Having just ploughed my way through Reza Aslan's "Zealot: The life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" (well written, if nothing much new for anyone who's read others' investigations into evidence of the historicity of Jesus), I listened to a Q&A with Reza.

One question, asked of Reza, revealed his thoughts regarding the possibility of an Islamic reformation (similar to a Christian reformation) and his answer was worthy of further debate.

He suggests that after 500 years since the birth of Christian reformation (2017 marks the reformation's 500th anniversary), the process of the reformation's progression has been grossly simplified in the modern psyche, boiling down to something like 'Individuals rose up against the excesses of Catholicism and Papal corruption, established Protestantism and the Protestants won".

He reminds us that the Reformation resulted in the deaths of half the population of Germany alone (and never mind all the rest who died in the thirty years war ignited by the Catholic-Protestant schism) ...

So the idea that the Christian Reformation was not a protracted and murderous process is a fantasy.

He then makes the claim that an Islamic reformation is not only possible, it is happening now. The rise of modern Islamism, Reza asserts, is evidence for the process of reformation (as happened very soon after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of that Church in Wittenberg).

He also claims that when individuals or societies question or discard dogmas of faith, the consequences are not always positive... And the process will certainly include (at least initially) a destructive and even murderous phase.

So, is Islam in the throes of an Islamic 'Reformation'?

It's very likely.

There in no islamic reformation. What you overlook is the complete absence of a reform agenda, an islamic 95 thesis.

There is an ongoung islamic civil war between the shi and the sunni, there has been vacillation between sidelining islam, rather than reforming it - (Ataturk, Arab nationalism) and muslim revival (muslim brotherhood, IS). But there not been any  energy directed towards a re-evaluation of islam. Islam has been painted into a dreadful corner by Mohammed by declaring the koran an eternal, immutable book, the very words of god himself. The semi-literates fetish for the book has made Islam unreformable: you can’t say after 1400 years that Mohammed misunderstood what was dictated to him.

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:47am:

There in no islamic reformation. What you overlook is the complete absence of a reform agenda, an islamic 95 thesis. There is an ongoung islamic civil war between the shi and the sunni, there has been vacillation between sidelining islam, rather than reforming it - (Ataturk, Arab nationalism) and muslim revival (muslim brotherhood, IS). But there not been any  energy directed towards a re-evaluation of islam. Islam has been painted into a dreadful corner by Mohammed by declaring the koran an eternal, immutable book, the very words of god himself. The semi-literates fetish for the book has made Islam unreformable: you can’t say after 1400 years that Mohammed misunderstood what was dictated to him.

Maybe, as Reza Aslan suggests, the murderous psychopathic overreaction, that characterises modern Islamism, is a symptom of the fact that Islam is being challenged by modern thinking in a way that it has no credible defence against... The beginnings of reformation Islamic style.

The existential threat is perceived as coming from within (no matter how hard Islamists attempt to externalise it)... A schism between the Islam of those Muslims who identify themselves with 21st century values and the Islam of the dark ages.

IS may be the ecstatic face of islam. But modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey, Indoneia, Malaysia. There is no new unerstanding of Islam, only sidelining of it to various degrees.
If anything, there is an iincreaing return to basics, to the source. The hijab is spreading, young urban muslim women  cover up more than their mothers did.

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:34am:

IS may be the extatic face of islam. But modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey, Indoneia, Malaysia. There is no new unerstanding of Islam, only sidelining of it to various degrees.

Are you saying that Sunni Islam, Sufi Islam, wahhabi Islam and Shi'a Islam are the same?

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:34am:

IS may be the extatic face of islam. But modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey, Indoneia, Malaysia. There is no new unerstanding of Islam, only sidelining of it to various degrees. If anything, there is an iincreaing return to basics, to the source. The hijab is spreading, young urban muslim women  cover up more than their mothers did.

Pity about that, old boy. The only way ISIL will be defeated and erradicated is with the engagement of the very countries you mention.

Carry on though. It’s fascinating to watch your attempts to build bridges and create universal harmony.

Henry Kissenger would be proud.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:41am:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: IS may be the extatic face of islam. But modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey, Indoneia, Malaysia. There is no new unerstanding of Islam, only sidelining of it to various degrees. Are you saying that Sunni Islam, Sufi Islam, wahhabi Islam and Shi'a Islam are the same?

Well, sufism is a branch of shia Islam (if not a mysticism that predates Islam but which flourished in Persia, an empire on its own before Arab conquest) as wahhabis and salafis are a branch of sunni Islam. There are sects but none are new and most importantly none are revising the undertanding of the koran and hadiths.
There will not be a reformation of Islam until the sunnis and shiites  reconcile. But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:55am:

Having just ploughed my way through Reza Aslan's "Zealot: The life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" (well written, if nothing much new for anyone who's read others' investigations into evidence of the historicity of Jesus), I listened to a Q&A with Reza. One question, asked of Reza, revealed his thoughts regarding the possibility of an Islamic reformation (similar to a Christian reformation) and his answer was worthy of further debate. ..... ..... So, is Islam in the throes of an Islamic 'Reformation'? It's very likely.

LOL

In your dreams, North.


Reza Aslan is no moderate.

Reza Aslan is simply another moslem dissembler [i.e. a moslem who is intentionally hiding or disguising his true motives].







Quote:

Reza Aslan refuses to speak out for Islamic “moderation,” says bin Laden’s version of Islam is valid Robert Spencer      Oct 31, 2012 In this revealing video clip, interview Cameron Kash presses noted “moderate” Muslim Reza Aslan on why there is no visible and organized movement of moderate Muslims working against the jihadist understanding of Islam. Aslan, arrogant as ever, first trots out the tired line that those who think that peaceful Muslims aren’t speaking out against jihadists and Islamic supremacists just aren’t paying attention, dismissing those who think otherwise as “stupid.” Kash, however, to his credit, won’t be placated by nonsense, and presses him further. ..... Also, Aslan makes no mention of the fact that jihadists make recruits among peaceful Muslims and justify their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings, and consistently portray themselves as the exponents of authentic Islam. It is perfectly reasonable for Cameron Kash to ask Aslan and his fellow “moderates” to fight that claim. Instead, Aslan makes fey gestures, bloviates and obfuscates. ..... [Reza Aslan] has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with Hamas — that is, with two of the most barbaric and murderous adherents of Sharia. Aslan has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as “the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon,” as well as the Jew-hating, women-hating, kuffar-hating Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” Aslan wrote: “The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing.” We see now just how “good” things are becoming for non-Muslims and women in Egypt under Brotherhood rule.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/reza-aslan-bin-ladens-version-of-islam-is-valid-refuses-to-speak-out-against-it



Google;
"Reza Aslan" dissembler            [i.e. liar]


Google;
The Problem With Reza Aslan's Book About Jesus

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:45am:

There in no islamic reformation. What you overlook is the complete absence of a reform agenda, an islamic 95 thesis. There is an ongoung islamic civil war between the shi and the sunni, there has been vacillation between sidelining islam, rather than reforming it - (Ataturk, Arab nationalism) and muslim revival (muslim brotherhood, IS). But there not been any  energy directed towards a re-evaluation of islam. Islam has been painted into a dreadful corner by Mohammed by declaring the koran an eternal, immutable book, the very words of god himself. The semi-literates fetish for the book has made Islam unreformable: you can’t say after 1400 years that Mohammed misunderstood what was dictated to him.

You are spot on the mark, imo, Soren.

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:34am:

modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey

The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.

Yeah.

Moderate Turkey.

Whoop-de-do!!!!!



Google;
turkey, Zirve Publishing House massacre, christians, tortured, murder

National laws that bestow - lawful - rights on infidels don't count for much, if you are a devout moslem.

Or hadn't you noticed, gandalf ?

It is a strange phenomenon,       ....the utter disregard for national [secular] laws, among ISLAMISTS.



Google;
uk muslim honour killings

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.

So they could climb to the dizzying heights of freedom that dhimmitude confered?



The Edict of 1856 and religious freedom

The Reform Edict of 1856 was intended to carry out the promises of the Tanzimat. The Edict is very specific about the status of non-Muslims, making it possible "to see it as the outcome of a period of religious restlessness that followed the Edict of 1839." Officially, part of the Tanzimat's goal was to make the state intolerant to forced conversion to Islam, also making the execution of apostates from Islam illegal. Despite the official position of the state in the midst of the Tanzimat reforms, this tolerance of non-Muslims seems to have been seriously curtailed, at least until the Reform Edict of 1856. The Ottoman empire had tried many different ways to reach out to non-Muslims. First they tried to reach out to them by giving all non-Muslims an option to apply for Dhimmi status. Having Dhimmi status gave non-Muslims the ability to live in the Ottoman Empire and own property but this ability was not without special taxes (jizya).In fact, there was constant pressure on non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and the danger of execution for apostates remained real. Thus, the Tanzimat, at least at first, failed to actively promote freedom to practice one's religion without harassment. For the "Ottoman ruling elite, 'freedom of religion' meant 'freedom to defend their religion.

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:10pm:

But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient.

It doesn't seem to stop them killing each other. Like Catholics and Orthodox did, like Protestants and Catholics did, then Protestants and Protestants.

I guess Christianity looks monolithic to outsiders as Islam does to non-Muslims.

Yadda wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Google; The Problem With Reza Aslan's Book About Jesus

Why would I do that?

There is nothing in Aslan's book which is revelatory on the subject of the historicity of Jesus (or the likely historicity of Jesus). Nor is there anything revelatory about his descriptions of the gross fabrications within the New Testament. There is near universal agreement on the historical facts or the likely historical facts of the foundation of Christianity.

The New Testament was written (significantly) decades after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and written for a gentile readership, so its lies and fabrication of Jewish life and customs and the times of early first century Palestine were generally unknown to its 2nd century readers.

Reformation is not the correct term. Reaffirmation would be a more apt phrase. , Going back to when Mo ruled killing for no real need beheading raping pillaging stealing just like 1400 years ago. The followers are just regurgitating Muhammad's vile deeds.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.

Greed ruled the Ottoman Empire in those days, Turkey had its best chance at reform under  Ataturk but Erdogan is gradually frittering the gains away. The other week he tried to force all school children, regardless of religion, to have Islamic lessons.

People are speculating that he (Turkey) is funding ISIS. Now that would be a surprise!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 2:01pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 12:10pm: But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient. It doesn't seem to stop them killing each other. Like Catholics and Orthodox did, like Protestants and Catholics did, then Protestants and Protestants. I guess Christianity looks monolithic to outsiders as Islam does to non-Muslims.

The sunnis and shia are not fighting over a reform program. There are no improvements or any other reforms proposed for Islam by ether side.

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 2:01pm: Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 12:10pm: But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient. It doesn't seem to stop them killing each other. Like Catholics and Orthodox did, like Protestants and Catholics did, then Protestants and Protestants. I guess Christianity looks monolithic to outsiders as Islam does to non-Muslims. The sunnis and shia are not fighting over a reform program.

Nor were the Lutherans and the Micks.

The Sunnis and Shi’ites are fighting for two things: security for their respective majorities in territories ruled by minority regimes; and a certain commodity that lies underneath all that sand.

It is a jolly world, no? 

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 2:01pm: Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 12:10pm: But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient. It doesn't seem to stop them killing each other. Like Catholics and Orthodox did, like Protestants and Catholics did, then Protestants and Protestants. I guess Christianity looks monolithic to outsiders as Islam does to non-Muslims. The sunnis and shia are not fighting over a reform program. There are no improvements or any other reforms proposed for Islam by ether side.

True. It's about hegemony and power. As it was with the reformation.... A war for the soul of culture... The German princes didn't take on the Vatican for 95 theses.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.

The back-sliding return to pre-Ataturk Islamism in Turkey has been underway for some years now. They have been in an aggressive de-reformation mode for quite some time now.

Karnal wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:48pm:

and a certain commodity that lies underneath all that sand.

Getting more and more irrelevant now. Fracking you "don't" know obviously.

Good Old US of A is self sufficient in there oil requirements. They require No foreign oil.

Bring on the Fracking here I say.

Oh bugger they will start to starve then and still blame the west. Catch 22 all over again!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:18pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 5:53pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 2:01pm: Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 12:10pm: But there is no Islamic ‘third way’ that could compel or even guide them. Being united against the west and israel is not sufficient. It doesn't seem to stop them killing each other. Like Catholics and Orthodox did, like Protestants and Catholics did, then Protestants and Protestants. I guess Christianity looks monolithic to outsiders as Islam does to non-Muslims. The sunnis and shia are not fighting over a reform program. There are no improvements or any other reforms proposed for Islam by ether side. True. It's about hegemony and power. As it was with the reformation.... A war for the soul of culture... The German princes didn't take on the Vatican for 95 theses.

That’s right. According to the old boy, the Holy Roman Empire was holed up, defending its ramparts from the Ottomansfor a thousand years.

University of Balogney, innit.

Adamant wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 6:48pm: and a certain commodity that lies underneath all that sand. Getting more and more irrelevant now. Fracking you "don't" know obviously. Good Old US of A is self sufficient in there oil requirements. They require No foreign oil. Bring on the Fracking here I say. Oh bugger they will start to starve then and still blame the west. Catch 22 all over again!

Right you are, Caliph. The world has forgotten about the Gulf of Arabia. We’ll leave it in the hands of ISIL and the Somali pirates, no?

We’ll just let BP, Total, Shell and Exxon fend for themselves.

It is a free world, no?

Karnal wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:04pm:

We’ll leave it in the hands of ISIL and the Somali pirates

Yes PLEASE!

Soren wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:45am:

There in no islamic reformation. What you overlook is the complete absence of a reform agenda, an islamic 95 thesis. There is an ongoung islamic civil war between the shi and the sunni, there has been vacillation between sidelining islam, rather than reforming it - (Ataturk, Arab nationalism) and muslim revival (muslim brotherhood, IS). But there not been any  energy directed towards a re-evaluation of islam. Islam has been painted into a dreadful corner by Mohammed by declaring the koran an eternal, immutable book, the very words of god himself. The semi-literates fetish for the book has made Islam unreformable: you can’t say after 1400 years that Mohammed misunderstood what was dictated to him.

Have you read Gandalf's effort at reinterpreting Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver)? Inspiring stuff.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 12:30pm: Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:34am: modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws. The back-sliding return to pre-Ataturk Islamism in Turkey has been underway for some years now. They have been in an aggressive de-reformation mode for quite some time now.

A counter-reformation? The Vatican could have provided the handbook.

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:23pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 9:45am: There in no islamic reformation. What you overlook is the complete absence of a reform agenda, an islamic 95 thesis. There is an ongoung islamic civil war between the shi and the sunni, there has been vacillation between sidelining islam, rather than reforming it - (Ataturk, Arab nationalism) and muslim revival (muslim brotherhood, IS). But there not been any  energy directed towards a re-evaluation of islam. Islam has been painted into a dreadful corner by Mohammed by declaring the koran an eternal, immutable book, the very words of god himself. The semi-literates fetish for the book has made Islam unreformable: you can’t say after 1400 years that Mohammed misunderstood what was dictated to him. Have you read Gandalf's effort at reinterpreting Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver)? Inspiring stuff.

You’re addressing the old boy, FD. He agrees with Muhammed.

Receivers often do.

World‘s first woman, gay, Christian friendly mosque torched within a month of opening in Saudi Arabia, sorry, South Africa.




"This a deliberate arson attack," the founder, Muslim academic Taj Hargey told AFP. "They used petrol and oil," he said adding close circuit television video footage showed that unidentified people had made several reconnaissance trips to the mosque two hours before the attack.       

Andre Traut, police spokesman for the city, said they "are investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire". The mosque, which welcomes gay people, Christians, and treats men and women equally, opened peacefully in Cape Town last month amid opposition and threats of violence.       

Just days after it opened, municipal officials said the mosque could be closed down unless it abides by municipal laws. Hargey said Saturday that he has already complied with the requirements and the mosque has been operating.       

He blamed his opponents for the attack which occurred on the eve of the celebration of the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha. "Instead of preparing for the holy day these people were preparing to destroy the house of God ... it's very sad, disrespectful," he said.       
But Hargey remains defiant.   "They cannot shut us down, they can try whatever they want," he said. "They have tried verbal intimidation, threats and now arson, this should be the last.""Our opponents should know that they don't have a copyright on Islam."       

Hargey has described his mosque as a "religious revolution" following on from the political revolution led by late former president Nelson Mandela when democracy replaced apartheid rule in South Africa in 1994. There are around 737,000 Muslims in South Africa, about 1.5 percent of the population, according to figures from the Pew Research Centre.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141004/world-africa/article/arson-attack-suspected-south-africas-first-gay-friendly-mosque

Not world's first. There is a mosque in New York thats run by a gay imam and women and men pray side by side, and is frequently led by women.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

Not world's first. There is a mosque in New York thats run by a gay imam and women and men pray side by side, and is frequently led by women.

Sorry - second (of two).


The first one is in the second largest jewish town in the world. How many active synagogues in Karachi, the second biggest muslim town? Cairo, the third largest, which had a 100 thouand jews a century ago but now there a fewr than 100, mostly elderly?

All good questions, old boy.

Sometimes a question is just a question, G.

Ask a question about Labia, old chap.

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

Cairo, the third largest, which had a 100 thouand jews a century ago but now there a fewr than 100, mostly elderly?

Just like Poland... And Germany!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 11:27am: Cairo, the third largest, which had a 100 thouand jews a century ago but now there a fewr than 100, mostly elderly? Just like Poland... And Germany!

Er... not Germany.
Has the 8th largest Jewish population by country.

Karnal wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

Ask a question about Labia, old chap.

As a PB, what would you know about it??

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 12:07pm: Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 11:27am: Cairo, the third largest, which had a 100 thouand jews a century ago but now there a fewr than 100, mostly elderly? Just like Poland... And Germany! Er... not Germany. Has the 8th largest Jewish population by country.

Despite their best efforts!

Country      Core Jewish Population      Proportion of country population      Enlarged Jewish Population      Proportion of country population
1 United States      5,400,000 - 6,800,000      2.11%      8,300,000[2]      2.644%
2 Israel      6,180,300      75.4%      6,332,900[2]      79.394%
3 European Union      1,105,700      0.22%      1,574,300      0.313%
4 France      478,000      0.751%      600,000      0.943%
5 Canada      380,000      1.089%      500,000      1.433%
6 United Kingdom      290,000      0.459%      360,000      0.57%
7 Russia      190,000      0.133%      380,000      0.266%
8 Argentina      181,500      0.445%      -      -
9 Germany      119,000      0.144%      250,000      0.305%

Jews get/got a raw deal from everyone - no point singling out the muslims on this one.

It's just a process, like a Rite of Passage.

What the Germans did to the Jews,
the Moslems will (very soon) do to the French.

Then the Italians will get the broken Moslems
who will be avenged by the Jews
- ironically  ;)

...this is a process of Europe getting rid of some Religion which it was oppressed with, now that the New Worlds are producing a more honest 'lived experience' of their own.

WW2 Germany "We are the Americans in Europe!" (with Military/Politics)
Great Britain "No you're not - We are (the Bad Guys) in Europe!"
;)

Adamant wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 6:48pm: and a certain commodity that lies underneath all that sand. Getting more and more irrelevant now. Fracking you "don't" know obviously. Good Old US of A is self sufficient in there oil requirements. They require No foreign oil. Bring on the Fracking here I say. Oh bugger they will start to starve then and still blame the west. Catch 22 all over again!

The US is independent for the next 10-15 years and then then the difficulties and costs of extraction will be much, much higher.  In the process they will have ruined all their ground water and their agriculture will be dying from petrochemical contamination.

So, they will be dependent on their neighbours for water and the Muslims for their oil.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 11:48am: Ask a question about Labia, old chap. As a PB, what would you know about it??

I know your lovely new flag bears a striking resemblance to it.

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Karnal wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 2:14pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 11:48am: Ask a question about Labia, old chap. As a PB, what would you know about it?? I know your lovely new flag bears a striking resemblance to it. Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Does it?? Told you you’d know nothing about it.

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 8:14pm: Soren wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 2:14pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 7th, 2014 at 11:48am: Ask a question about Labia, old chap. As a PB, what would you know about it?? I know your lovely new flag bears a striking resemblance to it. Shurely shome mishtake, eh? Does it?? Told you you’d know nothing about it.

Right you are, old boy. We PBs have never been too good at your Teutonic semiotics.

Fertility symbol, eh?

I hope it brings you some luck with the ladies, old dear.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:55am:

Having just ploughed my way through Reza Aslan's "Zealot: The life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" (well written, if nothing much new for anyone who's read others' investigations into evidence of the historicity of Jesus), I listened to a Q&A with Reza. One question, asked of Reza, revealed his thoughts regarding the possibility of an Islamic reformation (similar to a Christian reformation) and his answer was worthy of further debate.....

Reza Aslan is a complete and utter propagandist for ISLAM [i.e. he is a blatant liar and dissembler].



Quote:

Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014

Google





dissembler ?

what is a 'dissembler' ?

a dissembler, is someone with a character like this;

Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

Yadda wrote on Oct 21^st, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Reza Aslan is a complete and utter propagandist for ISLAM [i.e. he is a blatant liar and dissembler]. Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 Google

Apart from JihadWatch and religious websites, I cannot find this quote in context. Can you?

As a Christian you would agree that the deliberate misquoting of someone, for the purposes of their denigration, is unethical, wouldn't you?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 7:14am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Reza Aslan is a complete and utter propagandist for ISLAM [i.e. he is a blatant liar and dissembler]. Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 Google Apart from JihadWatch and religious websites, I cannot find this quote in context. Can you?

Yes.


Watch the video,         ......and watch those very words come out of the mouth of Reza Aslan - at 1m 55s - IN THE 1ST VIDEO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/reza-aslan-isis-muslim_n_5992110.html







NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 7:14am:

As a Christian you would agree that the deliberate misquoting of someone, for the purposes of their denigration, is unethical, wouldn't you?

Yes i would!!!!i
North,

Do you have any other observations or pronouncements for us [for me] ?





North,

QUESTION;
Is it unethical for a group of people [#1] to misrepresent themselves and to misrepresent their philosophy of life,          .....to another group of people [#2] , with the intent that they would destroy and enslave the 2nd group of people [#2] ???


"ISLAM rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony."
     - The Muslim Council of Britain



QUESTION;
Is it unethical for an individual [#1] to refuse to acknowledge some critical [i.e. life threatening!!!] information [i.e. information which can be substantiated],             because that individual [#1] has a vested interest, in not acknowledging that critical information ???




Dictionary;
vested interest = =
1 an interest (usually in land or money held in trust) recognized as belonging to a particular person.
2 a personal stake in an undertaking or state of affairs,       especially one with an expectation of financial gain.



North,

QUESTION;
Do you regard yourself, as an ethical person ?

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 7:59am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:14am: Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Reza Aslan is a complete and utter propagandist for ISLAM [i.e. he is a blatant liar and dissembler]. Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 Google Apart from JihadWatch and religious websites, I cannot find this quote in context. Can you? Yes. Watch the video,         ......and watch those very words come out of the mouth of Reza Aslan - at 1m 55s - IN THE 1ST VIDEO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/reza-aslan-isis-muslim_n_5992110.html

And the context was?

Conviction is the art of being certain




North,

I'm certain of something.






Quote:

“So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied. “How far north”? He asked. “As far north as you can go and then some”. “What? North of North?” “Yes” “You mean… south”? “No, I mean north of north”. “Well how do I get there?” “Just keep travelling north as far as it is possible to go, then head north from there”.

There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are.

Oh yeah,         ....here is the 'context' for you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/105#105

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:23am:

Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are.

That is a dishonest, ad hom, attack in response to an honest question I asked you.

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:30am:

Oh yeah,         ....here is the 'context' for you. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/105#105

Your instinct for 'attack being the best defense' (as opposed to honesty) makes me wonder if you're a Scientologist.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:34am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:30am: Oh yeah,         ....here is the 'context' for you. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/105#105 Your instinct for 'attack being the best defense' (as opposed to honesty) makes me wonder if you're a Scientologist.

I am not a Scientologist.

Honest.

[and never been associated with]



Sorry to disappoint.           :)



here is something for you though.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/238#238

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:34am: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:30am: Oh yeah,         ....here is the 'context' for you. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/105#105 Your instinct for 'attack being the best defense' (as opposed to honesty) makes me wonder if you're a Scientologist. I am not a Scientologist. Honest. [and never been associated with] Sorry to disappoint.           :)

Are you sure? So far you've posted a number of responses, calculated for ad hom attack.

None of which answer the simple, honest question... What was the context Reza Aslan's comment?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:31am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are. That is a dishonest, ad hom, attack in response to an honest question I asked you.

North,

And i gave you THE direct source of the quote......


Quote:

Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014

The context, is whatever you want to interpret it to be.


remember ?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335652989/239#239

Quote:

....Art follows awareness... And is the reason that certainty can only be imagined, not known.

But there you are, today, demanding that i provide you with certainty [re Reza Aslan's utterances] ?

How dishonest is that !!!

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:50am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:31am: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are. That is a dishonest, ad hom, attack in response to an honest question I asked you. North, And i gave you THE direct source of the quote...... Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 The context, is whatever you want to interpret it to be.

So Reza has no right to expect to be quoted in the context he intended?

north,

So what was the truth         ...that Reza Aslan was imparting to us, in his utterance....


“The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery”
    - Reza Aslan




You know, the truth that i am 'misrepresenting' or 'misunderstanding'.

The utterance about; 'the first thing that Mohammed did',   .....was what ?

Do tell.

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 10:12am:

north, So what was the truth         ...that Reza Aslan was imparting to us, in his utterance.... “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery”     - Reza Aslan You know, the truth that i am 'misrepresenting' or 'misunderstanding'. The utterance about; 'the first thing that Mohammed did',   .....was what ? Do tell.

What prompted the comment? What were they discussing?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 10:05am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:31am: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are. That is a dishonest, ad hom, attack in response to an honest question I asked you. North, And i gave you THE direct source of the quote...... Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 The context, is whatever you want to interpret it to be. So Reza has no right to expect to be quoted in the context he intended?

In what context is “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” actually true?

I can't think of any. Can you?

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 4:27pm:

In what context is “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” actually true?

Historically (according to historians and theologians).

However, it was the context of the conversation in which it was stated that is the point.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 4:39pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 4:27pm: In what context is “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” actually true? Historically (according to historians and theologians). However, it was the context of the conversation in which it was stated that is the point.

What happened to all the slave girls that you right hand possesses, as told in the Koran? Abrogated?

Quote:

What happened to all the slave girls that you right hand possesses, as told in the Koran? Abrogated?

i




Quote:

“So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied. “How far north”? He asked. “As far north as you can go and then some”. “What? North of North?” “Yes” “You mean… south”? “No, I mean north of north”. “Well how do I get there?” “Just keep travelling north as far as it is possible to go, then head north from there”.

Truth.

It is such a nebulous concept.            :P



Isn't it, North, don't you think ?

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:23am:

Conviction is the art of being certain

Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 7:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::)

Brian,

If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted.i
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1413685842/18#18

Quote:

I am, a very dangerous person.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   - George Orwell



"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
   - George Orwell

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 9:23am:

Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. Quote: “So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied. “How far north”? He asked. “As far north as you can go and then some”. “What? North of North?” “Yes” “You mean… south”? “No, I mean north of north”. “Well how do I get there?” “Just keep travelling north as far as it is possible to go, then head north from there”. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are.

A nebulous concept indeed!

But surely worthy a goal enough to at least travel as far north as north (and them some).

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:11pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::) Brian, If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted.i http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1413685842/18#18 Quote: I am, a very dangerous person. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."    - George Orwell "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."    - George Orwell

That’s right, Y. Orwell wrote extensively about the right to make two plus two equal five.

He also championed ignorance as truth, freedom equaling slavery, and endless war - we are at war with Islam. We have always been at war with Islam.

Never ever, eh?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 10:05am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:31am: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain North, I'm certain of something. There is no truth, wherever it is, that you are. That is a dishonest, ad hom, attack in response to an honest question I asked you. North, And i gave you THE direct source of the quote...... Quote: Reza Aslan: “The very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery” Oct 20, 2014 The context, is whatever you want to interpret it to be. So Reza has no right to expect to be quoted in the context he intended?

Reza like most muslims is a bullshit artist-


Quote:

The messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aisha and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him, then Allah the mighty and sublime revealed- Oh Profit, why do you forbid for yourself that which allah has allowed to you. sunnah.com/nasai/36/21

Muhammad's wives objected to him fuking his coptic christian sex slave then just in the nick of time Allah reveals a verse saying it is halal for him to bang his coptic christian sex slave.

That verse gives you the context of this Quran verse-
quran.com/66/1

The oldest Islamic website on the internet says sex slaves are halal for muslim men,perhaps Reza should educate himself on Islamic slavery instead of trying to deceive the gullible.
islamqa.info/en/10382

Of course the Islamic state are just following the example of Muhammad in taking captured women as sex slaves.

Cyrus the Great outlawed slavery in Persia around 530BC, when Muhammad was telling muslims not to bury their daughters alive Persia was ruled by a female.

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:11pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::) Brian, If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted.

Is being a bore against the law now?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2014 at 11:13am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 8:00pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:11pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::) Brian, If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted. Is being a bore against the law now?

If having your life completely taken over by Islamophobia is against the law, they'll be locking him away for a long time.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2014 at 11:13am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 8:00pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:11pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::) Brian, If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted. Is being a bore against the law now?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Yes, go to jail you petulant youth.

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 7:11pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 22nd, 2014 at 9:23am: Conviction is the art of being certain Conviction is what will happen if you ever end up before the beaks, Y.   ::) Brian, If i have committed a crime, i am sure that i will be convicted.

You wouldn't confess?  Forgotten the 9th Commandment already?  Tsk, tsk, Y.  What a fair weather Christian you're proving to be!   ::)

Mohammed did not abolish slavery, nor has Islam ever since.

As always Soren it seems Slavery and Islam is a whole lot more complex than you make it out to be.


Quote:

Islamic views on slavery first developed out of the slavery practices of pre-Islamic Arabia,[1] and were at times radically different, depending on social-political factors such as the Arab slave trade. The Islamic prophet Muhammad and many of his companions reformed the existing system of slavery by placing captives/prisoners of war (POWs) in the private custody of Muslim soldiers (rather than public/state custody, as is prevalent in the modern world) for there were no official prisons available in the newly created Muslim state in Medina headed by Muhammad. In Islamic law, the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Quran (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[2] Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim.[3] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[5] In practice, slaves played various social and economic roles, from Emir to worker. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism, and the army. Some rulers even relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that they seized power. However, people did not always treat their slaves in accordance with Islamic law. In some cases, the situation was so harsh that it led to uprisings, such as the Zanj Rebellion.[6] However, this was an exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labor in the medieval Islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[7] For a variety of reasons, internal growth of the slave population was not enough to fulfill the demand in Muslim society. This resulted in massive importation, which involved enormous suffering and loss of life from the capture and transportation of slaves from non-Muslim lands.[8] In theory, slavery in Islamic law does not have a racial or color component, although this has not always been the case in practice.[9] The Quran provides for emancipation of a slave as a means of religious atonement for sins.[citation needed] One of the five pillars of Islam, zakāt, is meant to encourage Muslims to donate money to free slaves and bonded laborers in countries where slaves and bonded laborers may exist, in the hope that over time there will be no slaves left in that country.[10]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery]

Why is that you always have such a simplistic, binary, black and white view on everything?  The real world is much more granular, made up of many shades of grey.

Is Slavery right?  Not according to Western morality, which has developed over 2,000 years.  However, we're not discussing Western morality, so one should wonder if it's as universal as you claim Soren.

Personally, I find the idea of slavery repugnant but I try and understand alternative viewpoints and I don't try and assume that my personal beliefs are necessarily the determinant of how others should run their lives.   Being psychoanalysed by you must be a real barrel of laughs Soren!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

As always Soren it seems Slavery and Islam is a whole lot more complex than you make it out to be. Why is that you always have such a simplistic, binary, black and white view on everything?  The real world is much more granular, made up of many shades of grey.

The fact remain that Mohammed did not abolish slavery, nor has Islam ever since.  If facts are too simplistic and binary for you, that is your shortcoming, not of the facts. As is not facing your pathologies.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Is Slavery right?  Not according to Western morality, which has developed over 2,000 years.  However, we're not discussing Western morality, so one should wonder if it's as universal as you claim Soren.

I certainly don't consider western morality as you call it to be universal but like Brian your soft and squishy acceptance of absolutely anything done in the name of cultural relativism is totally in accordance with your passive acceptance of subjugation of women, the killing of homosexuals, apostates and unbelievers and now slavery.

Universal declaration of human rights be buggered eh?

Though still to be consistent, I look forward to your soft and squishy non condemnation and acceptance of everything done by the great satan accorded the same measure of cultural relativism. 

Is there anything apart from the actions of the west or Christianity that you will condemn as being repressive, against human dignity and worthy of denunciation?   

I see DL has come out of his closet again to stamp his little feet.

You seem to think that I need to make a song and dance at every opportunity for me to condemn something.   My statement that I find the idea of slavery personally repugnant should be sufficient of a condemnation for reasonable people.  Which suggests what about your views?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 1:31pm:

I see DL has come out of his closet again to stamp his little feet. You seem to think that I need to make a song and dance at every opportunity for me to condemn something.   My statement that I find the idea of slavery personally repugnant should be sufficient of a condemnation for reasonable people.  Which suggests what about your views?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

There are some things that are universal. You say that personally you are against slavery but you cannot bring yourself to saying that it is wrong everywhere. Which it is.




|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Is Slavery right?  Not according to Western morality, which has developed over 2,000 years.  However, we're not discussing Western morality, so one should wonder if it's as universal as you claim Soren. Personally, I find the idea of slavery repugnant but I try and understand alternative viewpoints and I don't try and assume that my personal beliefs are necessarily the determinant of how others should run their lives.

Yeah, if others want to be slaves, who are you to object, eh?

This is as good an example as any of your stupidity or moral vileness-or both.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 1:31pm:

I see DL has come out of his closet again to stamp his little feet. You seem to think that I need to make a song and dance at every opportunity for me to condemn something.   My statement that I find the idea of slavery personally repugnant should be sufficient of a condemnation for reasonable people.  Which suggests what about your views?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Getting closer, are you willing to add condemnation to your personal note of repugnance and further do you support actions to stop slavery and free slaves or is that a step beyond that your cultural equivalences reflex prevents you taking? 

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Is Slavery right?  Not according to Western morality, which has developed over 2,000 years.  However, we're not discussing Western morality, so one should wonder if it's as universal as you claim Soren.

Having said that, though, slavery over the last 2000 years in Western society has been of course at times tolerated (and justified by religious text).

St Paul, St Peter (et al.) accepted slavery and admonished the slave to respect his master. Hence, (in one of slavery era's last major incarnations) the American colonies' (British, Dutch and Latin) pioneers used the religious texts to morally justify the keeping of slaves.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 24th, 2014 at 12:17pm: Is Slavery right?  Not according to Western morality, which has developed over 2,000 years.  However, we're not discussing Western morality, so one should wonder if it's as universal as you claim Soren. Having said that, though, slavery over the last 2000 years in Western society has been of course at times tolerated (and justified by religious text). St Paul, St Peter (et al.) accepted slavery and admonished the slave to respect his master. Hence, (in one of slavery era's last major incarnations) the American colonies' (British, Dutch and Latin) pioneers used the religious texts to morally justify the keeping of slaves.

And despite all that, slavery is unacceptable to Western minds today because of the overriding  universal value of human dignity. Not a culturally selective dignity, not a dignity that you can extend or withhold, depending on where you 'choose' to identify on the multiculti rainbow, but a universal value.
Reason trumped religious habit.

~260,000 total dead and 137,000+ were wounded, in the American Civil War defending the rights of Slave Owners so obviously there were some Christians who took convincing that slavery was abhorrent to Christians.    ::)

Nor should we forget it was the Society of Friends who were instrumental in ending the slave trade in Christendom.  They were considered extremists for most of their history as well.

Criticism of Islam is NOT Islmophobia or bigotry.

Losing my religion to Islamic radicals and Western progressives

The trend of history is being reversed. In Egypt, for instance, veiling was unheard of 50 years ago and was virtually extinct until the Islamists resurrected the practice in the 70s. Today an estimated 90 per cent of Egyptian women are veiled. In many other countries the veil — originally a tribal norm, not a religious one — is now ubiquitous, as are views on apostasy in countries that were far more progressive 50 years ago.

Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. Yet our voices are smothered in the West by Islamist apologists and their well-meaning but unwitting allies on the Left. For instance, if you try to draw attention to the stark correlation between the rise of Islamic religiosity and regressive attitudes towards women, you’re labelled an Islamophobe.

In America (and Australia) , other contemporary ideologies are routinely and openly debated in classrooms, newspapers, on talk shows and in living rooms. But Americans make an exception for Islamism. Criticism of the religion — even in abstraction — is conflated with bigotry towards Muslims. There is no public discourse, much less an ideological response, to Islamism, in academia or on Capitol Hill. This trend is creating an intellectual vacuum, where poisonous ideas are allowed to propagate unchecked.

My own experience as a Muslim in New York bears this out. Socially progressive, self-proclaimed liberals, who would denounce even the slightest injustice committed against women or minorities in America, are appalled when I express a similar criticism about my own community.

Compare the collective response after each harrowing high-school shooting in America. Intellectuals and public figures look for the root cause of the violence and ask: Why? Yet when I ask why after every terrorist attack, the disapproval I get from my non-Muslim peers is visceral: The majority of Muslims are not violent, they insist, the jihadists are a minority who don’t represent Islam, and I am fearmongering by even wondering aloud.

This is delusional thinking. (NB Brain) Even as the world witnesses the barbarity of beheadings, habitual stoning and severe subjugation of women and minorities in the Muslim world, politicians and academics lecture that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia routinely beheads women for sorcery and witchcraft.

In the US, we Muslims are handled like exotic flowers that will crumble if our faith is criticised — even if we do it ourselves. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike would apparently prefer to drop bombs in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, because killing Muslims is somehow less offensive than criticising their religion? Unfortunately, you can’t kill an idea with a bomb, and so Islamism will continue to propagate.

Muslims must tolerate civilised public debate of the texts and scripture that inform Islamism. To demand any less of us is to engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Aly Salem is an Egyptian writer based in New York.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/losing-my-religion-to-islamic-radicals-and-western-progressives/story-fnay3ubk-1227105322367

Read the whole thing.

And the next guy who cries Islamophobe or bigot when responding to criticism of Islam is a rotten egg - OK Brain, Hot Breasts et al?


Gandy, whaddaya reckon? Are you on board with these views?
   

Soren wrote on Oct 29^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within.

I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 12:13am:

Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::)

I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view.

Telling also that that is the only line you have picked up on.  The main point, identifying the toxic influence of your kind of stance, embarrassed you too much.

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view.

True, old boy. You simply have a different view that the tinted races should be exterminated. You also have a view that your opinion is superior and that people who disagree are idiots, numties, PBs, mendatious, lying and stoopid.

I agree, old chap. All views are valid. There are no right or wrong answers. We're all friends here. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Every child wins a prize.

We're all right, no?

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view.

No, Soren, I call them a bigot and/or a racist because their views aren't different but because their views are racist and/or bigoted.   Detect the difference?

So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::)


Quote:

Telling also that that is the only line you have picked up on.  The main point, identifying the toxic influence of your kind of stance, embarrassed you too much.

Not really, I picked up the contradiction between what you claim and what this person claims.    You appear to have no problems reconciling two opposite viewpoints in your mind at the same time.   Should make an interesting case note.   

Now now, Brain, the old boy clearly feels victimised here. You have no right to offend him. That is a form of abuse and places the old boy at risk of psychological damage, or worse.

No one has the right to not be offended. The old boy has feelings too, you know. You take that back and apologise before the old boy does something he might regret.

He’s really quite sensitive, you know. He just needs our respect and admiration.

If we don’t grant him that, the old boy can hardly be held responsible for his actions, now can he?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 8:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view. No, Soren, I call them a bigot and/or a racist because their views aren't different but because their views are racist and/or bigoted.   Detect the difference? So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::)

How is criticism of Islam racism, thicko?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Not really, I picked up the contradiction between what you claim and what this person claims.    You appear to have no problems reconciling two opposite viewpoints in your mind at the same time.   Should make an interesting case note.

I am not calling him racist for not agreeing with me on every detail. That must throw you into this incomprehending state of mind (if mind is the word I want in your case).

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 8:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view. No, Soren, I call them a bigot and/or a racist because their views aren't different but because their views are racist and/or bigoted.   Detect the difference? So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racism, thicko?

How is criticism of the tinted races racist? We simply won’t have it, old boy.

You should not be victimised simply because you have a different view to the numpties and idiots. This is a form of abuse and should be a criminal offence.

Karnal wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:38pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 10:29pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 8:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view. No, Soren, I call them a bigot and/or a racist because their views aren't different but because their views are racist and/or bigoted.   Detect the difference? So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racism, thicko? How is criticism of the tinted races racist? We simply won’t have it, old boy. You should not be victimised simply because you have a different view to the numpties and idiots. This is a form of abuse and should be a criminal offence.

Soooo.....   How is criticism of Islam racism, thicko 2?

It’s not, old boy. It’s imperative. Racism isn’t racism either.

Correlation, innit.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::)

How is criticism of Islam racist, thicko 1 and thicko 2?

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 8:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 12:13am: Soren wrote on Oct 29th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. I thought you believed that was impossible, Soren?   Amazing that you'd post an article that contained it, actually.  You don't see anything hypocritical in doing so?   ::) I am not a narrow-minded, dishonest muppet like you, Brain, who will call anyone a bigot and a racist simply because they have a different view. No, Soren, I call them a bigot and/or a racist because their views aren't different but because their views are racist and/or bigoted.   Detect the difference? So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racism, thicko?

I didn't claim it was.  You used the word first, remember?  I was replying to your use of it.    ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Not really, I picked up the contradiction between what you claim and what this person claims.    You appear to have no problems reconciling two opposite viewpoints in your mind at the same time.   Should make an interesting case note.    I am not calling him racist for not agreeing with me on every detail. That must throw you into this incomprehending state of mind (if mind is the word I want in your case).

I didn't suggest you should call him "Racist", Soren.  Anyway, doesn't this contradict what you've just said about Islam not being a "race"?    ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racist, thicko 1 and thicko 2?

Yet again, I didn't claim it was, Soren.  You do seem to be unable to follow an argument.  So, what do you call a person who posts racist diatribes (not about Islam)? Well?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 12:36am:

Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 10:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racist, thicko 1 and thicko 2? Yet again, I didn't claim it was, Soren.  You do seem to be unable to follow an argument.  So, what do you call a person who posts racist diatribes (not about Islam)? Well?   ::)

I am unable to follow YOUR argument, Brain.  I posted an excerpt from an article that mentions no racism. Yet you insist on a question about racism. That follows only in your own dishonest mind.


Criticism of Islam is NOT Islamophobia or bigotry. Or racism.

Losing my religion to Islamic radicals and Western progressives

The trend of history is being reversed. In Egypt, for instance, veiling was unheard of 50 years ago and was virtually extinct until the Islamists resurrected the practice in the 70s. Today an estimated 90 per cent of Egyptian women are veiled. In many other countries the veil — originally a tribal norm, not a religious one — is now ubiquitous, as are views on apostasy in countries that were far more progressive 50 years ago.

Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. Yet our voices are smothered in the West by Islamist apologists and their well-meaning but unwitting allies on the Left. For instance, if you try to draw attention to the stark correlation between the rise of Islamic religiosity and regressive attitudes towards women, you’re labelled an Islamophobe.

In America (and Australia) , other contemporary ideologies are routinely and openly debated in classrooms, newspapers, on talk shows and in living rooms. But Americans make an exception for Islamism. Criticism of the religion — even in abstraction — is conflated with bigotry towards Muslims. There is no public discourse, much less an ideological response, to Islamism, in academia or on Capitol Hill. This trend is creating an intellectual vacuum, where poisonous ideas are allowed to propagate unchecked.

My own experience as a Muslim in New York bears this out. Socially progressive, self-proclaimed liberals, who would denounce even the slightest injustice committed against women or minorities in America, are appalled when I express a similar criticism about my own community.

Compare the collective response after each harrowing high-school shooting in America. Intellectuals and public figures look for the root cause of the violence and ask: Why? Yet when I ask why after every terrorist attack, the disapproval I get from my non-Muslim peers is visceral: The majority of Muslims are not violent, they insist, the jihadists are a minority who don’t represent Islam, and I am fearmongering by even wondering aloud.

This is delusional thinking. (NB Brain) Even as the world witnesses the barbarity of beheadings, habitual stoning and severe subjugation of women and minorities in the Muslim world, politicians and academics lecture that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia routinely beheads women for sorcery and witchcraft.

In the US, we Muslims are handled like exotic flowers that will crumble if our faith is criticised — even if we do it ourselves. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike would apparently prefer to drop bombs in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, because killing Muslims is somehow less offensive than criticising their religion? Unfortunately, you can’t kill an idea with a bomb, and so Islamism will continue to propagate.

Muslims must tolerate civilised public debate of the texts and scripture that inform Islamism. To demand any less of us is to engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Aly Salem is an Egyptian writer based in New York.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/losing-my-religion-to-islamic-radicals-and-western-progressives/story-fnay3ubk-1227105322367

Not a WORD on racism. Not a word.

And the next guy who cries Islamophobe or bigot when responding to criticism of Islam is a rotten egg - OK Brain?

This piece must make you torn Soren. On the one hand you'll happily use it to highlight the useful idiots of the left who are enabling the extremists, but on the other hand you'll have to mock the author for thinking that islam can be reformed from within.

And don't think that the irony of someone constantly ridiculing muslims for advocating an "islam-driven" reform of islam and insisting only the extremists have got it right - now decrying the enablers of islamic extremists (in this case the apologists from the left) - has gone unnoticed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 10:23am:

This piece must make you torn Soren. On the one hand you'll happily use it to highlight the useful idiots of the left who are enabling the extremists, but on the other hand you'll have to mock the author for thinking that islam can be reformed from within. And don't think that the irony of someone constantly ridiculing muslims for advocating an "islam-driven" reform of islam and insisting only the extremists have got it right - now decrying the enablers of islamic extremists (in this case the apologists from the left) - has gone unnoticed.

Nonsense. I am not ridiculing Muslims for advocating an 'Islam-driven' reform. Never have.

I am saying that you are NOT setting the agenda for Islam, the jihadis are.  I am also saying that the doctrine of the immutability of the Koran has painted you into a corner you cannot escape from without declaring it to be not the eternal and final word of go but a text by Mohammed. 





Remember this?

Soren wrote on Oct 15^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 15th, 2014 at 1:18pm: And in other breaking news.... hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims lived out their lives like normal people today - without hurting anyone. ... while the vanguard of Islam does its best to establish the caliphate, the protection of Islam from criticism, etc, etc. You are not setting the Islamic agenda, Gandy. I would love to help you, and as I said, I will be marching with you arm in arm if you can organise a demo of Muslims for liberal democracy. Until then you are simply watching the weak horse and the strong horse contest.

Well thats good Soren, yet another reason to respect your opinions more than some other people's here.

Nevertheless, I have already debunked that 'agenda setting' claim of yours - simply by pointing out the huge swathes of muslim dominated areas in which the "moderates" hold sway eg - Indonesia (the largest muslim population in the world) and Turkey, where your so called "agenda setters" are rejected and defeated time and time again. I'm sure FD would love to chime in also and cite his favourite example of brave Afghanis coming out in force to vote in defiance to taliban intimidation. Just this week even a moderate islamist party was rejected in free and fair elections in Tunisia - in favour of secular parties. You could even say that the islamists in Egypt were rejected in large part to anti-islamist people power.

Anti-islamist, pro secularists are setting the agenda all over the islamic world Soren, irrespective of your refusal to notice it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 11:48am:

Well thats good Soren, yet another reason to respect your opinions more than some other people's here. Nevertheless, I have already debunked that 'agenda setting' claim of yours - simply by pointing out the huge swathes of muslim dominated areas in which the "moderates" hold sway eg - Indonesia (the largest muslim population in the world) and Turkey, where your so called "agenda setters" are rejected and defeated time and time again. I'm sure FD would love to chime in also and cite his favourite example of brave Afghanis coming out in force to vote in defiance to taliban intimidation. Just this week even a moderate islamist party was rejected in free and fair elections in Tunisia - in favour of secular parties. You could even say that the islamists in Egypt were rejected in large part to anti-islamist people power. Anti-islamist, pro secularists are setting the agenda all over the islamic world Soren, irrespective of your refusal to notice it.

These are not exactly examples of "islam-driven reform of islam"  (your formulation a couple of posts ago). More like islam-sidelined reforms. And the sidelining is difficult.

Tunisia:
After the economy and the balance between secularism and Islam, security was the key issue in the vote. Many Tunisians reckon that the Nahda-led coalition government was culpably slow in responding to the spread of jihadist ideology in the country’s mosques after the fall of Mr Ben Ali. The public is no longer shocked by news of anti-terrorist operations. Just days before the election, a shoot-out with alleged jihadists left one policemen and six others dead (five women among them). The presence of armed national national guardsmen and soldiers outside polling stations made for a more sombre mood than the celebratory post-revolutionary election three years ago.
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21628920-surprising-defeat-islamist-nahda-party-secularists-comeback


Indonesia
Singapore-based scholar Martin van Bruinessen is editor of a new book with a misleadingly bland title, Contemporary Developments in Indonesian Islam, that sets out to explain the "conservative turn" in the faith of more than 200 million people who live on our doorstep.

"If you ask me what I find threatening in Indonesian Islam, it's not the terrorism," van Bruinessen says. "Terrorism has been reduced to a level that society can live with. The police are efficient, they will catch most of the would-be terrorists.

"It is this conservative trend that I find much more worrying than terrorism. It reduces the freedom of minorities in the first place, and the freedom of many people within the Muslim majority to develop their views."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/more-rigid-islam-in-indonesia/story-e6frg6so-1226678644547
A long and instructive article.

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 12:05pm:

These are not exactly examples of "islam-driven reform of islam"  (your formulation a couple of posts ago). More like islam-sidelined reforms. And the sidelining is difficult

It seems there is no pleasing you Soren - you seem to demand an islam that is out of politics and out of people's face. Yet when this demonstrably occurs, its suddenly nothing to do with islam. Give credit where credit's due - if you've been following my arguments on the subject you will see there is a very strong movement for a secular islam, that has a strong doctrinal basis - starting with the Quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion. And its happened in history before, firstly during the islamic Golden Age where (for example) the Mu'tazila inspired a culture of Quranically-inspired rational and free thought, and secondly during the late Ottoman empire where the Caliph recruited top islamic scholars to draft secular freedom of religion laws, that were firmly rooted in islamic doctrine.

The dominance of secular, anti-islamist culture and laws in many parts of the islamic world cannot simply be dismissed as "muslims being secular despite islam" as you are so clearly attempting to do - unless you can cite clear and specific anti-islamic drivers - which you can't. The fact is, these are things that are implemented and driven by people who are proudly and openly muslim. And there is nothing whatsoever to suggest they are trying to subvert their religion in any way.


Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 12:05pm:

Many Tunisians reckon that the Nahda-led coalition government was culpably slow in responding to the spread of jihadist ideology in the country’s mosques after the fall of Mr Ben Ali.

All you are demonstrating is that Tunisia is a muslim country that overwhelmingly rejects jihadist ideology. Your insinuation that rejecting jihadist ideology must mean Tunisians are somehow "sidelining" islam fails the logic test.


Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 12:05pm:

Indonesia Singapore-based scholar Martin van Bruinessen is editor of a new book with a misleadingly bland title, Contemporary Developments in Indonesian Islam, that sets out to explain the "conservative turn" in the faith of more than 200 million people who live on our doorstep.

The article is paywalled. But so called "experts" have been predicting the descent of Indonesia into an islamist hell hole since pretty much the second Suharto fell. Its never happened.  In fact Indonesia is in a far less precarious state now than it was 10 years ago. Jihadists are kept under the thumb - there were far more muslims standing up to protest ISIL than there were supporters. In the last presidential campaign Probowo's blatant smear campaign on Widodo and his christian running mate attacking his islamic credentials failed, and now Widodo has just swarn in a large group of (mostly) scarfless women into his cabinet. Even within the democratic process, islamists don't even get a look in - all but the tiniest percentage of votes go towards staunchly secularist parties. Islamist political parties are about as popular as Ricky Muir here. You simply don't have this sort of political and cultural landscape with the big bad islamists just looming over the horizon. Its a fantasy, and it been played up ad-nauseum for so long now. In fact you'd be forgiven for thinking there are vested interests in playing up this non-existent threat.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 2:36pm:

[ You simply don't have this sort of political and cultural landscape with the big bad islamists just looming over the horizon. Its a fantasy, and it been played up ad-nauseum for so long now. In fact you'd be forgiven for thinking there are vested interests in playing up this non-existent threat.

Are there? I thought it was pretty clear that Indonesia is so far from Islamicism the very idea is ludicrous.

I wonder what the old boy's interest is. Shares in anti-Musel companies? Oil? News Limited?

Or is it simply that no one has the right to not be offended?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 2:36pm:

The article is paywalled.

IN the country that is home to the largest number of Muslims on the planet, Islamic political parties have never managed to command a majority in national elections. And there have been Muslim leaders more willing than mainstream politicians to jump to the defence of religious minorities under attack.

Yet intolerant Islam is on the march. The last synagogue on the crowded island of Java, sealed off by Islamic radicals since 2009, was torn down in May. On Lombok, not far from the Australian playground of Bali, there are families of the Ahmadiyah Muslim sect still living in camps after they were driven from their homes as heretics seven years ago.

This is Indonesia, where home-grown and imported variants of Islam jostle with a new democracy and rapid economic development. Also in play are other great faiths, Christianity and Hinduism included, and less well-known traditions, such as Javanese spiritualism. The results are by turns paradoxical, reassuring and worrying.

The campaign of terror that peaked in the Bali bomb attacks has been checked, by and large, by tough, often lethal, police action. But beyond the headlines there has been a change in the mood and outlook of mass Islam that no neighbouring nation can ignore.

Singapore-based scholar Martin van Bruinessen is editor of a new book with a misleadingly bland title, Contemporary Developments in Indonesian Islam, that sets out to explain the "conservative turn" in the faith of more than 200 million people who live on our doorstep.

"If you ask me what I find threatening in Indonesian Islam, it's not the terrorism," van Bruinessen says. "Terrorism has been reduced to a level that society can live with. The police are efficient, they will catch most of the would-be terrorists.

"It is this conservative trend that I find much more worrying than terrorism. It reduces the freedom of minorities in the first place, and the freedom of many people within the Muslim majority to develop their views."

Not so long ago, when the dictator Suharto was still in power, Indonesia was celebrated for presenting a "Islam with a smiling face". Behind the scenes, of course, not everything was bliss. Muslim groups were prominent in the mass slaughter of "godless communists" after the 1965 coup. And the rebel fighters of Darul Islam, a post-war movement demanding an Islamic state, held territory as late as 1963 and continue to inspire today's jihadis.

Even so, after Suharto's fall in 1998 there was an undeniable upsurge of violent inter-communal conflict, jihadi movements, terror attacks and agitation for sharia law. Things are calmer now but there remains a corrosive level of religious intolerance and thuggery - and authorities are too willing to look the other way.

Every year the West has fewer experts to explain to outsiders what is happening in Indonesia. At work are profound changes in the academy, its funding and the interests of students. Now retired, van Bruinessen is a member of that fast-disappearing breed of specialists in Indonesian Islam.

The University of Melbourne's Tim Lindsey is acutely aware of this, which is why he has set up the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society. He hopes to pass on the knowledge of retired experts and to encourage a new generation of scholars.

There is a lot at stake. "This is incredibly important for Australia's future," he says. "The issue about Islam in Indonesia is not terrorism. The position of Islamic political parties in Indonesia, where Islam as a religion will stand in the constitutional and civil arrangements of the state - there are really big issues that Indonesia is still working through.

"Questions of religious intolerance, of Islamic hardliners attacking people they think are doctrinally unsound - these are serious questions of human rights and the role of government; these are mainstream questions."

British anthropologist Andrew Beatty saw these questions worked out intimately in village life in East Java, where he went to live with his family in 1992. The result was a fascinating, rather dispiriting book: A Shadow Falls in the Heart of Java.

"This was an island where people of radically different ideology - orthodox Muslims, Hinduised mystics and animistic peasants - managed to live together in harmony," he writes. "But the Java we first knew and the Java we left in 1997 were different places.

"The transformation - long prepared but still unexpected - was quite sudden and shocking. A puritan, ideologically driven Islam had made rapid progress, pushing aside older traditions, disturbing an ancient pact that allowed ancestral spirits and pre-Islamic deities a place among the prayer houses.

"The gentle world that we had known - of Muslims and mystics, of dancers and shadow plays - was in eclipse. And with the rise of an assertive (Muslim) piety, neighbourhoods and communities were splitting. Inside every family a struggle over the faith was taking place. And not only in Java. Repeated wherever Muslims live, this will decide the future shape of the Islamic world.

"Indonesia ... shows us better than anywhere how to live peacefully with cultural difference. That diversity and respect for pluralism are now under threat. Almost uniquely in the Muslim world, Java still has the cultural means to confront the challenge. It has lessons for us all."

What Beatty chronicles at village level, van Bruinessen's book analyses within mass movements as important in Indonesia as they are unknown to most Australians.

The Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama are the two leading Muslim associations of Indonesia. With about nine million and 38 million followers respectively, these are "probably the largest and most complex organisations (in) the entire Muslim world," van Bruinessen says.

Founded in 1912 by an official of the Yogyakarta sultanate, the Muhammadiyah set out to steer a middle course between accommodation of old Javanese culture and a reformist purging of practices alien to Islam, such as intercession of saints and magic.

The bigger and more traditional Nahdlatul Ulama appealed to villagers and local businesses that clung to a much wider range of practices and beliefs than those sanctioned by the reformist canon of the Koran and the sayings of prophet Mohammed.

NU produced Abdurrahman Wahid, who parlayed his opposition to the Suharto regime and political Islam into a historic role as Indonesia's first elected president in 1999.

As a modernist organisation, the Muhammadiyah and its urban middle-class supporters built up a vast network of schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, orphanages and mosques. By the middle of the 2000s, both Muhammadiyah and NU faced infiltration by organisations linked to radical Muslim groups operating internationally. One of these challengers, Hizb ut-Tahrir, which hankers for a global caliphate under sharia law, also has a foothold in Australia.

What happened in Indonesia is recounted in van Bruinessen's book by Ahmad Najib Burhani, a scholar at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

In 2005, there were attempts to co-opt Muhammadiyah mosques, schools and universities by activists of a radical movement that took shape as a political party, the Prosperous Justice Party, inspired by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Conservatives within the Muhammadiyah, already in the ascendant, shared some common ground with Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Yet they joined forces with Muhammadiyah liberals to protect their organisation against the PJP.

A few years later, when the Muhammadiyah staged its 2010 congress in Yogyakarta, staff wore Javanese costumes, complete with ceremonial daggers. There was Javanese music and dance, reflecting an organisation more at ease with local culture and less hidebound than was thought. But the struggle between liberals and progressives has left the Muhammadiyah unstable - only "shakily moderate", in Najib's formula - and this is one reason Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of the Bali bomber group, has dismissed it as banci, an Indonesian word meaning hermaphrodite or sexless.

As for the PJP, it has had a dramatic fall from grace because of a corruption scandal to do with Indonesia's beef import quota, a reminder that there is more to this trade than the troubles of Australia's cattle industry.

This pattern - of troubling shifts in Indonesian Islam that, under analysis, offer some reassurance - is repeated in the book chapter on Solo, the city in central Java notorious for jihadi groups and for vigilantes who harass Westerners in hotels and bars. Yet, as scholar Muhammad Wildan points out, there has been no serious push to impose sharia locally.

And it is the very weakness of orthodox Islam in Solo that gives these groups their "radical edge", for the city is a peculiar stronghold of Java's court tradition, which intermixes Hindu, Buddhist and animist elements. "Only a fraction of society supports the Islamic radical groups in the city," Wildan says.

The van Bruinessen book also charts the paradoxical failure of a sharia campaign in South Sulawesi, a region with a long history of militant and rebellious Islam. Even here, it may be that "sharia is not a very marketable political commodity", says researcher Mujiburrahman.

Yet another chapter follows the Suharto-era Indonesian Council of Muslim Scholars as it struggles to reinvent itself as a servant of a divided Muslim community. After the 2001 attacks in New York it contrived to condemn terrorism without abjuring warlike jihad, thereby exposing itself to criticism from hardliners as well as progressives. Academic Moch Nur Ichwan says some of its other fatwas on public morals, religious pluralism and minorities "have been used or abused" by Islamists to foment intolerance and violent conflict, including expulsion of Ahmadiyah families from their homes in Lombok.

He says: "Many critics consider (the council), because of the disproportionate influence of the relatively few radical members and the absence of balancing progressive voices, as a potential threat to human rights, freedom of thought and freedom of religious practice and conscience."

In van Bruinessen's book, there is a tension between deep unease and reassurance. He says: "I am worried and I want my readers to be worried, but I also want them to see that things cannot be reduced to a simple black and white view. There is resilience, there are still many liberals, many progressives, but they are no longer the dominant voice in Indonesian Islam."

Much of it is mainstream, not Muslim, politics, he says, as President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his rivals play the religious card. If intolerant Islam always had its backers in Indonesia, democracy has amplified them.

"It is true that democratisation opens space for many new voices, including intolerant voices," van Bruinessen says. "(But this is) a fairly dangerous hypothesis because it might lead you to anti-democratic conclusions."

One remedy that may surprise some is for Australia to keep up close relations with Indonesia's military as more and more officers who know nothing but democracy rise through the ranks.

Retired brigadier Gary Hogan, who served as defence attache in Jakarta, argues there is a lot to be said for perpetuating personal ties with Indonesia's military and helping it to modernise culturally. Hogan has in mind two objectives vital to our national interest.

"One is that Indonesia remains stable, and the other is that Indonesia remains secular," he told an international affairs forum last month in Melbourne.

"There was a time when it was almost the Islamic republic of Indonesia back in the 1940s - it was a close-run thing. I think we want the republic of Indonesia, not the Islamic republic of Indonesia, as our neighbour."

I say, old chap, what nuanced, balanced and comprehensive articles on Indonesia. Good show.

Alas, they’re just the sort of thing FD hates but I, for one, will fight to the death for your right to post them.

You see? Freeedom does not need to be the expression of dumb, vain porkies. It is able to embrace well researched and intelligent points of view.

Alas, I’m no fan of Indonesian politics. It’s corrupt, nepotistic and favours big money and global corporations. The division of wealth is appalling. But the Indonesians do not tolerate Islamic extremism. Actually, Indonesian people in general, are actually very nice.

Thanks for pointing it out, dear boy.

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 9:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 12:36am: Soren wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 10:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 30th, 2014 at 5:49pm: So, using your logic, what do you call someone who continually posts racism?  Mmmm?  "Oh, you person with a different view!"    ::) How is criticism of Islam racist, thicko 1 and thicko 2? Yet again, I didn't claim it was, Soren.  You do seem to be unable to follow an argument.  So, what do you call a person who posts racist diatribes (not about Islam)? Well?   ::) I am unable to follow YOUR argument, Brain.  I posted an excerpt from an article that mentions no racism. Yet you insist on a question about racism. That follows only in your own dishonest mind.

I used "racism" as an example of giving the correct, proper name to a viewpoint.  I knew that if I'd used "Islamophobia", you'd, as usual tap danced around the matter.   Remember, though, YOU used the word "racism" first, not me.     ::) 


Quote:

Criticism of Islam is NOT Islamophobia or bigotry. Or racism.

When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do, it certainly is Islamophobia, Soren.   Your views have been corrected numerous times yet it makes no difference, you still carry on with your persecution of Muslims and their beliefs.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 7:51pm:

When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do

Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist?

Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile

Thank you, Soren for demonstrating just how extreme your attitudes are.   Do you really consider yourself moderate with that sort of language?  Or the attitudes you routinely display towards Muslims and Islam?    ::)

I agree, Soren. If you want to address thickoes like myself and Brain, you shall need to moderate your tone and show suitable respect to us as fellow thinkers.

Come back to us when you wish to cease such abuse and engage in reasonable debate, thank you very much. I refuse to reward such language with a response. I just hope for your sake Sprint does not report you.

No one on this board has the right to not be offended, you know.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 11:33pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile Thank you, Soren for demonstrating just how extreme your attitudes are.   Do you really consider yourself moderate with that sort of language?  Or the attitudes you routinely display towards Muslims and Islam?    ::)

You are the worst kind of soft fascist, Brian.  Anything you cannot properly argue you declare 'extreme'. Or bigoted. Or racist. You are a no-idea little fascist: you want submission to your narrow little political agenda and anyone who doesn't conform is denounced, as if your denunciation meant anything.

I hate ratty little men like you who resort to denunciation as their opening gambit. Despicable and dangerous little bastards you are.

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 10:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile Thank you, Soren for demonstrating just how extreme your attitudes are.   Do you really consider yourself moderate with that sort of language?  Or the attitudes you routinely display towards Muslims and Islam?    ::) You are the worst kind of soft fascist, Brian.  Anything you cannot properly argue you declare 'extreme'. Or bigoted. Or racist. You are a no-idea little fascist: you want submission to your narrow little political agenda and anyone who doesn't conform is denounced, as if your denunciation meant anything. I hate ratty little men like you who resort to denunciation as their opening gambit. Despicable and dangerous little bastards you are.

I hate ratty little men who attempt to persecute innocent people and who declare people guilty because of association and then keep resorting to ad hominem insults when you're called on it, like a child who's been caught with it's hand in the biscuit barrel.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 11:36pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 2014 at 10:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile Thank you, Soren for demonstrating just how extreme your attitudes are.   Do you really consider yourself moderate with that sort of language?  Or the attitudes you routinely display towards Muslims and Islam?    ::) You are the worst kind of soft fascist, Brian.  Anything you cannot properly argue you declare 'extreme'. Or bigoted. Or racist. You are a no-idea little fascist: you want submission to your narrow little political agenda and anyone who doesn't conform is denounced, as if your denunciation meant anything. I hate ratty little men like you who resort to denunciation as their opening gambit. Despicable and dangerous little bastards you are. I hate ratty little men who attempt to persecute innocent people and who declare people guilty because of association and then keep resorting to ad hominem insults when you're called on it, like a child who's been caught with it's hand in the biscuit barrel.    ::)

I declared innocent people guilty? Persecuted innocents? Where?  Show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckc9_zQzHy0

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 10:19pm:

I hate ratty little men like you who resort to denunciation as their opening gambit. Despicable and dangerous little bastards you are.

Love speech 2.

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist?

Pillow talk.

How many examples of love speech would you like, FD?

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile

Have the forum rules been abandoned?

                            :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:56am:

Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile Have the forum rules been abandoned?                             :-/

Rules? What rules? This is a principaled position. It's all about Freeedom.

FD's quite cranky at me for not articulating a stance on the issue. Personally, I think the old boy should have the Freeeeeedom to air his dirty laundry out in public.

However, I do think he should show restraint. This is not the Jerry Springer Show, after all. We are not Amerikans here, we're British. We have things called manners.

The old boy has a principaled position.

You see? It's all part of the jolly world of multiculturalism. Rich tapestry, innit.

Time to revise the figures.

According to islamic terrorism apologists, if there are no figures to show how many Australian non muslims are actively participating in terrorist activities, there definitely would be some by a factor of 0 to any given number.

Well in order to be fair I have revised my stats on the islamic terror apologist's reasoning that there absolutely has to more that we don't know about.

We know for absolute certain there are 161 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terror. Using a lower ratio than the apologists, I will use the ratio of 1:1

Therefore 161 Australian muslim terrorists we know about, add 161 or more to give the islamic terror apologists theory some credence, we have at least 332 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terrorism. (by islamic terror apologists logic)

2% = 332  then 100% = 16,600.

New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian.

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:33am:

Time to revise the figures. According to islamic terrorism apologists, if there are no figures to show how many Australian non muslims are actively participating in terrorist activities, there definitely would be some by a factor of 0 to any given number. Well in order to be fair I have revised my stats on the islamic terror apologist's reasoning that there absolutely has to more that we don't know about. We know for absolute certain there are 161 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terror. Using a lower ration than the apologists, I will use the ration of 1:1 Therefore 161 Australian muslim terrorists we know about, add 161 or more to give the islamic terror apologists theory some credence, we have at least 332 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terrorism. (by islamic terror apologists logic) 2% = 332  then 100% = 16,600. New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian.

Maths and logic are certainly not your strong points.  Maybe try a different angle.

By the way, who are these "islamic terrorism apologists" you talk of?  I've never seen anyone in here supporting terrorism.

Anybody who makes excuses for them.

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:46am:

Anybody who makes excuses for them.

I've not seen anyone making excuses for terrorists.

Do you have any names?

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:33am:

New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian.

Gee, that's quite a revision there, Moses. Yes, I imagine only Muslims would take part in Islamic terror groups.

Unless you include the Christian Armenians and Ananda Margas the old boy blames for Muslim terrorism.

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Yes I admit I'm inclined to believe figures that fit the apologist's claims. Australian muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be a terrorist than any body else.

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:33am:

New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian.

Yes, that makes sense.

I can't really imagine anyone other than Muslims actively taking part in Islamic terror groups.

Don't we have a Commissioner for discrimination in Australaia?

How dare non muslim Australians not join islamic terror groups?

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 12:22pm:

Yes I admit I'm inclined to believe figures that fit the apologist's claims. Australian muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be a terrorist than any body else.

No no, Australian Muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be an Muslim terrorist than anyone else, remember?


moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:33am:

New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian.

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 12:45pm:

Don't we have a Commissioner for discrimination in Australaia? How dare non muslim Australians not join islamic terror groups?

I know, it's so inconvenient to your ever-shifting argument, Moses.

I admit that I will change my mind if evidence comes forward that shows I got it wrong, no problems there for me at all.

That is why I was swayed by the apologist's excuse / argument re the likelihood of a muslim being an active terrorist.

My revised position is:

According to islamic terrorism apologists, if there are no figures to show how many Australian non muslims are actively participating in terrorist activities, there definitely would be some by a factor of 0 to any given number.

Well in order to be fair I have revised my stats on the islamic terror apologist's reasoning that there absolutely has to be more that we don't know about.

We know for absolute certain there are 161 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terror. Using a lower ratio than the apologists, I will use the ratio of 1:1

Therefore 161 Australian muslim terrorists we know about, add 161 or more to give the islamic terror apologists theory some credence, we have at least 332 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terrorism. (by islamic terror apologists logic)

2% = 332  then 100% = 16,600.

New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian actively participating in a terrorist group.

Of course Karnal if someone could give some believable, verifiable figures as to how many non muslim Australians are actively engaging in terror activities and support, I'll always go with verifiable facts.

Moses, the one thing we can rely upon is that you will never adhere to facts. It’s been proven time and time again.

I’ll give you a statistic you can take to the bank. Nine out of ten Moses posts are completely nuts.

Mind you, I have to say you’ve improved. Your posts used to be not only nuts, but aggro as well. You’re learned some manners, and for this I’m grateful.

Gud is great, no?

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:59pm:

I admit that I will change my mind if evidence comes forward that shows I got it wrong, no problems there for me at all. That is why I was swayed by the apologist's excuse / argument re the likelihood of a muslim being an active terrorist. My revised position is: According to islamic terrorism apologists, if there are no figures to show how many Australian non muslims are actively participating in terrorist activities, there definitely would be some by a factor of 0 to any given number. Well in order to be fair I have revised my stats on the islamic terror apologist's reasoning that there absolutely has to be more that we don't know about. We know for absolute certain there are 161 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terror. Using a lower ratio than the apologists, I will use the ratio of 1:1 Therefore 161 Australian muslim terrorists we know about, add 161 or more to give the islamic terror apologists theory some credence, we have at least 332 Australian muslims actively taking part in islamic terrorism. (by islamic terror apologists logic) 2% = 332  then 100% = 16,600. New figures are: Australain muslims are 16,600 times more likely to be actively taking part in islamic terror groups, than any non muslim Australian actively participating in a terrorist group. Of course Karnal if someone could give some believable, verifiable figures as to how many non muslim Australians are actively engaging in terror activities and support, I'll always go with verifiable facts.

The Deputy Federal Police Commissioner reported on Q&A that a number of non-Muslims have been charged of fighting in foreign conflicts. Among them: a Christian convicted last year in Brisbane for fighting in West Papua.

Karnal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:13pm:

The Deputy Federal Police Commissioner reported on Q&A that a number of non-Muslims have been charged of fighting in foreign conflicts. Among them: a Christian convicted last year in Brisbane for fighting in West Papua.

Careful, K. You're on the verge of admitting that the no-fighting-overseas laws aren't Islamophobic, racially motivated, or otherwise directed towards our Muslim community.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 9:13pm: The Deputy Federal Police Commissioner reported on Q&A that a number of non-Muslims have been charged of fighting in foreign conflicts. Among them: a Christian convicted last year in Brisbane for fighting in West Papua. Careful, K. You're on the verge of admitting that the no-fighting-overseas laws aren't Islamophobic, racially motivated, or otherwise directed towards our Muslim community.

The law you’re referring to  has only just been enacted.

The Brisbane case and others were prosecuted under the 1978 foreign.fighter’s act.

You don’t think the new laws are directed at Muslims?

I don’t think anyone believes that.

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 7:33am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 2nd, 2014 at 11:36pm: Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 2014 at 10:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 9:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 31st, 2014 at 7:51pm: When carried to the extreme level that you and your compatriots do Two words for you, looney - bugger Off.   Who the bloody f**k are you to say what is or is not 'extreme', you self-righteous fascist? Adjust your self-perceptions, lunatic.  You are no authority in anything. Elevating verbal criticism to 'extreme level' makes you a self-identifying imbecile Thank you, Soren for demonstrating just how extreme your attitudes are.   Do you really consider yourself moderate with that sort of language?  Or the attitudes you routinely display towards Muslims and Islam?    ::) You are the worst kind of soft fascist, Brian.  Anything you cannot properly argue you declare 'extreme'. Or bigoted. Or racist. You are a no-idea little fascist: you want submission to your narrow little political agenda and anyone who doesn't conform is denounced, as if your denunciation meant anything. I hate ratty little men like you who resort to denunciation as their opening gambit. Despicable and dangerous little bastards you are. I hate ratty little men who attempt to persecute innocent people and who declare people guilty because of association and then keep resorting to ad hominem insults when you're called on it, like a child who's been caught with it's hand in the biscuit barrel.    ::) I declared innocent people guilty? Persecuted innocents? Where?  Show.

Your continued persecution of all Muslims, Soren.    ::)

moses wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:46am:

Anybody who makes excuses for them.

I haven't seen anybody make excuses for Terrorism, Moses.

Would you care to post a quote?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 12:41am:

Your continued persecution of all Muslims, Soren.    ::)

All Muslims? Really?
You must have some quotes showing this, no?

Yes, better correct that, Brian. All tinted races.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 12:42am:

moses wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 11:46am: Anybody who makes excuses for them. I haven't seen anybody make excuses for Terrorism, Moses. Would you care to post a quote?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

Another slippery slope, is that...

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;

... When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew...