Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[SadRed]

I've just read the last few pages where sadred and a few others have been defending Islam from accusations that it's not the "religion of peace" that it is claimed to be.

I find it very telling that every defence was along the lines "well, group/religion x also did something horrible". A little advice - if you're ever accused of a crime simply telling the judge that other people have committed crimes is unlikely to get you acquitted.

Nobody has tried to defend Islam (or indeed promote it) by telling us about the ways in which it has advanced humanity, human rights and peace. Why not?

Because no one gives a fuck. Everything is the same these days, ISIS or your average bloke selling burgers. The hate is so much that people have made their minds up. Whether its halal meat, some peadophiles, terrorists, everything wrong with the world are all muslims. The first thing is to stop this mindless hate pelting that goes on, and understand that people are humans first.

Admittedly, I agree the achievements of muslims needs to be told, but in the vile atmosphere thats created, its impossible.

[SadRed]

Exactly, most defence of Islam seems to come down to "blah blah, X did worse 200 years ago" or "you're an Islamophobe/racist".

Desperare attempts to stop discussion or misdirect it onto the past crimes of others

This is hugely important and what is happening is not an attempt to shut down debate but dangerous. See this article for comparision between anti-semitism and islamaphobia

See this article:
http://middleclassdub.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/islamophobia-and-antisemitism-same.html

Below are quotes which highlight the disturbing similarities between Islamophobic and Antisemitic messages.

Ten statements by 'anti-jihad' writer Robert Spencer and Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher are compared.

Julius Streicher was the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi paper that spread vicious Antisemitic propaganda from 1923-1945. As Nazi Party leader in Nuremburg he organized the destruction of synagogues in the city.

He was not directly involved in the Holocaust but was convicted of crimes against humanity after WWII. He was found guilty of inciting hatred against Jews in Der Stuermer and was executed in 1946.

Robert Spencer is a prominent critic of Islam who runs the Jihadwatch.org website. He is the author of several best selling books on Islam and he has spoken on Fox News, CNN, NBC and other news channels.

He has organized protests against the construction of mosques in New York. He has advised the FBI on Islam and his books were recommended by the FBI for its agents.

The following is a comparison of their views on Muslims and Jews respectively.

1 Muslims/Jews have a religious duty to conquer the world.
“Islam understands its earthly mission to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.”

Robert Spencer.

“Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament orders the Jews to consume and enslave the peoples of the earth?”

Julius Streicher.

2 The Left enables Muslims/Jews.
“The principal organs of the Left...has consistently been warm and welcoming toward Islamic supremacism.”

Robert Spencer.

“The communists pave the way for him (the Jew).”

Julius Streicher.

3 Governments do nothing to stop Muslims/Jews.
“FDI* acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials...in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

(Freedom Defense Initiative, Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller organisation).

“The government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people expect action to be taken.”

Julius Streicher.

4 Muslims/Jews cannot be trusted.
“When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion, this is taught in the Qur'an.”

Robert Spencer.

“We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.”

From The Toadstool, children's book published by Julius Streicher.

5 Recognizing the true nature of Muslims/Jews can be difficult.
“There is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.”

Robert Spencer.

"Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal."

From The Toadstool, children's book published by Julius Streicher.

6 The evidence against Muslims/Jews is in their holy books.
“What exactly is ‘hate speech’ about quoting Qur’an verses and then showing Muslim preachers using those verses to exhort people to commit acts of violence, as well as violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by those verses and others?”

Robert Spencer.

“In Der Stuermer no editorial appeared, written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers, in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament, or from Jewish historical works of recent times.”

Julius Streicher.

7 Islamic/Jewish texts encourage violence against non-believers.
“'And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter...' -- 2:191.”

Koranic verse quoted by Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch.org.

“'And when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally: men and women and children, even the animals.' (Deuteronomy 7:2.).”

Biblical verse quoted by Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer.

8 Christianity is peaceful while Islam/Judaism is violent.
“There is no Muslim version of 'love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you' or 'if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also'.”

Robert Spencer.

“The Jew is not being taught, like we are, such texts as, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' or 'If you are smitten on the left cheek, offer then your right one.'"

Julius Streicher.

9 Muslims/Jews are uniquely violent.
"(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers."

Robert Spencer.

"No other people in the world has such prophecies. No other people would dare to say that it was chosen to murder and destroy the other peoples and steal their possessions."

Julius Streicher.

10 Criticising Muslims/Jews is not incitement to violence against Muslims/Jews.
“There is nothing in anything that I have ever written that could be reasonably construed as an incitement to violence against anyone.”

Robert Spencer.

“Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of Der Stuermer as such were not (incitement). During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, 'Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.' Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.”

Julius Streicher.

[SadRed]

Anyway, I am reposting this because people have missed it, but its a great great bit of war reporting from Vice. Fantastic work and true journalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiyyWiO-IKY&list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ

[Twelfth Man]

Anyway, I am reposting this because people have missed it, but its a great great bit of war reporting from Vice. Fantastic work and true journalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiyyWiO-IKY&list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ

Cheers, watching it now. You get another idea of the Muslim Brotherhood, that the Western media rarely portrays. Though the arrival of the IS lunatics is changing that.

[scared_person]

Because no one gives a fuck. Everything is the same these days, ISIS or your average bloke selling burgers. The hate is so much that people have made their minds up. Whether its halal meat, some peadophiles, terrorists, everything wrong with the world are all muslims. The first thing is to stop this mindless hate pelting that goes on, and understand that people are humans first.

Admittedly, I agree the achievements of muslims needs to be told, but in the vile atmosphere thats created, its impossible.

I'm disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to put forward a proper argument.

"Other people have done just as bad, and you all hate Islam anyway!" is playground stuff.

[Corkboy]

You have missed the point. Every country cannot be expected to the same standards of human rights as the most developed and privliedged nations on the planet, its simple. What the british did was considered okay 60 years ago is considered terrible now, if the british people didnt disagree with that at that time, does that mean they are 'barbaric' ?

Yes. When people carry out barbaric acts, that makes them barbaric, no matter when they do it or where.

In a thread about wars in Syria, the so people with so called concern for human rights care about the percentrage of muslims in nigeria who want strict laws for adultary. Its an insult.

Your hurt feelings don't figure very prominently in my thinking, as you may have guessed.

If thats what you think, then I dont even know what Islamophobia is. Can you tell me what it is? Because I dont think anything anyone says or does ever falls into that category. I dont think people here believe there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia'.

It's when people have prejudices about Muslims because they are Muslims. Pointing out facts is not prejudice. You have deliberately misquoted and misrepresented what I've posted on this thread in an effort to discredit me and my views, and then you have the gall to accuse me of being bigoted and Islamophobic. You want me to be those things.

[SadRed]

Yes. When people carry out barbaric acts, that makes them barbaric, no matter when they do it or where.

Your hurt feelings don't figure very prominently in my thinking, as you may have guessed.

It's when people have prejudices about Muslims because they are Muslims. Pointing out facts is not prejudice. You have deliberately misquoted and misrepresented what I've posted on this thread in an effort to discredit me and my views, and then you have the gall to accuse me of being bigoted and Islamophobic. You want me to be those things.

Why the hell would I want you to be anything? Thats ridiculous. Do I not have things to do in my life than spend my life try to discredit you? I have the gall to call a spade a spade, that is all I am doing. If you trying to pretend people here are not prejudiced against muslims because they are muslims, I dont know who you are fooling. Just replace muslims by jews or blacks in the posts here and see how they sound.

[Corkboy]

Why the hell would I want you to be anything? Thats ridiculous. Do I not have things to do in my life than spend my life try to discredit you?

Your most regular contribution to these threads is to decry the raging bigotry and Islamophobia you believe people like me specialise in. It's a false accusation, as I've repeatedly demonstrated so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish but as you said, it's up to you how you spend your time.

[zero zero]

If you trying to pretend people here are not prejudiced against muslims because they are muslims, I dont know who you are fooling.

Muslims label non-believers as "other" then have the gall to complain they are looked at as different (not necessarily better or worse).

[SadRed]

Your most regular contribution to these threads is to decry the raging bigotry and Islamophobia you believe people like me specialise in. It's a false accusation, as I've repeatedly demonstrated so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish but as you said, it's up to you how you spend your time.

I dont think you have demonstrated anything, if anything I feel its contrary. Its very convenient to say that these are only facts, but its not hard to see the thinking behind it. If someone were to post stats about how blacks are more commit crimes in proportion to their population in america in a thread about Liberian civil war, its easy to see.

You are correct in one sense, I probably cant change how people think when they are being bombarded by negative stories about Islam every fucking second of their lives, so it is perhaps true that I have wasted my time.

[BUSHMILLS]

Muslims label non-believers as "other" then have the gall to complain they are looked at as different (not necessarily better or worse).

Some also insist that ISIS are "not muslims". Then, when the West attacks ISIS, they denounce it as a "war on Muslims".

[Wool]

Some also insist that ISIS are "not muslims". Then, when the West attacks ISIS, they denounce it as a "war on Muslims".

You mean the terrorists call it that. I haven't seen anyone label it a "war on Muslims" besides those already "fighting" it, i.e ISIS, Al Qaeda. I very much doubt the people saying ISIS aren't Muslims are the ones labelling the air strikes as that.

[SadRed]

Muslims label non-believers as "other" then have the gall to complain they are looked at as different (not necessarily better or worse).

Some also insist that ISIS are "not muslims". Then, when the West attacks ISIS, they denounce it as a "war on Muslims".

It's when people have prejudices about Muslims because they are Muslims.

[electricghost]

You are correct in one sense, I probably cant change how people think when they are being bombarded by negative stories about Islam every fucking second of their lives, so it is perhaps true that I have wasted my time.

Are these negative stories untrue though ?  If they are true then it's perfectly legitimate to criticize wouldn't you say ?

[SadRed]

I'm disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to put forward a proper argument.

"Other people have done just as bad, and you all hate Islam anyway!" is playground stuff.

You make a fair point, and I will but its not something that can be done in a short post because of inevitable the questions will follow. People look at the state of the islamic world, any attempt to portray Islam as anything 'good' is bound to fail unless it is done with a lot of effort. I will do it at a later date.

[Corkboy]

I dont think you have demonstrated anything, if anything I feel its contrary. Its very convenient to say that these are only facts, but its not hard to see the thinking behind it. If someone were to post stats about how blacks are more commit crimes in proportion to their population in america in a thread about Liberian civil war, its easy to see.

If your objection is that the slant is not relevant to the thread then you're wrong about that, too. This is the de facto Middle East thread on here right now, and the Big Story of the ME is the Islamic State. The banner world conflict is currently being waged by people who claim Islam and no other factor as their motivation, and you're suggesting Islam has nothing to do with it.

To that extent, your Liberian analogy, which conveniently reduced a declared jihad to a "civil war", would only be apposite if the black people in question thought their blackness entitled them to slaughter, rape and pillage other races.

Interestingly, if we did discuss disproportionate levels of crime among black people in the US, we would find that the biggest reason was not any propensity towards criminality but rather institutional racism resulting is disproportionately bad justice system outcomes. But you would have stopped the conversation at "blacks = crime", wouldn't you?

[SadRed]

Are these negative stories untrue though ?  If they are true then it's perfectly legitimate to criticize wouldn't you say ?

It is legitimate to criticize I have no doubt, but there needs to be balance, perspective and context. Some of the stories have been complete lies. It is very easy for media to whip this hate up, how did they do it in Iraq? They also did it with Syria and Chemical weapons, almost taking us into war. Then it is ISIS. There was a point when the hawks where wanting war with Iran. Netanyahu is still banging on about it. Then there was a surge of how Putin was evil and is next Stalin. In 20 years it will be China.

If terrorism is so closely linked to Islam alone, how come it was almost negligent before 1990s? Why this sudden surge? Think about it, why didnt we give a damn about supplying arms to mujahhideen?

[Flinstone]

rather institutional racism resulting is disproportionately bad justice system outcomes.

How can there be institutional racism when they follow a jury system?

[Corkboy]

How can there be institutional racism when they follow a jury system?

I mean the justice system which starts with the police and ends with prison. Juries are a small part.

[Corkboy]

It is legitimate to criticize I have no doubt, but there needs to be balance, perspective and context. Some of the stories have been complete lies.

Please cite these lies. Have I posted them? Anyone else? Quotes?

[electricghost]

It is legitimate to criticize I have no doubt, but there needs to be balance, perspective and context.

You really could have left it there in the context of this thread, because that is all that has happened here as far as I can see.

Certain media outlets of course will have their own agendas, so will certain people, but to throw insinuations around at posters on here like you have for just asking difficult questions or being critical of certain things about your religion is out of order.

[SadRed]

If your objection is that the slant is not relevant to the thread then you're wrong about that, too. This is the de facto Middle East thread on here right now, and the Big Story of the ME is the Islamic State. The banner world conflict is currently being waged by people who claim Islam and no other factor as their motivation, and you're suggesting Islam has nothing to do with it.

To me this is a thread about Syria, I didnt take your opinion on what is acceptable.

And more utter nonsense.Where the hell did I say Islam has nothing to do with ISIS? Just twist and turn anything into anything. I only commented on your Islamophobia. That is all I said.

To that extent, your Liberian analogy, which conveniently reduced a declared jihad to a "civil war", would only be apposite if the black people in question thought their blackness entitled them to slaughter, rape and pillage other races.

You are on so thin ice that this is becoming silly. You post stats about muslims in Nigeria who support death penalty because ISIS think Islam is entitled to ' slaughter, rape and pillage other races'. Utter and absurd nonsense.

The reason you post those stats is to show that muslims everywhere are barbaric, you actually countered someone trying to say that most muslims are generally decent tolerant people.

Interestingly, if we did discuss disproportionate levels of crime among black people in the US, we would find that the biggest reason was not any propensity towards criminality but rather institutional racism resulting is disproportionately bad justice system outcomes. But you would have stopped the conversation at "blacks = crime", wouldn't you?

I dont know if you genuinely do not understand my views or what. Seriously. I gave an example that matches your analogy. YOU would likely say blacks=crime, like you seem to say Muslims=Barbarism. Not me.

I DO NOT  THINK ANY PEOPLE, JEWS MUSLIMS BLACKS ROMA or anyone else are evil or barbarians. The same fucking thing I have been trying to tell for ages on this thread if you ever lisetene. I dont think anyone has any propensity to be more violent, or are inhenrently evil. I think all are absolutely equal.

[SadRed]

You really could have left it there in the context of this thread, because that is all that has happened here as far as I can see.

Certain media outlets of course will have their own agendas, so will certain people, but to throw insinuations around at posters on here like you have for just asking difficult questions or being critical of certain things about your religion is out of order.

Difficult questions are not the same as inherent prejudice that some people seem to have about Muslims. I spent ages on the Islamism thread explaining bit by bit about what Islam is about, but one is not able to make two posts here without someone making some sort of an offensive statement. Just see above, I have highlighted a couple already as soon as someone presents a different point of view.

If some of the things that are regularly said here about Muslims are said about Jews for example, the posters would be banned. Just read the things again. Every thread inevitably turns to how evil Islam is, barbaric laws, primitive practices, etc etc etc. I only objected because even a post saying majority of muslims are decent innocent people is immediately attacked with 'stats' to prove otherwise. 

[SadRed]

Please cite these lies. Have I posted them? Anyone else? Quotes?

Corkboy, I dont mean this for you. This was about the media. Anyway as usual this is off track again. That is all from me unless its something to do with Syria. Just one request mate - Please travel to some Islamic countries. I dont know what idea you have of them. Live with the people and see how they treat you in real life. They are not the same as what Jihadwatch would have you believe.

[zero zero]

That's not an answer is it?

[Wool]

The banner world conflict is currently being waged by people who claim Islam and no other factor as their motivation, and you're suggesting Islam has nothing to do with it.

Where has he done that? From what I've seen (admittedly I haven't been following the thread as closely) SadRed has tried to deflect criticism by saying X group did this and Y group did that. I've not seen him suggest Islam has nothing to do with ISIS at all.

[jooneyisdagod]

Lets criticize muslims because their rate of movemement away from what are 'barbaric practices' is slower than others, not to mention what constitutes a barbaric practice is what 'we think' at a certain point in history.

Sure let's criticise muslims because 'their rate of movement away from what are ''barbaric practices'' is slower than others'. I agree with that whole heartedly. The question remains, how much is their lower 'rate of movement away from barbaric practices' influenced by the refusal of many people to move away from the barbaric practices due to those practices being justified by the Quran are. Speaking of barbaric practices, I somehow don't see paedophilia, misogyny or beheading coming back into mainstream fashion anytime soon so unless you're being totally disingenuous or a part of the ISIS. Which you're thankfully not.

You have missed the point. Every country cannot be expected to the same standards of human rights as the most developed and privliedged nations on the planet, its simple. What the british did was considered okay 60 years ago is considered terrible now, if the british people didnt disagree with that at that time, does that mean they are 'barbaric' ?

Sure every country cannot be expected to instantly achieve the standards of human rights that some of the most affluent countries in the world have achieved. But that is the end goal but blindly thumping religious ideology is counterproductive to that end goal. Some amazing whataboutery and mental gymnastics in the second part of the post there. British people have moved on now. They don't consider what was okay 60 years ago to be okay now. That is a sign of progress. And its possible because they're largely not held hostage by an immutable book that they're supposed to follow till death.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/richard-dawkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you

We've debated and re-debated the Guardian's numerous hatchet pieces on Richard Dawkins recently. Regular readers call these articles click bait.

Re: Ultra-Orthodox Jews - In terms of the 'barbaric', misogynistic 'customs and pratcices' there is no difference between them and conservative muslims, or even hindus in central india, but muslims are the flavour of the decade so lets bash them for anythign and everything.

Not at all. If there were Ultra-orthodox jews and hindus beheading people of the wrong faith and putting those videos up on youtube and commanding everyone to let the ultra-orthodox jew state or the hindu state prosper and become the source of violence across so many different countries then you'll find similar levels of criticism from people. Islam gets its criticism simply because of the empty boast that there are 1.5 billion of them who are either a homogenous block or a complex people based on which way the person using the argument wants to use it.

Poster 1: Islam is barbaric, their prophet cruel, they teach hatred towards others.
Poster 2: What rubbish, there are a large majority of muslims who are perfectly tolerant, and Islam is no different from other religions.
Poster 3: Muslims are not tolerant because: they support death penalty and stoning for adultary. Hence they are not tolerant.


Which post appeals to your common sense?

Have you come across the pew polls conducted across the world in 2013 ? Oh wait, I say across the world but it doesn't include some very sensitive territories such as Saudi Arabia and Iran who are quite possibly the two most dominant powers in the region because there was a fear among the pollsters that the questions might be touch on a few raw nerves. So the large majority of tolerant muslims appears to be quite the myth based on the largest international survey of muslims ever conducted. Have you ever conducted a similar survey to conclude that the large majority of muslims are perfectly tolerant ?


And your point with the three poster thing is that support for capital punishment for trivial offences doesn't actually make 'intolerant' ? Is that it ? How about capital punishment for apostasy ? Is that intolerant ? Because a large majority of muslims actually support that view.

How many muslims have you met personally you found to be barbaric? In a thread about wars in Syria, the so people with so called concern for human rights care about the percentrage of muslims in nigeria who want strict laws for adultary. Its an insult.

Not one muslim I've met, I've found to be 'barbaric'. But that's because they're nice people. How lucky.


Your definition of 'strict' is actually quite funny. Don't call it strict please because its not strict at all. Now, those statistics always get thrown out because time and again people like yourself come and repeat the myth that a large majority of muslims are tolerant people. Those statistics blow that idea out of the water, which is why they get brought up. You cannot make a claim and then expect a free ride on it.

Think about the real human rights abuses, in the world, the wars that have killed millions of people. MILLIONS. The drone strikes for which there is no accountability, the illegal occupations. In a thread for war that has left 200,000 dead and millions displaced, the so called human rights abuses people here are intersted in are why do muslims dont allow marriage in other faiths?

See above for why those issues get brought up.

Carry on then. If thats what you think, then I dont even know what Islamophobia is. Can you tell me what it is? Because I dont think anything anyone says or does ever falls into that category. I dont think people here believe there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia'. I have spent hours here trying to a present a different point of view, which if anyone supports are quickly shouted at and drowned out. Its clear people few care about a different perspective but already made their mind up that 1.5 billion people are barbaric, so really whats the point.

Your different 'point of view' is really not that different. I've heard the spiel plenty of times. Your cries of Islamophobia are concerning because that seems the one stop shop for you. As soon as a claim you make is scrutinised, you turn to the islamophobia argument which really isn't an argument, its an attempt to stop discussion. Its sad that someone like you that clearly has a proper education does that.

[SadRed]

I have made my points clearly, if you disagree with them, there is no point going around in circular arguments. Its sad for me too that someone like you too who has clearly had a proper education accepts a view that a large majority of muslims are not decent tolerant people.  There is a fundamental difference amongst us how we view people and human beings, and I do not think any amount of debate will change that.

[jooneyisdagod]

I have made my points clearly, if you disagree with them, there is no point going around in circular arguments. Its sad for me too that someone like you too who has clearly had a proper education accepts a view that a large majority of muslims are not decent tolerant people.  There is a fundamental difference amongst us how we view people and I do not think any amount of debate will change that.

There are no circular arguments here. You're fundamental argument is that a large majority of muslims are decent tolerant people. Now, I'm not actually debating the decent part. Its the tolerant bit that I'm doubting.

I'm basing my doubts on evidence. Nothing anecdotal but cold hard evidence in the form of one of the most comprehensive surveys of the Islamic world ever conducted. And here it is,

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Here is another one for you,

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Certainly not the large tolerant majority you paint it out to be and I make no apologies in using 'facts' as it were to question if the narrative that is purported is actually true.

[jooneyisdagod]

Where has he done that? From what I've seen (admittedly I haven't been following the thread as closely) SadRed has tried to deflect criticism by saying X group did this and Y group did that. I've not seen him suggest Islam has nothing to do with ISIS at all.

Its happened on other threads, most notably the Islamist thread which is now closed.

[SadRed]

There are no circular arguments here. You're fundamental argument is that a large majority of muslims are decent tolerant people. Now, I'm not actually debating the decent part. Its the tolerant bit that I'm doubting.

Atleast you think they are decent people.

Then fundamental argument is muslims are 'intolerant' in general. So the question the hinges on what criteria would you use for qualifying 'tolerance'.
It is without question that when you compare with western liberal values, religious laws will be very intolerant. But this will be true for devout muslims, hindus, christians and jews, especially attitudes towards sexuality. For the sake of comparision, should we not be looking at what other religious groups answer to similar questions? What you call as intolerance are often laws, by which people would like to be goverened themselves. Is that intolerance or democracy?

The second point is the one I made at the very start,  death penalty and attitudes towards sexuality are not the only criteria of tolerance. Attitude towards for wars and drone attacks, banning of minarets, attitudes towards immigration also constitute intolerance. Infact for me 'tolerance' is more what the attitudes are towards 'others'.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2011936-1,00.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/pamela-geller-new-york-buses-subways-islam-james-foley

On the one hand, you speak of tolerance, on the other you cannot accept the Islamophobia argument. The two cannot be decoupled. Tolerance is not cherry picking the laws you or I want. Look at the article I posted earlier, the arguments against Islam and Muslims today are scarily similar to what was used by Nazis against the Jews. After 4 pages and hours, back to the same. Thats all from me. If you think I am still talking bollocks, then okay you win.

[jooneyisdagod]

Atleast you think they are decent people.

Then fundamental argument is muslims are 'intolerant' in general. So the question the hinges on what criteria would you use for qualifying 'tolerance'.
It is without question that when you compare with western liberal values, religious laws will be very intolerant. But this will be true for devout muslims, hindus, christians and jews, especially attitudes towards sexuality. For the sake of comparision, should we not be looking at what other religious groups answer to similar questions?

I don't consider them western liberal values at all. Sure they originated in the western world but I think a number of these values are backed by rational arguments and have pervaded almost all societies. And sure, please do look at attitudes among Christians, Jews and Hindus about sexuality you'll most likely find that they all object to it. I do doubt many will want them stoned to death though. And you can ask them about apostates and atheists and you'll no doubt get an overwhelming condemnation of such immoral activities but I doubt you'll find many pushing for stoning and capital punishment for it. But since we don't actually have a large scale survey of a similar scale to those that I posted or at least I've not come across them, I'll take your point. It would be nice to compare. But hey, I'm an atheist. I couldn't care if intolerance as I see it comes from Hindus or Christians or Jews or Muslims. They are all concerning to me but just at the moment, it seems the Muslims are a bit far out in the lead on this particular front. Now I don't think its because Muslims are intrinsically evil but I think its because they're misled and forced to adhere to a medieval, backward and barbaric religious book through a combination of indoctrination and fear. 

The very second point is the one I made at the very start,  death penalty and attitudes towards sexuality are not the only criteria of tolerance. Repeated support for wars and drone attacks, banning of minarets, islamophobia also constitute intolerance.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2011936-1,00.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/pamela-geller-new-york-buses-subways-islam-james-foley

On the one hand, you speak of tolerance, on the other you cannot accept the Islamophobia argument. The two cannot be decoupled. Tolerance is not cherry picking the laws I want. After 4 pages and hours, back to the same. Thats all from me. If you think I am still talking bollocks, then okay you win.

You are conflating so many different issues and drawing parallels where in some cases there are none. Repeated support for wars - Let's address this one first. You're obviously referring to Iraq and I for one never supported the war. I still think it was the wrong move but hey there are some real and I repeat very real reasons that could have been used to push for war in Iraq. For example, to tackle the genocidal maniac that was Saddam. [Source: Co-worker and friend, that lost as many as 100 members of his extensive family and suffers from survivor guilt.] Still, the WMD excuse was just that and I think there was so much doubt about the WMD's that it was IMO simply not enough reason to invade Iraq. In other words, I oppose the Iraq war even though I also think Saddam was a c*nt. Is that intolerance ? What is it not tolerating ? The right of Saddam to butcher people as he saw fit ? That's not intolerance, I think that's humanity when you refuse to stand by and watch some poor sods get gassed.


Banning of minarets ? Well, I don't actually think its a good idea personally. Its certainly intolerant of either a religious or architectural variety. But hold on a second though, the Swiss didn't ban the building of mosques, just minarets. Its certainly intolerant in many respects but is it the same as stoning a man to death because he doesn't actually believe in a God ? That's rubbish I'm afraid.


And Islamophobia does exist. There are some Islamophobic people, I don't think anyone refutes that particular claim. However, you seem awfully comfortable to use the Islamophobia tag every time someone asks critical questions of the religion. That is simply not Islamophobia. It's simply someone being critical.


'Tolerance is not cherry picking laws that I want'. - No it sure as hell isn't. But cherry picking isn't what I would call the process we have in place for setting laws. I think its rational debate and discussion that leads to laws being created. Not cherry picking.


I do think you're talking bollocks I'm afraid but I'm still discussing and not calling you an Islamic apologist or a terrorist apologist for example. Because, I understand that these issues are complicated and that you can defend one idea without defending the next. Unfortunately, your claims of Islamophobia/racism (Not accusing you of that particular one) are the exact mirror image of the situation I put across now. They add nothing to any discussion and certainly don't facilitate it.

[Mamadou]

Where has he done that? From what I've seen (admittedly I haven't been following the thread as closely) SadRed has tried to deflect criticism by saying X group did this and Y group did that. I've not seen him suggest Islam has nothing to do with ISIS at all.

so if isis got to do with islam, and SadRed is an islamist, then he supports isis?

[Wool]

so if isis got to do with islam, and SadRed is an islamist, then he supports isis?

I'm not going to say ISIS aren't Muslims because they clearly are, but it's a twisted interpretation of the Quran which the majority of Muslims have rejected. I don't know which interpretation is correct, and the fact it is open to interpretation needs to be discussed anyway, but I'm inclined to believe the scholars here. How do you know he's an Islamist? You can be a Muslim without being an Islamist. Nothing I've seen posted by SadRed has me thinking he supports ISIS and if you've read the thread then you'd see that he has repeatedly condemned them. He's defending Islam (his own interpretation), not ISIS. It's not hard to see why he feels there's Islamophobia at play with posts such as this.

I haven't read any of the other threads because there's too much to go through so I'm just going off what I've seen in this thread.

[Mamadou]

so nobody knows the right interpretation, but everyone will support the interpretation that says hunting and killing kurds,atheists,people who convert to other religions is ok

no islam country came out and said " don't kill kurds, they can believe whatever they want"... they seem to be very united when it comes to intolerance and anti multiculturalism in their countries

and don't kid youself...wahhabism ( aka extremism,fundamentalism) isn't a new thing... wahhabism movement started 300 hundred years ago, and got nothing to do with american globalism like some paranoid people think

[scared_person]

I think the debate on whether muslims are tolerant between Jooney and sadred is missing the main point. I'm more interested in whether the creed of Islam itself is peaceful and tolerant.

There will be be many good people who are muslims and many bad people who are muslims, jist as there are good and bad christians, jews, londoners, evertonians and cheese lovers.

The more interesting question is whether Islam has a good or bad effect on the humanity.

[viteslesrouges]

The more interesting question is whether Islam has a good or bad effect on the humanity.

So, how about starting us off?

What's your, short, answer to your question above?

[scared_person]

So, how about starting us off?

What's your, short, answer to your question above?

My opinion in short is, whether its because the press and society choose not to show us, or because not much exists, that we in the west see very little evidence of the good that Islam brings to the world.

As i said on the last page, I see many people claiming bias in the media and islamophobia, but nobody saying what is good and positive about Islam. I think that point can be made more generally across society.

[viteslesrouges]

My opinion in short is, whether its because the press and society choose not to show us, or because not much exists, that we in the west see very little evidence of the good that Islam brings to the world.

As i said on the last page, I see many people claiming bias in the media and islamophobia, but nobody saying what is good and positive about Islam. I think that point can be made more generally across society.

So your answer is "bad" then?

 

(I'm not trying to put you in a corner BTW)

[jooneyisdagod]

I think the debate on whether muslims are tolerant between Jooney and sadred is missing the main point. I'm more interested in whether the creed of Islam itself is peaceful and tolerant.

There will be be many good people who are muslims and many bad people who are muslims, jist as there are good and bad christians, jews, londoners, evertonians and cheese lovers.

The more interesting question is whether Islam has a good or bad effect on the humanity.

Actually, I don't think it came through but the discussion comes down exactly to interpretations of the Quran. Of course there are good dudes and bad bell ends in every sphere of life. The question is how much of the bad bell end behaviour of some muslims can be attributed to the Quran. And the answer is quite a bit IMO and certainly in some respects such as jihad, the treatment of homosexuals, death to apostates and so on, the influence of Islam ranges from quite a lot to entirely. I may have used muslims and Islam interchangeably at times but rest assured that the things I spoke about deal with Islam and its influence on its followers than any moral judgment on individual muslims.