Critical analysis by Raza
The same questions, Einstein’s insanity test
At the outset, I adore the quality of the article under dissection written by Junaid. His expression is an implausible piece of literature. I have gone through the opinions of various opinion makers in the discussion thread and noted that the interactions is an enduring argument and counter argument style , hinging upon fallacy of half truths to the extent that some of the factual positions that have recently dominated international political stage are under distortion. It ruminates extraordinary inducement of international journalism and campaigns by controlled media, how pivotal these can be to effectually program a neutral judgment style and ideology of an ordinary individual. This article addresses and focuses on the misconceptions of a typical reader being overwhelmed by instinctively biased opinions.
There is a difference between theology and philanthropy. In the current discussion, both these notions have been submerged and counter flicked. Cultural integration philosophy has been sculpted to a mere campaign of conflict between ethnic groups of populations. Muslims have been targeted for terrorist’s acts and the counter argument to prohibit Muslims migration has been presented as a propitious way out. This speaks of utter ignorance and lack of insight to distinctive ideology about basic human rights and doctrine of freedom, not realizing that Australia is a country of Immigrants including those who’s slogan is “we were born here and they flew here”. It’s also noteworthy to recognize how naïve common readers are, and how easily an ordinary individual can be brainwashed with an impounded philosophy and encoded beliefs. An example is of an opinion maker who interprets and extends judgmental inferences from Koran , bible or Torah without having read those books

continued from last comments by Raza ........
I would confide with writer’s opinion that terrorism has opportunely been ascribed to all Muslims as a blanket policy. Point to ponder is; where this term of terrorism was coined and why? Not a soul labelled Irish republican army groups as terrorists? . Despite the fact that IRA attacked indiscriminately to kill their targets all over UK killing innocent people? I agree to the statement, “Define terrorism”. It appears that most of the contributors in discussion thread have fixated themselves and are defying coherent thinking outside the box. We need to delineate precincts to balance the equation of divergent ideologies. If denying holocaust calls for detention due to the reason that it hurts Jews , same principle needs to be applied to other religious and ethnic communities living in global village , we call it , “Planet Earth”
Having said so, let’s also not forget, there are state sponsored, extremist elements pervasive amongst Muslims ranks as well. Some of them are state sponsored by oil rich countries who’s polluted tyrannical so called ,”royal regimes” enjoy the support, and are close ally of western countries to suppress their own people. It’s worthwhile brooding over, why human rights groups and western countries do not raise their eyebrows towards such oppressors who are propagating extremist elements and funding militant groups covertly.
Those who use suicidal bombers and ruthlessly use children as weapons and human shields are subservient to their patrons and are proving to be instruments of specifically designed strategy to “change the world order”. They are not rendering any service to their religion. Rather , their deplorable actions and heinous crimes are directed to slander Islam as a region and thus providing an opportunity to the imperialist regimes to label all Muslims under one parasol of “terrorists”. . These radical groups strongly believe that no one has a right to live but those who agree and bow to their fallacious beliefs . Readers need to recognize this high powered game of interests. The solution is not that simple.

PeacefulPeace,

I certainly hope you haven’t disappeared as I have some more questions for you. I've lots in fact but these will suffice for now. To premise them, I expect ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. To give you an example how easy this is; if you asked me should Muslims be put to death for being Muslims, my answer would be a definitive and an unambiguous, ‘no’.

Therefore, with that in mind, my questions are as follows. (And we can assume for the exercise, the below categories of people will not convert to or back to the Islamic religion even under the threat of death)

- Should atheists be put to death for being atheists?
- Should apostates from Islam be put to death?
- If Australia became a Muslim caliphate should ex-Muslims be put to death?
- If Australia became a Muslim caliphate should all people who are not Muslims be put to death?

Shall we see which side of the Pew poll, which has been praised by George, you are on? Here is a summation of a relevant poll.

“A 2010 poll by Pew Research Center showed that 86% of Muslims in Jordan, 30% in Indonesia, 76% in Pakistan, 6% in Lebanon and 51% of Nigerian Muslims agree with death penalty for leaving Islam”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

It certainly reinforces the fact that extremists in Islam are quite numerous. Agreeing with death for thought crimes is extremist. It is an exercise in futility to argue otherwise. Granted, not all those people would enact the death themselves but the very fact they agree to it gives power to others to kill.

This is very similar to Christians agreeing with their leaders about not having a system of voluntary euthanasia but wanting the right themselves as many polls show. There are numerous other examples how religion interferes in democracy by the same process. Basically, religious folk let their leaders, thus politicians; get away with outrageous non-democratic and harm causing behaviour in our parliaments.

But, anyway, if you could answer the questions ‘truthfully’, we might be on the way to understanding you.

David

Saltpetre,

This part of the discussion started with a nonsensical statement by PeacefulPeace that atheists were insignificant in numbers. I have shown that is not so. You then blab on about how many billions of people have religious beliefs. So what, numbers do not make what is believed, to be true.

How about look at the problems caused by religion in a fine democracy like Australia and extrapolate that out to repressive theocratic nations and think about it.

Did your read my previous posts, do you keep up with what is going on in the world, did the Twin Towers atrocity happen for political reasons without the promise of religious enticement? You seem to be living in a daze of fantasy.

Whether you want to believe it or not, religion has always been and still is a disastrous system negatively affecting the lives of billions of people, mainly women. Religion is even implicated in the wiping out of elephants to make religious carvings from the tusks. Look it up. A huge proportion of the faithful don’t care about anything except salvation and the planet is going to wear the cost of this massive delusion.

Keep your religious beliefs that have been instilled into you and not chosen if you wish but please, do not promulgate the idea that it is a good thing for humanity or the world and that it is not hugely problematical to people and everything that exists.

The believed to be good parts of religion are totally dwarfed by its destructive irrational dogmatic stance on social, environmental, political and moral issues. Its main problem is that the faithful are blind to them.

I have nothing against you personally, or even PeacefulPeace, but I am totally opposed to the infantile and irresponsible thoughtless parts of religion, all religions.

Do you think for a moment you gave a satisfactory explanation for using the word, “physhing”? That word has an established definition and you may consider it ‘cute’ to have your own but people are not mind readers. Apart from that, the question I asked was valid.

David

<<Critical analysis by Raza ...yada yada yada ...Readers need to recognize this high powered game of interests. The solution is not that simple.>>

Markers comment:

Poor first effort.
Too many cliques.
Recommend wider reading/research before attempting next essay

Mark: 2/20

Footnote to Raza:
Cliques should read clichés (though cliques is applicable too)