Joe,

I have been saving this second message of the day in a hope to hear your response to my questions. But then, you must be busy on this Christmas day.

Now I get this question from Jardine “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

The question tells you a lot about the concerns raised on this thread to which you responded “Nobody is demonising Muslims – nobody has to”, which I rated as positive. Now what?

You may like to drop a line or two on above question as well when you address my queries, I have raised with you.

This person’s statement preceding this demand is an extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in one’s complete ignorance: Amazing!

Then demanding a response is another extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in others’ inability to see who this person is: More amazing!

Hope you are having a nice Christmas.

NC

I notice you didn't answer my question.

Let's get one thing straight. If someone advocates or believes in killing, enslaving and raping people, it's not "demonising" them to point it out.

Do you, or not?

And if you don't, then doesn't that mean you're saying Mohammed and the Koran are wrong?

Yes Jardine, good point.

To use NCs own adjective, it is AMAZING how when questions like the ones you posed are raised. The gap between the extremists the moderates disappears!

Jardine K. Jardine,
"I think your are confusing "the nation as a whole" with the state. Just because politicians say something doesn't mean the nation as a whole is rising up."

Are you saying that State is rising up against terrorism and the Nation of Pakistan is not?

I am sure most, if not all, on this thread can distinguish between state and the nation, Do you suggest that nation means that every one out of the two hundred odd millions of them have exact one position? It is absurd to expect, it never happens in any nation. Does the nation here mean; executive, judiciary, legislature, all political parties, almost all religious leaders, civil society, public opinion at large and the press? If that is what comprises a nation, for the purpose of this discussion? then Yes, believe it or not, they are all on one page and are fully supporting the all out operation launched by the law enforcement agencies and the armed forces. These are facts; take them as I am presenting or contradict them with evidence;...... not conjecture. Don't waste every body's time by further exposing your ignorance of the ground realities of the region masked by the main stream western media.

The second point you raise about the religion, .....we'll address that too, ......after we settle this one first. Any logical and meaningful discussion has to be, point by point.

Jardine, the person who taught you "If you can't convince them, confuse them", I have read him too and will not allow you to make gobbledegook of this discussion. Unless of course, the confusion is your last resort and you are bent upon leading this discussion deep into the abyss of confusion. And if you did that, every one on this thread will know, what you really stand for.

Merry Christmas

McAdam

By nation I mean the people at large, all the people in the territory of a state. By the state I mean that group in society claiming a legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making backed by force.

I think in Pakistan the situation is that the vast majority of people are appalled by the recent killings of children, but probably there are some who sympathise with the Taliban. The state is motivated to stop the Taliban from killing people for numerous reasons. One of them is outrage at the killing of children. Another is that it's embarrassed it happened in an army school thus demonstrating the state's own impotence. Another is because the state, being a monopoly of force, seeks to forcibly suppress any person or group acting in competition with the state's claim of a legal monopoly of initiating aggression in any event.

"... they are all on one page and are fully supporting the all out operation launched by the law enforcement agencies and the armed forces."

It would be surprising if they weren't, considering what just happened.

However the operation you refer to is an armed operation against the Taliban. My question is about the state and the nation's recognition of, or willingness to deal with any underlying problem in the Muslim religion itself that motivates the Taliban to do these kinds of things, and IS, and Boko Haram, and the guy in the Lindt cafe, and so on.

The question is whether Muslims in general:
a) agree with Mohammed and the Koran that it's okay to kill, enslave and rape non-believers, in which case the fact that they are not doing it doesn't mean they don't believe in it, it just means they're not acting on their beliefs; or
b) don't agree with Mohammed and the Koran that it's okay to kill, enslave and rape non-believers, in which case they should reject and condemn Islam - shouldn't they?

My question of you is, do you think it's okay to kill, enslave and rape people for not believing in the Muslim religion?

NC/McAdam,

A bit selective there: Jardine asked, as an 'if-then'-type question:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?

"If not, do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not, apart from fearing for your life from the violence of your co-religionists if you were to do so?"

which you corrupted into:

" ..... “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

The second part depends on a positive answer to the first part: 'if A, then B or not B ?' You can't wriggle out of that by simply distorting what Jardine asked.

So what's your answer to his question ?

Do you think we're complete idiots out here ? That sort of bullsh!tting might go down well in a madrassa, but not in the real world.

Joe