Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 8:30pm:



Gandalf's point just went whizzing over the top of your head, didn't it?

Among his salient points was the illustration of how difficult it is to engage in rational debate about well considered criticism of Islam because those of us who defend are too busy defending the preposterous to engage in such a debate.

You lot don't start at ground zero.

As such, those of us who defend against the constant and outrageous slurs against Islam are called 'mussy lovers' or 'apologists'or other such ridiculous names that completely overlook the fact that we may ourselves have input to give into a critical analysis of Islam ... but we are too busy trying to get the issue to ground zero.

If you want an intelligent, informative and rational debate, try not being such a bigoted, reactionary twat.

mothra wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 8:41pm:



Well then, what is your defence of sharia law, jihad, the second class status of women and non-Muslims under sharia,  murder of apostates, the perfection of the Koran and Mohammed?

Explain. And do try to be rational rather than  evasive and emotive.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 11:33pm:



Have we reached ground zero Soren?

From the tone of your post i strongly suspect not.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 9:15am:


Call them Muslimophobes then, if they dislike all Muslims.

But to conflate the rational rejection of an ideology with disdain for all its followers is a sleight of hand by the Islamophobia mongers.  It is calculated to avoid every opportunity to discuss the flaws in Islam - which is what you do every time I criticise Islam.

Soren wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 12:27pm:


  Islamophobia mongers. Really. Now your prejudice isn't your responsibility it's thrust upon you?

What you don't seem to understand Soren is that criticism of Islam involves having an objective view towards what Islam actually is.

You have a very prejudiced view as to what Islam actually is. It is not, as you seem determined to believe, represented particularly well (or at least fairly) by the people behaving the worst amongst its ranks.

Fanatics interpreting the Quran in such a way as to justify their bad behaviour is no different at all to the many, many fanatics of both the Christian and Jewish faith who do precisely the same things with their own books. More-so, these fanatics are not representative of the religion as a whole or even in the main.

There are more Muslims interpreting the Quran peacefully than there are interpreting it to do terrible things. As such, if you want to critisise Islam per se, it is only fair to criticise what is most common, not what is extreme. Knock yourself out condemning extremism, i'll join you,  but call it what it is.  Refusal to accept that the main of Islam is not as is represented by the extreme is Islamophobic.

Not the 'mongered' sort of Islamophobe, a self-determined one. Like you.

Now now, G. The old boy has every right to uphold porkies. It’s his duty as a rational, rather than evasive and emotional, subject. Intelligence and integrity, innit. Self-critical insight.

Good heavens, I’m bursting at the seams.

Stupid or mendacious? Mendacious or stupid? Questions, questions. Reason, insight, truth.

I simply couldn’t eat another thing.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 2:07pm:


If there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia' and it is indeed an 'irrational' fear, would you mind telling us whether it was objectively 'rational' or 'irrational' of the Charlie Hebdo staff to be fearful of elements of Islam?

Soren wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:


hmmm - how about ones that don't involve blatant lies? Now there's a thought