Killing gays is OK, says Muslim Imam

[Tammuz]

Manchester's leading Imam has confirmed that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, reports Outrage. Mr. Arshad Misbahi, who is based at the Manchester Central Mosque, confirmed his views in a conversation to Dr John Casson, a local psychotherapist.

Dr Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion. He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: if the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

...

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10541

[unrealist42]

I think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also said that at one time or another but from a Christian prespective.

[engly-saxo]

at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

What if two gay men have sex alone?

Where are the witnesses?! :huh:

[Booyakasha!]

I think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also said that at one time or another but from a Christian prespective.

Here we see the Far Left unable to criticize Islamic maniacs calling for death to homosexuals. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, because if any American were to even hint at such a thing, they would be compared to "Hitler" with foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way.

[Preno]

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way.The term 'monomania' comes to mind.

[travc]

What if two gay men have sex alone?

Where are the witnesses?! :huh:
Not to be flippant, but their anuses. Seriously... this has been evidence presented in anti-sodomy cases for a long time (including some classic cases in Britian and other western countries).

The big problem IMO is not so much decisions against homosexual behaviour or even adultry. It is simply the idea of "religious law" in the first place. Voluntary religious strictures, the violation of which can result in punishment up to excommunication (being kicked out of the group) are fine... but having religious derived and interpreted law enforced by the state is just wrong.

[Howard]

Here we see the Far Left unable to criticize Islamic maniacs calling for death to homosexuals. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, because if any American were to even hint at such a thing, they would be compared to "Hitler" with foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way.Give it a rest. You've gone from tedious to boring to irritating singing this same old song. Get a new one already. This one's old and tired.

[Ravon]

Why are we seeing and hearing more from these fundamentalist nutbars. For centuries our two cultures have developed in relative peace. In the West we have chosen the route of multiculturalism which is a logically more enriched and inclusive choice than the alternative. We have welcomed a variety of cultures, religions and foods. This route is not necessarily the easy one it has stretched our patience to adapt to new cultural beliefs. Other parts of the world have gone for cultural purity and monothesism.

With the rise of fundamentalism it isn't surprising that some iman in Briton or Australia isn't presing his beliefs full court. What is surrising is that he isn't on a fast boat back to wherever.

[nixon]

Give it a rest. You've gone from tedious to boring to irritating singing this same old song. Get a new one already. This one's old and tired.

For the first time, I find myself agreeing with Booy. This thread so far is proving his point. If a Christian had said these things, he'd be tongue lashed on these boards for it. But out of 7 people posting (You count to Booy), not one has denounced the Imam responsible.

(Oh yeh. The Imam, Arshad Misbahi, is a total prick by defending these barbaric practices in a Muslim state.

[Glimmung]

Not to be flippant, but their anuses. Seriously... this has been evidence presented in anti-sodomy cases for a long time (including some classic cases in Britian and other western countries).

I think that evidence is not permissible Islamically. In fact, these rules for evidence are what makes rape trials so unfair in Muslim countries since a woman needs 4 upstanding witnesses (male muslims only, or two women for every man or something like that) to prove it. Also, if she isn't able to produce them but admits to sexual intercourse she can be held guilty for adultery or fornication.

-G

[Booyakasha!]

I think that evidence is not permissible Islamically. In fact, these rules for evidence are what makes rape trials so unfair in Muslim countries since a woman needs 4 upstanding witnesses (male muslims only, or two women for every man or something like that) to prove it. Also, if she isn't able to produce them but admits to sexual intercourse she can be held guilty for adultery or fornication.

-G

"Also, if she isn't able to produce them but admits to sexual intercourse she can be held guilty for adultery or fornication......AND PUT TO DEATH."

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Surprisingly, the Koran unlike the Bible has many lines, which explicitly say homosexuality is okay.

[Booyakasha!]

Pastor, can you quote/link to them?

[Loren Pechtel]

Give it a rest. You've gone from tedious to boring to irritating singing this same old song. Get a new one already. This one's old and tired.

It might be the same old song but look at the thread--he's right.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It might be the same old song but look at the thread--he's right.

Really? Based on one poster, out of about 10, that makes him right. I am getting tired of the "the left is afraid to criticize Islam" mantra he is spouting also. In the thread were the left was supposed to criticize Islam there were plenty of people criticizing Islam, until it got turned into a "the left doesn't criticize Islam" thread. Just because leftists do not criticize Islam by calling its adherents sand niggers or drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed does not mean that they don't criticize Islam. Just because the criticize Christianity more, does not mean that they don't criticize Islam.

One person makes a comment about Falwell and Pat Robertson, and all of a sudden the idea that the left doesn't criticize Islam becomes the truth. That is ridiculous.

As for this Imam, he is obviously an ingnorant jackass. If you are waiting for a bunch of leftists to come in here and disagree with that statement, don't hold your breath.

[Castorama]

Dog, Loren Pechtel:As for this Imam, he is obviously an ingnorant jackass. If you are waiting for a bunch of leftists to come in here and disagree with that statement, don't hold your breath.Yes, he is ignorant. But like the Christian fundamentalist, he can say whatever he wishes, as long as he does not request it in the UK.

This is exactly the same way that I would wish to be treated in a society that overwhelmingly views homosexuality as an abomination. Once the pendulum has swung from dogma to ethics, you should give your opponents the same respect that they once gave you (or in the case of homosexuality, show them how it should have been done).

[Pavlov's Dog]

Dog, Loren Pechtel:Yes, he is ignorant. But like the Christian fundamentalist, he can say whatever he wishes, as long as he does not request it in the UK.

I am not sure why you addressed this at me, or at Loren for that matter. In fact, I didn't see anyone saying that he cannot say whatever he wishes.

[Blui]

Surprisingly, the Koran unlike the Bible has many lines, which explicitly say homosexuality is okay.

And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.
-7:81

What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males,
And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
-26:166

And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you.
For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!
-29:29
Sigh, at least read the Quran or stop lying.

[Booyakasha!]

Really? Based on one poster, out of about 10, that makes him right. I am getting tired of the "the left is afraid to criticize Islam" mantra he is spouting also. In the thread were the left was supposed to criticize Islam there were plenty of people criticizing Islam, until it got turned into a "the left doesn't criticize Islam" thread. Just because leftists do not criticize Islam by calling its adherents sand niggers or drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed does not mean that they don't criticize Islam. Just because the criticize Christianity more, does not mean that they don't criticize Islam.

One person makes a comment about Falwell and Pat Robertson, and all of a sudden the idea that the left doesn't criticize Islam becomes the truth. That is ridiculous.

Except that we see this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Every time, without exception, that Islamists are criticized here, Far Left members of this board show up and ...

A) Never join the criticism.

and

B) Attempt to throw up red herrings, smoke screens, excuses, diversions... anything to deflect valid criticism away from hardcore Muslims.

Why they practice this type of hypocrisy I am not sure.

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? Based on one poster, out of about 10, that makes him right. I am getting tired of the "the left is afraid to criticize Islam" mantra he is spouting also. In the thread were the left was supposed to criticize Islam there were plenty of people criticizing Islam, until it got turned into a "the left doesn't criticize Islam" thread. Just because leftists do not criticize Islam by calling its adherents sand niggers or drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed does not mean that they don't criticize Islam. Just because the criticize Christianity more, does not mean that they don't criticize Islam.

There were some half-hearted attacks on Islam in that thread but nobody critcized anything in particular about Islam.

[Sue Sponte]

Let's set straight all of the strawman ramblings about the intent of those who pointed out that many Christians feel the same way. The point isn't to defend the Muslim cleric, who's obviously bat-shit crazy; it's to point out that ANYONE, FROM ANY RELIGION, who holds certain people to be inferior based on some crap in a rag written several centuries ago is equally bat-shit crazy.

It drives me crazy to see this repeated ad nausuem, usually on these fora from one poster who repeatedly finds an example a single Muslim doing something horrible and then ragging on Islam as a whole, as if nut-bag fundies are the province of Islam alone. Heck, I've watched Christians defend and/or attempt to sanitize the freaking Crusades and the barbaric acts undertaken in the name of religion during that era.

The saddest part is that this merely illustrates just how far the world is from realizing, collectively, that religion itself is a plague on the development of humanity.

[Booyakasha!]

There were some half-hearted attacks on Islam in that thread but nobody critcized anything in particular about Islam.

Yeah, with their blatant hypocrisy laid bare before them, and with practically a gun held to their heads, a handful of Far Leftwingers barely mustered a few "Yeah, Islam sucks, but...."-type statements.

Do a PD forum search with the term "Islam" in the title. If the OP criticizes Islam at all, what you will see next is a line of Far Leftwingers flooding the thread attempting to spin the topic away from Islam onto "Haliburton" or "Wolfowitz" or "Abortion clinic bombers".... even if those topics are in no way related at all to the OP.... anything to protect and defend highly religious and highly misogynistic Islamists, which makes no logical sense at all since this is supposed to be an atheist message board.

[Booyakasha!]

Let's set straight all of the strawman ramblings about the intent of those who pointed out that many Christians feel the same way. The point isn't to defend the Muslim cleric, who's obviously bat-shit crazy; it's to point out that ANYONE, FROM ANY RELIGION, who holds certain people to be inferior based on some crap in a rag written several centuries ago is equally bat-shit crazy.

It drives me crazy to see this repeated ad nausuem, usually on these fora from one poster who repeatedly finds an example a single Muslim doing something horrible and then ragging on Islam as a whole, as if nut-bag fundies are the province of Islam alone. Heck, I've watched Christians defend and/or attempt to sanitize the freaking Crusades and the barbaric acts undertaken in the name of religion during that era.

The saddest part is that this merely illustrates just how far the world is from realizing, collectively, that religion itself is a plague on the development of humanity.

We all realize that religion is a dangerous lie, that is why we post here. But when you see Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed or abortion clinic bombers or Tom DeLay or any other Christian nuts being slammed here, you don't see anyone lining up to defend them. So why do people line up to defend highly deluded, homophobic, misogynistic and violent Muslims?

[BH]

Surprisingly, the Koran unlike the Bible has many lines, which explicitly say homosexuality is okay.


Huh??????????

You must not be reading the same Quran that I am reading.

I haven't found where the death penalty is described for adultery or sodomy in the Quran yet. You do have to have four witnesses for someone to be punished for the crime but no where i am aware of does it say to kill that person.

[Pavlov's Dog]

There were some half-hearted attacks on Islam in that thread but nobody critcized anything in particular about Islam.

Bullshit. There were plenty of leftists criticizing Islam in that thread. I don't know what you mean by half-hearted. So, far it seems that unless leftists say that Islam is the worst religion ever, their criticisms are half-hearted. I am still waiting for the leftists to come in here and defend this guy. So far, it looks like this thread is proving Booy wrong.

[BH]

Bullshit. There were plenty of leftists criticizing Islam in that thread. I don't know what you mean by half-hearted. So, far it seems that unless leftists say that Islam is the worst religion ever, their criticisms are half-hearted. I am still waiting for the leftists to come in here and defend this guy. So far, it looks like this thread is proving Booy wrong.


I won't defend him. No where in the Quran does it declare that a person must be put to death for sodomy.

[Booyakasha!]

Bullshit. There were plenty of leftists criticizing Islam in that thread. I don't know what you mean by half-hearted. So, far it seems that unless leftists say that Islam is the worst religion ever, their criticisms are half-hearted.

No. If they even uttered one word of criticism, or stopped attempting to defend highly religious Islamic maniacs and misogynists, that would be a start. It's the hypocrisy that is the biggest problem. People from the Far Left are supposed to support women's rights, secular rights, homosexual rights. But if you point out the horrible treatment of women and gays under Islam, the Far Left actually goes out of its way to defend Islam! It's just insane.

[Baal]

This is fucking nonsense.

People point out how Christians do this too, and instead of trying to get the thread back on topic, you derail the entire thread because people aren't insulting imams and talking about how they have to have their skin slowly peeled off.

Okay, there are some people defending Muslims in other threads. But not here. If no one is defending Pat Robertson, then how would comparing him to an imam constitute a defense?

[Pavlov's Dog]

No. If they even uttered one word of criticism, or stopped attempting to defend highly religious Islamic maniacs and misogynists, that would be a start. It's the hypocrisy that is the biggest problem. People from the Far Left are supposed to support women's rights, secular rights, homosexual rights. But if you point out the horrible treatment of women and gays under Islam, the Far Left actually goes out of its way to defend Islam! It's just insane.

I am them and I am criticizing this douchebag. I criticized Islam in the other thread, all of my leftist friends criticize Islam. What exactly would I or anybody else have to say for our criticisms to not be "half-hearted?"

[Castorama]

Pavlov's Dog:I am not sure why you addressed this at me, or at Loren for that matter. In fact, I didn't see anyone saying that he cannot say whatever he wishes.Nor did I think that anyone was disagreeing with freedom of speech. I was just supporting the validity of your comment made towards Loren Pechtel, in that I am about rank 19/277 for leftism on this board. As your comment was adressed to L P, I adressed my comment back to the two relevant users.

[Bonniedundee]

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way
Firslty stop calling the democrats the far-left it makes you look like a Jackass.
Secondly some fundies would love to see homosexuals executed, like this sick son of a bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart

[Bonniedundee]

No. If they even uttered one word of criticism, or stopped attempting to defend highly religious Islamic maniacs and misogynists, that would be a start. It's the hypocrisy that is the biggest problem. People from the Far Left are supposed to support women's rights, secular rights, homosexual rights. But if you point out the horrible treatment of women and gays under Islam, the Far Left actually goes out of its way to defend Islam! It's just insane.
Man you have problems.

The Democrats and liberals are not far left.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Pavlov's Dog:Nor did I think that anyone was disagreeing with freedom of speech. I was just supporting the validity of your comment made towards Loren Pechtel, in that I am about rank 19/277 for leftism on this board. As your comment was adressed to L P, I adressed my comment back to the two relevant users.

Okay. I am still not sure what this means or what rank 19/277 means either.

[Castorama]

Okay. I am still not sure what this means or what rank 19/277 means either.You told L P not to hold his breath for a load of left wingers to come in and denounce what you said about the imam being ignorant. I supported this by backing your comment up, (as a notably left wing member, well inside the most left - wing 10% on the political compass).

Edit - Euro_agnostic

http://www.kgov.com/store/images/accessories/eliminate-perversity.jpg

Ugh. A Bob Enyart bumper sticker.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You told L P not to hold his breath for a load of left wingers to come in and denounce what you said about the imam being ignorant. I supported this by backing your comment up, (as a notably left wing member, well inside the most left - wing 10% on the political compass).

Okay, I guess I misunderstood your first post.

[Bonniedundee]

Ugh. A Bob Enyart bumper sticker.
And when he says eliminate he means execute.

[Castorama]

Pavlov's Dog:Okay, I guess I misunderstood your first post.I was mistakenly assuming that anyone who read my post would have seen me as the epitome of ultra - leftiste freakishness, and thus implying myself as in support of your comment. Maybe I still have some work to do in PD. When my egotist assumption failed, you obviously picked up on that freedom of speech comment as my primary reply.

[Castorama]

Euro_agnostic:And when he says eliminate he means execute.As we know all too well. What is his stance on Bisexuals?

[Bonniedundee]

As we know all too well. What is his stance on Bisexuals?
To kill them if they act on their same-sex desires.

[Booyakasha!]

Secondly some fundies would love to see homosexuals executed, like this sick son of a bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart

More attempts to divert attention away from Muslims, onto "Christians." This is the "But Billy did it too" method of responsibility shifting.

[Bonniedundee]

More attempts to divert attention away from Muslims, onto "Christians." This is the "But Billy did it too" method of responsibility shifting.

Wait, I admit Islam sucks and this Iman is an idiot,tell me something I don't know.

[Castorama]

Booyakasha!: Do you seriously believe that various left wingers are actively trying to mask the idiocy of the islamic faith? Wouldn't that be stupidity to islamic proportions?

[Pavlov's Dog]

More attempts to divert attention away from Muslims, onto "Christians." This is the "But Billy did it too" method of responsibility shifting.

Seriously, what do we have to say? It is not "Billy did it too," unless they are trying to justify what this guy did or what other Show me who is trying to justify what this guy said?

[Booyakasha!]

Booyakasha!: Do you seriously believe that various left wingers are actively trying to mask the idiocy of the islamic faith?

Yes, that is exactly what I believe, and I have provided evidence time and again.

[Sue Sponte]

We all realize that religion is a dangerous lie, that is why we post here.

Perhaps, but many here think that certain religions are superior to others. My point is that ALL religion, faith-based in nature, is the same. Islam isn't worse than Christianity, as it is the same premise (i.e. non-questioning belief in horse crap) that leads to the problems from the whackos. As long as the debate is as to which religion is worse, my view is that you're merely debating whose crap smells worse. To me, the point is that they are both crap.

So why do people line up to defend highly deluded, homophobic, misogynistic and violent Muslims?

I haven't seen anyone defending this wingnut. Others have merely pointed out that there are a whole lot of them out there, Christians included. I read that to be a criticism of religion in general, not a defense of Islam.

[TollHouse]

Loren, for the most part I think you're pretty cool.

But this ...

There were some half-hearted attacks on Islam in that thread but nobody critcized anything in particular about Islam.

.. is crap. Maybe you guys need to write down exactly what kind of prejudice you're looking for and maybe I'll afix my signature to it.

Islam sucks. Their stupid religous laws sucks. The violent tendencies of too many of their followers sucks. Big time suckage all around.

And it also sucks that if I fail to include some good-ol' boy raghead bashing in every post then I'm accused of being a sympathizer of Islofacism or whatever invented word du-jour.

Oh, and just to be clear: This Muslim Imam is a huge fucking asshole.

[Booyakasha!]

I haven't seen anyone defending this wingnut. Others have merely pointed out that there are a whole lot of them out there, Christians included. I read that to be a criticism of religion in general, not a defense of Islam.

By pointing the finger at others, it is an attempt to divert attention away Islam, and onto something else. That is DEFENSE.

[Castorama]

Booyakasha!:Yes, that is exactly what I believe, and I have provided evidence time and again.Well, I'm not primarily into your search for 'evidence', since it may even be true, in the case of a small number of actual politicians such as George Galloway. But reagrding this thread, neither I or Euro_agnostic give a fuck about making one breed of crazed doctrine look any rosier than the other.

By pointing the finger at others, it is an attempt to divert attention away Islam, and onto something else. That is DEFENSE.Maybe you just hate Islam a little more than Christianity, and that's why you sound so mad?

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, that is exactly what I believe, and I have provided evidence time and again.
But why would we do that?

And what evidence have you shown,you've just made stupid statements like the Democrats and liberals are far-left.

[Sue Sponte]

By pointing the finger at others, it is an attempt to divert attention away Islam, and onto something else. That is DEFENSE.

No. No one is defending this asswipe by saying it's the fault of someone else. People are conceding this guy is an asswipe and noting that there are other asswipes as well, in other religion, to place it into context.

In case you missed it, this Islamic nut is a fuckwad. That I may also believe other religious nuts are fuckwads in no way defends this idiot. Moreover, that I believe religion as a whole is to blame for the earth having such fuckheads is also not a defense of this moron.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Just goes to show that the Christians and Muslims aren't really that far apart in their thinking.

[Booyakasha!]

No. No one is defending this asswipe by saying it's the fault of someone else. People are conceding this guy is an asswipe and noting that there are other asswipes as well, in other religion, to place it into context.

What "context" is needed when the guy says gays should be put to death???

People are not attempting to provide "context," they are attempting to provide cover for this maniac.

[Castorama]

Booyakasha!:What "context" is needed when the guy says gays should be put to death???Context that appreciates the fact that there are other guys who say that gays should be put to death?

People are not attempting to provide "context," they are attempting to provide cover for this maniac.Who? What proportion of the left are defending Islam, and for what reason exactly do they share the aim of defending this distant religion? Would you like me to set up a poll?

I find it quite disturbing that someone claiming to be an atheist can come up with such a wayward conspiracy theory.

[Booyakasha!]

Booyakasha!

Maybe you just hate Islam a little more than Christianity, and that's why you sound so mad?

I hate religion as an institution and a way of thinking, because I think it spells doom for humanity. I hate those religions which are intolerant, violent and taken literally more than those which are fairly benign, tolerant, and not taken literally. Therefore I hate Christianity more than Buddhism, and Islam more than Christianity. That is not to say I have any love at all for Christianity; you will find me attacking Christians here without mercy, and certainly never attempting to defend them.

That's the difference, you see. I am not a hypocrite.

[Castorama]

Whether you are right or not in your hating of Islam more than Christianity, I am suggesting that it could be the cause of you interpreting other members' indifferent treatment of the two as in favour of Islam.

What gives you the idea about the big cover up is harder to crack. I don't know whether you are right wing or not.

[Bonniedundee]

I hate religion as an institution and a way of thinking, because I think it spells doom for humanity.
And leftists have always loved religion!

[Booyakasha!]

Whether you are right or not in your hating of Islam more than Christianity, I am suggesting that it could be the cause of you interpreting other members' indifferent treatment of the two as in favour of Islam.

What gives you the idea about the big cover up is harder to crack. I don't know whether you are right wing or not.

There is no doubt that I am right, as I have provided evidence on every thread started about Islam over the last couple of weeks. The pattern is always exactly the same: Someone points out a negative behavior among Muslims (treating women like dogs, executing gays, etc) and the thread is quickly filled with far Left Wingers... A) Not uttering one word about the OP against Islam and B) Mentioning something about how "Bush" "Haliburton" "Pat Robertson" or "Abortion clinic bombers" also do bad things. It's a type of deflection, hoping to steer criticism away from Islamists.

[Bonniedundee]

There is no doubt that I am right, as I have provided evidence on every thread started about Islam over the last couple of weeks. The pattern is always exactly the same: Someone points out a negative behavior among Muslims (treating women like dogs, executing gays, etc) and the thread is quickly filled with far Left Wingers... A) Not uttering one word about the OP against Islam and B) Mentioning something about how "Bush" "Haliburton" "Pat Robertson" or "Abortion clinic bombers" also do bad things. It's a type of deflection, hoping to steer criticism away from Islamists.
But why would they do that?
It doesn't make sense,the left has a large history of anti-religious feeling.

[Booyakasha!]

But why would they do that?
It doesn't make sense,the left has a large history of anti-religious feeling.

You tell me! I agree with you... in theory, Islam should be harshly criticized by the Far Left. By treating women like second-class citizens and attempting to run government according to this crazed Shar'ia law, you would think that the Far Left crowd here would be the first to openly criticize and condemn this religious, misogynistic tyranny over hundreds of millions of people. You think so, but you would be wrong.

[George Oilwell]

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10541

If this nutter has broken British law by inciting violence and murder of gay men he should be prosecuted.

If not, he's just another social conservative who can't help but broadcast his ignorance and homophobic hate to the world.

[kiwimac]

For the record, I do not hate islam, Christianity or Judaism. I despise the radicals in each one who marginalise folk, who advocate death for those who are different, who treat others poorly simply because they believe or act differently or because they are a different height, weight, sexual orientation, religion.

Kiwimac

[hinduwoman]

For the first time, I find myself agreeing with Booy. This thread so far is proving his point. If a Christian had said these things, he'd be tongue lashed on these boards for it. But out of 7 people posting (You count to Booy), not one has denounced the Imam responsible.

(Oh yeh. The Imam, Arshad Misbahi, is a total prick by defending these barbaric practices in a Muslim state.

Not to mention that when Christians actually say these things the Muslims are not dragged in as comparison.

[Sultanist]

There is no doubt that I am right, as I have provided evidence on every thread started about Islam over the last couple of weeks. The pattern is always exactly the same: Someone points out a negative behavior among Muslims (treating women like dogs, executing gays, etc) and the thread is quickly filled with far Left Wingers... A) Not uttering one word about the OP against Islam and B) Mentioning something about how "Bush" "Haliburton" "Pat Robertson" or "Abortion clinic bombers" also do bad things. It's a type of deflection, hoping to steer criticism away from Islamists.
Has it never occurred to you that you're just being manipulated by the mainstream media? That they've assimilated you into this right-wing thought process?
What they never tell you is that all Muslims don't execute gays. That all Muslims don't treat women like dogs. And of course they haven't told you Bush and Haliburton and Pat Robertson are insane. They haven't told you that because they're in bed with them. And they want you in bed with them too (their's room for one more in that bed).
They've successfully propagandized you and now you're spreading their message for them.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
If you know what's good for you you'll stop letting them brainwash you by unplugging the TV, and instead read a book. I suggest The Communist Manifesto. And the good news is it's now in paperback.

[Tammuz]

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie.

No, it's true that they also do. There is even a clip of that in The God Who Wasn't There. Also the Christian Reconstructionists want to impose the laws and punishments from the OT in today's society.

But that doesn't in any way legitimaze the Islamists. Tu Quoque and red herrings are logical fallacies.

Surprisingly, the Koran unlike the Bible has many lines, which explicitly say homosexuality is okay.

Not really. Accordin to the Quran, the people of Lut were condemned and destroyed for homosexuality.

What they never tell you is that all Muslims don't execute gays.

Really? Fact is that in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, gays were executed by having walls razed over them. I don't think that Saudi Arabia treats them any better.

That all Muslims don't treat women like dogs.

According to Muhammed, women had poor intelligence compared to men, and the majority of the inhabitants of Hell were women. It is men who can have four wives, not the other way round. Women only inheret the half of what men do. Also according to Islam, if the wife refuses her husband when he wants to have intercourse with her, the angels will curse her until the morning.

They've successfully propagandized you and now you're spreading their message for them.

Uhhm, the media usually potray Islam as "the religion of peace".

If you know what's good for you you'll turn off the TV and read The Communist Manifesto.

And if you want to see the Communist Manifesto in practice, then you could go to North Korea or Cuba.

[Sultanist]

That is absolutely not the reply I was expecting to read, Tammuz.
But I sure do like it. :D

[Aesthete]

You've got to love the attempts here to divorce this Iman's sentiment from Islam. Like saying, "well, this guy is an nutcase," as if sentiments like these aren't products of the filthy, dogmatic, mind-and-body-imprisoning, tyrannical cult that is Islam.

[wallflower1996]

No. If they even uttered one word of criticism, or stopped attempting to defend highly religious Islamic maniacs and misogynists, that would be a start. It's the hypocrisy that is the biggest problem. People from the Far Left are supposed to support women's rights, secular rights, homosexual rights. But if you point out the horrible treatment of women and gays under Islam, the Far Left actually goes out of its way to defend Islam! It's just insane.

In the particular section of the planet I call home, fundamentalists of the Christian sort are much more threatening on a day-to-day level than those of any other sort. That's why I, rather naturally, talk more about them. That is nothing to apologize for.

[wallflower1996]

But that doesn't in any way legitimaze the Islamists. Tu Quoque and red herrings are logical fallacies.


It would be a tu quoque fallacy if someone actually tried to legitimize Islamists. So far, nobody has.

[Howard]

As a member of the left I hereby condemn the Imam for his statement. And from what I’ve seen on this thread and other threads, there are damn few people on the left defending this sort of thing. Besides, I don’t see anyone on the right doing anything but their usual bitching and whining about the left, which is what they do best.

A better question might be, “Why aren’t the Muslims on this board voicing their opinions on this?”

[Sultanist]

You're correct, Howard. They're not defending it. What they're doing is having the tendency to dismiss it. And dismissing it with exactly the means which was stated. By using the tu quoque argument.
I don't think it's always even intentional because sometimes I don't think they even realize what they're doing.
But they're doing it nonetheless. And quite frankly it's a peculiar thing to witness. :D

[EarlOfLade]

Here we see the Far Left unable to criticize Islamic maniacs calling for death to homosexuals. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, because if any American were to even hint at such a thing, they would be compared to "Hitler" with foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Incorrect!

I think the islamic morons are exactly that, morons, just like ... (Can't put the comparison here, I would be banned, but I think everyone know who I'm hinting at!)


Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way.

Is it? Are you 100% sure that neither of those 2 perverted idiots have said it?

I find you accusations about the left and islam to be more ridiculous than the claim that a god created the universe 6000 years ago.

I see no difference between muslims and christians, they are both totally brainwashed.

[wallflower1996]

You're correct, Howard. They're not defending it. What they're doing is having the tendency to dismiss it. And dismissing it with exactly the means which was stated. By using the tu quoque argument.


I'm not exactly on the left, but since I seem to be more with them on the point I'll respond. Those of us who dismiss it, dismiss it because we feel that stirring up hatred of Islam is a distraction from bigger issues in those parts of the world where fanatical Islam is not a threat but fanatical jingoism IS a threat.

[EarlOfLade]

More attempts to divert attention away from Muslims, onto "Christians." This is the "But Billy did it too" method of responsibility shifting.
No, it's just a way saying that both Islam and Christianity is equally horrible.

I don't see much of a difference between christians and muslims in what they really want to do. The only difference is that muslims says it out loud, while the average chrisitian don't dare to.

Islam == christianity == insanity!

[Sultanist]

I'm not exactly on the left, but since I seem to be more with them on the point I'll respond. Those of us who dismiss it, dismiss it because we feel that stirring up hatred of Islam is a distraction from bigger issues in those parts of the world where fanatical Islam is not a threat but fanatical jingoism IS a threat.Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it what was to become the Taliban which went to war with the invading "leftists" to drive them out of Afghanistan?
And isn't Karl Marx the daddy of "leftism" and didn't he have the red ass with religion (and I would expect particularly so with a religion as vile as the Taliban)?

So for those reasons alone, wouldn't you expect "leftists" to be opposed to the Taliban and be voicing that opposition? And not failing to do so only because "they don't want to stir up hatred"? Because if they "don't want to stir up hatred" then they wouldn't be stirring up hatred against Bush either.
And I don't know about you but I want to see hatred stirred up against both Bush and the Taliban. I think that hatred is healthy.

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit. There were plenty of leftists criticizing Islam in that thread. I don't know what you mean by half-hearted. So, far it seems that unless leftists say that Islam is the worst religion ever, their criticisms are half-hearted. I am still waiting for the leftists to come in here and defend this guy. So far, it looks like this thread is proving Booy wrong.

My objection is that they said "Islam is bad" without addressing a single reason why.

[Loren Pechtel]

No. No one is defending this asswipe by saying it's the fault of someone else. People are conceding this guy is an asswipe and noting that there are other asswipes as well, in other religion, to place it into context.

In case you missed it, this Islamic nut is a fuckwad. That I may also believe other religious nuts are fuckwads in no way defends this idiot. Moreover, that I believe religion as a whole is to blame for the earth having such fuckheads is also not a defense of this moron.

But it is defending Islam.

All groups contain fuckwads. Few groups put fuckwads in positions of prominence.

[TySixtus]

If I may, (and I know I'm a bit late)...

The second post in this thread was of the "But Christianity does it, too!" variety.

That is what I'm personally sick and tired of seeing, usually because it isn't reciprocated when we talk about Fred Phelps.

So Booy is right, at least on one account. Stop talking about Chrisitianity in threads about Islam. Christianity gets far more play on this board as it is. There is no reason for anyone to bring up little nuggets like "Well Fred Phelps is Christian and he hates gays!". We know that. And unless the argument presented is "Christianity is better than Islam" (which it is not) the point is useless.

Ty

[premjan]

I don't think anyone (other than himself) put this fuckwad in a position of prominence.

[JamesBannon]

But it is defending Islam.

All groups contain fuckwads. Few groups put fuckwads in positions of prominence.
Are you absolutely sure about that?

[hinduwoman]

Pastor's nightmare, the Koran doesnot condone homosexuality. Allah destroyed Sodom because of it.

on the other hand if you are not homosexual in life, after death you get pretty boys in heaven!

[Sultanist]

Are you absolutely sure about that?
Let's rephrase that, shall we.

All groups (except athiests and leftists) contain fuck***s. All groups put fuck***s in positions of prominence. The Taliban is just such a group with fuck***s who prominently practice fuck***ism.

p.s. please don't use the word fuckwads in polite company anymore. It's disgusting.

[Booyakasha!]

If I may, (and I know I'm a bit late)...

The second post in this thread was of the "But Christianity does it, too!" variety.

That is what I'm personally sick and tired of seeing, usually because it isn't reciprocated when we talk about Fred Phelps.

So Booy is right, at least on one account. Stop talking about Chrisitianity in threads about Islam. Christianity gets far more play on this board as it is. There is no reason for anyone to bring up little nuggets like "Well Fred Phelps is Christian and he hates gays!". We know that. And unless the argument presented is "Christianity is better than Islam" (which it is not) the point is useless.

Ty

Amen. I have personally spent plenty of time on this message board attacking that disgrace to humanity Phelps and the rest of the Christian idiots, and never once did I feel the need to bring Osama bin Laden into the discussion.

I am glad to see that others here are as fed up as I am with Islam getting a free pass from the Far Left. Maybe this hypocritical, nonsensical habit of deflecting valid criticism away from Islamists can come to an end.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Maybe this hypocritical, nonsensical habit of deflecting valid criticism away from Islamists can come to an end.

Because this is all in your imagination it will come to an end whenever you want it to.

[Kassiana]

Killing gays is OK, says Muslim Imam
What an asshole he is.

[Underseer]

Here we see the Far Left unable to criticize Islamic maniacs calling for death to homosexuals. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, because if any American were to even hint at such a thing, they would be compared to "Hitler" with foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Here we see a false claim that well-known Christian fundies are also calling for death to homosexuals, which is a blatant lie. This lie is meant to deflect valid criticism away from Islamists, because the Far Left simply cannot allow these highly religious Islamic grim reapers to be criticized in any way.

I really wish I could live in your alternate reality. Here we are mocking and criticizing this imam for approving of the execution of homosexuals, and the very first words out of your fingers are to accuse us of being "unable to criticize Islamic maniacs."

What is so enticing about your fantasy world that you are so willing and eager to abandon reality altogether?

[penn]

I am glad to see that others here are as fed up as I am with Islam getting a free pass from the Far Left. Maybe this hypocritical, nonsensical habit of deflecting valid criticism away from Islamists can come to an end.

What point were you trying to make by posting something about some Imam in Manchester wanting the death penalty for homosexuals? You made no comment and didn't ask any question in relation to the post, so were you trying to imply anything, or simply wanted people to post their outrage, bemusement, hostility etc? Or was it your point to get the reaction you got?

[Sultanist]

Okay, let's cut the crap cause here's the poop.
I googled "islam homosexuality'.

And the first link I clicked on was this one...
http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/homos.htm

I could be wrong but this does not appear to be written by either Pat Robertson or George Bush. Instead it looks to be something that's coming straight from the camel's mouth.

For all you leftists, rightists, centrists, Bush lovers, Bush haters, and even the the one's who don't give a shit, this is what it says. Read it and weep...

Islam does not accept any type of justification for the unnatural sin of homosexuality regardless of any biological, psychological or environmental factors which may influence a man to indulge in this type of grossly unnatural immorality.

Modern studies and the many consequent theories regarding the crime of homosexuality lend to convey a blurred conception of the Biological disturbances as well as some environmental factors are even tendered as mitigating circumstances to reduce the stigma and the blame from the homosexual. This idea has made homosexuals daring and revengeful of their unnatural crimes. They have come to regard their misdirected lust as morally acceptable. They, as well as the 'experts' who have undertaken research in homosexuality, have deceived themselves into believing in the idea of diminished, blame and moral acceptance, of this unnatural act. As long as man's intelligence is not inflicted with insanity, he is held responsible for his actions and he is Islamically under compulsion to restrain his perverted cravings so that he does not descend into a sub-human level of existence.

sodomy is one of the most repulsive acts, even observed among beasts. Therefore, the sight of a homosexual will be so disgusting to Allah that it will intensify His anger to heights where He will not even consider glancing at a sodomist.

And it goes on to specify the punishment as described by the Quran.

Finally, the wrath of Almighty descended upon them, their cities were turned upside down and showers of stone rained on them. Regarding this the Qur'aan mentions:

"Then when Our decree came to pass. We turned the cities upside down, and We rained thereon stones of baked clay, piled up."

The punishment of turning upside down given to this people resembles outwardly their shameless deed of homosexuality. The shower of stone was very thick so as to form layers. It is also said that the name of each man was written or engraved on those stones which were the cause of their annihilation.
I think it's clear that Allah and Fred Phelps see eye to eye on this homo deal.
Frankly, I'm not sure why Phelps didn't become a Muslim.

[Booyakasha!]

What point were you trying to make by posting something about some Imam in Manchester wanting the death penalty for homosexuals? You made no comment and didn't ask any question in relation to the post, so were you trying to imply anything, or simply wanted people to post their outrage, bemusement, hostility etc? Or was it your point to get the reaction you got?

I didn't make the OP.

And do you ask similar questions when people post about the bad behavior of Neocons? Do you ask, "What point were you trying to make by posting something about some Imam in Manchester Neocons wanting the death penalty for homosexuals to take over the world?

Things are posted here so they can be discussed.

[penn]

I didn't make the OP.

And do you ask similar questions when people post about the bad behavior of Neocons? Do you ask, "What point were you trying to make by posting something about some Imam in Manchester Neocons wanting the death penalty for homosexuals to take over the world?

Things are posted here so they can be discussed.

I'm interested to know what the question is, and although you didn't post the OP, what is it you think the post is trying to imply, if anything? That this Imam is bad, or all Imams are bad, Muslims are bad, Islam is bad, religion is bad?

[Booyakasha!]

I'm interested to know what the question is, and although you didn't post the OP, what is it you think the post is trying to imply, if anything? That this Imam is bad, or all Imams are bad, Muslims are bad, Islam is bad, religion is bad?

Again, do you question the motives of people who post about how Bush fucked something up, or how Wolfowitz is trying to fill Haliburton's coffers? Do you ask them to justify why they are pointing out the US administration's shortcomings?

The post is pointing out that fairly high-level Muslim leaders are calling for the deaths of tens of millions of homosexuals. You do not think this is a valid point for discussion? :rolleyes:

[Sultanist]

Maybe homophobia is an aspect of leftism. Come to think of it, did you ever see Karl Marx condemn homophobia?
Let me google that and see what I can uncover.

[Sultanist]

Well I'll be a monkey's nephew.
Hubert Kennedy, PhD, is a Research Associate at the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University. He has over 200 publications in several languages, from an analysis of the mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx and a revelation of Marx's homophobia, to theoretical genetics and a proof of the impossibility of an organism that requires more than two sexes in order to reproducehttp://home.pacbell.net/hubertk/

p.s. remember, if you're gonna flame somebody over this flame Kennedy, not me. I'm only the messenger. :D

[Nialler]

By pointing the finger at others, it is an attempt to divert attention away Islam, and onto something else. That is DEFENSE.

This is manifest bullshit and it's time that it was nailed here.

Noone here has any intent to justify the stupid comments of an Imam.

There are lots of reneagdes within xtianity:

Paedophile priests;
Fundies who bomb abortion clinics;
Fundies who advocate death for homosexuals;
Those who kill abortion nurses and homosexuals.

JC himself advised removing the plank from your eye before criticising others. Shakespeare advised it thus: "Physician, heal thyself".

I, for one, am outraged at the behaviour and the statements of some imams. I'm equally appalled at other statements from within xtian and even some secular quarters. It is entirely appropriate to perform some self-examination before condemning others. Eitherway, the root problem will never be resolved.

[Loren Pechtel]

This is manifest bullshit and it's time that it was nailed here.

Noone here has any intent to justify the stupid comments of an Imam.

There are lots of reneagdes within xtianity:

Paedophile priests;
Fundies who bomb abortion clinics;
Fundies who advocate death for homosexuals;
Those who kill abortion nurses and homosexuals.

JC himself advised removing the plank from your eye before criticising others. Shakespeare advised it thus: "Physician, heal thyself".

I, for one, am outraged at the behaviour and the statements of some imams. I'm equally appalled at other statements from within xtian and even some secular quarters. It is entirely appropriate to perform some self-examination before condemning others. Eitherway, the root problem will never be resolved.

I'm afraid you're doing the very thing you're denying you do.

You're coming up with counterexamples to deflect blame away from the creep.

[Booyakasha!]

This is manifest bullshit and it's time that it was nailed here.

Noone here has any intent to justify the stupid comments of an Imam.

There are lots of reneagdes within xtianity:

Paedophile priests;
Fundies who bomb abortion clinics;
Fundies who advocate death for homosexuals;
Those who kill abortion nurses and homosexuals.

JC himself advised removing the plank from your eye before criticising others. Shakespeare advised it thus: "Physician, heal thyself".

I, for one, am outraged at the behaviour and the statements of some imams. I'm equally appalled at other statements from within xtian and even some secular quarters. It is entirely appropriate to perform some self-examination before condemning others. Eitherway, the root problem will never be resolved.

This guy is proving my point with crystal clarity. :eek:

[Stu]

This guy is proving my point with crystal clarity. :eek:

Sometimes you can only sit back and :banghead: .

[Sue Sponte]

But it is defending Islam.

All groups contain fuckwads. Few groups put fuckwads in positions of prominence.

You apparently believe that noting other religions share the same defective mindset is a "defense" of Islam. In reality, it's simply pointing out that making people believe in sky fairies of any kind is the broader problem and empowers dickheads like this whacko imam to believe their views are legitimate. The same problem that puts the Phelps' and Robertsons in the media as somehow legitimate voices, rather than the bat-shit crazy assholes the world should see them for. Same song, just a different singer.

Feel free to believe that this single example of a religious wingnut, who happens to be Muslim, is explained solely by the specifics of the religion. But consider the possibility that, by focusing on the specific religion, you are missing the fundamental problem.

Things are posted here so they can be discussed.

Apparently as long as they are strictly limited to criticism of Islam.

[Sue Sponte]

I'm afraid you're doing the very thing you're denying you do.

You're coming up with counterexamples to deflect blame away from the creep.

Other examples of batshit religious whackos to emphasize that the problem is not specific to a given religion aren't "counterexamples" and don't "deflect" anything. The problem appears to be that certain people simply don't want to accept the fact that other religions are equally likely to produce asswipes like this imam.

[Blui]

This is manifest bullshit and it's time that it was nailed here.

Noone here has any intent to justify the stupid comments of an Imam.

There are lots of reneagdes within xtianity:

Paedophile priests;
Fundies who bomb abortion clinics;
Fundies who advocate death for homosexuals;
Those who kill abortion nurses and homosexuals.

JC himself advised removing the plank from your eye before criticising others. Shakespeare advised it thus: "Physician, heal thyself".

I, for one, am outraged at the behaviour and the statements of some imams. I'm equally appalled at other statements from within xtian and even some secular quarters. It is entirely appropriate to perform some self-examination before condemning others. Eitherway, the root problem will never be resolved.
The main problem is that people who posit examples of other cultures doing bad things frequently dont explain the 'root cause' they seem to say, aftewards, that they are implying.

If your aware of the fact that people can interpret your 'but they do it too' as an attempt to deflect attention away, then please make it clear the intent of posting your examples.

Otherwise no one knows why you did it, and we are left to speculation.

[warrenob1000]

Didn't this guy get suspended from his position for 3 months to think about what he did? Maybe I should run around campus with the placards the Muslims were waving during the cartoon protests, and I'll see how long I last around here. His light punishment is truly indicative that Muslims are more concerned about getting called out on their bullshit than the actual bullshit itself.

[Nialler]

This guy is proving my point with crystal clarity. :eek:

No. I'm pointing out - and proving - that the problem is much bigger than Islam. It's everywhere.

The expressed revulsion at the Imam's comments is at Islam rather than at homophobis. His homophobia is merely a cover to attack Islam.

I am pointing out that homophobia is not restricted to Islam and it is a problem among major religions - and one which needs to be addressed in a global rather than a specific sense.

To adopt an analogy I used in another thread: you would be horrified at a doctor who removed the tumour from your left lung, while leaving one intact in your right lung. You would die as a result of his care, and he would be seen to have ignored his job.

I am saying that to focus on only one religion's attitude to homosexuality is to ignore what is a deeper problem and which needs to be considered. That problem is attitides to homosexuals among all religions.

[Blui]

No. I'm pointing out - and proving - that the problem is much bigger than Islam. It's everywhere.

The expressed revulsion at the Imam's comments is at Islam rather than at homophobis. His homophobia is merely a cover to attack Islam.

I am pointing out that homophobia is not restricted to Islam and it is a problem among major religions - and one which needs to be addressed in a global rather than a specific sense.

To adopt an analogy I used in another thread: you would be horrified at a doctor who removed the tumour from your left lung, while leaving one intact in your right lung. You would die as a result of his care, and he would be seen to have ignored his job.

I am saying that to focus on only one religion's attitude to homosexuality is to ignore what is a deeper problem and which needs to be considered. That problem is attitides to homosexuals among all religions.
First of all, thats a generalisation, secondly even if we accept your statements as true, the only way we can attack it is in fact to identify whether a religion does not like homosexuality.

And look at the title thread.

Stating any negativity exists in all religions when someone makes a point that negativity exists in a religion is completely useless.

Its only meaningful to do that if:
1.They stated that religion alone has the problem.

Your analogy is completely wrong too, for you are positing then, that society will somehow perish if we just get rid of one religions bad beliefs and not getting rid of any other religion.

You fail to understand that, regardless, getting rid of any negative beliefs is positive, even if we cant get everyone to get rid of their negative beliefs because less people would then be affected.

For instance, there exists theocracies, but going by your example, since there exists secularised countries, is the global society somehow going to 'die'?
Was it worthwhile secularising countries if there exists theocracies?

I would say so.

In fact it could be considered irrelevant to a thread whether another religion has it, in fact i can see that this thread needs to be split if this thread starts talking about christianity

[Nialler]

I'm afraid you're doing the very thing you're denying you do.

You're coming up with counterexamples to deflect blame away from the creep.

No I'm not, and I am specific about not justifying the comments of this creep - as you accurately describe him.

... JC himself advised removing the plank from your eye before criticising others. Shakespeare advised it thus: "Physician, heal thyself".

I, for one, am outraged at the behaviour and the statements of some imams. I'm equally appalled at other statements from within xtian and even some secular quarters. It is entirely appropriate to perform some self-examination before condemning others. ...

Which part of "outraged" is unclear?

This Imam is clearly a renegade. It appears that he has been asked to consider his position. Now you and I know what that means in the context of an organised religion: there is probably considerable agreement with what he said, but it is not a good to idea to express it publicly. As far as other imams go, his offfence was to articulate it, causing islam to look bad, rather than being bad tesching in itself.

His attitude is repugnant and his religion is doubly so.

We see that and we acknowledge it.

It behoves us also, while we do that, to look at the issue of homophobia. That was the problem at the root of things, wasn't it? Homophobia is a very prevalent attitude throughout Western society, too. It was a criminal offence in various countries and states until very recent times. So there was official umbrage taken at their activities. Homosexuals in the 20th century could find few places to hide in any country. They could be convicted of a crime, they were victimised, marginalised, and treated like scum. Think of Turing, who committed suicide when his homosexuality was discovered by the police. They were (and) continue to be) subject to assault (gay-bashing, queer-bashing and other terms attest to the fact that it was such a prevalent activity that it had it's own vocabulary). One murder case in Ireland had the unique defence that it was manslaughter rather than murder because the victim was homosexual. There was implicit acknowledgment that this was a lesser crime in law. I'm sure that I don't need to point out people such as Phelps et al to show that there is a deep-rooted hatred and fear of homosexuality still at the core of much American society. A body draped on a fence speaks to the fact that it is a current problem. The glee at his funeral attests to a twisted view which is not linked solely to islam. That one prominent person claimed that gays were a root cause of 9/11 is yet another indicator.

What I see is that the attitude to homosexuals has its roots in human fear of the different. It is a fear which expresses itself as revulsion, and is enhrined in the teachings of most major religions, which ensures its perpetuation.

When I read the imam's comments, I didn't think immediately "damn muslims, creating hate and violence". I thought: "bloody religion, creating fear hatred and violence yet again".

Homophobia is the problem. A key sustainer of homophobic thought is organised religion.

It is entirely appropriate to examine the problem in a global rather than a restricted sense.

[Nialler]

First of all, thats a generalisation, secondly even if we accept your statements as true, the only way we can attack it is in fact to identify whether a religion does not like homosexuality.

And look at the title thread.

Stating any negativity exists in all religions when someone makes a point that negativity exists in a religion is completely useless.

Its only meaningful to do that if:
1.They stated that religion alone has the problem.

Your analogy is completely wrong too, for you are positing then, that society will somehow perish if we just get rid of one religions bad beliefs and not getting rid of any other religion.

You fail to understand that, regardless, getting rid of any negative beliefs is positive, even if we cant get everyone to get rid of their negative beliefs because less people would then be affected.

For instance, there exists theocracies, but going by your example, since there exists secularised countries, is the global society somehow going to 'die'?
Was it worthwhile secularising countries if there exists theocracies?

I would say so.

In fact it could be considered irrelevant to a thread whether another religion has it, in fact i can see that this thread needs to be split if this thread starts talking about christianity

If you posit removing the offensive aspects of a religion (how - by force?), then you must be prepared to do the same to all religions - and at the same time, using the same process.

There is another problem in all of this which I have only referenced in an obblique way: there have been many many threads opened here of the "Islam says something offensive..." type.

The problem is that some of the posters appear to be using the issues as a means to bash islam. The question as to whether they are actually outraged at the offense in itself is dubious. In the case of some posters it is clear that they don't care in the slightest about homophobia, for example; they merely want to use it as a stick to hammer Islam. Doing so is yet another exploitation of homosexuals (or whatever the cause du jour happens to be).

There is lip-service paid to the ostensible cause, and focus is entirely on the imam with only the merest sidewards glance at the root issue. I will continue to develop the root issue where I see this happening as it is an error to think that the problem is always unique to islam, and it is hypocritical to tolerate similar things in your own society without comment.

[penn]

Again, do you question the motives of people who post about how Bush fucked something up, or how Wolfowitz is trying to fill Haliburton's coffers? Do you ask them to justify why they are pointing out the US administration's shortcomings?

The post is pointing out that fairly high-level Muslim leaders are calling for the deaths of tens of millions of homosexuals. You do not think this is a valid point for discussion? :rolleyes:

I question the motives of everyone who posts something. Doesn't everyone? Seems to me it's the obvious and natural thing to do. It's exactly what you've been doing throughout your entire post. You've questioned "leftists" motives for saying the things they've said, and accused them of defending Islam.

Thing is as far as the debate goes, everyone agrees - left, right, etc - what this Imam is saying is wrong. So what is your intention, to bully people into being more forceful or aggressive in their condemnation of this Imam, or the Islamic faith, or Muslims, or religion? You sound like your using the "with us or with the terrorist" argument.

So where does the OP go? It's you that's annoyed about the response it's got so far.

[Blui]

If you posit removing the offensive aspects of a religion (how - by force?), then you must be prepared to do the same to all religions - and at the same time, using the same process.

And this is relevant to a claim of the OP that a Muslim said Gay killing is ok, how?

If you want to talk about homosexuality and its existance in all religions and possible methods of attacking the 'root' of the problem, im sure another thread is fine.


There is another problem in all of this which I have only referenced in an obblique way: there have been many many threads opened here of the "Islam says something offensive..." type.

The problem is that some of the posters appear to be using the issues as a means to bash islam. The question as to whether they are actually outraged at the offense in itself is dubious. In the case of some posters it is clear that they don't care in the slightest about homophobia, for example; they merely want to use it as a stick to hammer Islam. Doing so is yet another exploitation of homosexuals (or whatever the cause du jour happens to be).

That you now identify you have an issue with your belief that, supposedly, people have a stick on Islam and not the injustice in question, shows to me that, in fact, you have tried to derail threads focusing on Islam by focusing on other religions

If you want to talk about other religions, then start a new thread please.

Not only that, but you could very well ask the OP if he actually has a problem with the injustice in question, couldnt you?


There is lip-service paid to the ostensible cause, and focus is entirely on the imam with only the merest sidewards glance at the root issue. I will continue to develop the root issue where I see this happening as it is an error to think that the problem is always unique to islam, and it is hypocritical to tolerate similar things in your own society without comment.
That you believe there is some problem with focusing on a specific injustice on a particular man of a particular religion, that you wish to talk about other religions, is again, evidence that in fact, you want to derail a thread.

Also, you speak of 'unique to Islam',the Op doesnt talk about that.

Again, you have shown your real motive, that you think any thread on Islam is an unjustified attack on Islam and only Islam and that the posters wont think badly of other religions people committing the same thing, which is why you try to derail a thread.

Perhaps you should, as you said to others to do, examine yourself first to see if you contain any unreasonable bias.

This poster said it best


Not to mention that when Christians actually say these things the Muslims are not dragged in as comparison.

[Nialler]

Not at all.

You suggested that I look at the thread title. I did.

While I was there, I looked at the forum name. "Political Debates". That's what I read there. Now the teachings of an imam is not a political issue in itself. Homophobia and attitudes to homesexuality is a social and, by extension, a political issue. I have endeavoured in this, and in other threads to address the social and political issues by opening up the debate to include the non-islam societies.

If the topic is to be in relation solely to Islamic attitudes to homosexuality, then it has its home in one of the religious forums. But while it is in PD, I am convinced that it is appropriate to ignore who made the comments, to ignore what his religion is, and to tackle the issue itself.

[Nialler]

How can I derail a thread on religious issues in a political forum?

I am trying to turn it into a political debate.

[penn]

Again, you have shown your real motive, that you think any thread on Islam is an unjustified attack on Islam and only Islam and that the posters wont think badly of other religions people committing the same thing, which is why you try to derail a thread.

Well why not move the issue on then, instead of continuing to throw accussations about. I've yet to hear an interesting comment on this Imam or what this debate is about beyond the banal - isn't he bad, and deserves condemnation.

[Blui]

Not at all.

You suggested that I look at the thread title. I did.

While I was there, I looked at the forum name. "Political Debates". That's what I read there. Now the teachings of an imam is not a political issue in itself. Homophobia and attitudes to homesexuality is a social and, by extension, a political issue. I have endeavoured in this, and in other threads to address the social and political issues by opening up the debate to include the non-islam societies.

If the topic is to be in relation solely to Islamic attitudes to homosexuality, then it has its home in one of the religious forums. But while it is in PD, I am convinced that it is appropriate to ignore who made the comments, to ignore what his religion is, and to tackle the issue itself.
Not sure how you got 'Islam and homosexuality' or even 'a prominent Islamic figurehead and his condemnation of homosexuality' to other religions and their views on homosexuality.

In fact if you read the article, which you dont seem to reference at all in your posts, you would actually talk about Shariah law, Islamic law, and whether execution of homosexuality is allowed in that, whether Islam itself condemns homosexuality.

I wouldnt talk about, for instance, Christianities treatment of homosexuality in a thread that is, from the outset, about a Muslim.



Well why not move the issue on then, instead of continuing to throw accussations about. I've yet to hear an interesting comment on this Imam or what this debate is about beyond the banal - isn't he bad, and deserves condemnation.

Theres nothing to discuss, an almost universally condemned action (at least almost universal on this board) would elicit very little debate, for a debate requires different views or arguments.

The only thing i can see being discussed is, pertaining to the article, whether Islam is 'a tolerant religion' as one claimed, in relation to Gays, or 'If shariah law mandates the execution of homosexuals'.

The former has already been addressed by my showing of the anti-homosexual verses in the Quran, and a comment by Tammuz.

Regretably, i would say almost everyone didnt read the article, instead now were derailed onto other matters.

[Nialler]

And this is relevant to a claim of the OP that a Muslim said Gay killing is ok, how?

If you want to talk about homosexuality and its existance in all religions and possible methods of attacking the 'root' of the problem, im sure another thread is fine.


That you now identify you have an issue with your belief that, supposedly, people have a stick on Islam and not the injustice in question, shows to me that, in fact, you have tried to derail threads focusing on Islam by focusing on other religions

If you want to talk about other religions, then start a new thread please.

Not only that, but you could very well ask the OP if he actually has a problem with the injustice in question, couldnt you?


That you believe there is some problem with focusing on a specific injustice on a particular man of a particular religion, that you wish to talk about other religions, is again, evidence that in fact, you want to derail a thread.

Also, you speak of 'unique to Islam',the Op doesnt talk about that.

Again, you have shown your real motive, that you think any thread on Islam is an unjustified attack on Islam and only Islam and that the posters wont think badly of other religions people committing the same thing, which is why you try to derail a thread.

Perhaps you should, as you said to others to do, examine yourself first to see if you contain any unreasonable bias.

This poster said it best

I am not focussing on other religions. I am broadening the scope to show that this is a much bigger problem than indicated by the OP, and that if it is to be tackled it should be tackled in a more open sense.

I will repeat that this is a Political forum. Not a Religion forum. Discussion of teh tenets and the practices and the teachings of specific religions are appropriate in a Religion forum.

When someone opens a thread in a Political forum and sees the social context highlighted at the expense of the religious context, they should be anything but surprised.

What is it about that that causes such difficulty for you?

I should also point out that speculation as to another user's motives is expressly not allowed in IIDB.

[Nialler]

Not sure how you got 'Islam and homosexuality' or even 'a prominent Islamic figurehead and his condemnation of homosexuality' to other religions and their views on homosexuality.

In fact if you read the article, which you dont seem to reference at all in your posts, you would actually talk about Shariah law, Islamic law, and whether execution of homosexuality is allowed in that, whether Islam itself condemns homosexuality.

I wouldnt talk about, for instance, Christianities treatment of homosexuality in a thread that is, from the outset, about a Muslim.


Theres nothing to discuss, an almost universally condemned action (at least almost universal on this board) would elicit very little debate, for a debate requires different views or arguments.

The only thing i can see being discussed is, pertaining to the article, whether Islam is 'a tolerant religion' as one claimed, in relation to Gays, or 'If shariah law mandates the execution of homosexuals'.

The former has already been addressed by my showing of the anti-homosexual verses in the Quran, and a comment by Tammuz.

Regretably, i would say almost everyone didnt read the article, instead now were derailed onto other matters.
Referring to relgious texts in a political forum is in itself a derailment by definition.

[Blui]

Referring to relgious texts in a political forum is in itself a derailment by definition.
I would hardly think so, considering that, lets take for example, Shariah law itself, which is derived from the Quran and Hadiths, you would expect that such a debate on this would necessarily involve examining whether various Shariah states in fact are supported by the Quran.

Because moderate Muslims who claim their religion is tolerant (as the article has shown) would necessarily require such a defense, that their Quran doesnt support the execution of Homosexuals.

In fact the Muslims in the article did say their religion (and by extension the Quran) doesnt support the execution of homosexuals.

But no one seems to be referencing the article, which imho would be what people should be doing, shouldnt we be discussing what is contained in the OP's article?



I am not focussing on other religions. I am broadening the scope to show that this is a much bigger problem than indicated by the OP, and that if it is to be tackled it should be tackled in a more open sense.

I will repeat that this is a Political forum. Not a Religion forum. Discussion of teh tenets and the practices and the teachings of specific religions are appropriate in a Religion forum.

When someone opens a thread in a Political forum and sees the social context highlighted at the expense of the religious context, they should be anything but surprised.

What is it about that that causes such difficulty for you?

I should also point out that speculation as to another user's motives is expressly not allowed in IIDB.

Muslims in particular, place a great deal of importance on their religious texts, and the religious leaders themselves frequently reference it to support themselves.

If you read the article, some Muslims claim that the Quran does not mandate execution of homosexuals, so yes, i would say the religious texts is of prime importance.

If you were to tackle homosexuality in Islam, how would you go about it?

You would, in fact, be trying to make Muslims less Islamic.

You earlier talked of tackling the anti-homosexuality in a 'global sense' could you articulate the particulars on how to achieve this?

[Nialler]

Interpretation of religious texts is appropriate in another forum.

How would I tackle homophobia? Simple:


Education, education and more education. Many of the behaviours which lead to homophobia appear early in life, with teasing, baiting and bullying typical behaviours of many children. This needs to be addressed. (In teh context of the OP, this would perforce involve a stipulation that any religious education is appropriate in tone, and may even be illegal. Tough on islam, xtianity etc).
Copper-fastening of the rights of homosexuals, including the right to marry, and the right to parity in terms of succession, tax benefits, role and stature in society.
Protection of gays with crimes committed against gays merely because they are gay being treated the same as racist or sectarian crimes are in some places.
Consideration - within the context of free speech guarantees - that anti-gay public pronouncements be considered in the same category as incitement to violence. (Our good friend the Imam would be covered by this and would find himself in a prison spreading his cheeks right now).
Greater acknowledgment of the past plight of homosexuals and their suffering to be given greater recognition in public, through one-off celebrations and acknowledgments. A global Pink Day!!
A one-off international assessment of laws relating to homosexuality, with a view to removing all references to homosexuality from statute books everywhere. (This might well be a UNHRC function, with a binding treaty being agreed by member countries).



Some hope.

[Nialler]

...You would, in fact, be trying to make Muslims less Islamic....

This is a valid point. I would have no problem whatever with forcably modifying the religious tenets of any of the global religions in order to make them more in line with the principles which allow for the progression of an inclusive society which guarantees equal rights for everyone.

As a hard atheist, I would consider it a matter of the greatest imporance to strip away from religions any aspects of their teachings which are inimical to the rights of any of the societies in which it expects to operate. They must be the ones to adopt, not the other way around. xtianity, for one, has shown that it has a flexible posture which manifests itself in one way: in different countries, it will try to be as severe as it believes it can get away with. Thus, in the US, the catholic church gives annullments away like confetti; in other countries, anullments are almost never ever granted.

Islam, of course, is far less flexible.

I'm not sure how one would go about changing these religions, beyond barring them in societies where they don't have control. This may make matters worse, though.

It's an impossible task, but if I had the magic wand, yes, I would change almost every religion to fit the more modern and inclusive precepts that we demand today.

[Blui]

Interpretation of religious texts is appropriate in another forum.

It's appropriate for politics if it affects politics.


As a hard atheist, I would consider it a matter of the greatest imporance to strip away from religions any aspects of their teachings which are inimical to the rights of any of the societies in which it expects to operate. They must be the ones to adopt, not the other way around. xtianity, for one, has shown that it has a flexible posture which manifests itself in one way: in different countries, it will try to be as severe as it believes it can get away with. Thus, in the US, the catholic church gives annullments away like confetti; in other countries, anullments are almost never ever granted.

I agree, in the sense to strip away the teachings from the followers of those religion and create liberal Muslims.

But the danger, as i have seen, is that 'stripping' as it is done by Muslims attempting to push for a more tolerant Islam far often turns into 'Islam itself is peaceful' and thus we get untruthful or dishonest represantations of what Islam is, or at the very least, what the Quran says.

Virtually every Muslim i talk to who condemns whatever is validated in the Quran, tells me the Quran supports them.


I'm not sure how one would go about changing these religions, beyond barring them in societies where they don't have control. This may make matters worse, though.

Curiously, although, for instance, the Australian Muslim cleric who said rape victims are themselves to blame, might incite rape (and therefore for this Mufti would incite anti-homosexuality), in some ways it is beneficial for the figureheads to show the true Islam, even if it is controversial, as that brings it into the light.

Although a far slower and more peaceful approach via academia and honest education might be preferable.

[Sultanist]

Sharia (شريعة translit: Sharī‘ah) refers to the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in six Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam#Homosexuality_in_modern_Muslim_countries.27_laws

That's "political" with a capital "P". As political as political can get.

[Sultanist]

I would add this too. The fact that we're still pumping gas into our goddamn cars which was made from the oil sold to us by those fucking monsters makes us no better than whores.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/csmimg/04-26_DU.jpg

[penn]

Christianity has lost a lot of its power to control people's view in regard to such things as homosexuality. I doubt it did this by choice. Is there any reason to think that the same thing couldn't happen with Islam, especially in the West?

We are at a particular time at the moment were both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are going through a resurgence. Why? In the case of Islam, I presume it's because those born into the Islamic faith feel they are under attack from all sides, alienation from the Western culture is pushing people to look for something else - fundamental Islam. The OP is a prime example. I don't know if the OP's intention was to smear Islam or Muslims in general but that is how it came across and that is why it was defended the way it was.

[Sultanist]

You're correct. There's a lot about western culture that can't be defended and should be condemned. And I would bet that most everyone reading this thread would have no disagreement.
But IsLame'ism is sure as hell not the answer. Not for any decent human being living in the 21st Century.

[Nialler]

You're correct. There's a lot about western culture that can't be defended and should be condemned. And I would bet that most everyone reading this thread would have no disagreement.
But IsLame'ism is sure as hell not the answer. Not for any decent human being living in the 21st Century.
But this is the whole point here. Islam certainly isn't a way forward. Nor is xtianity. Nor is practically any belief sytem known to me.

None of them offer a way forward. Society needs to offload any religious references in its construction. It needs to abandon any recourse to religious dogma or relgious tradition in framing its laws. The differences between states where homosexuality is a capital offence, and states where it is illegal are only differences of degree.

To differentiate these states on that basis is to ignore the fact that there is a religious basis to the law in your state; to do that is to let the camel poke its nose into the tent.

[Sultanist]

Don't mind me, Irishman. For me it's a bad case of sour grapes.
Because I invented the fucking way forward and gave it to the world and it's called Sultanism.
It just torques me that nobody gives a shit about me or my Sultanism and instead stays hell bent on worshipping those thousand year old fairy tales.
Let's face it, I'm jealous of Jesus and Mohammed both, Nialler. Try to have a little goddamn sympathy for me why don't you. :D

[Booyakasha!]

You apparently believe that noting other religions share the same defective mindset is a "defense" of Islam. In reality, it's simply pointing out that making people believe in sky fairies of any kind is the broader problem and empowers dickheads like this whacko imam to believe their views are legitimate.

We are all well aware of that fact here, thanks.




The same problem that puts the Phelps' and Robertsons in the media as somehow legitimate voices, rather than the bat-shit crazy assholes the world should see them for. Same song, just a different singer.

I have not seen Robertson or any other similar figure in America calling for the deaths of tens of millions of homosexuals. If they did, you can bet there would be a huge firestorm, and NOT ONE PERSON HERE WOULD ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT CRITICISM FROM THEM.

Feel free to believe that this single example of a religious wingnut, who happens to be Muslim, is explained solely by the specifics of the religion. But consider the possibility that, by focusing on the specific religion, you are missing the fundamental problem.

What the fuck are you talking about??? This is not some lone wolf renegade wingnut "who happens to be Muslim", as you keep claiming. The act of homosexuality is punishable by DEATH in many sovereign Islamic nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, etc. WTF are you talking about? This is a widely held belief among Muslims.

[Nice Squirrel]

This is more of a MF&P thread. Have fun.

[Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum]

I agree with Booya and Loren. Every time somebody brings up legitimate criticism of Israel, someone always wants to defend such acts by saying "But the Arabs do it too!"

Hypocrisy indeed....

[Sultanist]

Huh??????????

You must not be reading the same Quran that I am reading.

I haven't found where the death penalty is described for adultery or sodomy in the Quran yet. You do have to have four witnesses for someone to be punished for the crime but no where i am aware of does it say to kill that person.
http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html

[penn]

What the fuck are you talking about??? This is not some lone wolf renegade wingnut "who happens to be Muslim", as you keep claiming. The act of homosexuality is punishable by DEATH in many sovereign Islamic nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, etc. WTF are you talking about? This is a widely held belief among Muslims.

But it is some lone wolf renegade wingnut in Manchester. No doubt I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find all kinds of intolerant views in both the UK and the US. Saying that intolerance is a problem with some brands of Islam is hardly new or much of a revelation. The real problem isn't that Islam is intolerant, what religion isn't intolerant, but that a fundamental brand of Islam is becoming ever more popular with people.

[Donkeykong]

Christianity has lost a lot of its power to control people's view in regard to such things as homosexuality. I doubt it did this by choice. Is there any reason to think that the same thing couldn't happen with Islam, especially in the West?

We are at a particular time at the moment were both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are going through a resurgence. Why? In the case of Islam, I presume it's because those born into the Islamic faith feel they are under attack from all sides, alienation from the Western culture is pushing people to look for something else - fundamental Islam. The OP is a prime example. I don't know if the OP's intention was to smear Islam or Muslims in general but that is how it came across and that is why it was defended the way it was.

Do you think that this could really happen with Islam?

[penn]

Do you think that this could really happen with Islam?

Why not, Islam is just a religion like Christianity. Christianity did not give up its hold over people easily. Saying that, it would be good if Islamic fundamentalism's appeal was diminishing, but sadly it isn't, and we are hardly helping the direction it's going in by started unnecessary wars, which not only alienate Muslims in the West but bring to power religious Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East.

[Blui]

Why not, Islam is just a religion like Christianity. Christianity did not give up its hold over people easily. Saying that, it would be good if Islamic fundamentalism's appeal was diminishing, but sadly it isn't, and we are hardly helping the direction it's going in by started unnecessary wars, which not only alienate Muslims in the West but bring to power religious Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East.
I think mainstream Christians have 'lost their teeth' so to speak because of general education and secularisation which has progressively made newer generations of Christians far more liberal and less 'Christian' in the sense of following the Bible.

The problem with Islam, is that, outside western countries, most Islamic countries are poverty stricken, which affects education, and the Islamic countries are really a theocracy, not a secular country (Turkey being an exception, and they are starting to have many problems with a rise in Islamic fundamentalism again).

As to Muslims in Western countries, i think gradually, barring any extreme events like a massive flood of migration that derails the demographic and makes Muslims a big majority, or some takeover by a foreign theocratic Muslim country, Muslims will eventually become like Christians, although its going to be a really painful process.

The problem is that, we have a problem right now where there exists conflict because Muslim society and western society are not completely compatible.

[Hubble head]

Except that we see this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Every time, without exception, that Islamists are criticized here, Far Left members of this board show up and ...

A) Never join the criticism.

and

B) Attempt to throw up red herrings, smoke screens, excuses, diversions... anything to deflect valid criticism away from hardcore Muslims.

Why they practice this type of hypocrisy I am not sure.

If you knew most of the complete history of the M.E. from 100ce to now, you might understand why they hate us so much, or even better; why some people want to talk about history and policy mistakes on our side before making decisions on how to deal with the lunatics over there now.

In other words, it goes without saying that we are dealing with bonafide brainwashed nutjobs. Recognized. Now what?

Since your side wants to keep doing things the same old way they keep running into others (who you label in error as far left) who want to actually have a real discussion about the cause and effects of said policy.

Why does your camp get so PO'd that some people don't want to sit around and wallow in the pitiful blaming game part of issue? MOVE ON, booy. Those you call far left are already on the next part of the discussion.

[EarlOfLade]

If you knew most of the complete history of the M.E. from 100ce to now, you might understand why they hate us so much, or even better; why some people want to talk about history and policy mistakes on our side before making decisions on how to deal with the lunatics over there now.

In other words, it goes without saying that we are dealing with bonafide brainwashed nutjobs. Recognized. Now what?

Since your side wants to keep doing things the same old way they keep running into others (who you label in error as far left) who want to actually have a real discussion about the cause and effects of said policy.

Why does your camp get so PO'd that some people don't want to sit around and wallow in the pitiful blaming game part of issue? MOVE ON, booy. Those you call far left are already on the next part of the discussion.

I know why Boo is so pissed off.
Every time we discuss this we also tell him that christians are not one iota better than the muslims and since he is a fundie, it hurts. Plain and simple.

[Baal]

Now we're reduced to personal attacks and insults? How cute. This sort of immature behavior is exactly what turns away theists.

[Castorama]

EOL:I know why Boo is so pissed off.
Every time we discuss this we also tell him that christians are not one iota better than the muslims and since he is a fundie, it hurts. Plain and simple.As in 'Strong Atheist', i.e. Absolutist???

[ComestibleVenom]

The real problem isn't that Islam is intolerant, what religion isn't intolerant, but that a fundamental brand of Islam is becoming ever more popular with people.

Have you ever actually read the Koran? There's your problem. It's not just that people are fundamentalist about it, it's that people use it as a basis to govern their lives, period.