Dear AG,

No this isn't the point where I say anything
of the sort. That's your reality, not mine.
And how can I discuss anything with you -
when all you want to do is preach. You Sir,
have an agenda. You always have had - and
discussing anything has never been a part of
your plan. When you continue with the same old
routine, over and over again - we all tend to
leave after a while. Change your technique,
or get used to it! If you keep doing what
you're doing, you'll keep getting what you've got!
Expecting different results, if you persist with
the same old routine - is not very intelligent!
Being weird - is not enough!

Foxy,
What ALGOREisRICH appears to me to be saying is that Yusuf Islam clearly implied that Islamic states are justified under Sharia law in applying a death sentence to blasphemers such as Rushdie.
Peace prizes notwithstanding, can you show where Yusuf Islam has repudiated this viewpoint?
If not, would you then also consider me justified in saying that homosexuals in those Islamic states where the death penalty applies should be executed for their transgressions of Sharia law?

Proxy: << my viewpoint, which is that Islam will never be reformed and will thus pose an existential threat to Western civilisation forevermore into the future.
The only realistic response to that threat is isolation and constant vigilance. >>

Thanks for answering the question. Pure Islamophobia.

Boazy: << let's unpack Stevens treachery further.

a) He is a Muslim.
b) As such he is obliged to work toward the creation of an Islamic state.
c) If that Islamic state ever comes to be, Foxy would get her throat cut if she insulted Muhammad. >>

More Islamophobia, with some vilification for good measure.

What "treachery" has Yusuf Islam pepretrated? How is it treacherous to adopt Islam?

While I'm at it, you didn't answer my question about why you want to ban Waleed Aly from the ABC. Are you advocating censorship of Muslims now? I thought you were an advocate of free speech.

LOL Foxy

You say Stevens' comments were taken "out of context"

Here's what the NY Times reports:

LONDON, May 22 -- The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT IT'D BE THE REAL THING.'' (Capitalisation added. See link above)

Difficult to see how a remark like that could be "taken out of context".

Expressing a desire to see someone burned for writing a book may not be supporting terrorism but it's still a terrible thing.

Foxy writes:

"On 10th November 2004, Yusuf Islam was presented with a "Man of Peace" award by the former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev for his dedication to promote peace, the reconciliation of people, and the condemnation of terrorism…."

Would that be the former president of the same USSR whose loyal servants tortured your father's brother to death and deported the rest of his family to Siberia?

Would it be the same president of the USSR who, in a last desperate bid to keep that repulsive regime intact, sent the tanks into Vilnius in January 1991?

This is the man handing out "Man of Peace" awards?

Just wondering.

CJ Morgan,

You really love the "I word".

I am not exactly a fan of Proxy's but please explain why it is wrong to be an "Islamophobe". As I have explained on another thread I am a "totalitarian-o-phobe" which automatically makes me an Islamophobe. Yes I know Islam is a religion but it is also a totalitarian ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact religion and totalitarian ideologies tend to go together rather well.

Dear dear foxy :)

You said:

You Sir,
have an agenda. You always have had - and
discussing anything has never been a part of
your plan.

But don't you see what you are really saying ? "If you don't agree with me.. you are..." etc.

Discussion works this way

1/ Thesis/prooposition. (facts or opinon presented)
2/ Discussion is when the facts are challenged as either 'false' or 'true'.. it might entail "how they were interpreted" which in turn leads to the issue of HermanYutics :) how documents would be interpreted in a court of law.

As Proxy pointed out.. I was imply highlighting the implications of what Cat Stevens 'said'...

I'm happy to discuss this point with you.

POINT "Did Cat Stevens say or not say..'In an islamic state' such punishments are law"? (Paraphrase)

It is a yes/no answer. You may wish to counter "But perhaps he himself does not believe that is appropriate", and I could counter, that "his position relied on the Quran..not just his opinion" That is discussion.

I have no other agenda than to discuss matters to a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

It seems though that when the evidence does not support your view.. you quickly morph into an ad homimen against me.

"You have an agenda.. always have, blah blah" but not a syllable about the issue. "Did Stevens justify his position by the Quran...or not?"

From StevenLMeyer's opening post

He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."

Would you care to discuss 'that' ?

-Misquote?
-Personal view but not based on a correct understanding of the Quran?
-Steven(LMeyer) made it all up?
-Steven is just an Islamophobe?
-Steven has an agenda?

Feel free :)

About having "an agenda"

Yes I do have "an agenda." My agenda is to make as many people as possible aware of the totalitarian nature of contemporary Islam.

Of course all religions have totalitarian tendencies. Note the comments of the Bishop of Manchester that I quoted in my second post. He wanted UK blasphemy laws extended to include Islam!

Thankfully the UK Parliament repealed the blasphemy laws in 2008.

Now if a bishop were to plead for "respect" for his religion most Lefties here would be up in arms. Lefties have been mocking Christians and heaping scorn on Christianity for as long as I can remember and I'm 64. I've done a fair bit of debunking Christianity myself.

But when it comes to Islam some Lefties - notably those who claim to be atheists - discover this thing called Islamophobia. If you treat Islam in the same way we have treated Christianity for decades we are "Islamophobes".

Well, here's the thing. Despising Islam is no more reprehensible than despising Christianity. A loathing for Islam is no more "racist" than a loathing for Stalinism.

Islamophobia is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Modern anti-Semites hate all Jews irregardless of their religion. Many of the people in the Nazi death camps were actually Christians of Jewish ancestry.

Heaping scorn on Islam is not an incitement to violence. Nor is dissing Muhammad who, in any case, may not have existed. Calling the koran a compendium of seventh century codswallop is no more "hateful" than the many things I have heard Lefties say about the bible.

I suggest that if you do not despise Islam you:

--Don't understand it; or

--Support a totalitarian ideology (that also happens to be a religion); or

--Have some mixed up idea that loathing for Islam and racism are equivalent.