Another PADDLER OF MISINFORMATION

This paddler of misinformation finally quotes a sensible author Karen Armstrong, (apart from the usual hate-sites stuff):

<<....Many people in the Muslim world, including the majority of their political leaders, were eager to transform and restructure the socioeconomic and political structures of their societies after the model of the capitalist West.>> post of 22 Jan 8:16 AM.

Yet true to the spirit of misinformation spins, insists that:

<<What she doesn't point out was that they had an albatross about their necks, to wit, the Koran>>

NO, SHE DOES ADDRESS QURAN IN DEPTH in her works.

She has studied Quran and respects it - her secular outlook may not be agreeable for many believers.

Karen Armstrong’s representative findings on Quran that may interest the readers are;

“The Quran gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before Western women were accorded such status”;

On violence in Quran, the person has been paddling so much of the misinformation about;

1. “In the Koran, therefore, the ONLY PERMISSIBLE WAR IS ONE OF SELF-DEFENSE”;

2. “Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190)”;

3. “Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40)”;

4. “Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3)”; and

5. “….but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45)”.

And on Muhammad, a representative statement of Karen Armstrong:

“The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia……..

A very thoughtful article which should be read by one and all and its true meaning should be understood.

@ McAdam
still cherrying his confirmation bias

<<Beneficiaries of war dividends, that is, big banks and military-industrial-security-intelligence complexes in major capitalist countries, have found this sinister strategy of obfuscating the root causes of terrorism quite useful>>

McAdam have you met the poster Arjay?
You and him would make excellent soul mates ;)

NC says: <<Another PADDLER OF MISINFORMATION>>

LOL no one could ever accuse NC of being that ...both NC and McAdam have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle for some time now :)

This Suspicious Person with questionable Reliability is always in haste while reading and then has repeatedly shown his inability to comprehend and retain what he claims to have read. His focus, is not on the idea under discussion, but on the person on whom he is keen to pass unsubstantiated cheep remarks.

The line he quotes, implying to be mine, is of the author of the article, and is in inverted commas. My comments on the article are contained in the third post on the subject. Point out any thing, and I will defend.

This thread is littered with the cheap unsubstantiated personal remarks he made, or the falsehood he paddled. Latest by him was about the No Go Zones in Europe. Fox News has since apologized repeatedly for the comments by their terror expert Steven Emerson, who claimed Birmingham was "totally Muslim" and ruled by Sharia law.Fox News host Jeanine Pirro subsequently said Emerson had "made a serious factual error. Emerson said he had made an "inexcusable error".
Prime Minister David Cameron responded by calling him "a complete idiot" (BBC).
City of Paris is contemplating legal action against the liars and say "Our logic is very simple, We want Fox News to assume responsibility because they hurt us, they hurt the city of Paris."

Any regret, any remorse or any shame by this Suspicious Person?....None.

This is the person who attempted to substantiate his wild judgement on me by quoting other persons, as proof of what I had said. Off the mark by such a great margin can be a person who is; out of his senses or totally unmindful of the consequences of he being proven wrong. A trait of a liar or of person lacking shame completely.

Who is he a perfect soulmate of? I have yet to come across a person, as low as that

McAdam,

I wasnt going to buy into the no-go zones. However, since you have twisted my arm...

But, first, let me say that one needs to take with a huge grain of salt anything high profile politicians permit themselves to see or to say in our PC rich environment. So citing David Cameron's PC crafted comments hold little water.

Here is a much better assessment:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

<<A 120-page research paper entitled "No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?" documented dozens of French neighborhoods "where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings."

In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, "Banlieue de la République" (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.>>

Please read the full article.