Please tell me more about this "retrograde influence on the society" FD. I'm particularly interested in how the attitudes towards (say) hudud law of non-muslims under the this "retrograde influence" (as in the non-muslims in Malaysia) is affected, and how you can maintain so adamantly your position that its "common sense" that such non-muslims would oppose hudud laws so passionately.

Quote:

Ask someone about "hudud law" and its quite difficult to respond intelligently and not be thinking of apostasy and adultery laws - in fact I think its fair to say that these two aspects would be front and centre in most people's mind when they think of "hudud law".

I did not know about it until this discussion, so I don't see why you would expect non-Muslim Malaysians to. According to you, there is no serious debate about it in Malaysia either. If you go by your questionnaire, you would be lead to believe it is about "rampant crime" - ie nothing to do with apostasy or adultery. I have read news articles from Malaysia that are all about the crime angle. Your survey is transparent spin for the gullible and foolish.


Quote:

But ask someone about "killing in the name of islam"

Earth to Gandalf: no-one is suggestiong a survey question be phrased that way.


Quote:

then no one can seriously suggest its not a liitle bit more open-ended and non-specific phrase compared to "hudud law"

It is in English, which is a good start. Take a guess at what response you would get among non-Muslim English speaking people if asked whether they knew the meaning of kill, Islam and hudud law.


Quote:

That depends entirely on what people consider "less barbaric". Some might consider being permanently maimed and disabled for life as being more barbaric than simply being killed off in one stroke.

Not sure what the method is for apostasy, but for adultery it is stoning to death, which is about as bad as it gets. With apostasy, there are far-reaching implications for freedom and human rights, regardless of the method used to kill (in the name of Islam).


Quote:

Here's a thought: maybe the higher level of support for maiming for theft as opposed to killing for apostasy has nothing to do with the 'level of barbarity' - but the fact that theft is something that is much closer to people's heart than apostasy (certainly in Malaysia where theft is rampant) - and they feel more strongly about people being severely punished for that than apostasy.

Perhaps they see one as a crime and one as not a crime.


Quote:

No doubt though FD knows best in the 'blindly assuming what people think" stakes. All I ask is that you don't once again take these musings of mine as *ME* blindly assuming what people think - again.

No problem. It has been a long time since you have been game to hold an opinion in this debate.


Quote:

Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays?

Quote me.


Quote:

Please tell me more about this "retrograde influence on the society" FD.

Executing apostates. Stoning adulterers to death. Hacking thieves limbs off. Raping little girls. You know how it is. Even you conceded that Islam has it's problems.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

I did not know about it until this discussion, so I don't see why you would expect non-Muslim Malaysians to.

::) You've never heard of it - living in a country that has a 2% muslim population, and likely never interacted with a muslim in the real world in your entire life - and you think people living in a 60% muslim country where daily interactions with muslims is literally unavoidlable - will be as ignorant about islam as you?


freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

Quote: Is that you trying to wriggle out of your previously adamant claim that non-muslim Malaysians would most definitely "passionately oppose" hudud apostasy laws for Malays? Quote me.

So you aren't adamant most non-Muslim Malaysians oppose the law?  ;D You'll have to explain that one to me.

Quote:

You've never heard of it - living in a country that has a 2% muslim population, and likely never interacted with a muslim in the real world in your entire life - and you think people living in a 60% muslim country where daily interactions with muslims is literally unavoidlable - will be as ignorant about islam as you?

I have actually read Malaysian news articles insisting that the first step should be to educate people what hudud laws actually are. Furthermore, you are the one who insisted that there is no serious debate about them and they are not even on the radar. But the point is, your survey deliberately steered people's thoughts away from executing apostates, stoning adulterers to death, or even whether they support any of the hudud laws. It is stransparent spin for the gullible and foolish. It did not ask respondent's open-ended questions about hudud law. It asked them specific, limited questions that are clearly only relevent to one aspect of hudud law and not to either of the to laws we were actually discussing.

I interact with a few Muslims in real life, but I am hardly going to discover the meaning of hudud law from those interactions. Likewise, even though you have been to Malaysia and interacted with Muslims there, you never asked them their opinion about executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death. You assumed you knew what they thought, but you were dead wrong, and your dodgy survey is your last grasping attempting to cling to your self delusions.


Quote:

So you aren't adamant most non-Muslim Malaysians oppose the law?  Grin You'll have to explain that one to me.

I have, over and over again. You seem oblivious to it. I should not have to explain what I said, over and over again, because you cannot bring yourself to quote what I actually said.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

You assumed you knew what they thought, but you were dead wrong

Actually I never assumed - continually trying to explain this to you is an exercise in futility.

But you are right, its possible they weren't thinking about apostasy and stoning, but that was never the point.

My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays. But since you now seem to be denying this, there's not much else I can say.

Quote:

Actually I never assumed - continually trying to explain this to you is an exercise in futility.

So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws? You know for a fact that it will never happen in Malaysia? You know for a fact that they only support it because it is somehow not real?


Quote:

But you are right, its possible they weren't thinking about apostasy and stoning, but that was never the point.

Yes it was. You argued long and hard that you can tell what they think about apostasy and stoning from a survey that went to unusual lengths to avoid mentioning it.


Quote:

My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays.

Yes I have. They are human. We have been over this. It takes great effort to overcome something so intrinsic to people's humanity. Something like Islam. This is not natural in any way. Rather, you are projecting Islam's barbarity onto other groups, because you cannot accept that Islam really is the cause of it.

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws

lol *NO!*. When is it going to sink through FD? - I'm not the one making *ANY* hard and fast assumptions about what anyone thinks. Thats you remember?


freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

Quote: My only point has ever been that you have no basis to assume that the majority of non-Malays (non-muslims) oppose the implementation of these laws on Malays. Yes I have. They are human. We have been over this.

Ah yes, "honest guesses" and "deferring to common sense", how could I forget  ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 7:37am:

freediver wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:56pm: So you know for a fact that these Muslims would suddenly come to their sense if actually given the opportunity to pass these laws lol *NO!*. When is it going to sink through FD? - I'm not the one making *ANY* hard and fast assumptions about what anyone thinks. Thats you remember?

So I was imagining these posts?


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:

What you refuse to contemplate is that in both cases, we are talking about an abstract principle, that is as far away from the reality of the individual's day-to-day life as can be: Malaysians don't, and never will, have the opportunity to partake in a stoning and witness the full horrors of what happens, and nor will an average American ever partake in a drone strike in which they must witness women and children getting killed, maimed and/or psychologically traumatised for the rest of their lives.

Quote:

Like I said, to them stoning is just an abstract principle that is as far away from their reality as you can get. Ask them an inconsequential question about a principle that they know they will never see in real life, they'll answer 'yes' - but actually put a stone in their hands and say "beat that adulterer to death", and they will undoubtedly reel in horror.

Quote:

When it never has and never will happen in the society they live in - of course it is. Should I expect a new thread to be started about this

Quote:

I suspect because the responders are completely detached from their own personal reality when answering such questions. Asking "should adulterers be stoned" to a person who has never known the practice, and who is acutely aware that the practice will never be implemented in his society is obviously completely different to dragging an actual adulterer up to the same person and asking them to condemn them to death via stoning.

Why is it completely different Gandalf, particularly in a country where one state has already passed a law to execute apostates, and where, nationally, the majority of muslims support such a law?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 8:06pm:

So I was imagining these posts?

You imagined that those posts was me making blind assumptions about what people think - yes.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 8:06pm:

Why is it completely different Gandalf, particularly in a country where one state has already passed a law to execute apostates

Take a wild guess and tell me how many people you think will ever be stoned under this law?

I promise you, no one will ever be stoned legally in Malaysia - ever. So yeah, having a law on the books that will never be implemented is vastly different to asking someone to condemn an actual person to death by stoning.

Quote:

You imagined that those posts was me making blind assumptions about what people think - yes.

True. They do not actually think that. In reality, they support executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death. Your assumption regarded what they were going to think. You assumed - blindly, that they would change their mind, and your explanations for this assumption have been shown to be completely false.


Quote:

Take a wild guess and tell me how many people you think will ever be stoned under this law?

Not many. Hopefully none. It is still a pretty messed up law, and a messed up thing to believe.


Quote:

I promise you, no one will ever be stoned legally in Malaysia - ever.

Because non-Muslims hold the democratic balance of power.


Quote:

So yeah, having a law on the books that will never be implemented is vastly different to asking someone to condemn an actual person to death by stoning.

The law was for apostasy. It was rejected federally on constitutional grounds. My point was merely to disprove your claim that this is an abstract thing for Malaysians they they do not debate seriously and are unfamiliar with. In reality, they came very close to having the death penalty for apostasy. In reality, the majority of Muslims support it and will vote for it if given the chance. In reality, it is the non-Muslim balance of power that prevents this from happening, rather than your ludicrous suggestion that it is lack of willpower or intent on behalf of the majority of Muslims who support it. That is all - I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the reality, rather than merely trying to deny you ever had an opinion on the issue.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

Your assumption regarded what they were going to think.

I assumed nothing. Clearly its not getting through is it?


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

My point was merely to disprove your claim that this is an abstract thing for Malaysians they they do not debate seriously and are unfamiliar with.

PAS state legislators in Terrenganu and Kelantan passed the laws by stealth 20 years ago, knowing full well that the federal would never allow it to be implemented. Voters in those two states never got to vote on it, and I'm guessing the vast majority of people there don't even know they have these laws on the books. Until someone is actually executed for apostasy (which will be never), it is absolutely still an abstract thing for Malaysians.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:42pm:

In reality, the majority of Muslims support it and will vote for it if given the chance. In reality, it is the non-Muslim balance of power that prevents this from happening, rather than your ludicrous suggestion that it is lack of willpower or intent on behalf of the majority of Muslims who support it.

Pure conjecture. That is the reality you need to acknowledge.

Bump for Karnal and Brian.

Seems Gandalf has had his share of attack threads as well.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

Seems Gandalf has had his share of attack threads as well.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

No no, they're not attack threads, they're just threads where FD tells G what G believes, and G disagrees.

We're all friends here.

Sometimes G agrees with FD, and FD disagrees that they agree.

Gud is great, no?

I think this is funny actually. FD won't get G to agree, he will not take a backward step, he is a muslim.

Muslims LIVE by Taqiyya and therefore will lie to get their point across and that includes lying about their lying. I will be coming back to this thread every so often as I DO like to see muslims defend their barbaric ways and of course, their moon god religion and the spawn mohammed.  :P

Gryphon49 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2014 at 12:04am:

I think this is funny actually. FD won't get G to agree, he will not take a backward step, he is a muslim. Muslims LIVE by Taqiyya

Do they?  All the articles I've seen on the topic, like this one suggest otherwise. Care to provide some evidence they "LIVE" by Taqiyya?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Gryphon49 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2014 at 12:04am:

I think this is funny actually. FD won't get G to agree, he will not take a backward step, he is a muslim.

Ah. Of course. G is trying to get FD to disagree so that G can disagree by pretending to agree with FD who will never agree because he knows that G is disagreeing by pretending to agree by disagreeing.

He's cunning, your Moslem.

Google: Taqiyya.