Correct, LEGO.

<<If I say that Muslims as a group are dangerous, AJ, I am prejudging them.>>

That’s not a good thing either, by the way.

<<If you say that Nazis and Klansmen are dangerous, you are doing the exactly same thing.>>

Incorrect. Read on…

<<If you … believe that everybody is equal, AJ ….>>

I don’t. Some people are tall, some are short, etc…

<<We are examining three separate groups of people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and Muslims.>>

Except, not all the members of the third group hold dangerous beliefs.

<<You are quite plainly judging the first two groups of people, (which are white) with a completely different standard to the last group (who are [non-white].)>>

Wrong. See above.

<<That is racism.>>

What you described is, yes.

<<Your racist justification goes like this.>>

This’ll be good.

<<You say that I [cannot] condemn ([non-white]) Muslims as a group because their "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs" are not universally held by every individual Muslim …>>

Correct. This goes for white Muslims too, though.

Not off to a good start, are we?

<<… you refuse to extend the same argument equally to radical groups of white people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs.">>

Because their membership alone, by definition, provides us with adequate information to determine the harmfulness and dangerousness of their beliefs. There is no doublethink there.

<<Your premise…>>

Ooo, I love these ‘Your premises’. They’re never right, but always fun.

<<… is that every single individual within radical white groups all think exactly alike and they are therefore all equally dangerous.>>

Incorrect. No two individuals think exactly alike. Race has nothing to do with it either.

<<… if you wish to convince anybody who is reading this that you are not a complete hypocrite then I think you need to do a lot better than that.>>

At least I would, if your description of what I were doing was correct, but it’s not, and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Simply repeating yourself isn’t going to change that.

Back to the drawing board, LEGO.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« … the sermon from our church last Sunday … explores a couple of the links between the old and new Testaments, and Jesus' attitude to them »

The preacher of the sermon announces:

« I want to speak about … retaliation today. You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” This has often been used by people out of context … It meant that, retaliation, if it has to be taken, should be in proportion to the original offence »

Here is the context of “eye for eye” :

Leviticus 24 :

« Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death ... Anyone who injures their neighbour is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. »

[ My comment : Retaliation may be proportional but for blasphemy the proportion is about 1000/1 ]

Exodus 21 :

« If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise »

[ My comment : No mention about the pregnant woman’s brawl injury being intentional or not - presumably, it makes no difference. ]

Deuteronomy 16-21 :

« If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime and proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot »

[ My comment: Justice seeks a double objective here: retaliation and instil fear into the population. ]
.

The preacher adds that Jesus also teaches :

« If someone slaps one cheek, turn the other cheek (for him to slap too). If he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat as well. If he forces you to go one mile, go two miles. »

In other words, give “the evildoer” more than he wants.

[ My comment : By the same token, if he wants your wife, should you give him your daughter as well ? ]
.

The preacher concludes that Jesus encouragement is “to resist an evildoer”.

[ My comment : That may have made sense 2000 years ago. It doesn’t make sense today - not to me, at least. It's not "resistance", it's complicity ! ]
.

My conclusion :

Tribal justice was probably the first form of justice practiced by mankind. It is a form of restorative or reparative justice. The adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions which permeated and denatured justice, deflecting it away from its primal objective of pacification and reconciliation and reorienting it towards the pursuit of vengeance, retribution and punishment : “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”.

The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequation with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice.

.

Dear Jayb,

You claim that you don't speak on behalf of all
Muslims? Yet you persisted in quoting the nasty bits
from the Koran over and over again - the inference
being that all Muslims follow those bits. Otherwise
why would you go to so much trouble to quote those
nasty bits to us?

It does seem to me that you are lumping all Muslims
into one group. When in fact they come from different
countries, speak different languages, have different
cultures. It appears that you are prejudging them -
based on the behaviour of fundamentalists. Not all Muslims
rape, maim, or pillage. Your attitude appears to be
irrational, and inflexible, because it is directed at an entire
category of people. It is rooted in generalisations and
so ignores the differences among individuals. You seem to
believe that all Muslims share the same supposed beliefs.
That is simply wrong.

I can see that I'm unable to have a useful dialogue with
you therefore I see no further point in continuing this
discussion.

Have a nice day.

I did ask, but no reply,

"Najla,

Down to practical matters, what justification is there for insisting that girl children wear the voluminous coverings that you do?

I am not interested in any diversions on the 'differences' between hijab, niqab and burka and the other forms of concealment and political statement (claimed 'cultural' statements).

What I want to know is why any girl should be forced to wear concealing, restrictive garb but the boys are not.

However when it comes down to it, I'm not even interested in the gender inequity, but in encouraging girls to participate fully in life. In times where so many young people are suffering from mental conditions and diseases of inactivity and isolation, why girls should be further encumbered with the restrictions of a medieval creed and garb that goes with it.

Why can't kids be kids and girls be allowed to make up their own minds? -Without some sex-obsessed mullah telling them what to do."
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:12:27 AM

I added later,
"For students it is enough that they can play dress up on the cultural days that most schools have. Food variety, lots of music and fun, then back to being children with the promise of childhood for the rest of the year."

What is the 'moderate' stance on that?

An interesting perspective, 'The Muslim world wants White Knights, not critics'.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/zurairi-ar/article/the-muslim-world-wants-white-knights-not-critics