Good to see that Europe is beginning to shake off multiculturalism. Ireland and Denmark have started offering incentives for immigrants to return to their homelands, France has banned the Burka and now the Swiss have banned minarets. In Australia, we have to ask now what side of history do we want to be on - a failed multicultural state, or a proud, united Anglo-Christian powerhouse (with small minorites of other happy ethnicities)?

Also, it's vital that history records that it was a small minority of secular humanists who tried to inflict their poisonous Worldview on very content societies. These progressives should be held intellectual responsible for the difficulties that immigrants will face from now on.

A classic example of the "tyranny of the majority", and a very good case of what's wrong with so-called Citizen Initiated Referenda.

Scary stuff indeed.

Not sure why that is so important. It has always been like that. All islamic countries ban christian churches. And if you dared to hum a chrismas song while walking on the footpath in Saudi Arabia you would go to jail, or worse.

Scary indeed CJ Morgan.

I wonder what would be the outcomes if other European countries held similar referenda.

I doubt a similar referendum in Australia would get past.

TRUTHNOW78 agree, multiculturalism is at best a joke, at worst the sell out of Australias founding fathers (and mothers).

Australia was never founded on the notion of “send me your huddled masses”

Assimilation, where individuals of differing ethnic and religious backgrounds progressive blend, usually through intermarriage of the second and third generations etc. is the solution which has worked for successful nations in the past and will work in the future.

Multiculturalism is just a sick attempt to deny the success of assimilation.

Renysol “All islamic countries ban christian churches. And if you dared to hum a chrismas song while walking on the footpath in Saudi Arabia you would go to jail, or worse.”

Until such excesses are abandoned, any expectation of unfettered promotion of their faith by Muslims is and always will be a complete hypocris

CJ "A classic example of the "tyranny of the majority", and a very good case of what's wrong with so-called Citizen Initiated Referenda.

Scary stuff indeed." You're making a joke right?

Yes, terrible isn't it - when tyranny of the minority is so much more desirable. /sarc

stevenlmeyer "I doubt a similar referendum in Australia would get past."

Why do you doubt that Steven, do you think that tolerence is so available in Australia?

For instance: you have CJ who is intolerent of other posters who do not agree with him, but wrings his hands at the injustices and the apparant intolerence of other countries, which turns out to be democracy of course, but let's not go there when we're pontificating.

I think a referendum like that in Australia would get up, many people feel let down and unrepresented by our successive big population governments who are overly welcoming to people who do not seem to integrate.

I feel sorry for all the European countries whose cultures are being diluted by people who when they arrived agreed to integrate, then do the exact opposite, no wonder the Swiss voted for this.

What's different here? The people in SW Sydney campaigned against a huge Islamic complex, because they felt disenfranchised by the process, many agree with them.

Maybe you need to take a good look around your own country?

I'm in Europe right now, people here think the Swiss are protecting their culture and heritage, there is no "outrage" at what has happened.

Some clarification please, renysol.

>>All islamic countries ban christian churches. And if you dared to hum a chrismas song while walking on the footpath in Saudi Arabia you would go to jail, or worse.<<

If I read this correctly - and please let me know if I am wrong - you would like us to emulate this behaviour here in Australia.

Ban the building of mosques. Ban the muezzin. Ban the minaret. Ban anyone humming "in a middle-eastern manner".

Become, in fact, exactly as intolerant as the overseas examples you provide.

Would that be correct?

I don't know, dodgy topic. I consider myself center of the road inmy beliefs with variations either way depending on the topic. Really, I've no issue with middle eastern buildings being erected - and quite obviously they won't be everywhere, but they're beautiful - but I do have an issue with the opposite of intolerance especially when it's comes to allowing things like Sharia getting a some air time in a democratic based society.

Have your religion, and build your buildings, but if you want me to respect you lose some of the extreme right wing thoughts of your own. We ALL know they're there.

Well none of our business, it is Switzerland not Australia. Their call, not every country has to be the same.

I would really appreciate it if there was a place free from religion. that particular right does not appear to exist except in communism. Oh well I am a red under the bed I s'pose.

Religion is something that should be allowed to be observed privately but I have no real issue banning public grandiose building in the name of any religion. No reason in my opinion. Mirvac is the architectural god of today so no roman arches, minerets, spires, steeples need apply. Just pre-formed concrete lego allowed. Afterall about all that passes under council, state, environment al laws in Australia.

This is another article showing that the pathetic left does not really accept democracy along with Islam itself. Though the population vote against something in masses they blame right right wing xenophobia. One could easily argue that the global warming scam is largely supported by left wing xenophobia. That is actually closer to the mark. Maybe the Swiss are just a little bit smarter than the apathetic British who has allowed Muslims to soil Britain and make it a no go zone in some areas. These areas are expanding quicker than many will admit.

btw

I am so over everytime some group do not get their own way it is racist, xenophobic, discrimination blah, blah.

This is about architecture, a building design. If this type of architecture is so important to someone's religion why go somewhere where there are so few? Most immigrants accept that things will be different than their original homelands and they accept it more often than not. Once you pander to the ones that demand replica then you start to attract peolpe that will not accept difference.

So those that demand a changed landscape, a changed country, changed architecture, are the xenophobic intolerent bigots. They could have stayed or migrated elsewhere if it did not provide necessary steeple, minerets or what ever other lump of conrete that turns them on.

I have no comment on what other countries do; that's their business.

But, the same thing could not happen here because our elected dictators will not allow us Citizen Initiated Referenda.

CIR are not to be feared. They represent real democracy, and those not in favour of a proposal can vote NO if they wish to.

TheMissus,

Isn't having soemwhere where overt displays of religion are banned be an overt display of belief?

1) The Swiss can decide what they want in their own country.
2) In the last 60 years, how many churches have been constructed in the muslim countries? Zero!
3) In the last 60 years, how many mosques have been constructed in Europe? Thousands!
4) Every islamic commentator speaks about "discrimination"!
5) When in Rome, do as the Romans do! Are the muslims in Europe listening?

"The right wing extreme nationalist part, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) sponsored the national referendum calling for a complete ban on minarets, a clear attack on freedom of religious expression, something enshrined in the Swiss constitution." Paul Doolan

It is sad to see that Paul Doolan has scant regard for the rights of the Swiss and the democratic porcess. The Swiss People’s Party has grown to be the most popular political party in Switzerland.

The surprising thing is that Doolan (a political scientist) does not know that Islam is a political system and does not believe in the political process because once it comes to power it would crush all the other political and religious systems.

In fact all European countries should demolish all mosques and Islamic religious schools as they are threat to non-Muslims and finally "moderate" Muslims.

In Egypt the non-Muslims are persecuted, set on fire and their property confiscated. http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=252:egypt-mob-attacks-christian-man-for-visiting-muslim-brothel&catid=103:islam

Time to get tough with the Islamists and its sympathisers

Cool
Maybe they will take the logical next step and ban all church steeples as well.

Yes, democracy (in its various forms) is indeed the best and fairest political system, albeit there is no perfect democratic system.

Great system even for the simplistic left when it suits them, although not when a clear majority disagrees with them.

odo,

I have little doubt that a referendum on cutting back immigration would succeed in Australia. No doubt CJ Morgan would accuse Australians of being "racist" or "Islamo-phobic" (whatever THAT may mean) for wanting to restrict immigration.

But cutting back on immigration is a very different thing to discriminating against people already here. Whatever their views on immigration, I doubt most Australians would want to curtail the religious freedoms of people who are already settled in this country.

But I wonder how the Austrians, Belgians, Brits, Czechs, Danes, Dutch, French, Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Poles etc would vote on a minaret resolution. My guess is that in quite a few of those countries the vote would be to ban minaret construction.

TheMissus,

If there were general regulations regarding all religious building that would be a different matter. But this is aimed specifically at one religion.

As you know I have never made a secret of my disdain for contemporary Islam. I think contemporary Islam is BEYOND despicable.

But I think it wrong to single out one religion. To the extent that a state gets involved in religion at all it should treat all religions – indeed all belief systems – equally.

All that being said I must confess I find being subjected to a wailing "call to prayer" from a minaret quite grating on my nerves. By contrast I find the sound of church bells quite melodious.

Oh well, I suppose it's a matter of musical taste. The call to prayer should not be banned because of one individual's nerves.

Chris Lewis

Democracy is about more than majority rules. It is about due process, equal treatment under the law, the right to say things which are unpopular and so on. That is why countries like the US have constitutions that embed certain rights that cannot be overridden by a simple majority. Maybe they've carried rule by judge too far in the US; but I think on the whole it is better than majoritarianism.

One point that no-one has mentioned relates to the claim in the article that "the referendum result contradicts the Swiss Constitution". I believe this is factually incorrect, as the referendum result AMENDS the Swiss Constitution by inserting a new clause, and that henceforth clauses relating to religious freedom must be read together with the new clause stating that minarets are banned.

What a pity the we do not have citizen initiated referendum here. I will not bore readers with a list of possible topics for such a referendum, as I am sure the major parties will ensure that we never have the privilege.

odo: << CJ who is intolerent of other posters who do not agree with him >>

Huh? I tolerate posters who disagree with me all the time - however, some like you can't tolerate it when I point out their hatred. Tolerance doesn't mean that you have to like people or their opinions, but rather that you acknowledge their right to have opinions, however distasteful they may be.

When have I ever suggested that people can't have opinions with which I disagree?

stevenlmeyer: << No doubt CJ Morgan would accuse Australians of being "racist" or "Islamo-phobic" (whatever THAT may mean) for wanting to restrict immigration. >>

Huh? I'm an advocate of reducing immigration. However, I disagree with those people wish to reduce immigration selectively on the basis of ethnicity, religion etc, rather than across the board on ecological grounds. I've frequently argued at OLO that Australia should axe completely 'skilled' migration, while increasing substantially our refugee intake as circumstances demand. The ideal to aim for in the longer term is zero net immigration.

I do wish that those who disagree with me would desist in trying to misrepresent my views.

On topic, it appears that most posters here don't understand the notion of the "tyranny of the majority" as it relates to this mass expression of Swiss bigotry. The Wikipedia article is a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I hope this helps.

plerdsus: "I believe this is factually incorrect, as the referendum result AMENDS the Swiss Constitution by inserting a new clause"

I thought this had to be wrong. Surely no one would put an article in a Constitution to ban a particular style of architecture. What determines whether it is a minaret anyway, the architectural style, the use it is put to, the buildings around it - what? Surely something so specific, so uncommon, so inconsequential doesn't belong in a Constitution. What are they going to put in there next? The days households are allowed to water their gardens?

But no, its true: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/29/switzerland.minaret.referendum/index.html

I agree with CJ Morgan, although probably for completely different reasons. It is a very good case of what's wrong with so-called Citizen Initiated Referenda.

"Right wing parties who live off xenophobia and preach a rabid form of anti-Islam ...are usually confined to the lunatic fringes..."

Sorry, this is just P.C. rubbish... Despite all the institutions of Switzerland opposing the referendum (major parties, church, the baby-boomer leftie power elite, all opposing the referendum) it got passed with around a two-thirds majority!

The problem is NOT immigration.. but birth-rates!

With muslin fertility rates often around triple western fertility rates, Muslims have become a world-force. 7 children per woman are common. Osama Bin-Laden's father has 300 grand-children!

Meanwhile I know several lovely older Australians watching their families die out because their children have missed out on having children.

This would be fine if we are happy to accept that we are committing a genocide against ourselves, and to accept Muslim values.

But since we are not... we have to look at the cause of the problem.

We need to provide more carrots for middle/professional class adults to become parents.

In Australia, the baby-bonus works very well for welfare and drug-dependent women to become mothers. $6000 is a lot of money to a drug addict. But not for middle-class families. CHILDREN SHOULD BE TAX-DEDUCTABLE !

Most women WANT to have a family, but tragically fail because few men are willing to commit to them. This is a tragedy.

But men are not commitment-phobic, they are just AFRAID. Every man knows the long-years of long hours most dads put in at the office, and the seemingly in-evitable divorce, that will rob them of their most loved children and everything else.

MAKE Families tax-deductable. Wipe out the stupid Family Tax A, B, baby bonus, maternity leave, childcare benefit and rebate, single mums pension, and all means-tested payments... wipe them all out and instead two-parent FAMILIES should be tax deductible! Income splitting between patenrs and kids!

This will have the wonderful effect of encouraging fatherhood, reducing divorce and allowing the middle/proferssional class to have the families they want, while releaving the financial pressure on welfare-dependant and migrant women to become beby-factories - children they struggle to manage and look after.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

“I tolerate posters who disagree with me all the time”

Huh? And you watch a herd (flock?) of flying pigs pass over your house every dusk as well do you?

Dear oh dear CJ (:>|

“I do wish that those who disagree with me would desist in trying to misrepresent my views.”

Oh really. So that then means that you won’t misrepresent the views of others ever again eh. Wonderful!

On topic, I agree that CIRs are problematic. But probably for different reasons to you CJ. The views of the majority do not always serve their best interest. Good governance often needs to go against the will of the people.

But as far as minarets in Switzerland go, I think that the CIR has worked well. The outcome seems eminently sensible or at least understandable to me.

However, the Swiss are now left with a mucky situation whereby the four existing minarets can stay and new mosques can still be built, minus their phallic symbol bits.

I wonder if they’ll try and sort this out or leave it as a schizophrenic mess?

The author purports to teach history but he doesn’t appear to have learnt anything from it.
Islamic history is one of domination, subjugation, oppression and enslavement.
Small wonder then that regular rednecks fear its encroachment into their country.
Fear yes, phobia no.
Fear is rational when it’s based on knowledge gained from history.
Anti-Islamic yes, racist no.
Lebanese Christians you are welcome in our country.
Lebanese Islamists please stay home.
Same race, therefore racism has got nothing to do with it.
To get around this the dhimmi apologist has invented the concept of the “racialisation” of Islam. Nice try, but you only convince each other.
Mohammed was a desert dwelling despot who murdered, raped and pillaged.
He married little girls, he took the women of the enemies he beheaded as his sex slaves and he authorised his followers to beat their wives (they are allowed up to four each, although Allah granted Mohammed special dispensation to have eleven for himself, not counting his war booty).
This is history!
Are you going to pretend this is not true Mr Doolan, in order to satisfy your multicultural sensibilities?
While the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, this is due to their humanity which is essentially antithetical to the teachings of Mohammed which literally call for the death of unbelievers and the global implementation of Islamic law.
It’s all very well to cherry pick a few nice verses out of the Koran and pretend that it is a religion of peace but if you threw away the nasty bits you’d be left with a leaflet.
Notwithstanding the majority of peace-loving Muslims, there are sufficient hard line Islamists, who know what Mohammed actually taught and are intent on implementing his plan, to represent a real threat in any country in which they gain a foothold.
The only answer is to keep them out.
Islam is a special case which doesn’t deserve equal treatment.
Islamophobic?
Moi?

FWIW, Switzerland is a very regulated society. No, you can't
just build any building as you please, in any colour that you
please, it has to fit in with the rest of the buildings and
scenery. That is how they achieve that pretty postcard
scenery, which tourists value so highly and tourism is a huge
business for Switzerland. Minarets would simply not fit in
with what is considered Swiss heritage and culture.

Next, yup the Swiss are commonly pissed off, with the swarm
of asylum seekers which they accepted in good faith. Most
are Muslims and now we've had the call for Sharia law and
all the rest that goes with Islam. Most Swiss just wish they
would leave.

Why is it that it is seemingly ok for the Japanese, Chinese,
Arabs, Africans, Indians etc to preserve their cultures, but
its not ok for Central Europeans?

CJ Morgan "I'm tired of arguing with tendentious twats"

CJ Morgan "Huh? I tolerate posters who disagree with me all the time - however, some like you can't tolerate it when I point out their hatred. Tolerance doesn't mean that you have to like people or their opinions, but rather that you acknowledge their right to have opinions, however distasteful they may be."

There's some of that famous intolerence in action.

You are such a hypocrit, which is why people constantly call you on it, but of course you have selective memory, must be a "senior" moment thing eh?

No it's not hatred I have CJ it's intolerence of the intolerent, you though are selectively intolerent, call a spade a spade mate.

I support people who make a stand and use their vote, in a democracy to oppose those who use political correctness and discrimination laws against the majority.

The Swiss now have a MANDATE to stop minarets being built, good on them, they have faced down a minority of loud intolerent beligerent people, and in the process gained some pride that they, unlike us, have the aggats to make necessary decisions, and be proud of them.

What do you suggest we replace majority rule with? The ABC's Media watch? This nations left is becoming one big vacuous whiney moan.

Mikk, if someone wants to raise a referendum against church steeples, good on them, if that's what the majority want. That's called democracy - we don't need lawyers or bleeding hearts involved, just the people and their will.

All Islamic countries ban Christian churches?
Not true.

Visual depictions are banned in Saudi Arabia but it can be practiced in private. There are over a million christian foreign workers in Saudi at any time. Shia Muslims are not tolerated in Saudi as well.

Saudi Arabia is not the world's spokeman for all of Islam just as the Vatican does not speak for all of Christianity,

Christians are repressed or treated as second-class citizens in some other (but not all) Middle Eastern countries, just as Jews were treated by Christians only decades ago.

The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia where about 10% of the population are Protestants or Catholics and six religions are officially recognised.

There is also repression within and among Hindu societies as well.

Many in Australia may remember the Catholic/Protestant intolerance that was happening across the whole country and how families were split by intermarriage.

Perhaps it's just the nature of religion generally - intolerance and fear of "the other".

Nevertheless they are within their rights to ban minarets if they feel threatened by them. I'd prefer to ban mobile phone towers.

"Five of the nine positions on Byron Bay Council are held by Greens and their hard line on the "planned retreat" policy, to encourage waterfront property owners to relocate, has infuriated locals and triggered a showdown with the powers-that-be in distant Sydney.
Separately, the council plans to stop non-residents who own property in designated parts of the Byron Shire from renting out their property unless they live there most of the time." The Australian September 22, 2009
Are these examples of "tyranny of the majority" or just expected outcomes from a democratically elected Council?

The Swiss have every right to protect their culture if they feel it is under threat. And if you actually take a good look at the various Islamic states around the world then they have very good reasons to be worried. Islam is every bit as xenophobic and arrogant as the Christianity that followed behind the European colonisation of preceding centuries. Both monotheistic cultures have demonstrated a zero care factor with regards to indigenous cultures and peoples. Hence it's time to neuter these horrible religions. De-recting the minaret phallus is a good start.

stevenlmeyer, you said

"Democracy is about more than majority rules. It is about due process, equal treatment under the law, the right to say things which are unpopular and so on. That is why countries like the US have constitutions that embed certain rights that cannot be overridden by a simple majority. Maybe they've carried rule by judge too far in the US; but I think on the whole it is better than majoritarianism".

That is right. But remember a majority of Australians too support the ideal you talk about (tolerance to cultures), at least thus far, although its tolerance can also be tested by backward cultures.

There's a wonderfully apt parlour game doing the rounds at the moment. It's called "the terrorists have won".

You take a situation where your freedom appears to be curtailed in some way, and exclaim in a loud voice "if that's what we have to put up with, then the terrorists have won".

You can play the game almost anywhere.

When the anti-smoking laws were enacted in St Louis, for example, one of the complaints blogged was phrased: "like al Qaeda, the supporters of smoking bans are backward superstitionists who impose their medieval moral preferences on others through terror and violence. If we ban smoking in St Louis, the terrorists have won".

I am reminded of this by the hysteria - for it is nothing less that that - surrounding the building of minarets in Switzerland.

Because you can play the game both ways.

"If we allow the minarets to be built, the terrorists will have won"

"If we allow the fear of minarets to guide our building policy, the terrorists will have won"

Here's the view from one side.

“The forest of minarets, a dangerous symbol more of the threat of Islamic terrorism than a place of prayer, won’t change the countryside of the ancient fatherland of federalism and of freedom,” exulted Mario Borghezio, a member of the European Parliament from the Northern League. “Switzerland forever white and Christian.”

And here's the view from another.

"We are very disappointed," said Mr Karaademi. "We just wanted to do our mosque up a bit, with this small [5m-high] minaret and a tea room. We actually thought it might promote dialogue."

I believe that intolerance should not be used as a weapon against intolerance. But that seems to be the guiding view here:

>>Mohammed was a desert dwelling despot who murdered, raped and pillaged. He married little girls...<<

Thanks HermanYutic for that clarification.

It's maybe a pity that you don't follow the teachings of Jesus, though. I seem to recall he had a substantially different view on how people should treat each other.

But there's obviously no hope for you atheists, is there.

Pericles,
Always a pleasure to provide clarification.
If you want any more...
"Ask and you will receive"
Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9.
Maybe you can clarify something for me.
What has stating the historical truth about Mohammed got to do with intolerance?
Is tolerance suppressing the truth?
My belief is that the more people who know the truth about Islam the sooner its demise.

odo and c.j., "tolerate" is ambiguous. to not tolerate can mean to oppose, and it can mean to (attempt to or argue to) forbid. there's obviously a huge difference, and it's obvious that, when it comes to speech, c.j. engages in the former, and does not engage in the latter.

it's also obvious that cj is correct, that OLO is loaded with tendentious twats (i prefer "loons"). this thread is one of the most hilarious, depressing, ludicrous in the history of OLO. banning minarets is self-evident lunacy.

Perhaps the fear of minarets is symbolic of the Westerners' current image of Islam as inciting religious fundamentalism, bigotry and violence, even against its own women and children.
I am sure that the former European practice of burning alive and beheading those who rejected the self-serving religion of the state, (whether Roman Catholic or Protestant) would have aroused a similar fear of the symbols of the prevailing Church.
Some Swiss people may dislike minarets but a Swiss architectural student would see them and church spires in a different way.
Some westerners might dislike Eastern music and the call of the muezzin, but a student of music and voice would hear them differently. I miss church bells and roosters, but white westerners have banished them.
Some may abhor the burkah, the sari, or thongs and tracky dacks, but students of cultural fashion, textiles or art would see them for what they are, stripped of the fearful connotations projected upon them.
Because of atrocities under the auspice of a piece of cloth painted with stars and stripes, the American flag is now as hated a symbol to the Eastern mind as the swastika still is to the west. In PR-speak, you have an image whether you want it or not.
How thought-provoking that the public image of Switzerland, that neutral country of the eidelweiss, symbolic of the survival of rationality, should now be tinged with intolerance!
Christianity urges its followers to love their neighbours as themselves. Eastern religions urge their devotees to greet the divinity in everyone they meet. All the ‘great’ religions have at their core the idea of a common humanity and spirituality that paradoxically needs no priest. Ignorance and self-interested religious dogma hijacks this simple, mystical fact, causing division and conflict of every sort.
Let's examine the source of our prejudice before we condemn any unfamiliar expression of the only thing that will ever save this planet -- the enlightened acknowledgement of every person’s common humanity, and our utter dependence on an impartial Life Force by whatever name our languages and higher selves revere it.

Thanks bushbasher. Of course I tolerate the 'tendentious twats' who render any debate on OLO about AGW pointless (which was the context of that admittedly colourful comment). However, while I choose to not engage with them I have never suggested that they should not be allowed to express their opinions.

I also tolerate the godbotherers, misogynists, Islamophobes and refugee bashers who abound in this forum. While I may argue - strongly at times - against them, I acknowledge their right to form screwy opinions and to express them.

Tolerance of Islam and Muslims doesn't mean embracing Sharia Law and Allah or making your Muslim neighbour your mate, but it does mean acknowledging their right to exist as long as they don't infringe our laws. The Swiss have just demonstrated how profoundly intolerant they are, to their very great shame.

"Scary stuff indeed"
Why should anyone be scared of CIR. We accept majority rule in all tiers of government and referendums. Even in Rotary clubs, tennis clubs and community progress associations, so why be scared of a federal referendum?

CIR in Switzerland shows true democracy. In this case even when all political parties were against it, the people spoke and let the politicians know that they should work for the people. That is far better than having minorities call the tune and the tail waging the dog.

I am not sure about the issue there, but the critical thing is that the people DO have the power to change government policy.

I can think of many more important issues, IMO, that could apply here, like immigration levels, population policy, the Iraq or vietnam wars, multicultural policy, baby bonus and GST or ETS.

But those with concerns need not worry because we will never have a CIR because it takes power from the politicians and gives it to the people, which our politicians would never allow.

Can anyone really imagine the polys here having to consider putting our wants first and foremost.

Well why should anyone tolerate religion? You should tolerate people that have different beliefs but where is the rule you have to personally tolerate religion itself? That is idiotic.

Political persecution, religious persecution – same thing
Political free speech, religious free speech – same thing.

If you are censored in how any belief system impacts your life by being called xenophobic, racist or any other lazy idiotic term then you will embrace extremism views. Same in politics, if you have no say and emanded to accept or tolerate political movements then you are being persecuted. If some extremist political movement comes out to play you see them as the only viable option you will support it.

The failure was right from the start when tolerance of the ideology was confused with the real human right of tolerating people with different views, not having to adopt the symbols or associated cultures themselves. There is no law anywhere you need to tolerate anything, only people rights to have an opposing or different belief system. The people being forced to tolerate is actually political persecution. This has allowed extremism to gain support.

There is nothing wrong with objecting to these minarets. They are a cultural thing that will add or subtract to the vista of residents. In itself it is not religious persecution. The methods used to garner support perhaps are, but then the failure to allow free and open dialogue on the religious impact on society is political persecution. The fact the unfortunate way it has been arrived at is proof positive that other political parties have failed to uphold the right to an opinion and a say in how a cultural evolves or is protected, and that is a basic human right for all.

'The Swiss have just demonstrated how profoundly intolerant they are, to their very great shame.'

CJ, the flip-side to your comment is more likely to be true. Swiss people enjoy being Swiss, and prefer to be Swiss.

Protecting the culture that you know and love is not immoral, wrong, or bad as long as you don't use violence. So let's face reality here. Absolutely no one has been hurt, maimed or disfigured. Minarets don't feel pain or suffering. The only thing damaged here is the arrogant pride of an absolutest monotheistic religion. And that is a good thing.

Honestly that whole matter is being politicized.

Minarets are only a decorative piece to Mosques for the last half a century or so. They were needed before the invention of microphones to alarm people of prayer times.

Now there are loads of digital devices that remind Muslims of prayer time and direction. I don’t see anything wrong with a mosque without a minaret.

Peace,

Not the quote that I had in mind, HermanYutic.

>>Always a pleasure to provide clarification. If you want any more...
"Ask and you will receive" Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9.<<

I was thinking more along the lines of Matthew 5:43-45

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

You so clearly do not consider this to be particularly useful advice, do you, HermanYutic.

But the very idea of expecting Christians to follow the teachings of Jesus is as laughable as believing that Muslims follow every instruction in the Qur'an, is it not?

But then again, I long since gave up expecting any consistency from those who profess to "follow" a religion.

I can only conclude that the sheer mental contortions required to allow yourself to believe that there is actually a God out there, leaves you completely bereft of the faculties necessary to determine right from wrong.

>>Maybe you can clarify something for me. What has stating the historical truth about Mohammed got to do with intolerance?<<

But you weren't, were you?

You were instead sitting in judgement on a historical figure whom you describe as a "a desert dwelling despot".

Has your religion taught you nothing about generosity of spirit, tolerance, kindness and understanding?

That question was entirely rhetorical, by the way.

It must be very uncomfortable for you to live in constant fear, the way that you obviously do.

But you could always join Mario Borghezio, and adopt a slight variation of his motto, "Switzerland forever white and Christian."

Best of luck if you choose to go and live there, by the way.

Fellow_Human

At bottom I don’t think this has anything to do with minarets. I think the vote reflects a growing fear of, and antipathy towards, Islam in Europe.

This article from the website of the German newsmagazine, Spiegel, indicates that perhaps the Germans would have voted in a similar manner to the Swiss.

See:

Swiss Minaret Ban Reflects Fear of Islam, Not Real Problems

www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,15...

Quote:

Concern about growing numbers of Muslims and the visibility of Islam isn't, of course, just limited to Switzerland. Both Cologne and Copenhagen have seen minaret debates of their own, the burqa is an issue in France and anti-Muslim politicians have had great success in Holland. So far, centrist politicians across the continent have failed to find an adequate response to the growing concern.

As such, it would be inaccurate to explain away the Swiss referendum results by merely pointing to xenophobia in the country. IT IS ALSO AN EXPRESSION OF THE FAILURES OF THE LIBERAL POLITICAL ELITE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO THE REAL AND PERCEIVED PROBLEMS WITH MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS. (Capitalisation added)

End quotes.

Note that Spiegel is one of the most influential media outlets in Germany. It is a sort of cross between TIME and The Economist.

The issue is far more complex, then simply a bit of intolerance,
as many are suggesting.

I lived in Paris for a couple of years and believe me, every
nationality on the planet lives there, in reasonable harmony.

The minarets in Langenthal, a county hick town, started off as
an architectural issue, which applies to any building, regarding
colour, building materials etc.

It blew up from there and political Islam bears its share
of responsibility. Huge mosques with huge minarets, financed
by Saudi petrodollars, have become an Islamic political statement
about the future. At the same time, some Islamic leaders are
making it plain that due to their high birthrates, compared to
your average European, their intention is to turn Europe into
an Islamic state, by sheer force of demographics and time.

In England and Holland, they want Sharia law etc. Most Europeans
are a pretty tolerant lot, but when what are largely guests,
ie asylum seekers who were helped, rather then even try and
assimilate, act in that kind of arrogant fashion, it pisses
off the most tolerant of people and they will react, as happened
in Switzerland.

What I find most telling about this story which exposes the lies of the politically correct Multiculturalists is that nearly every group, political party, club, church in Switzerland stated that they were against this ban. However when the time came and the people spoke the vote went the other way. To me this clearly demonstrates the intimidation, power and ruthlesness that the politically correct have in influencing people to publically endorse what they do not agree with. People clearly don't feel they can say what they genuinely feel. That is what political correctness has done to society.
This intimidation is happening in most western countries, including Australia to a great extent. It's really very sad and represents loss of free speech

Pericles,
Same discussion, eleven hours apart, you address me in the following way:

“there's obviously no hope for you atheists, is there”
Pericles, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 7:58:47 AM

“I can only conclude that the sheer mental contortions required to allow yourself to believe that there is actually a God out there, leaves you completely bereft of the faculties necessary to determine right from wrong.”
Pericles, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 6:35:03 PM

You’ve determined that I’m an atheist because, according to you, I “don't follow the teachings of Jesus” and then on the same day you say that it’s too much to expect Christians like me to “follow the teachings of Jesus”.

Sorry to disappoint you Pericles, but I don’t subscribe to either of the opposite belief systems that you ascribe to me.
Which is fine; who cares?
But am curious as to how you can accommodate these contrary perceptions.
Were you confusing me with someone else or do you just flit from one idea to its opposite without realising it?

Far from being disappointed, HermanYutic, I'm delighted.

>>Sorry to disappoint you Pericles, but I don’t subscribe to either of the opposite belief systems that you ascribe to me.<<

I'll ignore the fact the fact that it is usually Christians who describe atheism as a "belief system", and accept that you claim to be neither atheist nor Christian.

Good for you. You made the decision to be an Islamophobic, homophobic, right-wing ideologue all on your own.

But you must forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that you were a radical fundamentalist Christian (the dig about atheism was simply to underline that you appear ignorant of how the teachings of Jesus might apply to yourself).

It was a conclusion I arrived at from the nature, tenor, content and volume of your posts that show such tendencies.

And of course, you are absolutely right:

>>Which is fine; who cares?<<

Have a great day.

ozzie - well said, that's very succinct and reflective of most of the political correctness bullies encountered on OLO as well.

"To me this clearly demonstrates the intimidation, power and ruthlesness that the politically correct have in influencing people to publically endorse what they do not agree with. People clearly don't feel they can say what they genuinely feel. That is what political correctness has done to society.
This intimidation is happening in most western countries, including Australia to a great extent. It's really very sad and represents loss of free speech"

Absolutely what happens here in Australia, you get puffed up buffoons pontificating that anyone who disagrees with them is a loon, twat, denier whatever (see OLO, PM Rudd, what good company you all keep), but then they gether together to chorus what tolerent souls they are.

What a joke, they are just small minded bullies who cannot abide anyone having a different opinion.

I take away from this the statement of the year for me from OLO, CJ spitting out "the tyranny of the majority", because we all know the tyranny of the minority is much preferred, don't we?

It says it all, that the bullies opinion is so important - oh it must be wonderful to be so wonderful!

Here is an excellent opinion piece, basically the same issue worldwide. Elected officials have caved in to Political Correctness Nonsense of Major Proportion rather than allow free and open debate on the troubles with cultural clash or integration issues. This type of supression and denial of basic rights only escalates at some point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

quote " The nationalist and conservative Swiss People's Party knew to take advantage of the wide-spread feeling that the government, the courts and the politicians do too little to defend Western values and basic rights"

I should have known that the concept was a bit sophisticated for you, odo. I bet you didn't even read the Wikipedia article, did you?

Never mind, I think that you're perfectly entitled to put your bigotry and ignorance on display here, as is everybody else of similar mind.

Just as I'm entitled to call it for what it is. That's what tolerance is all about.

CJ, If you dislike bigots why do you like Islam so much?

TheMissus: << If you dislike bigots why do you like Islam so much? >>

Who said I like Islam? Personally, I think it's just as much twaddle as any other religion.

However, I tolerate it and people who believe in it, just as I do with other religions. I repeat, tolerance of something doesn't mean that one necessarily likes - or even approves of - it. In fact, tolerance implies quite the opposite.

The Swiss electorate has just demonstrated its intolerance unequivocally.

HermanYutic: thanks for your delightful historical profile of Muhammad - rapist, sex-slaves, abducter of little girls etc. You are obviously an expert in Arabic historical studies, far better than, for instance Professor Richard Fletcher, late of University of York and author of "The Cross and the Crescent". After all, Professor Flectcher, an expert on the subject, wrote" "the sources, if impartially evaluated, really tell us very little about the Prophet's life" (page 11). Now, I am sure you are impartial, so could you share with us the sources you have consulted? The world of scholarship will be delighted with whatever you have.

A number of commentators have posted that the Islamic world does not allow any churches. This is of course completely correct,and not prejudice speaking, but only if you discount the thousands of churches with spires in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and a half dozen other Islamic states.

By the way, the Swiss are delighted that their under 17s won the world cup in soccer last week in Nigeria. The entire country was euphoric. The winning pass was made by a Swiss muslim. The winning goal was scored by another Swiss muslim. Eleven of the players, that is, half the squad, are the children of immigrants. The two muslim football heros are of course fully Swiss, though their religion alone is now denied full freedom of expression.

Finally, a number of posters have said quite hard things about asylum seekers and imigrants not integrating in Switzerland. I assume that you yourselves are not immigrants, or children of immigrants, or if you are descended from immigrants to Australia, that your ancestors did their best to integrate into native, that is, aboriginal culture.

If Islam were truly a religion it would be correct to accuse the Swiss of being intolerant. But Islam is a demented and evil ideology bent on destroying non-Islamic culture, religions, secularism, etc.

Islamic countries have "religious" police arresting Muslims for not obeying "religious" laws. In Islamic Sudan women found wearing pants are liable to be given 40 lashes; in Malaysia, a woman was caned for drinking beer. Hamid Karzai (the corrupt president) passed a law allowing Muslim men to strave their wives when they refuse them sex.

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/09/sudan-fines-woman-who-dared-to-wear-pants.html

True religions in the 21st century don't force their followers to obey its rules or tenets; they don't need "religious" police as in Muslim countries. The faithfuls do it out of a willing heart.

The Swiss should now campaign to rid Switzerland of mosques, imams and Islamic schools.

That’s a very good article that you referred us to, The Missus. Puts it right into perspective: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

----
“Who said I like Islam? Personally, I think it's just as much twaddle as any other religion. However, I tolerate it and people who believe in it…”

That sounds a tad odd CJ. Why would tolerate twaddle? Why would you be an odd twaddle tolerator?

Surely if you thought that Islam was bunkum or in any way a net negative or potential negative or not a clear advantage for that matter, for non-Muslim countries to accommodate…. …. then why would you be in favour of it?

What about the premise of erring on the side of caution?

Philip Tang, it must really suck being you.

>>Islam is a demented and evil ideology bent on destroying non-Islamic culture, religions, secularism, etc.<<

I can only imagine the tension and fearfulness that you must endure every day, being on constant watch for the evil hordes of Saracens about to descend upon your suburb.

But I guess that's the price you have to pay for believing that your own religion is somehow special, or different.

Pericles,
Thanks for drawing my attention to Philip Tang's contribution which I'd somehow missed.

Go Philip!
A voice of sanity on OLO is as welcome as a lighthouse to a sailor.
Just a tip though:
Facts are a complete waste of time here.
Epithets and ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.
Anything you say will be turned upside down and inside out in accordance with a bizarre and incomprehensible mentation which is impenetrable to the voice of reason.

But we have to try.

Pericles
<But I guess that's the price you have to pay for believing that your own religion is somehow special, or different.>
It is implicit in your statement that no religion is any better than, or even different to, any other.
How can this be?
Was Jim Jones religion no better and no worse than any other religion even though it led to mass murder/suicide?
Or is your statement really just hollow, meaningless, touchy-feely, "why can't we all just get along" piffle which cannot sustain analysis?
A religion which exhorts its followers to "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" is no better or worse or different from a religion which commands "Thou shall not kill"?
I guess that would sound logical to me too,
if I were a regressive.

THE DOG THAT DIDN'T BARK

(AND THE DOG THAT ONLY YELPED A BIT)

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

(From "Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle.)

Banning minarets by a vote of 58% to 42% is a far more profound slap in the face than a few cartoons in a newspaper. Yet this time around there have, at least thus far, been no riots. Swiss embassies have not been attacked. The Swiss flag has not been burned. To the best of my knowledge there is no boycott of Swiss chocolate. There have been no deaths.

The Muslim dog did not bark.

Even odder, the usual crowd of Lefties who see "racism" everywhere have been strangely muted. They've yelped a bit. But nothing like the full blown assault we would have expected a few short years ago.

At best the Leftie dog yelped.

So why did one dog remain silent while the other contented itself by whining a bit?

Could it be that Muslims see they've overplayed their hand?

Could it be that even Leftie Europeans are fed-up with Islam?

If a recent Pew Global opinion survey is accurate the answer is "yes".

See:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=262

The survey detects a rise in both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment. But Muslims are far more unpopular than Jews. Here's the shocker.

42% of people ON THE LEFT have an unfavourable view of Muslims.

In addition 45% of people in the centre and a thumping 56% of people on the right (NOT "far right") have an unfavourable view of Muslims. (For Jews the numbers are 28%, 26% and 34%)

Democratically elected governments cannot ignore such sentiments when it comes to eg immigration policy or appeasement of Islam.

This is getting interesting.

PERICLES,

Perhaps you should reserve you ire for the European publics.

stevenlmeyer: "Banning minarets by a vote of 58% to 42% is a far more profound slap in the face than a few cartoons in a newspaper. Yet this time around there have, at least thus far, been no riots. ... The Muslim dog did not bark."

This looks to me like another highly speculative leap in logic.

The Muslim dog didn't bark for a long while when those cartoons were published. In fact, they were published for 4 months before much noise was made at all. And in this quiet period they were not just published in Denmark, but in Egypt, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium and France.

I think it would be fair to say most Muslims didn't give a rats about the cartoons. The Muslim radicals that did give a rats needed a fair bit of time to fan the flames into a real bonfire.

No doubt they did it in the same way I seem HermanYutic, Philip Tang faning the flames on the against Muslims here.

I don't have any time for those who spend their time faning hatreds and bigotry, regardless of which side they come from.

Interesting.

I think it's all a bit silly, really, and I'm glad that the same thing is unlikely to happen here. But the reality is that the people have voted, they have told their leaders what they want, and what they want is an end to the construction of minarets. I am sure there is a reason for this, which was carefully omitted from the article. I doubt it's a good reason, but I'm sure there is one.

At the end of the day, it would take Anna Bligh-esque arrogance for the government to turn around and ignore the decision of the people. Democracy is about making decisions collectively and for the greater good. It's not simply about electing people who will treat the general population as idiots and constantly run with the idea that 'we know better'. There are always winners and losers; there are always people who miss out. It's one of the flaws of a good system. In this case, the Swiss people have collectively made the decision to ban minarets. The greater good is served by making the majority happy that they don't have to live in the shadows of these insidious towers (apparently).

Yep, the barking dogs are all here, rstuart.

>>No doubt they did it in the same way I seem HermanYutic, Philip Tang faning the flames on the against Muslims here.<<

That's exactly what fanatics do, I'm afraid. They manipulate others, using fear as their principal weapon.

>>PERICLES, Perhaps you should reserve you ire for the European publics.<<

Appreciate the thought, stevenlmeyer.

But my interventions here have made no reference to the Swiss, or their decision, which is entirely up to them.

Anti-Muslim sloganism by blindly fanatical Christians, on the other hand, invariably gets my goat.

>>Pericles... It is implicit in your statement that no religion is any better than, or even different to, any other. How can this be?
Was Jim Jones religion no better and no worse than any other religion even though it led to mass murder/suicide?<<

Absolutely, HermanYutic. No better, no worse.

The People's Temple was after all just another expression of Christianity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm

"the Peoples Temple... was a Christian destructive, doomsday cult founded and led by James Warren Jones"

Thank you for pointing that out.

>>Go Philip!... Facts are a complete waste of time here.<<

Not at all.

However, you do need to treat facts as facts, and not simply deliver a highly aggressive personal opinion, as Philip Tang did.

>>Islam is a demented and evil ideology bent on destroying non-Islamic culture, religions, secularism, etc.<<

By the same token, if you insist on tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, you should also to saddle all Christians with the responsibility for Jonestown, should you not?

That would be completely fair, and utterly reasonable.

Pericles
"By the same token, if you insist on tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, you should also to saddle all Christians with the responsibility for Jonestown, should you not?"

No comparison. You could scream rant and be outraged at what happened at Jonestown without being called a bigot, racist or xenophobic. You can rant against the Catholic Church for sexual abuse against Children and not be labelled racist, xenophobic, or bigoted. In Switzerland they have had some raving lunatics going on about stoning people, cutting their hands off and generally supporting Sharia yet the government is scared to address it from fear probably.

When I was down is Sydney though, holy cow, Scary stuff. I am not sure how anyone on planet earth with any amount of decency could excuse that behaviour. Yet anyone speaking out against it was called all manner of names and accused of being horrible people. How would you feel if you daughter was raped due her race and hosed down in between sessions? The be labbleeled racist for speaking out against it? How can anyone stand here and say “oh well” not an ethnic issue, is a human issue? How can anyone say that then wear a friggin white ribbon.

Why wasn’t the same argument directed toward Jonestown, the Catholic Church or even the current nutcase story surrounding Scientology? Where are all these ribbon wearing patronising gits defending the rights of these ferals? How is it necessary to wear a white ribbon where anti-social behaviour is very low but defend those where anti-social behaviour toward women is so high?

Where were the calls that paedophile priests were not real Catholics so the church was not responsible? What sort of moronic argument is that anyways? Is the suggestion that as long as bigotry and hatred is taught behind the facade of religion is ok..or not? Is it ok? It is ok to suggest the problem is with Switzerland , about the most tolerant nation on earth?

Why do people defend the indefensible Tell me why.

The Missus: you wrote :"In Switzerland they have had some raving lunatics going on about stoning people, cutting their hands off" etc. Could you please share your source of information for people in Switzerland calling for hands to be cut off?

nalood100

I do not know what TheMissus' source is.

But here is a source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

Quote:

"…The former Imam of a mosque in Geneva, Hani Ramadan, a Swiss citizen by the way, publicly justified the stoning of adulterers or the punitive amputation of the hand of a thief. Muslim parents prevented their daughters from attending swimming classes, gymnastics or summer camps in public schools because they didn't want their girls to be together with boys. Media reports about forced marriages, female genital mutilations and "honor killings" of Muslim women - all confirmed by authorities or in court -- came as a shocking surprise. A university professor even went as far as to suggest in an official publication of a federal commission to introduce elements of the Sharia, the Muslim legal system, into Switzerland."

Anyone who is not just a little spooked by this sort of thing is in denial.

Doubtless the usual gang of OLO Lefties who, when it comes to Islam, follow the line of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, you're racist for even thinking evil, will try to minimise this sort of thing or provide examples where non-Muslims also said or did horrendous things. Clear headed readers will see through such obscurantism.

TheMissus: "You could scream rant and be outraged at what happened at Jonestown without being called a bigot, racist or xenophobic."

So you don't approve tarring all Christians with the Johnstown brush, or all Catholics with the IRA brush, or indeed the Nigerian mob brush http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200405/ai_kepm459043/

Yet you seem perfectly happy to tar all Muslims with the 9/11 brush, all Australian Muslims with the "Sydney Louts" brush.

TheMissus: "Why do people defend the indefensible Tell me why."

It is a big world, there are a lot of people in it, and some of them do really weird things. This includes defending just about any act imaginable - including 9/11. David Hicks for example. So I am certain you are right - there will be some idiot who will defend what the Sydney louts did. But the exception does not prove the rule, and that tiny handful of weirdos aside all Australians, including Muslims and probably most of the louts parents would not dream of it.

To give an example of how weird it can get, here we have Philip Tang saying "Islam is a demented and evil ideology bent on destroying non-Islamic culture". Given the vast majority of Muslims in the world are normal peaceful people, I find saying this sort of thing indefensible. Case in point: the worlds largest Muslim country, Indonesia, is showing us an ethnically diverse region can be knit into a peaceful, secular democracy. Pity the predominately Christian Yugoslavia could not pull off the same thing, eh? Yet here you are defending the indefensible. Tell me why.

Pericles,

<By the same token, if you insist on tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, you should also to saddle all Christians with the responsibility for Jonestown, should you not?
That would be completely fair, and utterly reasonable.>

You’re confusing Islam with Muslims.
Islam is a doctrine.
Muslims are people.

Tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, yes.
Tarring all Muslims with the brush of terrorism, no.

The vast majority of the brainwashed Muslim hordes practise Islam-lite.
However, Islam full-strength unequivocally condones terrorism against infidels.

This is the dilemma facing would-be reformists of Islam, the ones brave enough to speak out in public.
Their desire to bring Islam up-to-speed with the rest of the world is intractably hampered by the immutability of Mohammed’s message, so that the bad guys will always win.
Mohammed is the perfect example for all Muslims for all time,
but Mohammed was a terrorist.
The Koran is the perfect, unchangeable and eternal word of Allah.
Clearly, reformists have some inertia to overcome.

The analogy you draw is “completely (un)fair, and utterly (un)reasonable”.
In fact, it’s bizarre.

RStuart says:“Case in point: the worlds largest Muslim country, Indonesia, is showing us an ethnically diverse region can be knit into a peaceful, secular democracy. Pity the predominately Christian Yugoslavia could not pull off the same thing, eh? Yet here you are defending the indefensible. Tell me why.”

Indonesia may well have a rosy future—but its past, even its recent past has been far from “peaceful”

Tell us why & how RStuart, you overlooked the below -listed minor hiccups to that peaceful knitting
1) East Timor occupation and terror
2) West Irian colonisation & displacement
3) The Aceh civil war & its widespread abuses
4) The religious -ethnic massacres in Maluku & Sulawesi
5) The murder or brutalisation of millions of ethnic Chinese in Java.

*though their religion alone is now denied full freedom of expression.*

You miss the point here Nalood 100. As Fellow Human pointed out,
Muslims don't need minarets to practise their faith and as every
other bit of architecture is highly regulated in Switzerland,
minarets should be no different.

Where Islam has a problem, seemingly wherever it goes, is that
where Islam goes, political Islam invariably follows. In the West,
religion is commonly regarded as a lifestyle choice these days and
people protest loudly, when religion interferes in politics.

If political Islam openly claims that how the West lives is all wrong,
that we would all be better off as devout Muslims and that they aim
to turn Europe into an Islamic State, then the whole thing is not
about religion but politics. Politics is of course open slather,
so you'll cop on the chin what you least expect, for people respond.

The sad thing about Islamic States, is that the first thing that
goes, is freedom of expression. If we said what we say about
Christianity on OLO, about Islam in an Islamic State, a large
chunk of OLO posters would in fact be in jail :)

If only you knew how silly that is, HermanYutic.

>>You’re confusing Islam with Muslims. Islam is a doctrine. Muslims are people.<<

Let's see how that works with the other lot.

"Christianity is a doctrine. Christians are people"

Doesn't really work, does it. Because Muslims are defined as people who embrace Islam, just as Christians are defined as people who embrace Christianity.

That leaves you open to the charge - which is the one you are trying to stick on Muslims - that everything done in the name of your religion, is a true manifestation of that religion.

Like the Crusades. Or Northern Ireland. Or the many other acts of violence, both global and domestic, perpetrated by people wearing a religion's label.

The corollary is so obvious it is almost embarrassing to have to point it out.

Not everyone who embraces Christianity follows Jim Jones. And you should (presumably?) not judge Christianity through the events at Jonestown.

>>Tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, yes.<<

Sorry. That's where your emotions take over, and logic disappears. Because this is what your own religion teaches you.

By attacking Islam in an incontinent, superficial and literalistic manner, you are in fact attacking Muslims.

But you are aware of this really, aren't you.

HermanYutic: "The vast majority of the brainwashed Muslim hordes practise Islam-lite."

Yet you characterise them as hordes? Whatever for - they are as you say a peaceful people.

Anyway, that is but a nit pick. I largely agree. I would make one refinement. You invented the word "Islam-lite". I have no problem with the concept - in fact I think it is a very good one that helps clarify the issue considerably. And I have no problem with attaching a name to it - after all it makes discussing the concept so much easier.

My one quibble is in the name itself. As you say, the vast majority of Muslim's practice Islam-lite. So if you put it to the vote, I'd imagine most of them would prefer you said they practice the true Islam, and would like to reserve the word Islam for themselves. The concept is not much different from the bulk of Christians deciding that Johnstown stuff wasn't really representative of true Christianity.

We still need a name for that other brand of Islam of course, so I humbly suggest "Islam-extremist". Now there are lots of Islamic sects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches so we have to define who belongs to our new one. I think that is fairly easy. The people involved in 9/11, the Bali bombings, and in general the nut cases that think killing and maiming others, including other Muslims is doing Mohamed's work.

So we now have Muslims who practice Islam, and shall we say Muslim-Extremists who practice Islam-extremist. Notice that there are the same categories you created - just with different names. Just a minor tweak to what was already a very good idea.

But with that tweak it becomes so much easier to understand what you are saying (assuming I understand it). You are saying these Muslim-Extremists, the ones who going around killing people, are really nasty unpleasant people. The planet would be better off without them. Who could disagree? In fact I think even Pericles would find himself agreeing!

You’re still in neutral Pericles.

Christianity, the doctrine, does n-o-t condone violence against unbelievers.
Islam, the doctrine, d-o-e-s condone violence against unbelievers.

Islam-lite is n-o-t the true Islam insofar as it ignores Koranic injunctions.
Islam full-strength i-s the true Islam.

Islamic doctrine, including the Koran, is replete with injunctions to kill the unbelievers.
These commands are eternal and perfect according to Islam.

You should stop playing with that gear-stick Pericles and put it into gear.

Well I blame the fake left. They sell out of liberal values by supporting Islamism and call anyone that disgarees with any dysfunction, crime or anti-social behaviour an Islamophobe. A bit like the muslim women who speak out against the treatment of women have to go into hiding as any criticism of Islam is reason for death.

Happened is Sydney. Bad, bad, bad stuff yet the fake left wanted a cover up, the government and the police did nothing from fear and abandoned all the liberal policies we were supposed to cherish. So a neighbourhood dispute grew into a wider issue because it had become politicised by those that had no concern for justice. Everyone feeling they had authored the satanic Verses. ssshhh, shhhh., quiet I am so ashmaed to be Australian and all that nonsense. This iditoic mindset went feral in Europe and you wonder why a very good nation, a tolerant nation makes this vote? perhaps because too many westerners despise the tolerant west in favour of the bigoted, racist, sexist elements of Islam. I get it, I saw it in Sydney with disbelief at the ranic hatred of westerners by westerners who were trying to deny justice. Supporters of rape!

Not all muslims, not even the ones that say they have two enemies. One being the fake left of the west trying to preserve a culture that is oppressive to women. Too many noisy haters of human rights who seem all too willign to trot out in favour of human rights only when it suits Islamism.

I am surprised you have not mentioned Craig Winns 'Prophet of doom'
Google it - go get the vids and watch. [ or have you mentioned it ? , didn't read most of this post so I might be jumping the gun here ]
I watched and it frightened the crap out of me.

Some of the intolerant, nasty and plain loopy attitudes towards other human beings that I read here frighten the crap out of me.

I'm so glad that we're very unlikely to have the travesty of CIR foisted on us in Australia in the name of 'democracy'. There's something to be said for Westminster-style democracy after all, IMHO.

Yabby, you're Swiss aren't you?

And you're still not listening, HermanYutic.

>>You’re still in neutral Pericles.<<

You are "constructing a narrative", as they say in all the best halls of academe, that is designed entirely to support your prejudices.

>>Christianity, the doctrine, does n-o-t condone violence against unbelievers.
Islam, the doctrine, d-o-e-s condone violence against unbelievers.<<

You are simply taking a one-eyed, selective interpretation of Islam, and comparing it against a one-eyed, selective interpretation of Christianity.

That Christianity d-o-e-s encourage violence where it suits it to do so is patently obvious, from the number of wars fought, and atrocities committed, in its name.

So, pretending that the source document makes even the slightest difference to the actions of its followers is pure sophistry.

Is has always been the very essence of religion, of whatever flavour, to justify its own evil by claiming to be more righteous than its enemies. Think for a moment of all the killings that have occurred among Protestants and Catholics over the centuries.

Claiming that "it has nothing to do with the doctrine" is a pretty hollow boast to all those killed in its name, I would have thought.

But to you, so long as you can compare one ancient and unreliable book with another, your hatred of Muslims is justified.

To me, who believes that both religions are entirely misguided, this approach will only exacerbate the problems that you people have with each other.

C J Morgan
"Some of the intolerant, nasty and plain loopy attitudes towards other human beings that I read here frighten the crap out of me."

A little how I feel about you. Religion is a facade for bigotry and Islam is about the mosted bigoted religion we have in society. I have no issue at all with their beliefs as long as in a so called demoractic society we can speak freely against aspects of the religion that are against western values, especially human rights. Even muslims themselves claim to be called bigots and Islamaphobes when trying to fight for the equal rights for females and homosexuals by the extreme right (and that is what you are) supporters of an oppressive religion. Nobody can claim Islam is perfect and a great defender of human rights but your ilk sugest it it, zero tolerance of criticsim. This supports the extremist elements of Islam who call for jihad against muslims to speak out against the human rights atrocities that are committed in the name of religion.

You support a dysfunctional religion in totalitiy. Your only contribution is to demonise anyone who speaks out against any aspect of it. You support oppression. You are the bigot. Look up the definition.

Only in TheMissus' uniquely convoluted mind could I be referred to as a member of the "extreme right" or a bigot. Lovely example of psychological transference, methinks.

Once again, I don't "support a dysfunctional religion in totalitiy". I merely defend the right of people to believe in Islamic mumbo jumbo as I would their right to believe any other mythology. I also support the right of others to express their antipathy towards any religion, but I retain the right to call those people for what they are. Tolerance works in various directions.

You don't seem to attribute the same meaning to English words as most people and dictionaries do, Missus.

I think you need to look up some definitions of the terms you're misusing. While you're at it, look up the definition of "tolerance".

Pericles,

<So, pretending that the source document makes even the slightest difference to the actions of its followers is pure sophistry.>

So, the source document (the Koran) made not "the slightest difference to the actions of" Major Nidal Hasan, even though he produced a power point presentation outlining the manifold reasons why it provided the perfect justification for his actions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

I don't imagine you'll even bother looking at Hasan's slide show.
Even if you do I imagine you'll twist it around to suit your perspective.

The fact remains that it is an orthodox exegesis of the Koranic text.

But to you, the Koran made not "the slighest difference" to Hasan's actions.
Thank you for your insight.

Furthermore, your statement quoted above de-links the actions of the followers from their respective “source documents”.

Then you say <Claiming that "it has nothing to do with the doctrine" is a pretty hollow boast to all those killed in its name, I would have thought.> thereby linking the actions of the followers with their doctrine.

Summarising your contradictory claims:
The followers’ actions have nothing to do with their doctrine (and to pretend so is pure sophistry)
Claiming that the followers actions have nothing to do with their doctrine “is a pretty hollow boast”.

Does that render your argument "hollow sophistry"?

“I believe that intolerance should not be used as a weapon against intolerance.”, Pericles.

Pericles and some in OLO have mistakenly interpreted the action of the Swiss as “intolerance”, rather it is taking a stand against the spread of Islamic tyranny in Europe.

The neutrality of the Swiss implies that they one of the most tolerant people in the world. However, they have the good sense to know that Islam is not truly a religion but a potential time bomb, waiting to explode as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and many other countries and regions where this demonic ideology has taken a foothold.

Pericles and the pseudo-LEFT have adopted a policy of appeasement towards Islamism, similar to Neville Chamberlain's (ex-PM of the UK) attitude towards the Nazis that resulted in 6 million Jews being murdered.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasement.htm

(part 1/2)

(continue part 2/2)

The cowardly policy of appeasement by the likes of Pericles is based on the following reasons:

(a) to get the Islamists’ votes by the pseudo-LEFT political parties (e.g. new Labour of the UK)

(b) the failure or refusal to distinguish between Islam as a political ideology (which makes use of religious concepts to bind the conscience of its ‘followers’) and Muslims, people who are born into (or converted to) the “religion”(political ideology) of Islam.

The pseudo-LEFT are playing with fire by supporting the Islamists to get their votes, akin to Hitler’s alliance with the Islamists during World War II. The pseudo-LEFT political parties have more in common with the Nazis than other political parties.
http://www.shoaheducation.com/muslimnazi.html
http://soc.world-journal.net/cont.html

Islam is a diabolical political ideology that says a Muslim must be killed if he/she leaves Islam.

A living example is ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali who ran away to Holland from an arranged Islamic marriage. She joined the Dutch Labour Party (pseudo-LEFT) but left the party to represent another party in the Dutch parliament.

“She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh's movie Submission led to death threats. Since van Gogh's assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.” (wikipedia)

Ayaan spoke for 54 minutes about why she left Islam and is now in the US because her life is in danger from Islamists. http://fora.tv/2007/07/06/Is_Islam_Compatible_with_Liberal_Democracy

Muslim women should leave Islam altogether and, campaign for a ban of mosques, imams, madrassahs and Islamic schools in Western society

HermanYutic: "The followers’ actions have nothing to do with their doctrine (and to pretend so is pure sophistry)"

You have a point HermanYutic.

Christians use the Bible to justify their actions in the same way. For example, fundamentalists justify the murder of doctors using the Bible. It is not like it doesn't provide them with lots of ammunition. You could justify just about anything using this list:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm

I do think blaming Christianity for the murder of doctors is a bit of a stretch though. That is in effect what you are doing.

I read on some blogs and it is also reported the Swiss Foreign minister feels the same, that by banning the mineret asks for terror attack. For real. People think they should appease the terrorism. Unbelievable! The scaredy cats want to cave in to extremism. And Islam is not a bad thing in the world? lol

The Turkish PM said that minarets are the bayonets of Islam.

Bayonet definition : is a knife-, dagger-, sword-, or spike-shaped weapon designed to fit on, over or underneath the muzzle of a rifle barrel.

Is the Turkish PM Islamaphobic lol. Is he racist hee hee. Is he extremist? I cannot believe some Swiss say it is the symbol of dominance and people get all sketchy about that then the PM of Turkey confirms that is actually the case!

Anyways I know my beliefs and I know what I believe in. I was real loud, annoyingly loud over the Haneef affair as that was a comprehensive failure of human rights and someone from government should have been jailed for that. However religion is simply legalised bigotry and discrimination so only natural as a supporter of human rights I speak out whenever I feel it impinges on my rights or the rights of others.

So cowards and scaredy cats can call me names all they wish but they only proves they are pyhscopaths. Can appear charming and try to say the right thing to impress people, however that is their only criteria, to look impressive. They have no real commmittment to support who has actually been wronged as it depends on who that is. If there is no gain from supporting actual victims instead of actual causes then they throw abuse.

Funny how in the US the integration of muslims is so far superior than here of Europe. There is zero tolerance of crap. Appeasement does not work. Good anology of the failure of appeasement toward Nazis.

So, have we solved the architectural planning problem of minarets in the land of the Geneva convention or should churches and such go underground?

Polly
It will never be solved. The big business want to infiltrate Muslim dominated countries so they will demand visa-a-versa. Liberal policies that challenge the role of religion on society have been ripped up, burnt and thrown in the garbage all for the sake of $$. The working class that have to actually deal with the impacts of religious bigotry are now nothing more than dirt, demonised, ignored, not politically represented and also are the ones losing jobs offshore. No left wing left, it is finished. Liberal values demolished.

Instead of minarets they could spend on the oppressed muslims but a few $ may empower them enough to remove themselves from the shackles of religion. We could not have that, could we?

Saudi scholars have criticised Switzerland for its recent referendum to ban minarets.
“This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West”
said Shaikh Abdul Mohsen Al Shahri, an eminent scholar in Islamic jurisprudence.

Some have noted that Saudi Arabia does not allow the construction of any churches and even bans Bibles from the country and use this as a basis for claiming that the Saudis are inconsistent in the standards that they are applying to the Swiss.

However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Saudi law is consistent with Sharia law which recognises no religion but Islam.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between Saudi law and the ban on churches.

However, Swiss law is secular and it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.
Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction between Swiss law and the ban on minarets.

The Swiss could learn a lesson from the Saudis here and overturn the referendum so that they don’t fall behind the Saudis in the consistent application of law.

For those saying Muslim leaders have been slow in denouncing terrorist acts : http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm. Speak to those in the media who have failed to report these statements

For those suggesting that Islam was spread by the sword: read leading western scholars of Islam: Prof. Thomas Arnold “The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching” or various writings of John L. Esposito (editor of Oxford History of Islam).

For some “context”: killing civilians has been legitimised since the Dresden’s of WWII. It is wrong in all religions, whether you’re a Wahhabi or an American President: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm

Concerning the Swiss vote: Based on ignorance
salaams

I am not saying they are terrorists or whatevers. They are a bunch of whining cry babies. They are not denied any right. They can live quite well and follow their faith. Many swiss muslims voted in favour of the ban..because they are swiss..not Arab (even the word is Arabic). It is cultural imperialism and I belive paid for by outside powers more often than not.

They should get over their cheap selves, not very Christian of them..Islamic or whatever.Ha Yes we are a religion of peace provided we always get our own way. Humble...NOT. Really they have nothing to complain about but that is all they ever do.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

In the West (Dar al-Harb: the house of war. This is the name for the West in the Muslim world) we generally assume that a person is telling the truth because we believe lying to be immoral.

However, the practice of dissimulation (or taqiyyah) is endorsed under Islam if it is used to shield from danger or to further the cause of Islam.

Practically speaking, this means that lying is permitted when dealing with infidels.

The upshot of this is that we cannot be sure whether grateful is genuinely ignorant of the historical fact that Islam was spread by the sword or if grateful is engaged in deceit, justified in the knowledge that he/she is acting in accordance with Mohammed's injunctions.

Is grateful playing on the goodwill of those who read his/her post or is grateful the only Muslim on the planet who doesn't know what Mohammed did to the Jews of Khaybar or the Banu Qurayza tribe?

grateful might want to brush up on his Koran:

Sura 8:39-40: “Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.”

Sura 9:5: "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."

Sura 9:123: “Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.”

And so on goes the Koran, telling the faithful to kill those who refuse to accept Islam.

grateful would have us believe that Mohammed went door-knocking.

Would you slam the door in Mohammed's face after you'd seen his bloodied sword?

Cripes, there goes the neighbourhood.

I think I'd prefer minarets. At least they can be aesthetically beautiful.

The lunatics have certainly taken over this asylum.

Herman,
You make it sould a bit like "Simon says"

Unlike Herman, Grateful says: DON"T rely on my word!

Go to leading (non-Muslim) scholars in Islam, those who have been able to publish in peer review articles and have a clear interest in protecting the integrity of their research, and ask questions such as:

"Was Islam spread by the sword?"

"Was Muhammad recognised, even by his most trenchant enemies, as an honest person?"

"Has the Qur'aan that we recite today been maintained uncorrupted since the time of its first revelation?"

Grateful also says:

"Ask of those who, like Herman, lift quotes from hadith and Qur'aan and apply their own interpretation, WHY they do not cite proof of their interpretation from well recognised Islamic scholars, or, alternatively, only seek out the opinion of the extremist Wahhabi sect."

"Ask why people like Herman do NOT provide proof for their various assertions by refering these issues of contention to recognised (non-Muslim) scholars of Islam"

Grateful thinks people like Herman need a lesson or two in critical thought and scientific reasoning. I was tempted to say that he appears to share the same mentality as the Wahhabis and so represent a threat to civilised society, whether it be Western or Islamic, but i should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Take care Herman

salaams

Good grief, Boaz is back.

>>Would you slam the door in Mohammed's face after you'd seen his bloodied sword?<<

A post riddled with carefully selected verses from the Qur'an, accompanied by a shrug of the "well, they said it, not me" fundamentalist Christian shoulders.

Now, where have we seen that before?

They all bang away at the same hate-filled drum, and wonder why normal people thinks they are religious bigots.

A pox on all their houses.

Sigh- not sure where to begin.

"CIR is scary"- yes, because giving a handful of career politicians and some of their privileged lobbyist partners full sway over our country's policies in their OWN interests only, and allowing private developers to do whatever they like- with everyone else powerless to stop them- has worked SO well for Australia hasn't it?
CIR is probably the simplest system to get the 'right' result- the side that's "correct" simply has to state their case- if it in fact actually counters the other's arguments it would most likely get ahead. The fact that the other side made no convincing case means they have only themselves to blame- not the other side (and I must say it's an interesting sensation to see most political parties and church groups join forces against the broad public and LOSE- unlike here where they both can turn our cities into police states to host private functions).
And don't give me any rubbish about "oh, the people are stupid they won't listen"- give me one example when a supposedly superior ideology was trumped by an inferior one in a referendum (and WHY they are such to each other), and I will happily give a theory of why it was shot down (or plain wrong).

Anyway- people of any country should have absolutely every RIGHT to directly say what kind of buildings they want and don't want built in their neighbourhoods, for whatever reasons they like- and it should apply independently of what Muslim countries do (most actually DO allow other temples to be constructed save the Arabian states, for your information- not that I see it matters even if they don't- it's their country).
We either have oppressive majorities/governments inhibiting free construction or we end up as a playground for the rich or influential- take your pick.

And considering some rather radical immigration proposals got voted DOWN by the public previously, the majority hardly seems particularly tyrannical.

grateful,

Accepting that they have captured the true and literal spirit of Islam is not “shar(ing) the same mentality as the Wahhabis”, although Herman is sure that CJ would beg to differ.

Herman would put it to you that it is not the critic of Islam but the Islamic apologist who takes Koranic verses out of context.

The most often used verse (Herman sees it referred to (out of context) in Grateful’s links) is…

Koran 5:32 –
"...whosoever killeth a human being... it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind..."

Aaah, the Koran is so lovely, Mohammed so peaceful.
Herman wants to hear more.
Give me the next verse…

Koran 5:33 –
"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land..."

Love the poetry. Truly Allah is all compassionate.

But Herman wonders what “strive after corruption in the land” means?
It must be pretty awful if the religion of peace thinks that it justifies killing or crucifying or amputating the limbs of the perpetrators

Never fear; the peaceful, perfect, eternal, unchangeable book of truth has the answer:

Koran 8:73 “Those who disbelieved are allies of one another. Unless you keep these commandments, there will be chaos on earth, and terrible corruption.”

So, those who fail to keep Allah’s commandments, the disbelievers, are to be punished for bringing chaos and corruption to the earth.

This is the way the Wahhabists interpret it and it’s hard to fault their logic,
constrained as they are by Islamic doctrine.
That’s the Koran.
That’s the context.

CJ can ignore it (and attack the messenger) and Grateful can try to hide it but even Herman can’t change it.

But at least Herman knows Grateful’s game now.

Salami,

Herman Yutic

It's not Boazy, Pericles - but I think it's reading from the same prayer book.

I mean, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SHOUTING yet.

But it's classic Islamophobia, I agree.

CJ Morgan,

"it seems to me that most of the" Islam apologists "here at OLO have invested far too much bluster and bile in denialism for a measured and reasonable argument like (mine) to have any chance of enlightening them."

In other words, you're just like you say they are.

Where's your counter argument?

Anybody can do ad hominem attacks.

Everytime I see the term "Islamaphobic", "Racist" and "bigot" I become more Islamaphobic and bigoted. Not sure how racist can be relevant but frequently pops up for the purpose of supporting socially forced censorship.

Once it is accepted as truth then laws will follow leading us down the path of yesteryear and will decimate liberal values. UN has already flirted with the idea of re-introducing blasphemy laws so perhaps the conservative religous right like C J Morgan will win in no short time to close down anti-religous speech.

So I am probably more opposed to the language than muslims. They have individual rights which I do not have a problem with. They should not have collective rights as a religion. If they do it has to come at the expense of my individual rights and then I will be vocal against them every step of the way.

Liberal values are clinging to life by a thread and there is a greater urgency for protection of individual rights than any religion.

It's always good to see the whack-a-mozzie brigade run out of steam.

And it looks like you've just done your dash, HermanYutic.

>>Where's your counter argument? Anybody can do ad hominem attacks.<<

Such beautiful juxtaposition of thoughts. Couldn't have done better myself.

Part the first: "Where's your counter argument?"

If you demand a "counter argument", HermanYutic, you must first put up an argument. Stringing together a load of insults, innuendo, accusations and good ol' invective doth not an argument make.

It might make you feel better about yourself in some way, but it doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, and therefore does not require rebuttal.

That is schoolyard stuff. "Wogs smell" "No they don't" "Yes they do" "No they don't" etc. etc. ad naus.

Part the second: "Anybody can do ad hominem attacks"

Just as anyone can do ad religionem attacks.

As you do. Frequently.

The simple fact is that sometimes the only way to alert people to the fact that they are being blindly bigoted is to return fire in the same terms as they themselves use.

As Lance Corporal Jones was wont to observe, "They don't like it up 'em"

It is only a religion. I wish people would stop elevating it to special status. No wonder people detest it, it is being pushed down people throats. How can anyone be bigoted against a book or belief system? Are you bigoted if you do not vote a certain way? This is such a dangerous road to take. People will fear the supression of speech on Islam far more than any passage quoted from their books.

Countless numbers of people suffer human rights abuses due to man's translation of holy books. To silence debate or expression is outrageous and so very pro extremism. Certainly not pro human rights.

Herman
as i said yours are not interpretations backed by scholarship and obviously you are unable (or unwilling) to offer such interpretations. These are the terms of my discussion, and if you don't like these terms then go bang on the door of a Wahhabi.

take care and salaams

Grateful, you seem to be ignoring the point, the interpretations lived by the radicalised followers of islam are the problem.

The book of islam describes a ton of violent episodes, you can interpret it how you like, although why it needs interpreting is beyond me because its pretty well spelled out - hard to miss the message in there.

But, for what its worth, the same abject violence is throughout the bible, which also doesn't require a lot of interpretation. They both have similar messages about violence.

The god(s) in both of these books controls and educates with violence, there is no mistaking the message in either.

No wonder the violence is still going on after thousands of years, how about a religious person writing a new book that encourages all religions to get along together without violence, what a novel, safe idea.

Pericles,

The Swiss people exercised their constitutionally-guaranteed, democratic right to ban minarets because they fear the encroaching Islamisation of their country.

They are justified in their fear, because “Islam the religion of peace” is as oxymoronic as it gets (that’s like Pericles with oxy+).

This can be readily demonstrated by examining the texts and the history of Islam, something you’re obviously not prepared to do (while grateful strategically practises taqiyyah).

Criticising a religious ideology is entirely different from attacking the man, just as Mohammed’s band of cut-throats was no Dad’s Army.
Even Lance Corporal Jones could have told you that.

I fully recognise that your tactics are mere obfuscation but that’s what HermanYutics’ for.

It is fortunate indeed that more people in Europe and elsewhere are waking up to the truth.

This is revealed in recent polling on how other Europeans feel about the Swiss people’s vote on minarets,
as applied to their own countries:

France:
Le Figaro: 73% for ban on minarets in France; 27% against ban on minarets in France (sample: 49,000)
L’Express: 86% for; 12% against (24,000)

Germany:
Der Spiegel: 76% for ban on minarets in Germany; 21% against
Die Welt: 82% for; 16% against

Spain:
20 Minutos: 93% for ban on minarets in Spain; 6% against (14,000)
El Mondo: 80% for; 20% against (35,000)

The people of Europe are awakening from their slumber.
I hope it’s not too late.

grateful,

You don’t set the terms of this discussion, although it is clear that this is the ultimate goal of yourself and your fellow travellers at the OIC.

Until then,
pepperoni

Herman Yutic

The views of ex-Muslims are the most reliable source about Islam.

An Arab-American proves beyond the shadow of doubt that Islam was created by Muhammad for his idiosyncratic behavior.

“I firmly believe that the Islamic faith was created to serve Muhammad and to legitimize his desires and urges. As eveidence we have Aisha’s [six-year old bride of Muhammad] , “I see that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desires.”

Wafa Sultan explains Islam to the world in an interview in Arabic. She enlightens the non-Muslims as to why the Islamic world is backward and filled with violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ough-e6ThWE&NR=1

“Thanks to another mental illness, namely temporal lobe epilepsy, the prophet of Islam had vivid hallucinations he interpreted as mystical and divine intimations. He also suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder, causing his fixations on numbers, rituals and stringent rules. In the addition, he suffered from acromegaly, a disease caused by excessive production of a growth hormone resulting in large bones and odd facial features. The combination of his psychological disorders and his unusual physiognomy made him a phenomenon that set him apart from ordinary people.”

Understanding Muhammad: The psychobiography of Allah’s prophet by Ali Sina
http://www.faithfreedom.org

The views of ex-Muslims are the most reliable source about Islam.

Former Muslims United Applauds Swiss referendum Victory banning Minarets-“the bayonets of Islam”
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/2009/12/01/former-muslims-united-applauds-swiss-referendum-victory-banning-minarets-%E2%80%9Cthe-bayonets-of-islam%E2%80%9D/

Nonie Darwish (Egypt) ex-Muslim speaks about the true situation in a Muslim country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Mdz_V2bN4&feature=player_embedded

"Carl Jung, Karl Barth, Adolf Hitler, Said Amir Arjomand, Maxime Rodinson and Manfred Halpern note Islam’s similarities to fascism or nazism (the latter two terms often used synonymously)….
For example, Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, was asked in the late 1930s in an interview if he had any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development. He replied, referring to the rise of Nazism in Germany, “We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.”

Ibn Warraq (Pakistani)
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/2009/12/08/islam-as-totalitarianism/

Hey guys,

I just simply asked for you to cite leading scholars to support your opinions and interpretations. They don't have to be Muslim, just scholars who have a reputation for academic integrity to protect and peer review research in the area to prove they are in fact authorities.

You say Islam preaches violence and everyone is apparently aware of this "fact", but where is the scholarly evidence?

You say one just has to look at the history of Islam..that it was spread by the sword...o.k then provide the proof from real scholars who would know.

You impugn the character of the Prophet, but on what basis? Where is the scholarly research that finds the Prophet was lacking in integrity?

..cont

It is always good to observe the mounting frustration in your posts, HermanYutic, as evidenced by the increase in schoolboy taunts.

>>as oxymoronic as it gets (that’s like Pericles with oxy+)<<

I bet you chuckled over that one, didn't you?

>>The Swiss people exercised their constitutionally-guaranteed, democratic right to ban minarets<<

As I have pointed out before, I have no problem with anyone exercising their rights. It is their country, and they are welcome to manage it any way they choose. As are the Saudi Arabians.

Speaking personally, I would find it sad to live in a country that is so narrow-minded and parochial. But that's the Swiss for you.

I would also avoid living in a country where they have a form of religious observance that would make me extremely uncomfortable. But that's the Saudis for you.

And as such, I am delighted to live in Australia, where we - by and large, and specifically excepting you and your acolytes - we are a friendly bunch, happy to live alongside people with views that differ from our own.

If you lot had your sad, narrow-minded and religiously-motivated way on the functioning of our society, I would be pretty upset. Just because they do these things overseas, doesn't mean we should copy them.

The polls arre interesting. Knowing the way media-driven polls are conducted, I'd be interested in seeing the questions, and the demographics of their readership.

And Philip Tang - are you absolutely sure about this?

>>The views of ex-Muslims are the most reliable source about Islam.<<

They would hardly be highly motivated to be scrupulously even-handed in their assessments, would they?

Imagine. It's 1960, and you've just defected from the USSR to America.

Would you go out of your way to extol the virtues of life in the Soviet Union? Or would you make a point of emphasising how bad it was?

You'd hardly be "the most reliable source".

grateful,

<Where is the scholarly research that finds the Prophet was lacking in integrity?>

Your demand puts us in a Catch 22 situation.

Maybe I should ask you a few questions:
What would happen to the Islamic scholar who published his research findings that the Prophet was lacking in integrity?
How many of his peers would review his work, let alone validate his findings?
No Western scholar would risk his tenure and no Islamic scholar would risk his neck.

This is the strength of Islam.
The punishment for blasphemy or apostasy (not much difference here) is death.

Maybe you missed that part in the Koran (4:89).

Could this help to explain the lack of peer-reviewed, scholarly criticism of Mohammed's integrity?

Never mind, let me provide a few non-peer-reviewed examples:

Mohammed took 20% of the spoils of war, including women (Koran 8:41).
Not for himself, of course, but for Allah.

Mohammed lusted after his adopted son’s wife Zaynab after seeing her disrobed.
She divorced her husband and married Mohammed.
Nothing wrong here because Allah immediately revealed to Mohammed that this was OK (Koran 33:4 & 33:37)
Since then, Sharia law has banned adoption!

Mohammed advocated “scourging” disobedient wives (Koran 4:34)
The 50yo Mohammed even beat his favourite 6yo wife Aisha.

Etc, etc, etc.

Hey, this is fun!
Anybody can misinterpret the Koran!

But, to be perfectly fair to Mohammed (F.H.), I don’t really know how a peer-reviewed Islamic scholar would define integrity.
Perhaps grateful could enlighten us on that small point.

salami

Herman, do you want a sample of the true source of what you refer to as the “power of Islam”.

In 628, the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai were concerned at the emergence of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. The Prophet issued them with a document which is in existence today and reads as follows:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

(1) Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

(2) No compulsion is to be on them.

(3) Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

(4) No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

(5) Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

(6) No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

(7) The Muslims are to fight for them.

(8) If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

(9) Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

[For a photo of the document see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Privileges]

How long has it taken the West to come close to guaranteeing the freedom of religion and human rights embodied in this Charter?
That's a real question. Has anyone of the above detractors got the ability to answer it honestly?

i'm with pericles: i think yutic is boaz.

I just think it odd that HermanYutic says he isn't religious, then takes on a nick that looks suspiciously like hermeneutic. Could be purely coincidence, I guess.

Why do the pro-Islam man attack the man so often? It seems a habit in more ways than one.

*I would also avoid living in a country where they have a form of religious observance that would make me extremely uncomfortable*

Ah Pericles, but that is exactly what the Swiss want to avoid
and what political Islam has made clear, they plan to make
Europe's destiny.

Let's say you hired a guy in one of your businesses and after
a short time there, he'd make it plain that in future he would
run things on his terms, not your terms, because you were a dill.

Your level of tolerance might well change.

Personally these days I am intolerant of the intolerant and
if we look at the reality of Islamic countries, intolerance
is the name of the game.

If you think I'm wrong, name me the list of Islamic countries
where people have free speech as we do.

Grateful, in response to your list, I remind you that old
Mohammed was indeed a smart fellow, but he also thought that
the end justified the means. So what was agreed and offered
today, might all change tomorrow, once Islam dominates.

Mohammed did indeed start his army/religion in Medina,
by raiding camel trains and it spread from there.

Ali Dashti is amongst the better of the scholars that I rely
on, for my information about Islam. For one, he was never
bankrolled by the Saudis.

His "23 Years" is about Mohammed's life and makes for
interesting reading, he was Iranian but eventually died
in Kohmeini's jails in his 80s.

"The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god. Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, Cont...

.../Cont. 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. The Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,374th year."

Yes massive death toll. To the west though only the causes that get you into the local desired club is all that matters.

If justice and truth were core values we would live in a better world.

Constance < "The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople".

Oh fair enough then! So it is ok for Christians to knock off each other then? Is that not murder anyway? Thou shalt not kill?

Do you really think you can hold up the Christian religions as pillars of society over the ages?

I would hazard a guess that their histories show just as much, if not more, violence and bloodshed as any Muslim religions.

A few examples:
The African slave trade, the Colonial Conquests of America, Australia, Ireland, and many others- all in the name of Christian countries like England.

In the 20th century, Rwanda, 1994 saw the killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans by each other, in a mostly Christian country.

1992-1995 Bosnia where hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by Christian Serbs.

People in glass houses Constance.

yabby,
Constance,
Way to go!

Suzeonline,

Your linking Christianity to the African slave trade in the context of Islam almost made me spill my cup of tea.
Here’s Part A of the true story:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2724:islams-genocidal-slavery-part-a&catid=170&Itemid=67
And here are links to parts B to F
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?searchword=genocidal+slavery&ordering=&searchphrase=all&Itemid=1&option=com_search
Yeah, I know you’ll never read them but that can’t be helped.

grateful,

Koran 9:1 “A declaration of immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.”

The treaty, if genuine, that you refer to is of no relevance excepting insofar as it gives insight into the nefarious nature of Islam.
As you should know, Koran 9:1-7 gives all the reasons why Muslims need not honour their treaties with “idolaters/pagans” (ie non-Muslims).
Treaties are simply to be used as a strategy to defeat the infidels.
That’s not me saying that, it’s in the Koran, as you should know.

Yes, Koran 9:4 might be cherry-picked by the apologist, but look what immediately follows it:
The infamous verse of the sword!
“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”

The fact that you try to prove a point by using Mohammed’s “charter to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai" demonstrates either that you are ignorant of Koran 9:1-7 or that you are being disingenuous.

Other OLO readers might like to speculate on the implications of Koran 9:1-7 in relation to peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Did you ever wonder why Hamas et al never seem to abide by their treaties?
It’s all in the Koran. Allah doesn’t require them to honour treaties with infidels.
Puts a different perspective on peace deals, doesn’t it?

I also note that grateful does not/cannot refute Koranic evidence of Mohammed’s lack of integrity (as we in the West would understand it) as referenced in my previous post.

salami,

Herman

Holy Moh!
I nearly forgot to answer your question:
<How long has it taken the West to come close to guaranteeing the freedom of religion and human rights embodied in this Charter?>
Not much of a “guarantee” after all, is it grateful?

That's precisely my point, Yabby.

>>...if we look at the reality of Islamic countries, intolerance is the name of the game. If you think I'm wrong, name me the list of Islamic countries where people have free speech as we do.<<

Why is it that you believe that we should emulate their intolerance?

It is not an argument that I can accept.

Just because other countries deny religious freedom, or ban architectural features that they disapprove of, doesn't mean that we should do the same.

Although in the case of Blues Point Tower, I might be persuaded to make an exception.

By the way, bushbasher, I don't think HermanYutic is actually Boaz. Just a - less interesting - clone.

Mind you, this thread is now a mirror image of many that were previously Boaz-influenced.

Rabid Christians quoting their favourite passages from the Qur'an, ad nauseam, and providing references from totally unbiased sources such as the Islam Monitor.

Which is a source short on fact, and extremely long on editorial.

What continues to puzzle me is the extraordinary level of fear in their voices, as they flail around trying to convince themselves that the Saracen hordes are descending.

Yabby's response is typical.

>>So what was agreed and offered today, might all change tomorrow, once Islam dominates.<<

They seem to have this fixation, that unless they spend their entire waking hours "proving" that Muslims are thoroughly bad fellows, they will soon feel the business end of a scimitar.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who wastes their life on such fruitless emotion.

They're far more likely to get ulcers from the stress, or suffer a heart attack from the high blood pressure, than be stoned to death for apostasy or whatever.

It's not healthy, people.

Pericles: "It's not healthy, people."

Yes. Some seem to view the world through "its us or them" glasses, and then go to great lengths to justify why we would all be better off without "them".

In one sense you are wasting your time fighting it, as from what I can tell the belief is implanted deeper than rational argument can reach. Yabby is but one example, but to give him his due it isn't just anti-Muslim. He treats all outsiders equally. Which is bit odd, since he is a South African immigrant himself. However, I'd be surprised if any of the people you are arguing with here are much different in their outlook. All are presenting essentially tribal arguments, and all view everyone outside their tribe with deep suspicion.

In another sense of course it is good you persist in putting up counter arguments. While they have no effect on the people you are arguing with, it gives us who are watching on solace in our views.

*Why is it that you believe that we should emulate their intolerance?*

Pericles, I am not suggesting that at all. You have to separate
religion and politics here and the freedoms that we now have did
not happen by accident, they were hard fought for. The Catholic
Church used to burn people like me and alot of blood was shed
for those freedoms which we take for granted. I don't take them
for granted and you imply that you'd go live somewhere else, which
is the easy cop out. I do try and learn from history.

The Swiss have not denied anyone the freedom to practise their
religion. I fight for the freedom of religion, but also the freedom
from religion.

Its my understanding that architecture of various kinds, is regulated
in much of Europe, under the various building codes. Building
materials, colours, etc, specified to fit in with the local
environments, to avoid eyesores.

I try not to argue about things which I don't understand and some
years ago I sat down and took the time to understand the fundamentals
of Islam and in the process, learnt the difference between Islam
and political Islam, also the history of old Mohammed, who was
an interesting fellow. So I have no problem with Catholics
or Muslims believing whatever they wish, but I have an issue
with political religion wanting to deny me the freedoms that I
now enjoy.

* since he is a South African immigrant himself.*

Not so rstuart, I am actually Swiss.

You are not the brightest of buttons at times :)

“You say one just has to look at the history of Islam..that it was spread by the sword...o.k then provide the proof from real scholars who would know”, grateful

You could refer to http://www.historyofjihad.com/ whose contributors are professors of some famous universities.

M.A. Khan who gave up Islam when he investigated the truth of what ex-Muslim Ali Sina wrote about Islam

“ I stumbled on the Faith Freedom International (FFI) Website sometime after the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time I came across such an intensely hateful and anti-Islamic site. I took a couple of days reading; I was extremely angry with Dr. Ali Sina and his contributors for their mindless attacks on Islam, a religion of peace and humanity. I took pennames and started writing all sorts of abusive comments against FFI and its writers.”

“My Journey to Freedom” http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/MeherApostacy.htm

It may be dangerous for you to visit these websites because you could either renounce Islam like MA Khan or turn the other way to become a jihadist suicide bomber in disgust at hearing the truth about Islam from infidels.

“Would you go out of your way to extol the virtues of life in the Soviet Union? Or would you make a point of emphasising how bad it was?” : Pericles

One of the greatest critics of Islam I came across is a Muslim who published the book “Malaysia and the club of doom --The collapse of Islamic countries” by Syed Akbar Ali.

Chapter 1 – The failed states. In this chapter, the author states the Characteristics of Failed Countries as:

1. Restrictions on free flow of information
2. The subjugation of women
3. inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure
4. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization
5. Domination of a restrictive religion
6. A low valuation of education
7. Low prestige assign to work

“But among all the Islamic countries, religion seems to have a larger and life role in ultimately causing state failure

In Chapter 2: Pakistan – a failed “Islamic” State? The author contrasts the secular India and Islamic Pakistan and concluded that India has fighting chance of crawling out of its hole.

Chapter 3: …“(1) There is a general “tidak apa” or “don’t really care” attitude about hygiene, cleanliness and taking care of children” (2) the subtle breakdown of law and order for Muslim – While non-Muslims in Malaysia are bless by God with a set of Just and fair law, the Muslims have to contend with religious enactment….religion apartheid against Muslim women…”, (3) In Malaysia religion is getting more intrusive into peoples’ daily live… moral squad.. , and (4) Aversion to hard work.

Chapter 4: Muslim violence is so predictable

Chapter 5: Denial – The fuel of falsehood

http://www.thai-blogs.com/index.php/2006/12/03/malaysia_and_the_club_of_doom_the_collap?blog=17#ixzz0ZMELwiXp

When there are many ex-Muslims of differing races and nationalities that speak the same thing about Islam, it is time to take note of what they are saying rather than shut our eyes and ears to the dangers of Islam.

for christ's sake yabby. if you're gonna be anti-islam, at least be honest about it. to suggest that the minaret ban isn't an example of religious intolerance is just ludicrous. the fact that it's petty and dumb doesn't mean it's not intolerant.

pericles, i'd look more closely at yutic's phrasing. he's avoiding capitals, but it's astonishingly boazy.

*to suggest that the minaret ban isn't an example of religious intolerance is just ludicrous. the fact that it's petty and dumb doesn't mean it's not intolerant.*

Fair enough bushbasher, as an average Aussie, you clearly don't
know much about the topic, so I found a couple of URls for you,
to try and explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/11/30/minarets-and-islamic-supremacism/

You are confusing Islam as a religion, which is not about minarets,
and Islam as a political movement, which is very much about
minarets. Big difference!

No Muslim needs minarets to be a muslim and Islam is not banned
in Switzerland.

The very reason that this became an issue, was that some Muslims
decided to ignore the wishes of the locals, when it came to
architecture and challenged it in the courts. It became a political
issue, so people responded and held a referendum to change the
constitution, they won.

I see no reason why religion should be exempt from local planning
laws, after all, nobody else is exempt.

I remind you that when the Swiss Govt wanted to join the EU, the
people rejected it. For very good reasons, democracy in its true
sense prevailed, politicians could not do as they pleased and
to this day, Switzerland is not a member of the EU.

Australians could in fact learn something from the Swiss system
of democracy.

grateful,

Here are some more quotes straight from the camel's mouth:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427
"By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 261:
"If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then do what is better and make expiation for your oath."

"Better" for who or for what?

Better for the idolater?
Or, better for Islam?

What would Mohammed do?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

Pericles,

"Rabid Christians quoting their favourite passages from the Qur'an, ad nauseam, and providing references from totally unbiased sources such as the Islam Monitor."

So you do not call for tolerance of rabid christians? Christianaphobia?

Muslims are in many shades. If we are simplistic and break it down into two - liberal muslim and conservative muslim many would actually support the liberal Islamic interpretation. However we are too often demanded to tolerate the conservative so present another obstacle to the liberal muslim to overcome.

We do not have to, or should be even asked to tolerate any religion but only to respect the individual right to hold this belief system. There should be no law to demand tolerance, that is loss of freedom. When people are supressed from speaking their views the feelings will rise in such ways as we see here, a ban on minaret. Feelings come out in one way or another and speech is the least offensive expression of all.

In Switzerland many muslims supported the minaret ban. The minaret holds no interest or tradition for them. They do not want political Islam. They were also offended by Libya. It would have been better to support the liberal or cultural muslim than be either pro or anti conservative. That would have been recognition of the acceptable or more compatible aspect and far more in line with traditional liberal values of the left. However because the left do not represent the liberal muslim but the more extreme conservative then they force an extremist reponse.

As many muslim moderates say we have two enemies, conservative Islam and the western left who support them.

yabby,

1) i'm not an aussie.

2) andrew bostom seems pretty clearly to be anti-islamic, and a conspiracy nut.

3) i have no idea why you linked to the wikipedia article. it was interesting and informative, and seems to make clear that the minaret ban was an example of religious intolerance.

if you don't know the long history of attacking groups by indirect and disingenuous legal bans, perhaps you should read more. maybe someone other than bostom.

It is only intolerance of extremism. Majority swiss muslims agree they do not need a minaret and many oppose them. It was the way it was done that needs addressing but forcing a structure that neither Swiss or swiss muslims want is not religous tolerance. It is pandering to extremists. It just means that people do not understand and should perhaps admit that. There is no need for minarets in Switzerland. There should have been no need for a referendum. The real issue is why it became one and that is more offensive to muslims than minarets. I think it best to address that than force something on a nation that they do not want.

Bushbaser, as it happens I don't "read Bostom", but the link
came up, when I searched. Given that the details about minarets
being an Islamic political statement came from the Brill
Encyclopedia of Islam, who the messenger is, I really don't care.

The Wickipedia article explained the background of the dispute,
which was about a group of Muslims, challenging the local
planning laws in the courts.

Why should religions be exempt from local planning laws?

As it happens, tourism is a huge income earner for Switzerland
and its those picture postcard views of Central Europe that
Americans spend a fortune each year to see for themselves.

A town like Lucerne, with its cobblestone streets and houses
hundreds of years old, a famous wooden bridge etc, would
look decidely odd with a bunch of huge minarets sticking out of
the middle.

So I would have voted for the ban too, for political as well
as commercial reasons. That does not stop anyone from practising
their Muslim faith in Switzerland. Minarets could not even
have a use, for the call to prayer at 5 am would contravene the
noise pollution laws.

The fact that the Swiss are taking a stand against political Islam
is great to see. Leave political Islam where it belongs, in the
Middle East. For wherever political Islam goes, trouble surely
follows. That is quite distinct from people practising their
Muslim faith, wherever they please. Nobody has banned the building
of mosques.

If you can't see the difference, then I can't really help you
either lol.

Yabby: "Not so rstuart, I am actually Swiss."

Sorry, Yabby. I don't know where I got the idea you were South African.

Yabby: "You are not the brightest of buttons at times :)"

So it seems. :(

"One of the architects of the controversial Swiss referendum that resulted in a ban on the construction of minarets has a Turkish heritage, daily Milliyet reported on Wednesday. Born in the Aegean province of Izmir to a Turkish father and a Swiss mother, Soli Pardos family moved to Switzerland when he was 5 years old, the daily said."
"Regarding the referendum, he said: We do not believe that the minarets are linked to worship because no calls to prayer are made from the minarets. We are not against building mosques but against 5- to 6-meter-tall minarets."

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME03.XAM18094.html

A Turk who has become an Islamophobic Swiss!

The fact that Herman and one or two others are prepared to say 'this or that' about the Prophet, about the teachings of Islam and even about my own character, while acknowledging they have not read serious scholarship and have no desire to do so proves one point: for them the ends justify the means(an accusation laid against the Prophet when I presented the Charter of Privileges to Christians http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html ).

For those who want to scrutinise the real teachings of Islam, can take it from the greatest of Islamic scholars Al-Gazzali (1058-1111 AD) and his work "The Revival of the Religious Sciences". Samples are available online from here: http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm

"The Revival of the Religions Sciences widely regarded as the greatest work of Muslim spirituality, and has, for centuries, been the most read work after the Quran in the Muslim world.
The Revival of the Religious Sciences is divided into four parts each containing ten chapters. The first part deals with knowledge and the requirements of faith—ritual purity, prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage, recitation of the Qur'an, etc.; part two concentrates mostly on people and society—the manners relating to eating, marriage, earning a living, friendship, etc.; parts three and four are dedicated to the inner life of the soul and discuss first the vices that people must overcome in themselves and then the virtues that they must strive to achieve. Below are details of the books contents, translations, mainly in English and a link to the original Arabic here for the first time on the internet."

cont...

grateful,

Former Muslims United:
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/
is a useful resource for those Muslims who wish to break the shackles of their brainwashing.

Islam Watch:
http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/
is a group of apostates who share their stories on Islam.

The Religion of Peace:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
monitors the incidence of Islamic violence, murder and mayhem around the globe on a daily basis.

Jihad Watch:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
monitors the global Islamic threat.

Polital Islam:
http://www.politicalislam.com/
educates on the political goals of Islam.

What would Mohammed do:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm
gives an insight into the character of the Holy Prophet (F.H.)

the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/
is "the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups"

salami,

Herman

grateful,

All significant aspects of Islam that have been examined and debated are available in ‘islam-watch’. Islamic society is kept back from progress, laid-back and war-like because people like Ghazali.

ex-Muslim Syed Kamran Mirza wrote,

“another of Ghazali’s major work was: Ihya al-Ulum al-Din (The revival of religious sciences) was widely regarded as the greatest work of Muslim spirituality, and has, for centuries, been the most read work after the Qur’&#257;n in the Muslim world. In this book Imam Ghazali rejuvenated Islamic dogmas (full of ridiculous hadiths with untold superstitions and absurdities) only to push back Muslim societies deep into the darkness of Islamic radicalism. He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. Philosophy declined in the Sunni world after al-Ghazali, and his criticism of philosophers (Islamic luminaries who followed Aristotle, Pluto, Socrates etc) certainly accelerated this decline.”

The many scientists that lived during “Islam Golden’s Age” weren’t even Muslims.

"For example Al-Razi wrote three books dealing with religion: (1) The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks, (2) The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets."

part 1/2

Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (865-925): was a Persian physician, philosopher, and scholar. According to al-Biruni he was born in Rayy, Iran the year 865 AD and died there in 925 AD.

On Religion: Al-Razi wrote three books dealing with religion: (1) The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks, (2) The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets.

He offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences.

About Prophets al-Razi wrote:

“The prophets—these billy goats with long beard, (as Ar Razi disdainfully describes them)—cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master."

“If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed. Al-name of so-and-so..”

The Nostalgia of Islamic Golden Age

http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Nostalgia-of-Islamic-Golden-Age.htm

part 2/2

This is a special message for HermanYutic and Philip Tang.

Now look, you guys, it's all very well using this space as your own personal whack-a-mozzie fitness regime, but you should spare a thought for where it will lead.

I don't care how many times you say "they're out to get us all", the fact is that you are nothing more than cowardly trouble-makers.

It's not all one way, you know.

Srebrenica, for example, saw the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II", and was conducted by your lot, on purely religious grounds.

By continuing along the path you are taking, such events will continue to erupt in different places, and with different faces, around the world.

You obviously believe that you are "right" to conduct your own private guerrilla war-of-words, and to incite your fellow-citizens to rally behind you in your quest to eliminate your religious rivals.

But you are only "right" inside your own head.

To the majority of the rest of the world, you are simply interfering meddlers, intent on fomenting hatred and fear.

From a safe distance.

Every time you take up your pen to provide us with your own warped view of someone else's deeply held beliefs, you are bringing someone's murder one step closer.

You don't know who it will be, or where it will take place.

And you don't particularly care.

It might be one of your religious enemies, in which case you will rejoice at their demise.

Or it might be one of your own religion. In which case you will rejoice at having another reason to sling your evil verbal rocks.

Either way, some of their blood, wherever it is shed in the world, will be on those hands that tap away at your keyboard.

Frankly, you make me puke.

Thanks for the reminder Pericles.

However if you consider the following reasons you’ll see why your concern is an over-reaction of the appeasement policy to radical Islam.

i) OLO is a forum where the battle of ideas take place. It is different from main stream media where political correctness is the order of the day. Read The Age, SMH, CNN, Newsweek or listen to the BBC to get the feel-good stuff about Islam.

ii) I don’t think there are any posts in OLO advocating the beating up of Muslims, or taking the law into their own hands.

iii) The readership in OLO is minuscule. It is therefore very unlikely that a riot would take place because someone read the posts here.

iv) The ideals of democracy -- free speech, justice, equality are sacrosanct. They are non-negotiable and there can be no compromise. These are foreign to the Islam ideology.

I understand your fear of the reaction of irrational Islamists but the good news is that more and more people are now enlightened about the destructive nature of Islamic ideology.

Thanks to HermanYutic for the following:

France:
Le Figaro: 73% for ban on minarets in France; 27% against ban on minarets in France (sample: 49,000)
L’Express: 86% for; 12% against (24,000)

Germany:
Der Spiegel: 76% for ban on minarets in Germany; 21% against
Die Welt: 82% for; 16% against

Spain:
20 Minutos: 93% for ban on minarets in Spain; 6% against (14,000)
El Mondo: 80% for; 20% against (35,000)

The people of Europe are awakening from their slumber.
I hope it’s not too late.

Phillip Tang wrote the following:

QUOTE
About Prophets al-Razi wrote:

“The prophets—these billy goats with long beard, (as Ar Razi disdainfully describes them)—cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master."
ENDQUOTE

Al-Razi was referring to all Prophets including Jesus and Moses along with Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Is this your view as well? Do you argue that Moses and Jesus were frauds?

This reminds me of interfaith discussion with a representative from the uniting church. After apologising for the behaviour of avangelists and other fundamentalists christians he duly proceeded to lecture us Muslims on the need to take a good hard look at ourselves. He recommended ibn Warraq "Why i am not a Muslim", as has Tang (or was it Herman?).

Of course if you read ibn Warraq you'll also come across a chapter on Jesus. His view is that Jesus is an adaptation of a Greek myth (Zeus). So we have those who claim to follow Jesus recommending as authorative a person who rejects the notion of Jesus as a Prophet not to mention the Son of God.

We are not dealing with very intelligent people here.

more to come...

Grateful wrote:

"We are not dealing with very intelligent people here."

LOL

Sorry Grateful I cannot resist.

On the one side we have people who purport to believe that a first century itinerant Jewish preacher was the son of God and God and that he rose from the dead! This after raising his buddy, Lazarus, from the dead!

On the other hand we have people who believe a seventh century psychopath was the last and greatest "prophet". They further purport to believe that a compendium of claptrap called the "recitation" was dictated verbatim to this psychopath through the agency of Gibril, a messenger from the creator of the universe no less. Couldn't the creator of the universe at least get the basic facts of mammalian reproduction and geology right?

"We are not dealing with very intelligent people here."

You do have a gift for understatement Grateful.

Stevenlmeyer,

You state that the Prophet was a "psychopath" and the Qur'an is a "compendium of claptrap". Since you surely would not be so silly as to make such statements without the full authority of leading scholars in Islamic studies then please provide us with your sources.

Definition of psychopath: some with a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy.

Here are some hadith with constitute evidence to the contrary:

(1) A man who saw the Prophet, peace be upon him, kissing his grandson said: "I have ten sons and i have not kissed any one of them". The Prophet looked at the man and said, "He who has no compassion will receive none." (ref: Buhkari, Muslim)

The Prophet, pbuh, said:

(2) "A true believer in God is an embodiment of love. There is no goodness in him who dares not show affection to others and to whom others do not show affection" (ref: Musnad Ahmad)

(3) "God will show no compassion on him who has no compassion on all mankind" (ref: Buhkari, Muslim)

(4) "God does not show mercy to him who does not show mercy to people." (Bukhari)

(5) "He is not oneof us who neither loves our young ones nor respects our elders."

(6)"Have mercy upon the earthly creatures that the One who is in the Heavens have mercy on you" (Abu Da'ud)

(7) "Feed the hungry, visit the sick, and free the slave" (ref: Bukhari)

So Stevenlmeyer, your sources please.

I'll come back to the Qur'an latter, but here is a sample of what you are calling "claptrap":

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly to justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not your lusts (of your heart) lest ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with what ye do" (Qu'ran 4:135)

Battle of ideas?

>>OLO is a forum where the battle of ideas take place.<<

Is that what you call it?

This is not a "battle of ideas", Philip Tang.

You are merely engaging in inflammatory polemic.

>>...Islam is a demented and evil ideology<<

>>...taking a stand against the spread of Islamic tyranny<<

>>Islam is not truly a religion but a potential time bomb, waiting to explode as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and many other countries and regions where this demonic ideology has taken a foothold.<<

>>The pseudo-LEFT are playing with fire by supporting the Islamists to get their votes, akin to Hitler’s alliance with the Islamists during World War II. The pseudo-LEFT political parties have more in common with the Nazis than other political parties.<<

And that only covers a fraction of your contribution to this one thread.

>>I don’t think there are any posts in OLO advocating the beating up of Muslims, or taking the law into their own hands.<<

So you don't think that your constant denigration of an entire religious movement has any impact on its adherents?

In your view, the Nazis did not cause Kristallnacht, because Hitler didn't advocate the beating up of Jews?

In fact, I believe he specifically said, following the news of the death of Vom Rath, "demonstrations should not be prepared or organised by the party"

The parallel is exquisite, don't you think?

>>The readership in OLO is minuscule. It is therefore very unlikely that a riot would take place because someone read the posts here<<

That has to be the most pathetic excuse for your whack-a-mozzie antics that I have ever heard.

The readership of OLO might be small. But your views, as you well know, may be Googled by anyone.

>>I understand your fear of the reaction of irrational Islamists<<

So, after all that mumbling about not advocating beating, and protesting that no-one is listening anyway, you accept that you expect a reaction.

You are even dishonest with yourself.

That's just pathetic.

grateful,
Mohammed's Meccan revelations reflect his subordinate political position
(earlier, tolerant Mohammed - nice verses).
After attaining power and authority in Medina he became increasingly bellicose
(later, intolerant Mohammed - nasty verses).
The inoffensive parts (nice verses) of the Koran are abrogated by the later parts (nasty verses):
"Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
We bring a better one or similar to it.
Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" Koran 2:106
(nasty verses trump nice verses).
Mohammed received this revelation from Allah after some of his followers became skeptical
due to the increasing number of contradictions in his revelations.
Because the Koran is not assembled in chronological order the numerical sequence of the Suras
cannot reliably indicate which verse abrogates a contradictory one.
The upshot is that the (nasty) verses below abrogate your (nice) quotes:

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or
crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).

salami,
Herman

It is sad to see that Pericles has been cowed by the Islamists through terrorism into submission. He is fearful for his life, and fear has clouded his thinking rationally. He is even afraid to look at the mounting evidence all over the world that where Islam prevails, there is chaos, mayhem, mass killings, rape, piracy, etc.

The Islamists through bribes, violence and terrorism hope to silence any debate or criticism of the ideology of Islam. The mainstream media in the West, India and many other countries has been misleading the public that Islam is a “religion of peace”. It is a blatant lie.

Thankfully many non-Muslims and non-Islamists now know what Islam really stands for. Let's hope they will vote out those political parties that are sympathetic to this evil ideology.

I see no reason why the religion should be defended. Why? Even the poster boy for western liberal muslims Tariq Ramadan is a misogynist and homophobic. The more Voltaires of Islam the better imo. I agree that those non-muslims that do defend it are the true Islamaphobes, scaredy cats that do not care for women.

I see that your commitment to a "battle of ideas" didn't last, eh Philip Tang?

>>It is sad to see that Pericles has been cowed by the Islamists through terrorism into submission. He is fearful for his life, and fear has clouded his thinking rationally. He is even afraid to look at the mounting evidence all over the world that where Islam prevails, there is chaos, mayhem, mass killings, rape, piracy, etc.<<

That's classic transference.

Only someone so overburdened with fear of another's religion would spend their lives attacking shadows in the way that you do.

The same fear, one has to assume, that led to the mindless massacre at Srebrenica - not a pitched battle between armed forces, you will note, but a full-scale slaughter of unarmed civilians.

"...a Serb told a mother to make her child stop crying, and when it continued to cry he took it and slit its throat, after which he laughed..." Der Spiegel, June 5, 2007

" Two [Serb soldiers] took her legs and raised them up in the air, while the third began raping her. Four of them were taking turns on her." The Independent (London), July 18, 1995.

"The [video evidence] shows an orthodox priest blessing several soldiers. Later these soldiers are shown with tied up captives, dressed in civilian clothing and visibly physically abused; they were later identified as four minors as young as 16 and two men in their early twenties"

http://www.domovina.net/tribunal/ictytv/050601_milosevic_eng.ram

Those were Christians, Philip Tang.

Since there was nothing to fear from the individuals themselves, it is obvious that the soldiers' only motivation was a fear of their religion.

And you are continuing their good works.

You must be immensely proud of yourself.

Pericles, What has that got to do with this talkboard? You are anti-christian so pull out an example to prove your claim so why can't others do likewise? Are you suggesting it is ok to be anti one religion but not another? Would it be ok then to suggest 911 is due to people like you that are pro-Islam? Silly response all round. Plus as they claim the situation prior to the massacre was due to atrocities committed against Christians only underlines the two do not mix so why push it?

Tit for tat game continued. Warning graphic content, may cause offence or upset.
http://tinyurl.com/yhwl6lg

Words never killed anyone by the way. So where is the harm? The Cronulla race riots were a reaction to suppression of the truth of race hate crimes committed against non-muslims and lack of justice. The government failed the people so anarchy ensued. It is best to talk it out. I for one think if we suppress hate speech against Islam then the Koran should be banned, just one long hate speech is it not. To suppress one is to empower the other.

TheMissus: "Warning graphic content, may cause offence or upset."

I love your impassioned defence of free speech. I agree.

And I would not worry too much about that link either. It would have to be R18+ rated content. Now we know the government plans to make the mandatory filter law, once it is place it will probably be banned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

Pericles,

I agree with you too - every word you say. However they would not still be here, spewing this bile forth if you were not giving them something to bounce off. Well you, stevenlmeyer and greateful.

Pericles,

“Only someone so overburdened with fear of another's religion would spend their lives attacking shadows in the way that (Philip Tang) do(es).”
Fear of Islam causes Philip Tang to spend his life attacking shadows.

“The same fear, one has to assume, that led to the mindless massacre at Srebrenica.”
Fear of Islam, Pericles assumes, "led to the mindless massacre at Srebrenica”.

”Since there was nothing to fear from the individuals themselves, it is obvious that the soldiers' only motivation was a fear of their religion.”
Fear of Islam was the only motivation behind “the mindless massacre at Srebrenica”.

”And you are continuing their good works.”
Philip Tang’s "attacking shadows" is equivalent to a Serb slitting an infant’s throat in front of its mother and then laughing, all due to Fear of Islam.

The mind boggles, Pericles.
I fear that you are serious,
but how is that possible?

Philip Tang is continuing the “good works” of people who slit an infant’s throat in Srebrenica,
by posting comments critical of Islam on this forum?

And the damning evidence linking these morally equivalent crimes?
Fear of Islam!

But wait,
Fear of Islam...
Isn’t that the same as...Islamophobia?

Now it’s starting to make sense.
Philip Tang’s fear of Islam makes him an Islamophobe,
which is morally equivalent to slitting an infant’s throat in front of it’s mother.

And here was me thinking for a moment that you’d gone off the rails,
when all the time you were merely being consistent.

Oh dear,

The topic of this thread is changing to which superstition is the more frightful, Christianity or Islam.

It's a hard call.

On the other hand I know which one is the funnier.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ExMuslimUK#p/u/6/JSfQrMvuGf0

Islam wins hands down.

Here is my all time favourite hadith

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 6 :: Hadith 301

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/001.006.301.html

Monty Python eat you heart out. Life of Brian was a nice try but it doesn't match this.

The Prophet said: "None of you has achieved faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself"

According to the commentary of Imam Al Nawawi (13th century scholar and a majot source of ISlamic teachings today as in the past): " "brother" should be interpreted as universal brotherhood, which includes Muslims and non-Muslims", while " "love" here refers to the desire for good and benefit to come to others."

Al-Nawawi goes on:

"For human nature causes people to desire harm to befall their enemies and to discriminate against those who are unlike them (in creed, colour, or character). But men must oppose their nature and pray for their brothers and desire for others what they desire for themselves."

"Moreover, whenever a man does not desire good for his brother, it is from envy. And envy is a rejection of God's apportionment in the world. Thus one is opposing how God meted out sustenance in concord with His wisdom. Therefore, one must oppose his own ego's desires and seek treatment from this desease with the healing force of acceptance of the divine decree and prayer on behalf of one's enemies in a way that suppresses the ego."

source:"Purification of the Heart: signs, symptoms, and cures of the spiritual diseaeses of the heart"

In addition, one could add that good thoughts will manifest themselves in good actions which allows one to draw closer to God, while bad thoughts will manifest themselves in bad actions which will cause one to move away from God.

Is there any disagreement on this point?

salaams

You're right, rstuart, by arguing with these fanatics, I am becoming part of the problem.

>>However they would not still be here, spewing this bile forth if you were not giving them something to bounce off.<<

It also causes some weird side-effects:

TheMissus takes me to task for being anti-christian, of all things...

>>Pericles, What has that got to do with this talkboard? You are anti-christian so pull out an example to prove your claim so why can't others do likewise? Are you suggesting it is ok to be anti one religion but not another?<<

This is of course exactly the opposite of the point I was making - that Christians shouldn't bang on about the evils of Islam without recognizing that equally nasty things could be said about them.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5

If only these people read their Bible.

But as a final parting wave (byeee) I'd like to take serious issue with one of TheMissus' throwaway lines:

>>Words never killed anyone by the way<<

That's a bit like saying "people don't kill, it's the guns"

Words have been employed throughout history to kill people.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they have been the direct cause of every single war. Ever.

grateful,

You are no longer discussing, you are proselytising.
But that's okay, for Islamic proselytising is not forbidden in Western countries in the way that Christian proselytising is haram in Islamic countries.
Wouldn't it be nice if Islam would reciprocate?
Unfortunately, sharia law doesn't allow it.

Is there any disagreement on your point?

Your claim that Al Nawawi interprets "brother" as universal brotherhood would only be true in a universe where everyone is Islamic.
The eternal and immutable Holy Koran, which is a perfect copy of the original which Allah keeps in his celestial library (notwithstanding Mohammed's revelatory abrogations), clearly states:

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).

Not much universal brotherhood there, I'm afraid.

Do you put the writings of Al Nawawi above the Koran?
Are you saying that the Koran is not perfect for all time?
Those are heretical suggestions and I shouldn't have to warn you what the Islamic penalty is for heresy.

Who are you going to believe grateful?
A 13th century desert dweller or
a 7th century desert dweller?

BTW
When you quoted Al Nawawi you left out a part so I've inserted it at the end on your behalf:
"For human nature causes people to desire harm to befall their enemies and to discriminate against those who are unlike them (in creed, colour, character or sexual orientation).

I'm sure that's what Al Nawawi and the Holy Prophet (F.H.) would have meant to include.

Pericles
Islam’s Useful Idiots have politicised this religion attaching themselves so unethically any anti-western theme regardless of idealism so there is a very strong element of politics. There is ample evidence there is political support from non Muslims so the requests for censorship need to be viewed as political.
Secondly this website should have administrators that monitor for hate speech and should not be the business of politically motivated members who self appoint as watchdogs.

If you have a problem with the moderation why not contact the admin staff? Are they allowing illegal content? I see many members here stalk other members and spit there venom at people, not ideas or thoughts. How immature. My personal opinion is by suggesting another member is as guilty of a massacre as those that committed is the epitome of hate speech..so hardly qualified to claim moral superiority are you.? Why would anyone respect your request when you are so vile with words yourself?

Plus if you are against words that incite hate you would be calling for the banning of the Koran. However your motivation is political and not based on personal ethics or ideology.

If you do not like content, turn the page, go to a self serving site. Why annoy people with these judgements? You are not the god of me nor are you running this site.

Pericles wrote:

"Words have been employed throughout history to kill people.

"In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they have been the direct cause of every single war. Ever."

Absolutely true. Words can be and frequently are dangerous. Even more so, images. Even where they don’t kill they can cause terrible hurt.

So what is your solution Pericles.

Censorship?

Or is it perhaps censorship but I won’t call it that? Instead I'll use weasel words like "responsible free speech code"?

I am sure that many Christians were deeply wounded by the appearance of "Piss Christ" at an exhibition in Melbourne. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

They were probably as hurt as were Muslims by the Muhammad cartoons.

Would you censor "Piss Christ"?

Or the Muhammad cartoons?

Many Jews are deeply hurt by criticisms of Israel. Like this Leunig cartoon.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/492/492p22c.gif

In fact the Age refused to publish it. Were they right?

Would you censor Leunig?

Moving images can be even more hurtful. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo

This appeared on Cable TV in Australia as part of the Optus "ART" (Arab Radio & TV) offering a few year ago. Would you censor it? (Perhaps one could justify banning this one on the grounds that it is child abuse.)

What is your solution Pericles.

My guess is your solution is censorship but you'll use weasel words to pretend it isn't.

Words are dangerous. Censorship, whether so-called or disguised by weasel words and euphemism is orders of magnitude more dangerous.

There are no free lunches. If you want the benefits of democracy you have to have free – truly free, not quasi-censored by Pericles – speech. That means you have to accept the dangers of free speech as well

Wow. I express disgust at the mindless polemic against Islam that litters this thread, and suddenly I'm in favour of censorship?

What crap.

I am expressing an opinion.

And my opinion is that there is a bunch of yellow-bellied self-righteous hypocritical christians on this thread who, as soon as someone explains to them the fact that they are a bunch of yellow-bellied self-righteous hypocritical christians, start to whinge and bitch about censorship.

I have as much right to my opinion of these people, as they themselves have when they "spew their bile", as rstuart so accurately and picturesquely describes it.

>>Why would anyone respect your request when you are so vile with words yourself?<<

Which request was that, TheMissus?

I have not requested anyone to refrain from voicing their opinion, at any time. So that's just an attempt at deflection on your part, isn't it?

Everyone has the right - as you point out, within some reasonable boundaries - to their opinion.

Including me.

And once again, in case you missed the point, there are some people on this thread who take every opportunity to insult the religion of others. The manner in which they accomplish this, I find despicable, and if I choose, I shall continue to tell them so.

Now, if you can find a single sentence of mine that actually advocates censorship, let me know, and I'll donate $100 to your favourite charity.

“... the mindless massacre at Srebrenica.” (Pericles)

The unfortunate event that took place is the direct result of Islam and what the Islamists did to the Serbian people.

“To understand this battle in the context of Serbia, one must look back to the 14th century when Kosovo was the center of the Serbian empire and site of its most sacred churches and monasteries.

In 1389, the Serbs lost the land of Kosovo and later Serbia to the Ottoman Turks in a decisive battle fought in Kosovo Polje, the Field of Blackbirds. The Battle of Kosovo is an event entrenched in the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian (and all southern Slav) consciousness, uniting all Serbs who treasure Kosovo as their Jerusalem, their holy land.

After this battle, what is Kosovo and Albania today was occupied by the Ottomans who unleashed a merciless tyranny on the people of these lands.

Over the next 500 years, the Ottomans forcibly converted many Albanians to Islam and once the entire population was converted, they forced these novice Muslim Albanians to leave their homeland to settle in Kosovo to alter the demographic balance in favor of Muslims and make the ethnic Christian Serbs a minority.

Under Milosevic, the Serbs tried to undo these historical injustices by reclaiming the territory of Kosovo that they had lost to the Ottomans who resettled Kosovo with Ottomans and Kosovar Muslim converts from Albania”

http://www.historyofjihad.org/serbia.html?syf=contact
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm#4

The ideology of Islam is a 1000 times more evil than Nazism because whereas Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews, the Islamists want to destroy everything and everyone that is non-Islamic. This fact is documented in detail http://www.historyofjihad.org/

Pericles, those responsible at what took place in Srebrenica have been brought to justice but what about the 700 Jewish men of Banu Qurayza beheaded (their wives and daughters raped, property looted) under Muhammad’s order; who’s going to plead their cause for justice?

Pericles, Your opinion is against an individual ie personal abuse.

My husband and I disagree on religion, politics and UFO'S. We respect the fact that we can hold different views. If he told me he pukes due to my views, that I was a bigot or some such nonsense I would suggest that could incite female initiated domestic violence lol. However we are truly tolerant because we allow such divergence of opinion without the need for personal attack.

Therein lies the difference. However I did snigger under my breath once that only a fool would believe in UFO's. oooops.

Here is your club Pericles, next we will have outlawed speech against denial of UFO'S.

http://tinyurl.com/yzgz9qq

Be careful what you wish for.

pericles, i agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. but i have no idea what you're doing in this cesspool. how can you tolerate the stench?

Hi Phillip,

Can you name the source, the historian, you use as the basis of your description of events under the Ottoman Empire (a real name not a website). We should in fact get some serious scholars and examine what they say happened in Albania and Kosovo. What do you say?

Would you like to begin by nominating serious scholars and historians that we can use?

We can start with your contention that that Islam was spread by the sword in Kosovo.

By the way, what religion do you follow that would justify Srebrenica?

Pericles,

From the tenor of your post time stamped Friday, 18 December 2009 10:51:33 AM I thought you were advocating censorship of "dangerous words".

I was mistaken and I apologise.

My favourite charity is the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. Feel free to donate as much as you like.

Grateful, Philip Tang

Here is a link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Ottoman conquest of Serbia:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/654691/Serbia/43571/Conquest-by-the-Turks#ref=ref477239

The article states specifically that no attempt was made to convert the conquered people by the sword. However:

--Non-Muslims were taxed more heavily than Muslims; and

--There was a periodic conscription of Christian boys who were removed from their families and taken to Constantinople. Some of them were conscripted into the Janissaries.

See:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_janissaries.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

In other words the Christians appear to have suffered LOST GENERATIONS for many centuries under Ottoman rule.

Grateful,

Doubtless you will come up with horrors that Christians perpetrated against Muslims. As I said above, deciding which of the two superstitions, Islam or Christianity, is the more frightful is a tough call.

But keep at it all you good Christians and Muslims and may the best superstition win. ;-)

I have been asking those who make charges against Islam or provide their own interpretations of the scripture to provide proper supporting scholarship and so i'm pleased Stevenlmeyer has done so in regard to the charge that Islam was forced upon the Kosovians.

Broadly, you'll find that the general consensus among scholars of Islam (all non-Muslim) is that Islam was not spread by the sword. People can look up, for example, John L Esposito (editor of Oxford History of Islam) or Prof Thomas W Arnold's classic "The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching"

Wikipaedia is a useful starting point for those who want to undertake their own investigation and of it confirms what i have said regarding the scholarly consensus:

[\QUOTE]Although Islamic history has been studied extensively, the early years of expansions and their nature has remained a poorly studied field in relation to its social, historical, affective or psychological aspects according to some historians.[2] The conceptualization is dominated by two stereotypes; the first popularized and captured by Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is of a fanatical Arab horseman riding forth from the desert with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other offering victims a choice between one of the two,[3] however such "old notions of forced conversions have been abandoned, at least in scholarly literature."[2] The other image is one of an interfaith, interracial utopia where different races and peoples lived together in harmony. This has also been discredited for more shaded and complex views[3], such as an acculturation of Arab-Islamic social norms and language,[4] or a process of dialog between the monotheistic Arabs during the Muslim conquests with other faith traditions.[5][\ENDQUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#Balkans
1/2

grateful,

It is unfortunate that Pericles and a few in OLO think that the opposite of Islam is Christianity. This is only partly true, one should follow the parameters stipulated in Islamic theology i.e. the world is divided into ‘Dar al-Islam’ (House of Islam - where Islamic law predominates) and ‘Dar al-harb’ (House of War - the rest of the world). It is incumbent on ‘Dar al-Islam’ to fight and conquer ‘Dar al-harb’ and permanently assimilate it. http://www.whatthewestneedstoknow.com/about_the_project.asp

Not surprisingly, down the centuries Muslims all over the world are fighting non-Muslims; this is consistent with Islamic theology and is documented in http://www.historyofjihad.com/

“Would you like to begin by nominating serious scholars and historians that we can use?” (grateful)

The people qualified to speak about Islam are Muslims who have suffered under the tyranny of this totalitarian ideology e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam,Mithal Al-Alusi ,Shaker Al-Nabulsi ,Nonie Darwish Afshin Ellian ,Tawfik Hamid ,Shahriar Kabir, Hasan Mahmud ,Wafa Sultan ,Amir Taheri ,Ibn Warraq, Manda Zand Ervin,Banafsheh, Zand-Bonazzi.

They are academically qualified and take Islam very seriously (much more seriously than Western scholars), most of them have left Islam and don’t have a religion. They came together to found the Institution for the Secularization of Islamic Society. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/the_silent_holocaust_why_humanity_must_achieve_victory_over_islam

Grateful

Please do not quote me out of context.

There appears to have been little to no forced conversion of kafirs by the sword as in "convert of die".

However, as I pointed out, the position of kafirs in Muslim dominated societies has not been a happy one. Stealing Christian boys is not exactly benign governance.

The HORRORS of life under and near Islam are well documented in "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" by Andrew Bostom. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261205091&sr=1-2

Even today the position of kafirs in Dar-ul-Islam is not a happy one. I would not have the freedom to propagate Christianity or atheism in Dar-ul-Islam the way you have the freedom to propagate Islam here.

Historically I am not sure which superstition, Islam or Christianity, has inflicted more misery on humanity. As I said in previous posts, it's a tough call.

This much I do know. The world would be a better place if all superstitions were to vanish.

Finally grateful,

Be under no illusion about me. I consider Islam to be a loathsome superstition and I feel nothing but contempt for those, such as yourself, who attempt to propagate it.

--I respect your right to be a Muslim.

--I respect your right to attempt to propagate Islam.

--I would not seek to curtail your civil liberties in any way on the basis of your creed.

BUT

I do not respect you or your disgusting superstition.

Stevenlmeyer,

Based on wikipaedia Andrew Bostom appears to be a doctor in medicine who is not proficient enough in Arabic to translate the documents he has interpreted:

[\QUOTE]
Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad, a work which provides an analysis of Jihad based on an exegesis of translations of Islamic primary sources done by other polemicists on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._Bostom
[\UNQUOTE]

In addition, this brief wikipaedia bio makes no mention of him publishing in peer reviewed journals. I then went to an academic search engine, Web of Science, but found nothing: it appears he has not sought, or at least has not been accepted, for publication in any journal let alone a peer review scholarly journal in Islamic studies.

The only related publication i could find was a review of Bostoms book, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, by Wolfgang G Schwanitz. Middle East Policy. Washington: Fall 2007. Vol. 14, Iss. 3.

The reviewer is scathing of his lack of scholarship concerning a so called “1915 Ottoman Fatwa” which turns out to be a product of German and Turkish propagandists designed to incite insurgency against the Allies in WW1. Apparently, the document doesn’t even look like a fatwa with the typical Q&A format (see sunnipath.com for examples). The review is rather long so i’ll only be able to post excerpts. I don’t mind sending the whole document if you can show me how.

So, instead of directing your contempt at myself, my religion and my Prophet it would be more appropriate to direct it towards Bostom and his hate-driven ilk. For a better idea about the character of this person look at the people he mixes with and supports: http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/andrew-bostom-takes-on-mike-kruse-loses/....i presume you are not one of them.

Bostom has also appeared on FoxNews as a commentator which says a lot about FoxNews a credible source of information.

By the way, you did not address my question concerning the scholarly support for your view that the Prophet was a "psychopath".

Btw, i am with you 100% on the Janissaries.

salaams

“...i'm pleased Stevenlmeyer has done so...” (grateful, on scholars)

“I find quite extraordinary is that many of these scholars are in fact Western apologists, are in fact Christians; Christian scholars like Montgomery Watt who wrote the famous two-volume biography of the prophet, highly regarded in the Muslim world...

the Egyptian intellectual Hussein Amin, wrote a scathing review of Montgomery Watt... ‘I prefer the old Christian missionaries who at least were honest enough about their Christianity and who wanted to convert Muslims to Christianity, than to these Western apologists [scholars] who are just totally dishonest in that way.’

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islam_in_the_world (The Religion Report, ABC)

“Patricia Crone and Ibn Rawandi have remarked that Western scholarship lost its critical attitude toward the sources of the origins of Islam around the time of the First World War. Many Western scholars of the 1940s were committed Christians, such as Montgomery Watt, who saw a great danger in the rise of Communism in the Islamic world and thus welcomed any resurgence of Islam. They were insufficiently critical of the Islamic, Arabic sources. John Wansbrough has noted that the Qur'an "as a document susceptible of analysis by the instruments and techniques of Biblical criticism . . . is virtually unknown."

http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/KoranCriticism.htm (The need for Koranic Criticism by Ibn Warraq)

Sad to say, grateful, the Western scholars on Islam are really Islamic apologists. Many of them are in universities funded by Saudi money.

Evidence for Mohammad being a psychopath.

“Psychopathy is a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy. Robert Hare, a researcher in the field describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence[ to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".(Wikipedia)

“Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet”, by Ali Sina proves beyond doubt he is a psychopath, e.g. marrying his daughter-in-law.

Most surprising is all Muslims hold him up to be the example of a perfect man!!
http://www.felibri.com/content/understanding-muhammad-psychobiography-allahs-prophet

grateful,
“The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state.
The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.”
Majid Khadduri,
War and Peace in the Law of Islam

"Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah."
Ibn Rushd Nyazee,
twelfth century Maliki jurist

"This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee,
The Methodology of Ijtihad

Paul Tang, if Ali Sina says the Prophet married his daughter-in-law then Ali Sina must be a liar. Both of the Prophet’s sons died in infancy (http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/profilesmuhammed.html). Another source bites the dust!

Herman, you assert that the rulings against compulsion were contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca in a state of weakness. The following two verses were revealed in Medina and so disprove your assertion:

“So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Quran 3:20)

“The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” (Quran 5:99)

By the way Paul, i have also checked out Dr Sam Vankin and he has a PhD in Philosophy (NOT psychology) from distance-learning college, has been imprisoned for fraud, is NOT a mental health professional and has claimed various certifications from an institution which does not offer certifications (source is a critique by Wikipedia: http://heliologue.com/2006/07/03/sam-vaknins-self-love/). In other words, another perfect source of information for Islamophobes .

Why not try reason and allow a proper debate/dialogue to ensue regarding the merits and demerits of each on particular compelling social/spiritual/personal issues based on serious scholarly sources and genuine teachings. Then people can decide for themselves and go their own way.

“Say: O you who reject Faith!
I worship not that which worship,
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which you have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.” (Qur’an, Surah 109)

grateful,

<if Ali Sina says the Prophet married his daughter-in-law then Ali Sina must be a liar.>

You are either what you accuse Ali Sina of, or you are not very well informed.

Mohammed had an adopted son, Zayd bin Haarithah.
Zayd was married to Zaynab bint Jahsh.
Zaynab bint Jahsh was reportedly very beautiful.
One day Mohammed happened upon Zaynab bint Jahsh disrobed.
He desired her.
Zayd offered to divorce her so Mohammed could have her.
Mohammed declined.
Allah sent a revelation to Mohammed that he should marry Zaynab.
Zayd divorced Zaynab.
Mohammed married his former daughter-in-law Zaynab bint Jahsh.
Islamic law has prohibited adoption ever since.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/07/blogging-the-quran-sura-33-the-confederates-verses-21-73.html
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/96464/adoption
(Koran 33:37)

Furthermore
< Herman, you assert that the rulings against compulsion were contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca in a state of weakness. The following two verses were revealed in Medina and so disprove your assertion:>

I did not say they were contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca.
I pointed out that after the despotic warlord achieved power in Medina he became increasingly bellicose.

“slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use. But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.”
Koran 9:5
http://www.quran.com/9

grateful,
Are you wilfully blind or are you playing us for suckers?

It doesn't quite work like that, stevenlmeyer.

>>Pericles, From the tenor of your post time stamped Friday, 18 December 2009 10:51:33 AM I thought you were advocating censorship of "dangerous words". I was mistaken and I apologise. My favourite charity is the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. Feel free to donate as much as you like.<<

The idea was that I will donate if you succeed in finding evidence that I advocate censorship.

Given that you cannot, and have admitted that you were wrong to accuse me of doing so, might I suggest that you make the $100 donation yourself?

It would seem an entirely appropriate penance.

LOL Pericles,

I was kidding you.

Anyway I give them about that amount every month

In India a Muslim girl was raped by her father-in-law (he follows after the great prophet). The Muslim religious body ruled that she is to become the wife of her father-in-law and her (former) husband to be considered her son

“In June a father-in-law raped Imrana, a Muslim woman, in Muzzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. After the incident, local community and religious leaders ruled that she must separate from her husband and move in with the father-in law who had raped her. They also determined that she should consider her former husband as her son, because she was now married to his father.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, responsible for overseeing Muslim family law issues, refused to overturn this decision. Numerous women's organizations protested, but Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav supported the edict, claiming that the Muslim religious leaders ruling must have been deeply considered.

In July police arrested the father-in-law and charged him with rape. He remained in judicial custody at year's end.”
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61707.htm

Read more stories of how Muslim men rape their daughter-in-laws.
http://islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=283:raping-daughters-in-law-following-holy-tradition-of-the-prophet&catid=73:brahmachari&Itemid=58

How Muhammad seduced his daughter-in-law and send his son Zayd to his death
http://islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:zaynab-beast-zaynab-divine-marriage-to-muhammad-zayd-loss&catid=68:mumin&Itemid=5

Herman and Paul, Shaitan has certainly got you guys by the “short an’ curlies”.

You believe the Qur’an is not revelation but the word of the Prophet. So according to you, the Prophet has revealed to everyone that he lusted for Zaynab and when Zayd offered to divorce her so that the Prophet could marry her, the Prophet declined in order to conceal his feeling. Then the Prophet reveals all, exposing himself, pretending it is Divine revelation. Your own interpretation is logically incoherent. You neo-fascists are mad-hatters!

For an interpretation that is coherent and based strictly on one of the foremost imams of Islam (that which Spencer and yourselves do not dare to consult) I can refer you to sunnipath.com: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4017&CATE=108

Zaynab was the Prophet’s cousin and he had been seeing her since her birth. It was the norm for women not to veil themselves from him and the Prophet himself had been the one to arrange the marriage between his adopted son Zayd and cousin. So just about every time the Prophet met with her, Zaynab would have been without veil.

Zayd and Zaynab were not getting along. When Zayd had complained about her, the Prophet instructed him to return to his wife. However, prior to this Allah had sent Gibril with the message that the Prophet would marry her and this is what the Qur’aan refers to as being concealed by the Prophet. In saying “..you were concealing in yourself what Allah should reveal, fearing other men”, the ayat also refers to the Prophet’s concern that his enemies would use the event to stir up trouble.

So Paul and Herman, you lose and are lost. It is Shaitan who is smart, not his minions. I have the Qur’an, the Prophet and a community with no reason to fear an impartial and thorough examination of the evidence. You have your cartoons, lies, hatred and craving for evil... a punishment from Allah!

I’m off to catch a plane. It’s been fun, but I must move on.

Praise be to Allah for the clear voice of reason of his grateful follower.

Hi grateful, I am Philip and not Paul. You're indeed confused.

Happy holidays.

More transference, Philip Tang.

>>It is unfortunate that Pericles and a few in OLO think that the opposite of Islam is Christianity<<

I think no such thing. To me, they are practically indistinguishable.

They both worship the same "god".

They are each belligerent towards the other.

They both harbour factions (Sunni/Shia, Catholic/Protestant) who dislike each other intensely.

They both appear quite happy, both within themselves and each other, to use their particular beliefs as justification to belt the crap out of those who don't share their views.

So no, I don't in any way consider the two to be opposites.

From the evidence of this thread, they certainly approach the topic differently, of course.

I see it as a spectrum of discourse that has vulgarity and coarseness at one end, and politeness and respect at the other.

Pericles,
Yes it is regrettable that our resident Islamophile had to descend to vulgarity and coarseness to try to make his point but at least he didn't threaten to behead the "lying, hateful, evil-craving minions of Shaitan", as he would be fully entitled to under Islamic law.
For this we should be grateful.

Firstly, Pericles arrogated to himself the role to police OLO.

Pericles wrote “Every time you take up your pen to provide us with your own warped view of someone else's deeply held beliefs, you are bringing someone's murder one step closer.”

Now, what makes Pericles say this? He reckoned that the Islamists may get upset, run amok and kill someone. He is saying to HY and PT to stop telling the truth about the ideology of Islam. He is hoping that the HY and PT will practice self-censorship but this did not happen. Pericles the Christian basher has forgotten that the harshest critics of Islam are ex-Muslims and atheists (e,g. the great Pat Condell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA “Appeasing Islam”)

Pericles is the typical ISLAMOPHOBE because he fears the way the Islamists would react under criticism. The Islamists have got him under their feet.

Next, HY and PT are blamed (“…conducted by your lot”) for what happened in Srebrenica which was essentially a politically motivated mass killing. It shows Pericles’ deep-seated hatred of Christianity.

So are the world’s 2 to 3 billion Christians “guilty” by association?

“…Catholic/Protestant) who dislike each other intensely”,

an error seeing as
(i) Christians are one in Christ and
(ii) differences have been put aside. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6494599.stm

Pericles wrote:

"I see it as a spectrum of discourse that has vulgarity and coarseness at one end, and politeness and respect at the other."

LOL

And LOL

"politeness and respect" are singularly missing from your posts.

You are open in your contempt for people whose views differ from yours and you are blunt to the point of rudeness.

But guess what Pericles?

I'm cool with that.

I PREFER bluntness to politeness and I've long stopped pretending I respect people whose views I despise. I do, of course, respect their right to propagate those views. But this is a different thing.

I like reading your posts even when you're attacking me.

The only time I've seen you back pedal a little is when a Muslim is under attack. Then you become a bit of a humbug. I guess we all have our blind spots.

But, on the whole, politeness and respect are not your long suits.

Grateful, Philip Tang and HermanYutic,

Keep at it boys and may the best superstition win

Steven, what would you and the other Islamophobes know about politeness and respect?

I think that Pericles' contributions are models of clear, restrained discourse. He is invariably polite and measured in his language, unlike you haters. The only other poster whose manners come close to his in this thread is grateful.

Go figure.

Always the first person to raise accusations of trolling,
CJ Morgan is here doing the very same thing, as is his wont.
CJ apparently doesn't have the capacity to counter arguments,
so that anybody who posts something he disagrees with becomes a hater.
I believe that Philip Tang and myself show far more politeness and respect toward the ideology of Islam than it deserves.
Contrarily, CJ only ever attacks the man.
I repeat, for the slow of wit:
"You neo-fascists are mad-hatters!"
"It is Shaitan who is smart, not his minions (meaning PT and HY)."
"You have your cartoons, lies, hatred and craving for evil."
CJ sees these comments of grateful as politeness and respect because they also attack the man.
They attack the man that CJ disagrees with and this makes it acceptable, even polite and respectful, to him.
Go figure.

Thanks CJ, have a great Christmas

Not trolling, Herman.

I chose to leave this thread alone early in the piece, so as to not provide a soapbox for you haters. As I expected, the discussion turned into an orgy of Islamophobic vilification, with about the only respites coming from Pericles and grateful.

Do have a nice Christmas. Do yourself and everybody else a favour and try and refrain from uttering anything hateful for at least one day of the year.

Cheers Pericles - I'll have a cold beer for you :)

CJ Morgan: "Cheers Pericles - I'll have a cold beer for you :)"

It will be a glass of vino in my case. Cheers to you both.

Well not much to like about Islam, however the individual should not be persecuted for their beliefs in my book, either way. So that makes the boring C J Morgan, Perciles et al the persecutors of the individual and the one who hate a person for their beliefs. So my venom of the day is directed to the extreme right wing (certainly not leftwing) religous fundamentalists that declare jihad against anyone that speaks ill of Islam. So terribly backwards and plus religous totalitarian should not be tolerated on any level. Call it any phobia you like, it far better than be under religous censorship.

I hope that I am not repeating others, but ...

It seems to me that the vote against minarets is a roundabout way of the Swiss acting now to prevent their country from becoming demographically overwhelmed and to preserve Switzerland's current culture.

As the people of a number of other European countries are now facing the prospect of becoming minorities in their own lands, I think the vote by the Swiss is understandable and, ultimately, their sovereign right.

I think Australia should adopt as a matter of urgency Swiss-style Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda, otherwise known as 'direct democracy' to give Australians the right to preserve their current culture, which this Government is bent on destroying, and to redress a whole range of other evils that we have endured in recent decades as a result of so-called 'representative democracy', which has become what is more accurately termed by Dr Nicholas Aroney as 'elective dictatorship' (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2521912.htm) or what I would term 'elective tyranny'.

Consequently, I have written an open letter to Senator Bob Brown and Greens members requesting that they introduce BCIR legislation into parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. See https://candobetter.org/node/1725

---

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent
for Truth[1], Democracy,
the Environment
and Social Justice

Australian Federal Elections, 2010

FOOTNOTES

1. See http://911truth.org

LOL CJ Morgan

You do like those words "Islamophobe" and "Islamophobic" as in "Islamophobic vilification".

Educate unenlightened me. What is the correct way of commenting on the Islamic superstition? How does it differ from commenting on the Christian superstition?

I mean you don’t deny that belief systems that condemn most of humanity to some sort of eternal hell if they fail to submit to a non-existent deity could fairly be called superstitions? Or do you?

HermanYutic, Philip Tang

I cannot prove that a first century itinerant Jewish preacher was not the "son of God" and "God incarnate" who rose from the dead. Nor can I prove that he did not raise his buddy, Lazarus, from the dead. But you must admit that it does reek of being a tall story and there is no rational reason to believe it.

Grateful,

If the koran is truly is direct message from the creator of the universe how come the creator does not know the basics of mammalian reproduction or geology? While I do not for one moment believe the Jesus story I obviously cannot disprove it. But the koran speaks for itself. It is manifestly not a message from the creator of the universe.

Why don't the THREE OF YOU leave your mental ghettoes, smell the roses and get a life?

JUST TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

I do NOT support a minaret ban.

In my view Muslims have as much right to proclaim their superstition as I have to express my loathing for it.

As much right as CJ Morgan has to repeat the word "Islamophobe" ad nauseam.

THE DOG STILL HAS NOT BARKED

I notice the response of the Muslim world has been remarkably muted when compared to the brouha over the Muhammad cartoons.

stevenlmeyer

"I notice the response of the Muslim world has been remarkably muted when compared to the brouha over the Muhammad cartoons."

Some articles were really quite interesting from Islam majority countries. The over riding theme was we expected more from Switzerland but then comments did admit..but we do that ourselves? There was sort of an admission that they were inferior in tolerance and you could sense self reflection. Could be a positive for the poor people suffocating under religous oppression afterall.

They see and hear more on the net and gather information that proves hypocrisy in their own minds so all this chatter good in the long run.

All good. People just need to understand we are vunerable to myths and many take advantage. The Nigerian email scam is quite short lived but all the same it shows people actually want to be scammed. You realise this then you are free. People want to be scammed. A human trait.

>> Educate unenlightened me. What is the correct way of commenting on the Islamic superstition?

with an understanding that your "the" actually makes no sense. with an understanding that "islamic" means many different things to many different "muslims", some focusing on the human, loving stuff and some on the nastiness, some on superstitious mumbo jumbo, some on ways of living.

in brief, don't engage in false and presumptuous grouping.

>> How does it differ from commenting on the Christian superstition?

it doesn't. but when creeps like pell and jensen get an almost free ride in this country, and muslims can't put a toe out of line without it being chopped off, i'll personally ease up a bit on the underdogs and focus on outspoken christian loons.

bushbasher,

The Koran exhorts its followers to chop off the heads, hands, fingertips and feet of the unbelievers:
Koran 8:12 "give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
Koran 5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land..."

These commands are being carried out on a daily basis around the globe by the true believers:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

...but then bushbasher:
<muslims can't put a toe out of line without it being chopped off>

Talk about transference!
You couldn't make this stuff up.

But hang on...
the Koran doesn't specifically talk about chopping off toes,
so I guess you win again bushbasher.

BTW,
Muslims consider dogs to be unclean, so that describing them as underdogs shows an acute lack of cultural sensitivity.
Let's try to keep it respectful bushbasher.

ugh!

stevenlmeyer, i'll make it simpler. all you have to do is look at postings of pond scum like yutic, then turn 180 degrees.

Quite so, bushbasher. Happy Hanukkah to Steven anyway.

I really hope that our resident haters can manage to have a day tomorrow where they can restrain themselves from expressing their bile towards others.

I'm not a great fan of Xmas, but the peace on earth and goodwill to all stuff has to be good.

Peace.

"Xmas peace to resident haters and pond scum".
Surreal.

"making quotes up, and refusing to recognise ones own baseless, hateful condemnation of millions of people".

truly surreal.

bushbasher,
So quoting accurately from the Koran constitutes the "baseless, hateful condemnation of millions of people"?
Go figure.
Where are the millions of people who are upset at my "baseless, hateful condemnation" of them?
Are you their spokesman?
So what is it that's really upsetting you?
There's got to be more to it than a few quotes from the Holy Koran.
Is it your inability to refute what I say?
You can tell Uncle Herman.

>> So quoting accurately

selectively

>> from the Koran constitutes the "baseless, hateful condemnation of millions of people"?

yep.

>> Are you their spokesman?

nope. you think any muslim is less likely to see you as pond scum?

>> So what is it that's really upsetting you?

pond scum.

>> Is it your inability to refute what I say?

how does one refute farts?

>> You can tell Uncle Herman.

i already did. you were simply too busy with your pond scumminess to notice.

Bushbasher wrote:

"with an understanding that your "the" actually makes no sense….."

PEOPLE are infinitely diverse. It makes no more sense to talk about "the Muslim" than "the Catholic".

Example:

Many Catholics use condoms. But core Catholic belief condemns their use. Catholic priests across the world tell the faithful to refrain from using condoms.

Yet it still is reasonable to talk about "the (CONTEMPORARY) Catholic superstition" while acknowledging that:

--It has "fuzzy borders" – there are grey areas and different priests will emphasise different aspects of the superstition at different times;

--Individual Catholics in secular society will take a "cafeteria approach" to their faith – keeping what they like and ignoring what they don't.

It is in this sense that I it is reasonable to talk about "the (CONTEMPORARY) Islamic superstition" but NOT about "the Muslim".

I've emphasised the word "contemporary" because religious cultures change. Islam has changed in my lifetime and living, as I did, among Muslims, I was able to observe parts of the change. The Islam of today is much more aggressive, militant and plain bloody-minded than it was when I was growing up. To some extent this is also seems to be true of Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism.

You frequently accuse posters of quoting from koran out of context. That implies you are familiar enough with Islamic thinking to be able to make a judgement. Are you?

That being said, the danger of relying on what is written in holy books is that they are subject to frequent re-interpretation. Regardless of what is written in the bible, neither Jews nor Christians today stone adulterers. Ephesians 6:5 notwithstanding, Christians led the fight against slavery. Refusing communion to gays is not the same as executing them.

Perhaps Islam will evolve into something more benign. But that will not happen if foolish people make excuses for its lunacies and attempt to appease it.

The danger is that if this superstition is not opposed others with more power will re-establish themselves. CHRISTIANS LOVE IT WHEN ISLAM IS ACCOMMODATED BECAUSE THEY CAN DEMAND THE SAME PRIVILEGES.

Bushbasher

Muslims underdogs?

In what way? What do they have to complain about? They are allowed their freedoms. Their faith has a bad reputation because of what some of them did. Same as the US. The US has a bad reputation for many but Americans are not underdogs?

The only reason I can think a religion would get support because they are underdogs is because you feel them inferior beings? You are the bigot. It is ok to bag christianity, why different? Are they so mentally retarded or childish they need your protection?

How patronising and bigoted. You and CJ et al are so blinded by your racism you cannot even see it. they are a different species, they are a lesser order, they need zoo keepers and minders. I am sure they can talk for themselves and are very well educated. Why not allow them to speak for themselves.

Bushbasher describes Muslims as "underdogs".

Muslims make up 20% of humanity. They are probably the world's fastest growing religion. In Western countries they have freedom to practice their religion. I know that nearly all religions whine about "poor persecuted us". Not least among the whiners are my fellow Jews.

But, objectively, it is not clear to me in what sense Muslims are the "underdogs".

BTW, Bushbasher, Indonesia, a Muslim country with 10 times Australia's population, looks set to supplant Australia as regional top dog within the lifetime of many OLO posters. Then we shall be the underdogs. How this will work out? At the moment Indonesian Islam is benign. Will it remains so?

There is no way of answering these questions.

THEMISSUS wrote:

"People just need to understand we are vunerable to myths and many take advantage."

More than that. People often collude in their own deception. How else do you think Ponzi schemes work? How else are people able to go on denying evolution?

Growing up during the cold war it was apparent to me that Soviet Communism was a totalitarian ideology as vile as Nazism. Many of my contemporaries professed to be unable to see this.

I found their attitude even more perplexing than belief in the virgin birth. The virgin birth, after all, may be extremely improbable but it cannot be falsified by direct observation. The atrocities of Soviet Communism were there to be seen by all.

My communist contemporaries dismissed this all as "imperialist propaganda". They wanted to believe. More precisely, they did not want to believe that, warts and all, the American side might be better than the Soviet side.

As Lenin put it, there are "useful fools".

Today it is equally apparent to me that contemporary Islam, as well as being a superstition, is also a loathsome totalitarian ideology on a par with Nazism and Soviet Communism. The same useful fools – and I mean sometimes the very same people who made themselves useful fools for Communism – profess to be unable to see this.

Useful fools are an immortal species.

One useful function of threads like this one is that they provide an insight into the peculiar workings of the hater mindset.

A case in point is The Missus. So far, she's accused me of liking Islam, not to mention being variously right-wing, bigoted and now apparently racist - all because I advocate tolerance of others and their beliefs. Of course, what she projects on to me is about the exact opposite of what I actually am.

I'm left wondering whether such egregious misapplication of terminology derives from simple ignorance about what these terms mean, or something more psychologically complex. It doesn't really matter, I suppose - indeed, I wait with bemused and bated breath to discover what wildly inaccurate descriptor she'll come up with next.

Perhaps I'm also a homophobic, misogynist Christian fundy without being aware of it. The anticipation is hard to bear.

C J Morgan

Yes pretty much what I think of your statements here. Bit of a little Hitler going around abusing anyone that does not follow the scripture according to C J.

I would fight for the right of people to hold different beliefs but just as strongly fight for the right for people to oppose those beliefs. It is the people going around telling people they cannot hold an opinion that cause the most problems in the world..and refugees. Often called dictators are they not!

To persecute the individual for their beliefs is wrong but to persecute the belief system is not, or should not be. You appear to be on the persecute the individual team. I cannot respect that.

Yes TheMissus,
CJ Grogan preaches tolerance but doesn't practise it.
CJ Grogan is your true, holier-than-thou hypocrite.

>> The Islam of today is much more aggressive, militant and plain bloody-minded ...

your claims of reasonableness notwithstanding, this is a nasty, ludicrous generalization.

>> But that will not happen if foolish people make excuses for its lunacies

who has excused which lunacies? all i, and i believe others, are doing is objecting to the tarring of a huge collection of people with the lunacies of a few.

also, you should learn to distinguish lunacy from murderous lunacy.
many religious people believe ludicrous things without subscribing in any way to koranic or biblical barbarism.

>> You frequently accuse posters of quoting from koran out of context.
>> That implies you are familiar enough with Islamic thinking to be able to make a judgement. Are you?

as if one needs to be an expert to critique yutic's blatantly cherry-picking sleaze.

>> Bushbasher describes Muslims as "underdogs".

i was quite obviously referring to muslims in australia. honestly, if you guys can't read, don't write.

>> It is ok to bag christianity, why different?

see previous comment.

>> Are they so mentally retarded or childish they need your protection?

nope.

>> I am sure they can talk for themselves and are very well educated.
>> Why not allow them to speak for themselves.

why not level a halfway sane accusation?

>> CJ Grogan preaches tolerance but doesn't practise it.

ah, the "tolerance" charge. an oldie but a goodie!

you guys are allowed to say what you want. others are allowed to be revolted by it.

True to form, now according to TheMissus I'm a "little Hitler" - all because I argue for tolerance and point out hatred.

I have the distinct impression that TheMissus doesn't really know much about history - or anything much else for that matter. The banning of minarets by the Swiss is far, far closer to the early populist racism of the German Nazis than anything I think or say.

<< It is the people going around telling people they cannot hold an opinion that cause the most problems in the world..and refugees >>

Who's told anyone they can't hold or express an opinion, no matter how odious it is? And what do the poor old refugees have to do with the topic? Bizarre.

As I've said several times, as far as I'm concerned both you and the hateful Herman are free to express whatever vile, ignorant and hateful opinions you like. Just as I'm free to call you on them when you do so.

That's what tolerance and free speech is all about. It seems to me that you haters want to be free to vilify anybody, but get all sensitive when what you do is pointed out to you.

And you call me a hypocrite? Look it up in the dictionary.

No surprises that the failed-suicide bomber of the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit is a Muslim going for a “religious” (Islamic) seminar in the USA.

“The suspect was identified as Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, who according to federal documents is an engineering student at University College of London.

He was flying from Nigeria to the United States for a religious seminar, according to his entry visa, which was issued June 16, 2008 and was good until June 12, 2010.” (abc News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/explosives-northwest-airlines-plane-amsterdam-detroit/story?id=9423871

An enlightening speech of Geert Wilders as he warned the US about letting Islamists into the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI&feature=related Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8&NR=1 Part 2

Philip Tang,
Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab either misinterpreted the many Koranic injunctions to kill the unbelievers or he took them out of context.
This obviously makes him an Islamophobe.
Or perhaps he was understandably so upset about the Swiss ban on minarets that he took the only reasonable option left open to him.
I think we can therefore safely blame this one on the Swiss.
Anyway, as CJ Grogan would point out, your commenting on his actions is far more hateful than his actions.
Or who knows,as Pericles would point out, maybe Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab googled some of your previous hateful postings and this was enough to send him over the edge.
I think all us haters can take the blame for this one.

Bushbasher
“i was quite obviously referring to muslims in australia. “

How are they underdogs? The only time an issue becomes a hot topic it is always due to the political correct trying to suppress criminal or anti-social behaviour as being culturally motivated. So it is often more a reaction to this attempt at suppression than toward Muslims themselves. Bad behaviour or civil unrest needs to be debated openly.

The Swiss now acknowledge the reason for the ban on minaret was due to a lack of will on behalf of government to allow public debate thinking it would increase tensions. Add this to their weakness on the Libyan affair and Swiss probably feared their government more than their Muslim neighbours. Appeasement is not a mark of strength. They now realise that avoiding the debate was actually the catalyst for increasing tensions. People have a right to a say in regard to individual freedoms and social norms. Many women feared their rights were being undermined for the benefit of another. Women’s rights are always the canary in the coalmine when it comes to increasingly religious or non-religious totalitarian regimes.

Also relevant in response to C J Morgan’s response regarding Hitler. How Switzerland or even Australia can be compared to how Jews were treated is beyond bizarre. Plus of course anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe in tandem with increasing presence of Islam so a bit odd to compare to say the least. It is more the appeasement of Hitler that allowed oppressive totalitarian to rise that is far more applicable.

It is better to openly debate aspects of any belief system that are offensive or undermine basic human rights. After all we are not against democracy, individual freedom, rights of beliefs, women’s rights, gay rights, blasphemy laws et al. Islam is. If you support Islam without debate on interpretation or cultural imperialistic aspects of this religion then you are opposed to human rights. Simple.

cont.

Being against Hitler did not mean one should be against the German people. It is ignorant to suggest this. Haneef was an example of religious persecution and I was very vocal in my objection to his treatment. There is such a huge difference here. His rights as an individual were denied. However our system was supportive of him in spite of the government of the day. So to say we persecute Muslims in Australia is emotionally charged, fear based politics as bad and evil as Howards.

I am not a hypocrite C J. I will oppose those that support such extreme right wing totalitarian religious sects and you can prove nowhere this religion is based on leftwing ideology. I only stand for basic human rights for all and the only way to achieve this is to speak out against bigotry. Someone should have spoken out against Hitler much earlier so you can shove that useless analogy where the sun does not shine.

If we are to accept Muslim immigration (a capitalist construct btw) and be vilified for debating aspects that are not acceptable to mainstream views then people will reject the whole. I wish to avoid that. Put out little fires and avoid the firestorm.

My experience of the social unrest when I was living in Sydney shocked and horrified me. Women were secondary to ethnic sensibilities and the women raped not once, but twice. Hosed down in between sexual attacks and then raped again by the Islam Useful Idiots. Women, the canaries in the coalmine. The reporter who eventually did break the story branded racist by the usual sheeple. This suppression only led to increase tensions and eventual race incited riots. How much proof do people need. There are few problems here, let people vent, have their say and society moves on. Add the political baggage of PC it stirs even more unrest. Your choice and your error imo as it incites tensions.

Underdog is irrelevant. If you believe in human rights there is only one way. There is only a right or wrong, size does not matter

Unfortunately, there's little point in trying to deploy reason and history in the face of TheMissus' idiopathic social philosophy. In the spirit of tolerance, I think I'll withdraw again so that she and the other haters can spout whatever crap they like, without needing to get all precious when others disagree with their poisonous views.

While I don't think there's much hope for Herman, I think the TheMissus could well benefit from formally learning a bit about modern history. I believe that adults can still enrol in such subjects at TAFE, and they aren't very expensive.

Of course, there's plenty of information available on the internet - but you need to know how to assess the quality of the information and analyses that are abundantly available. That can be quite difficult, even with the benefit of a good education - and close to impossible for the self-taught, no matter how clever they think they are.

Anyway, please feel free to express whatever ideas you like. It's always useful to be reminded of how the haters are thinking.

Philip Tang and HermanYutic,
You guys are really excellent at finding appropriate quotes and stats to bolster your arguments. I am amazed at the speed with which you guys can find material on the web. So I have a challenge for you. I wonder could you answer the following two questions, one of which involves simply finding and publishing a statistic, the other involving a little reflection. So here are the questions:

1. How many muslim civilians have been killed by US citizens during the past month? It would be nice if you could break down the statistic and give the numbers of children, as well as the total. Thanks very much - I am sure that this will be no trouble for you guys.

2. This is the question that demands some reflection: considering the number of muslim civilians killed by American citizens during the past month (which you will have researched and published on this forum - at least I hoe that you will have), could you explain why this is not front page news every day?

I'm sure this will be no trouble to you and I look forward to what you come up with.

Sayonara,

Kyoko

CJ Grogan's quotable quotes, just from this thread:

"unlike you haters"
"a soapbox for you haters"
"refrain from uttering anything hateful"
"I really hope that our resident haters"
"an insight into the peculiar workings of the hater mindset"
"hateful Herman"
"whatever vile, ignorant and hateful opinions you like"
"you haters want to be free to vilify anybody"
"reminded of how the haters are thinking"

My personal favourite is the intro to this one:

"In the spirit of tolerance, I think I'll withdraw again so that she and the other haters can spout whatever crap they like"

Bushbasher wrote:

"...as if one needs to be an expert to critique yutic's blatantly cherry-picking sleaze." (In response to my question as to whether you knew enough about Islam to tell whether quotes from the koran were taken out of context)

This is tantamount to saying "I don’t know what I'm talking about but I know I'm right."

'nuff said.

It is not clear to me in what sense Muslims in Australia are underdogs.

What is clear to me is that there have been a number of racist attacks in Australia. These include attacks on Whites by Lebanese Muslims and attacks on Indian students.

See:

BRUTAL TRUTH ABOUT ATTACKS

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/brutal-truth-about-attacks-20090610-c2dm.html

Quote:

"But the distorted story of white racism has been helped along by the prevailing sensibilities of reporting of crime in Australia, with skittishness about detailing the gritty reality that most violent street crime in Sydney and Melbourne is not committed by whites. The prison populations confirm this.

"The attacks on Indians have followed this pattern, with the crimes committed by a polyglot mix reflecting the streets - white, Asian, Middle Eastern, Aboriginal, Pacific Islander."

See also video footage with link.

The inability of law enforcement to control this is yet another indication that Australian state police forces are dysfunctional.

The Missus,

Don't mind CJ Morgan. He is long on epithets like "Islamophobe" and "hater" but woefully short on substance.

Kyoko

I have no idea how many Muslims have been killed by US citizens in recent years. But I'm pretty sure it is dwarfed by the number of Muslims killed by Muslims in places such as Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Pakistan.

In fact I am pretty sure that the number of Muslims killed by Muslims in Sudan alone is a multiple of the number killed by US citizens.

Doubtless you can construct a narrative in which all this killing is the fault of "the West".

Perhaps you would like to tell us how many Muslims have become refugees from Iraq because they belong to the "wrong" branch of Islam.

“How many muslim civilians have been killed by US citizens during the past month?” (Kyoko)

When you say ‘muslim civilians’ what do you mean? US citizens who are Muslims consider themselves as Muslims first and perhaps not US citizens at all.

A sizeable proportion of German citizens who are Muslims regard themselves not as Germans but Muslims. This pattern is true of non-Islamic countries all over the world. It is consistent with Islamic theology which tell Muslims that they are at war (physical) with non-Muslims.

The following is an example of a Muslim training camp in the USA to train Muslims (who are US citizens) to kill US citizens who are non-Muslims. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5079/pub_detail.asp

So you need to frame your question in a more specific manner.

Truth is that many Muslims inspired by the Qu’ran become warlike , they love to kill in the name of Allah. When they can’t find non-Muslims to kill, they kill fellow Muslims as correctly pointed out by stevenlmeyer.

From a very young age, many Muslims are taught to hate non-Muslims as uncovered by this video of an Islamic school in the UK. For this reason all Islamic schools should be banned in the West.
http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=290:teaching-hatred-of-christians-and-jews-in-muslim-schools-in-uk&catid=112:mohammad&Itemid=58

Okay Phillip, Let me make it as clear as I can and as easy for you as I can make it.

How many UNARMED civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by American citizens during the past month? I challenge you to look that up and publish it here.

stevenlmeyer,
You've previously indicated that you enjoy Islamic-based humour.
Here's a burqa fashion show you may enjoy:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4214

HermanYutic,

Here's the thing.

I DON'T FIND THIS FUNNY.

I think it is in EXCREMENTALLY BAD TASTE.

Don't get me wrong. I will defend Bill Maher's right to put on this type of performance. To repeat what I've said many times.

In a TRULY free society ANY belief system, ideology or superstition is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn. This includes ALL religions.

I have made no secret of the fact that I consider Islam to be a combination of silly superstition and LOATHSOME totalitarian ideology on a par with Nazism and Stalinism.

At the same time I find gratuitous insults at harmless aspects of people's deeply held beliefs to be in bad taste. In a country like Australia the state does not force women to wear a burqa. If a woman CHOOSES to do so, so be it. It is none of my business and none of yours. I see no comedy in singling out such women for abuse. In fact I think it is in singularly bad taste.

Again, I want to make clear, I have no desire to censor anything I find in bad taste. I would fight to defend Maher's right to put on an unfunny show just as I defend David Irving's right to deny the Holocaust.

But I don’t have to encourage it either.

Kyoko, American citizens are not at war with Muslims, it is the US government (currently headed by Obama who was born a Muslim and is a practising Muslim during his childhood) who are helping some Islamic countries fight extremism.
http://www.danielpipes.org/5544/barack-obamas-muslim-childhood

In my opinion the US should leave (withdraw from) these Islamic countries alone. Let the Muslims in these Islamic countries kill each other.

However, when some Islamic countries get hold of nuclear bombs and declare war on the US, Israel, etc. The US should unleash their full nuclear capability on these countries and destroy them completely.

What makes the US a great country is the Judeo-Christian heritage that gave the US its constitution.

The Muslims on the other hand follow the teachings of Muhammad, a violent and mentally unsound man. Immediately after this self-styled prophet's death, bloodshed and violence erupted among his followers. http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

Stevenlmeyer is not the first person to see the similarity between Islam and Nazis. In 1939 the great psychologist, Carl Jung, wrote

'We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future'.

'They are all drunk with wild god' is still a good description of Islamics today as it was of Nazis in 1939.

>> This is tantamount to saying "I don’t know what I'm talking about but I know I'm right."
>> 'nuff said.

given it's a completely obtuse accusation, placed inside ridiculous quotes, i'd say it was way too much said. if you don't already realise yutic is cherrypicking, god knows what i could do to convince you.

>> It is not clear to me in what sense Muslims in Australia are underdogs.

yes, it seems it's not clear to you. but, at least your reading skills are improving.

>> American citizens are not at war with Muslims, it is the US government ...

i see, tang. so, the actions of a few should not be blamed on the whole?
so, the actions of a few muslims ...

Kyoto

The US kill too many muslims. You can spit venom, accuse them of this and that and go on a march without being called racist or bigoted. You can criticise freely. However I would like to know how many muslims have killed other muslims this past month. Seems the extremisT wins all over the world. Aided by Useful Idiots of course.

C J Morgan

I do not need to read about modern history, I have lived it. Reading modern history is just reading an opinion piece, probably by someone who has rarely left a leafy wealthy enclave. Trouble with sheeply who follow others rather than think for themselves.

bushbasher,
So you think I’m cherry-picking?
The process of determining which verses of the Koran apply and which ones don’t apply,
or “cherry-picking” as you call it,
is the process that Islamists go through to justify their actions.
There can hardly be a more clear-cut example than that of Major Nidal Hasan.
Hasan produced a Power Point presentation which demonstrates this process.
Let me quote from Slide 35 -
“Later verses abrogated former ie: peaceful verses no longer apply”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html
Let me repeat that for you bushbasher:
“(the) peaceful verses no longer apply”.
Says it all really.
These are educated people.
Hasan was a psychiatrist.
Abdulmutallab was an engineering student.
They are also well educated in the Koran.
They are far better educated in the Koran than the millions of peaceful Muslims who don’t carry out such acts.
Insofar as one can describe any adherence to Islam as logical,
Hasan and Abdulmutallab logically followed the dictates of the Koran.
They were not “cherry-picking” select verses.
They were following the clear intent of Koranic injunctions.
And if you still don’t get it bushbasher,
you must be a few minarets short of a mosque.
That would make you welcome in Switzerland, I guess.

stevenlmeyer
The subtlety of your point escapes me.
< In a TRULY free society ANY belief system, ideology or superstition is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn. This includes ALL religions. >
Is not a burqa a potent symbol of a “belief system, ideology or superstition” (a bit like a minaret really)
and hence “a legitimate target for “critique, analysis, satire and scorn”?
Your stance seems contradictory to me.
Or are you somehow conflating burqa-wearing with abortion under the sacred banner of CHOICE
(a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body)?
Your assertion that a woman CHOOSES to wear a burqa is, of course, tendentious at best
and deserving of a discussion in its own right.

Phillip Tang, you have avoided my questions. Too bad neither you nor HermanYutic is willing to meet my challenge. I think it clearly exposes your prejudice - you like to shout about Islamic violence, but you are not interested in publishing the violence of the US on civilians who happen to be Muslim.

Well, that is clear now anyway. Thanks.

CJ Morgan, Bushbasher, TheMissus, Grateful

Note Kristin's post of Monday, 28 December 2009 3:21:58 PM

If Wikipedia is correct then Kristin has quoted accurately.

So a man who is acknowledged to have possessed one of the great minds of the 20th Century thought Hitler was "like Mohammed".

Which, of course, means Jung thought Mohammed was like Hitler.

And what did Jung think of Hitler?

Quote:

In Jung's view, Hitler suffered from "hysterical dissociation of the personality," a condition exemplified by "auto-erotic self-admiration and self-extenuation, denigration and terrorization of one's fellow men, projection of the shadow, lying, falsification of reality, determination to impress by fair means or foul . . ."

End quote:

See: http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=841&Itemid=40

Well, well, well

Grateful,

I withdraw my comment that Muhammad was a seventh century psychopath. Instead I offer the diagnosis put forwarded by one of the world's pre-eminent psychologists.

MUHAMMAD WAS A SEVENTH CENTURY VERSION OF HITLER.

Or, if you prefer:

HITLER WAS A 20TH CENTURY VERSION OF MUHAMMAD.

And Nazism, qua Jung, seems to be a 20th Century version of Islam.

I had never paid much attention to Jung up till now but Kristin's post has inspired me to order some of his books from Amazon.

I've also ordered Wafa Sultan's "The God Who Hates"

See:

http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=841&Itemid=40

CJ Morgan, Bushbasher, TheMissus, Grateful

For future reference:

Don't argue with me about the nature of Islam, ARGUE WITH CARL JUNG.

LOL

BTW the great Swiss Historian, Jacob Burckhardt, also had a somewhat jaundiced view of Muhammad:

Quote:

"Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious."

End Quote

Kyoko,

“How many UNARMED muslim civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan civilians (children listed separately)
have been killed by US citizens during the past month and why is this not front page news every day?”

You demand that we make your point for you and if we don’t then you’re not going to talk to us?

That’s kind of like me demanding you prove that Islam isn’t responsible for more than 270 million deaths
since Mohammed received his divine revelations from Allah that unbelievers should be slaughtered.
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

I would suggest that the rules of engagement for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most rigorous
and “civilised” in the history of warfare.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893
What I mean by that is that they don’t have a policy of beheading their captives and enslaving their women,
as taught and practised over the centuries by Islam.
Predator drones may be somewhat less discerning but you’d have to take that up with Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59B4HS20091012

Anyway, here is the closest information I could find related to your request.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
The descriptions are quite varied but they seem to have a common theme.

stevenlmeyer

I think you’re all being a bit harsh on Hitler in your comparisons with Mohammed.

Sorry, I can' resist this:

TheMissus: << I do not need to read about modern history, I have lived it. >>

Given that "modern history" generally refers to the period since the 1500s, TheMissus must have been around for a while and travelled alot during her long life. That's obviously why she posts such pearls of wisdom.

Ignorance is a bad enough basis on which to form opinions, but to celebrate it is idiotic.

However, it's good to see that Herman's getting the message about the hate speech that he continually posts.

While I'm here, I think that stevenlmeyer will discover that Jung has about much credibility among contemporary psychologists as does his better known contemporary, Freud.

LOL CJ Morgan

AND KRISTIN PLEASE TAKE NOTE.

In truth to me Jung along with Derrida, Freud, Germaine Greer, Hitler, Luce Irigaray, L. Ron Hubbard, Lacan, Marx, Muhammad, Ian Plimer, Sarah Palin and Morgan (CJ) all have this in common.

You are all first and foremost purveyors of taurine fertiliser.

You are, in the words of Peter Medewar, inhabitants of "Pluto's Republic".

Of course nothing you've said matches Irigaray's characterisation of E=mc^2 as a "sexed equation" because it "privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us"

In truth I was being more than a little disingenuous with my previous post. I am well aware of Jung's nonsense – for example that he once said

"The causes for the [sexual] repression can be found in the specific American Complex, namely in the living together with lower races, especially with Negroes. Living together with barbaric races exerts a suggestive effect on the laboriously tamed instinct of the white race and tends to pull it down…"

And yet Jung, like Muhammad, does remain influential as the brouhaha surrounding the sale of his "Red Book" illustrates.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/books/25jung.html

Quote:

"…the breakout of the holiday book-buying season just may have been an elaborate, richly illustrated tome that records the dreams and spiritual questing of an author who has been dead for nearly half a century. The list price for this 9-pound, 416-page volume? $195."

Note that the other non-fiction bestseller was Sarah Palin's book and we have a fair idea of the state of intellectual life in the US.

Despite many examples of Jung's anti-Semitism there is even an Institute for Jungian Psychology in Israel.

Just for the fun of it, I did buy and browse this on my Kindle:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Undiscovered-Self-ebook/dp/B000OI17DW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1262045215&sr=1-2

People still read this stuff!

Which leads me to Meyer's law.

The market for taurine fertiliser tends towards infinity.

You're onto a good thing CJ Morgan.

Work at it and like Hubbard you could turn BS into Bucks.

stevenlmeyer, you are going too far. I was not setting up Jung as the ultimate authority; I was simply showing that you were not the first to discern the similarities between the Nazi ideology and Islam.

CJ Morgan, the parallels between Mohammed and Hitler are striking. Both men

(1) Thought of themselves as having some special destiny. Mohammed thought he was God's messenger. Hitler thought he had been sent by 'providence'

(2) Founded ideologies that were intolerant of the 'other'

(3) Were obsessed by the Jews

(4) Led their followers into bloody wars

Perhaps it all boils down to the fact that both could be characterised as egomaniacs.

According to Hitler's architect and armaments minister, Speer, Hitler himself recognised the similarities between his ideology and Islam. He thought the 'Mohammedan religion' would have been more 'compatible' with Germans than Christianity.

Apart from Jung and Burckhardt, such leading intellectual lights as Waldemar Gurian and Bertrand Russell considered Islam to be 'despotic'.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make CJ. Are you seriously attempting to defend Islam or Mohammed?

That website "The Religion of Peace" really brings the elephant in the room right into focus. The years and years of relentless killing really rock my mind.

I have just checked through the last 24 hours of news posts on the ABC site and there are 11 current stories reported of muslims killing other muslims in various places.

It would be ludicrous to suggest it is really a religion of peace when umpteen years of documented evidence say it is not!

We, as a nation, should be talking about this, we would be foolish not to.

The following quote

'We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future'

by Kristin is very timely and accurate.

However, it hit one of stevenlmeyer's raw nerve because Carl Jung was accused a Nazi sympathizer; this accusation is not really true.

Sir Winston Churchill the great statesman described with pin-point accuracy the true nature of Islam.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Kristin: << I am not sure what point you are trying to make CJ. Are you seriously attempting to defend Islam or Mohammed? >>

Hi Kristin, and welcome to OLO.

As ever, I'm arguing for tolerance and against the promotion of communal hatred. Personally, I think that Islam is every bit as silly as any other religion, and that Mohammed was a person whom his followers have elevated to undeserved divine status. A bit like Jesus, only more violent.

Perhaps if you were to acquaint yourself with the way this thread's developed, you'd have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Here's a tip: click on the "All" button underneath the posts.

And who says these discussions don't work?
What we're seeing is a major paradigm shift.
Under constant pressure from the facts, CJ Grogan's relativism has experienced a spasm.
"Mohammed was...(a) bit like Jesus, only more violent."
CJ tacitly acknowledges a difference between Islam and Christianity.
They're not the same!
Don't underestimate the significance of this seismic shift folks.
Relativists are NOT impenetrable to reason!

Back on topic,
it's interesting to note that the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB),
which is a member organization of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU),
has expressed concern over the Swiss ban on minarets:

"Far-right proposals to ban minarets are divisive, reactionary and in line with the 'Clash of Civilisations' agenda, which hands over 'Muslims' or those labelled as such to the political Islamic movement and denies the universality of the demand to live a life worthy of the 21st century."
http://www.iheu.org/council-ex-muslims-criticizes-swiss-ban-minarets

The IHEU outlines its strategy for dealing with the Islamic problem:

"Political Islam is a political phenomenon that demands a political response. This response must include targeting the discrimination, abuse and criminal acts that take place against children in Islamic schools, against citizens in Sharia councils and tribunals, against apostates and freethinkers, gays and women who are killed in the name of honour.

This response must demand a banning of Sharia law and Islamic schools, along with all faith-based laws and schools.

It must exert pressure on governments to stop appeasing Islamic states and demand that such states be politically isolated.

It must demand the prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.

It must support those who are at the forefront of fighting the political Islamic movement.

It must demand an end to the promotion of cultural relativism.

It must demand that religion be a private matter.

It must call for secularism--the complete separation of religion from the state, education and legal system--as a minimum precondition for the respect of rights and freedoms in society.

It must defend rather than restrict universal rights."

LOL CJ Morgan

You are tying yourself in knots.

"As ever, I'm arguing for tolerance and against the promotion of communal hatred."

But what does that MEAN?

--Should Islam be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn?

--Should I not be allowed to say I consider Islam to be loathsome?

--Should Philip Tang and HermaYutic not be allowed to compare Islam unfavourably with Christianity?

If it does not mean these things then what are you going on about?

For the time being at any rate we live in a democracy in which free speech is permitted. Thanks to the Supreme Court of Victoria, Victoria's blasphemy law aka the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, has become a dead letter for now. How long this benign state of affairs will last is anybody's guess.

Certainly it will not last if the Islamists have their way:

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326

Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

End Quote

Now CJ Morgan,

--Do you support legislation that criminalises disrespect for religion?

--Do you agree that disrespecting someone's religion is a "human rights violation"?

--Would you like to see something akin to the UNHRC resolution legislated in Australia?

If your answer to these question is "no" – and I don’t see how you could give any other answer - then no matter how much you may disapprove of what has been said on this thread you must concede that it is all within the bounds of normal democratic discourse.

So what exactly is your problem with what you read here?

Instead of hurling your favourite epithets, Islamophobe, hater, etc, at posters, do you think that for once in your life you could be SPECIFIC?

BTW calling me a "hater" is besides the point. I freely confess to hating Islam which does NOT mean I would condone depriving Muslims of their civil liberties.

Steven, as I've said repeatedly, as far as I'm concerned you and your fellow haters are free to say whatever you like about Islam or anything else, and I'd oppose any law that sought to restrict your freedom to do so.

<< So what exactly is your problem with what you read here? >>

My problem is that the only possible result of your constant vilification of Islam is that it will further alienate any Muslims who are exposed to it. The endless expression of your hatred for their religion will not cause it to go away, nor will it convince any Muslim that their faith is misplaced. Rather, it's far more likely to fuel the antipathies of any Muslim fundies who are exposed to your hateful Islamophobic rants. Personally, I'd rather live in a polite and inclusive society where people tolerate each other's beliefs and worldviews, rather than obnoxiously attacking them at every opportunity.

What exactly is your problem with those of us who point this out to you?

Would you like people like me to be banned from pointing out how hateful your constant vilification of Islam is, and its most likely consequences?

These are rhetorical questions, because in engaging with you I know I'm just providing a soapbox from which you will undoubtedly spout some more of your hatred. Since hatred is by definition unreasonable, no amount of rational discussion is likely to influence you and your cohorts.

You Islamophobes are very much part of the problem, not part of any solution. Ciao for now.

CJ Grogan,

"Since hatred is by definition unreasonable, no amount of rational discussion is likely to influence you and your cohorts."

No CJ,
Yours is just a PC sound-byte.
Hatred is not by definition unreasonable.
If somebody hurt my children it would not be unreasonable for me to hate them.
Furthermore, you don't engage in rational discussion.
This is your flawed reasoning:
They are spewing hatred.
Hatred is by definition unreasonable.
They are therefore unreasonable and I needn't engage in rational discussion with them.

Can't you see that Islam is a threat to your "polite and inclusive society where people tolerate each other's beliefs and worldviews"?
(That's a "rhetorical question" BTW, because it's clear that you can't)
Do you want a society where cartoons have to be run past a committee of Mohammedan's before they can be published?
(Perhaps you do, it certainly seems so)
This is the logical outcome of your approach.
Look at the Mohammed cartoons for goodness sake.
By your logic, they would be deemed "hateful" because they "fuel(led) the antipathies of ... Muslim fundies" (your definition of hateful).
But how can we know anything is "hateful" until we run it past a committee of stakeholders?

While claiming to defend the right to free speech you denounce as hateful...free speech!
Why?
Because it is a threat to your polite and inclusive society,
your utopian fiction which can only be achieved if all the "haters" (those who don't agree with you) stop hating.

"You Islamophobes are very much part of the problem, not part of any solution."
No CJ,
Islam and its useful idiots are the problem.