Dear Shadow Minister,

I was hoping to leave this discussion but because you've
again addressed me I feel obliged to respond.

I'm not pleading anything of the sort that you
suggest.

I am merely offering the possibility of
Yassmin'e interpretation of Islam to be genuine
for her.

In any civil debate we're bound to hear views we don't
share. There clearly are people who just want to hear
their own views reinforced. To hear their own opinions
celebrated and echoed. But that is not what free speech
is for. Hurling abuse may amuse some people's
staunchest supporters, but it doesn't change minds.
Even worse, the constant abuse and personal attacks of the
winner-take-all warriors drives reasonable people from the
field.

Unless we can meet and discuss our differences of opinion
in a civil debate we shall prevent people like
Yassmin Abdel Magied and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and those who
critique their differing interpretations of Islam,
from holding the discussions our democracy needs.

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

As for George Bernard Shaw opinions?

Yes of course he was abused for his beliefs about the
USSR. And rightly so. That is precisely the point
being made. They were what he believed. I am not for
one moment suggesting that he was right. The same applies
in the case of Yassmin Abdel Magied. If we believe
in free speech - we should be able to create environments
for debate. Where we can meet to discuss our differences of
opinion - even if we may disagree.

Whether Yassmin was lying or not is impossible to know without reading her mind.

If someone pulled her up and discredited her claim by citing contradictions, she probably would have said that she doesn’t consider those contradictions to be true Islam/Sharia-law. Christians do this all the time, there’s even a common fallacy that describes this excuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), so I don’t know why it’s so difficult to believe that Muslims could use it too.

Want to know why Catholicism is wrong? Ask a Protestant. Want to know why Lutherans are wrong? Ask an Anglican. Want to know why the people in the first row of pews are wrong? Ask the people in the second row.

Christian apologists, Matt Slick and Jesse Morrell, debated soteriology recently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvODWeEjeXg). It’s a fascinating debate to watch because both quote from the same book, yet each one comes to a completely different conclusion, neither of which I can fault.

Islam is far more de-centralised than Christianity (with the absence of any religious authority being a core tenet of Shi'ism) so why do we assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?

I suspect the only person Yassmin lied to, and continues to lie to in this respect, is herself.

AJ,

" ..... why do we assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?"

So what idiot does that ? A straw man perhaps ?

Go for it :)

Joe

Foxy,

You are arguing that religious belief will overcome all reason, that in essence Yassmin is an Islamic extremist, who in the face of overwhelming evidence will state blatant falsehoods as facts.

If Yassmin were a brain dead fanatic (like creationists) then I could swallow it, but she is no idiot.

Your theory lacks any plausibility.

That she uttered such a preposterous lie to make a political point and garner attention is the most plausible.

Sheesh, Joe. I use an all-inclusive "we" (meaning me too), and it's still not good enough.

It's not much of a straw man if I include myself.

I'll re-state what I said to, "... why do SO MANY assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?", if it makes you feel any better.

My point remains, either way. I think the fact that the doctrine of taqiyya is sometimes raised, to suggest that any deviance from the most sinister interpretation of Islam is an act, is evidence of that.