freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:


I don't have a case to back up FD. *I'M* not the one ridiculously claiming that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population "oppose" the implementation of hudud apostasy and stoning laws, with not a shred of evidence. *I'M* not the one saying that the only "proof" we need for this claim is merely to feel the vibe and to "take an honest guess".

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:


No, clearly they were saying "we oppose hudud apostasy and adultery laws", even if there is no evidence of them doing so. Its all about the vibe. 

FD's logic: Group x were talking about issue a - therefore that proves that they oppose issue b.

Thats what we call a logical fallacy.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:


uhuh - and once again we use FD logic to "prove" that their responses to issue a means they oppose issue b.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:


But it is absolutely reasonable grounds for discarding actual evidence to prove a baseless claim. You just need to take an "honest guess". 

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:28am:


I understand that FD - it is not proof of your position that 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery - because you have no proof. Thats the whole point here.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:28am:


I disagree with your position FD. Your position is that 100% of non-muslims oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery, and that opposition helps make up a 2/3rds majority democratic bloc that has been the main thing standing in the way of the majority of muslims who want to implement the laws. That is your position, and however much you try and spin it into something different, this has always been your position ever since post 1 of this thread.

And in case I haven't mentioned it already, it is a position that is simplistic, ignorant - and above all completely lacking in fact.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:28am:


In a discussion about whether or not 100% of the entire non-muslim population "oppose" hudud laws on apostasy and adultery. However you spin these responses (and you are spinning them - nowhere does it say they were picking and choosing which aspects of the known hudud laws they were responding to), they most certainly are *NOT* providing any sort of evidence that they oppose hudud laws on apostasy and adultery. But I'm glad you seemed to have abandoned the schtick about somehow not needing 100% of the non-muslim population to reach 2/3rds, and fairy tales about "creative rounding" and faulty maths on my part.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


Sure, you said 2/3rds of the population oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


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

And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws, and no real reason to suspect that they would. And no one except you is wildly flailing around screaming hysterically about "allowing muslims to start killing people in the name of islam".

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


No, I'm the only one here pointing out that this is the only piece of evidence we have on what non-muslims think about the issue, and that it strongly suggests the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.

What are non-muslim's view about enacting hudud apostasy and stoning laws? We don't really know precisely, but we *DO* know that in a survey in which non-muslims are asked about hudud law - period, not "hudud law minus apostasy and adultery laws", non-muslims overwhelmingly either said it was "fair to all" or were unsure. That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100% of these people "oppose" above mentioned hudud laws. You are simply wrong if you are trying to say that the respondents were only talking about a particular aspect(s) of hudud when they state it was "fair to all" - because no such distinction is indicated, anywhere.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


Of course not FD - you definitely weren't claiming "they were not saying they support executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death" - right? Oh wait...

On planet earth, they were talking about hudud - executing apostates and stoning adulterers is a well known aspect of hudud. PAS have made it clear that it is part of *THEIR* hudud policy. These non-muslim respondents were talking specifically about PAS's hudud policy.

But no, they definitely weren't talking about hudud apostasy and stoning laws. 

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


Here's another one of my fantasies FD: you claimed 2/3rds of the population oppose introducing hudud apostasy and stoning laws. Its good that you won't have to bother explaining your evidence for that claim since you obviously never said that - right? 

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


Would you like me to go over the figures again? Exactly what part of my calculation is wrong FD - precisely? Did you notice the bit where I mentioned I used exactly the same figures as you used in the OP??

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:


31 and 33 percent to be precise - according to *YOUR* figures in the OP. That makes 30 and 28 percent respectively amongst muslims who oppose - correct? How much is 2/3rds FD? 66.6% right? So we need 36.6% more to oppose stoning and 38.6% to oppose death for apostasy. What is the total percentage of non-muslims FD? 39% - right? Well as it turns out we have a massive 2.4% "support" for stoning and a whopping 0.4% support for death for apostasy. Is that what you are trying to pass off as a "small but significant minority?"  

Quote:


Says the guy who insists views like "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" obviously apply to executing apostates.

Quote:


Because that is what it is like. Whether they use a bomb or a court ordered execution, it is still killing a person who has done nothing wrong.

Quote:


No we aren't. Islamic apostasy laws are obviously going to be applied to people who don't want Islamic law in any shape or form, and it is dsingenuous of you to suggest anything else.

Quote:


Yet it is still killing people in the name of Islam, isn't it?

Quote:


Actually Gandalf, that is you avoiding the question, yet again. That is a great example of you not having the balls to disagree with me, at the same time as you demand proof.

Quote:


They say nothing at all about the topic, only about the willingness of Muslims to spin BS.

Quote:


Your claim remember Gandalf. Not mine.

Quote:


Ok, that's what I was saying, and it is clearly true.

Quote:


Yes, until you get it right.

Quote:


No idea. You presented a lot of arm waving, then at the end pulled 100 out of your arse.

Quote:


It's a bit closer, but I still had much larger numbers than you. If you repeatedly round at each stage of the calculations you are obviously going to get a silly answer. But it is good that you did not wave your arms in the air and say 0% at the end. This shows that you are a thinking man.

Quote:


It is not dishonest. It is killing people in the name of Islam.

Quote:


Oh dear. How many pages will it take me to convince Gandalf that blowing up malls was entirely his fantasy, and not what I said? It is kind of ironic for a Muslims to spin my words into something completely different, then accuse me of misleading spin.

Quote:


I did not say 99.6% That was you gandalf. I said what I (actually) said because it is not at all unreasonable to expect non-Muslims to oppose Muslims blowing up malls. Oops I meant killing people in the name of Islam. I bet you cannot even get Brian to support executing apostates, and I think Brian is a reasonable representation of the 1% end who might be tempted to. Maybe you think Indians and Chinese are all like Brian, or worse, but I give them more credit.

Quote:


So Indians and Chinese think it is OK for Muslims to kill innocent people, so long as it is not them?

Quote:


It is pretty rare for politicians to abstain, particularly when it comes to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You pretty much have to choose a side Gandalf.

Sharia's Protector

December 27, 2013


Rohullah Qarizada is one of those Afghans you used to see a lot on American TV in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban's fall. Trimly bearded, dapper in Western suit and tie, he heads the Afghan Independent Bar Association in Kabul. Did you know Kabul had a bar association? A few years back, I ran into one of the U.S. prosecutors who helped set it up, with a grant from the Swedish foreign ministry. Mr. Qarizada currently sits on a committee charged with making revisions to the Afghan legal code. What kind of revisions? Well, for example: "Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances by one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning."

As in stoning to death. That's the proposed improvement to Article 21. Article 23 specifies that said punishment shall be performed in public. Mr. Qarizada gave an interview to Reuters, explaining that the reintroduction of stoning was really no big deal: You'd have to have witnesses, and they'd better be consistent. "The judge asks each witness many questions," he said, "and if one answer differs from other witnesses then the court will reject the claim." So that's all right then.

Stoning is making something of a comeback in the world's legal codes — in October the Sultan of Brunei announced plans to put it on his books. Nevertheless, Kabul has the unique distinction of proposing to introduce the practice on America's watch. Afghanistan is an American protectorate; its kleptocrat president is an American client, kept alive these last twelve years only by American arms. The Afghan campaign is this nation's longest war — and our longest un-won war: That's to say, nowadays we can't even lose in under a decade. I used to say that, 24 hours after the last Western soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there. But it's already as if we were never there: The last Christian church in the country was razed to the ground in 2010.

At this point, Americans sigh wearily and shrug, "Afghanistan, the graveyard of empire," or sneer, "If they want to live in a seventh-century s***hole, bugger 'em." But neither assertion is true. Do five minutes' googling, and you'll find images from the Sixties and early Seventies of women in skirts above the knee listening to the latest Beatles releases in Kabul record stores. True, a stone's throw (so to speak) from the capital, King Zahir's relatively benign reign was not always in evidence. But, even so, if it's too much to undo the barbarism of centuries, why could the supposed superpower not even return the country to the fitful civilization of the disco era? The American imperium has lasted over twice as long as the Taliban's rule — and yet, unlike them, we left no trace.

Seven years ago, in my book America Alone, I quoted a riposte to the natives by a British administrator, and it proved such a hit with readers that for the next couple of years at live stage appearances, from Vancouver to Vienna, Madrid to Melbourne, I would be asked to reprise it — like the imperialist version of a Beatles cover band. The chap in question was Sir Charles Napier, out in India and faced with the practice of suttee — the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier's response was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India is better off without suttee, just as Afghanistan would be better off without child marriage, honor killing, death for apostasy, and stoning for adultery. What my readers liked about my little bit of Napier karaoke at live appearances was its cultural cool. It wasn't an argument for more war, more bombs, more killing, but for more cultural confidence. In the long run, that's more effective than a drone.

The rest here: http://www.steynonline.com/5933/sharia-protector

Many, too many, people in the Western democracies have lost their cultural confidence in Western democracy.

Soren wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:


There are some interesting street photos of Iran before the Islamic revolution, not a burka or dishdash to be seen and the men wearing western suits.

How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to kill apostates and stone adulterers to death?

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


You seriously believe that when asked about "hudud" - with no qualifications - respondents will naturally infer that some parts of hudud are not included - even when the context of such a question is *SPECIFICALLY* about a particular political party's hudud policy, of which apostasy and adultery laws are well known to be part of?

You are being unreasonable. If stoning and apostasy laws left such a sour taste in people's mouths, then it is obvious that such feelings would be reflected in such a survey.

By the way, here is the survey. The relevant question is on page 45. It translates as: "Do hudud laws promise justice for all?" Very simple - no qualifications, just hudud in its entirety. If you are going to invent some scenario that they were actually only talking about parts of hudud, then you need some evidence.

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


Fine have it your way - there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws -killing other people in the name of islam

You still cannot refute that.

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


Ah ok, more games. Here you go then...

That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100% the vast majority of these people "oppose" above mentioned hudud laws.

You do believe that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose implementing hudud stoning and apostasy - err oops sorry I mean killing people in the name of islam laws yes? But you have exactly zero evidence to support this belief - yes?

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



The calculations are all there on reply # 42 - thats for apostasy. You claimed I did some "creative rounding". Well the calculations are all there FD - please show me where I got wrong. Don't say you don't know, its all there step by step. I came up with 99.6% of the non-muslim population (near enough to 100%??). Remember, all the figures came from your figures in the OP.

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


Prey tell, show me your calculations.

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


It wasn't what you said, I never even claimed it was what you said. You really should quote what I actually say FD.

You did however infer that that is what it is like. You simply cannot bear using an accurate description like "introducing laws to execute apostates and stone adulterers". No, it is far too neutral and unemotional. You have to say "killing people in the name of islam" - understanding only too well that terrorists in a shopping mall also "kill people in the name of islam".

FD's argument relies entirely on emotion - not on facts:

1. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?"

compared to...

2. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims are in favour of allowing muslims to introduce laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers"

compared to...

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

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

Number 2 is misleading because it doesn't specify that they apply only to the Malay population.

Number 1 is just hysterical shreaking, and doesn't even mention the actual issue being discussed - namely apostasy and adultery hudud laws, and may as well be asking if non-muslims support muslim terrorists being allowed to shoot up a shopping mall or blow up a bus.

In a massive and unexpected twist, FD opts for number 1.