My faith has been hijacked by extremists. After Alan Henning’s murder, we must reclaim it

Could the senseless killing of Alan Henning lead to a watershed moment, a chance for a new narrative of hope?

How to respond to the inhumane, senseless and unjust murder of Alan Henning? Hoping against hope, I desperately wished that Alan would be reunited with his family. But at the brutal hands of Islamic State (Isis), his murder was sadly inevitable. There was no mercy. There was no compassion. Yet the news, even if expected, was heartbreaking.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/unite-defeat-isis-revolting-perversion-islam



I commend her and this is what I have bee stated is needed, a stronger response from the Islamic community, one that is taking back the identity of their faith away from extremists:








This is why, last week, we launched #makingastand. The campaign encourages women to take the lead in exerting influence in their communities and to root out extremists who are preying on their children. But it is also designed to provide an alternative narrative for young British Muslims: to pledge their allegiance to their country, to respect human rights and to be a peaceful, thoughtful member of British society.

It is in stark contrast to what extremists preach. Our campaign is a “jihad against violence”, an attempt to reclaim the word jihad from those who have wrongly attributed it to mean holy war. Jihad means no such thing. Instead, it is a struggle for goodness, for truth, for justice, for compassion and for peaceful coexistence.

Muslims know that we have the principles in our faith to challenge the extremist outlook; we need, however, to reclaim our faith from these monsters. By succeeding in this war of ideologies, we can eventually turn off the tap of British jihadis leaving the UK to join Isis.

Hmmmmmm


Now I'm confused...so could someone clarify

the "tone" of the various chapters in the qur'an, (NOT the hadiths for clarity) gets more warlike and brutal as time goes by. Beginning gentle and "merciful" they become destructive and warlike....

NOW....

As I understand things, there is a principle in islamic understanding, called "abrogation", whereby the later chapters overide the earlier ones if they contradict......

so HOW is Islam the religion of peace if that is true, since the later chapters of war and brutality overide the earlier peaceable ones??????

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm not claiming to be any kind of Islam expert, but from what I have seen, it seems like the passages permitting violence still limit it to defensive violence. I'm sure there's no passage that commands Muslims to go around beheading infidels all willy-nilly ...

But its not just that is it?
what about the ones that make it QUITE clear that a Muslim shall NOT make friends with non Muslims? indeed from my reading it is actually forbidden, BUT must, if circumtances so dictate (i.e. you happen as a Muslim to be living in non Muslim lands) PRETEND friendship. i.e LIE (taquiyya?)

which is what lead to my questioning of the apparantly well intentioned and certainly powerful missive from all those learned Muslims.

Clearly such a processs must be in action, as I have said before, a number of jihadist are known to have returned (though who and where they are seems to be a mystery) YET "the Muslim community" doesnt appear to have handed any over to the authorities, nor, judging by the lack of decorated lamp posts, have they meted out any form of judgement themselves, despite their supposed abhorence of these criminals.....

@victor
it makes as much sense as he bible
and the vast majority of Muslims do not take it any more literally than Christians.

Muslim Community have here so(many of the raids here were people suspected by Muslim leaders so reported to police)... either the cops don't want the help or make it hard or the media doesn't show it or they don't feel part of the community.

victorisnotamused wrote:But its not just that is it?
what about the ones that make it QUITE clear that a Muslim shall NOT make friends with non Muslims? indeed from my reading it is actually forbidden, BUT must, if circumtances so dictate (i.e. you happen as a Muslim to be living in non Muslim lands) PRETEND friendship.    i.e LIE (taquiyya?)

which is what lead to my questioning of the apparantly well intentioned and certainly powerful missive from all those learned Muslims.

Clearly such a processs must be in action, as I have said before, a number of jihadist are known to have returned (though who and where they are seems to be a mystery) YET "the Muslim community" doesnt appear to have handed any over to the authorities, nor, judging by the lack of decorated lamp posts, have they meted out any form of judgement themselves, despite their supposed abhorence of these criminals.....

Just saying, here in North Texas I've shaken hands with an awful lot of Muslims, and if they were thinking of setting a machete to my neck I think I might have detected something in their demeanor being off ...

Then again, these are mostly people who have run businesses here for a decade or so -- don't seem like they're itching to leave real soon. I dunno, maybe we corrupted them?

Or maybe jihadis are a different breed from your average everyday Muslim. Don't ask me, I'm just speaking from experience

Referring to the article, it is similar to a radio phone-in I was listening to yesterday on LBC.
A Muslim woman on there (cannot remember her name) said she had not celebrated Ede this year (it was sometime over the weekend) as she couldn't celebrate when a man had been beheaded; not a journalist but a genuine relief worker, a man working among Muslims - respected by those Muslims for his work.

She stood and said time and again, the Muslim community's needed to stand strong on this and the fact that she had not celebrated Ede was her big stand.

Lots of Muslims rang in to say they respected her but they had still celebrated it themselves.

We need more like her IMO.

Wisdom from Ben Affleck of all places



At least even the media down here is starting to realise we largely are not falling for the Gov't bullshit and they might want to change tune to be inline with public opinion.

Yep watched that, he ranted like a child, Sam Harris tried to explain to him, but he just tried to shout him down showing he had no reason to his points, showing he did not want to listen.

You mean because the only other view is an arrogantly racist one???
And fundamentally wrong on every level and the people that Express such illogical hate are really not much better than ISIS in the hearts.

There is no need for any reasons to any of those point they are REALITY any one trying to suggest other wise has a real issue with prejudice as is vainly trying to justify their bigotry. There is nothing to explain IF you don't agree you are a racist/bigot or a coward and either way, I disregard the opinion as irrelevant as racism is illogical and cowards are cowards, and neither the illogical or the cowardly should be listened to.

SAM HARRIS has no legitimate point to make at all, as there is not one, he can try and explain why/how his Cowardly bigotry is somehow magically not really Cowardly bigotry, but they would just make him a lying piece of shit as well as a cowardly bigot.
IF you're gonna be a bigot own it, stop trying to pretty it up. IF you think targeting any ethnic/religious group is cool, that you can judge a whole bunch of people because of a few terrorists, YOU ARE A BIGOT, COWARD AND FOOL, fucking own it and stop pretending that you have some special justification for your specific hate, you don't, you are just another bigot.

Nothing to do with racism, yet again, did you actually listen to what Sam Harris said, who is a Liberal by the way?
It seems if people have different views you scream racist, like a child at anyone where again I have proven you have no concept of what racism is.
The point brought up in this video, was about apostasy, which in every Muslim country is a crime, there is no escaping this factor, all based around religious doctrine, the only difference being on the level of punishment, the same with homosexuality and many other appalling aspects of the faith. What you are now saying it is racism to debate this point which even Ben admitted is wrong. So if it is wrong, then clearly parts of Islam are very wrong, it does not make it racist to be critical of the religion for this factor. 

Nobody is even claiming that all Muslims follow such views, far from it, many are not even literal followers of Islam, but the undisputed fact is Islam allows as do other faiths, women to be treated poorly, as well as seen Apostasy and the persecution of homosexuals, basically denying people the right to leave their faith, which is wrong or be in love, which you and others wish to blatantly ignore. Nobody wishes to castigate all Muslims or even stereotype them, but what shoes the reason why your scream and shout of racism is daft, is you have no problem of being critical of Christianity, but nobody can be of Islam., without childish rants of racism, which is utterly absurd and shows by doing so you wish to defend such poor doctrines found in this religion, when in all 3 Abrahamic faiths, they are very much sexist and appalling doctrines.

So please spare me your childish rants on bigotry, they are getting boring now, because all you are doing is making yourself look a continuous immature child

Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself?

My recent collision with Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, has provoked an extraordinary amount of controversy. It seems a postmortem is in order.
For those who haven’t seen the show, most of what I write here won’t make sense unless you watch my segment:





I admit that I was a little thrown by Affleck’s animosity. I don’t know where it came from, because we hadn’t met before I joined the panel. And it was clear from our conversation after the show that he is totally unfamiliar with my work. I suspect that among his handlers there is a fan of Glenn Greenwald who prepared him for his appearance by simply telling him that I am a racist and a warmonger.
Whatever the reason, if you watch the full video of our exchange (which actually begins before the above clip), you will see that Affleck was gunning for me from the start. What many viewers probably don’t realize is that the mid-show interview is supposed be a protected five-to-seven-minute conversation between Maher and the new guest—and all the panelists know this. To ignore this structure and encroach on this space is a little rude; to jump in with criticism, as Affleck did, is pretty hostile. He tried to land his first blow a mere 90 seconds after I took my seat, before the topic of Islam even came up.
Although I was aware that I wasn’t getting much love from Affleck, I didn’t realize how unfriendly he had been on the show until I watched it on television the next day. This was by no means a normal encounter between strangers. For instance: I said that liberalism was failing us on the topic of Islamic theocracy, and Affleck snidely remarked, “Thank God you’re here!” (This was his second interruption of my interview.) I then said, “We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people,” and Affleck jumped in for the third time, more or less declaring the mid-show interview over: “Now hold on—are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You’re the interpreter of that?”
As many have since pointed out, Affleck and Nicholas Kristof then promptly demonstrated my thesis by mistaking everything Maher and I said about Islam for bigotry toward Muslims. Our statements were “gross,” “racist,” “ugly,” “like saying you’re a shifty Jew” (Affleck), and a “caricature” that has “the tinge (a little bit) of how white racists talk about African Americans” (Kristof).
The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.
And the tension on the panel only grew. At one point Affleck sought to cut me off by saying, “Okay, let him [Kristof] talk for a second.” As I finished my sentence, he made a gesture of impatience with his hand, suggesting that I had been droning on for ages. Watching this exchange on television (his body language and tone are less clear online), I find Affleck’s contempt for me fairly amazing.
I want to make one thing clear, however. I did not take Affleck’s hostility personally. This is the kind of thing I now regularly encounter from people who believe the lies about my work that have been sedulously manufactured by Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, and many others. If I were seated across the table from someone I “knew” to be a racist and a warmonger, how would I behave? I don’t honestly know.
Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.
When I told Affleck that he didn’t understand my argument, he said, “I don’t understand it? You’re argument is ‘You know, black people, we know they shoot each other, they’re blacks!” What did he expect me to say to this—“I stand corrected”?
Although I clearly stated that I wasn’t claiming that all Muslims adhere to the dogmas I was criticizing; distinguished between jihadists, Islamists, conservatives, and the rest of the Muslim community; and explicitly exempted hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t take the doctrines about blasphemy, apostasy, jihad, and martyrdom seriously, Affleck and Kristof both insisted that I was disparaging all Muslims as a group. Unfortunately, I misspoke slightly at this point, saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims don’t take their “faith” seriously. This led many people to think that I was referring to Muslim atheists (who surely don’t exist in those numbers) and suggesting that the only people who could reform the faith are those who have lost it. I don’t know how many times one must deny that one is referring to an entire group, or cite specific poll results to justify the percentages one is talking about, but no amount of clarification appears sufficient to forestall charges of bigotry and lack of “nuance.”
One of the most depressing things in the aftermath of this exchange is the way Affleck is now being lauded for having exposed my and Maher’s “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred of Muslims.” This is yet another sign that simply accusing someone of these sins, however illogically, is sufficient to establish them as facts in the minds of many viewers. It certainly does not help that unscrupulous people like Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald have been spinning the conversation this way.
Of course, Affleck is also being widely reviled as an imbecile. But much of this criticism, too, is unfair. Those who describe him as a mere “actor” who was out of his depth are no better than those who dismiss me as a “neuroscientist” who cannot, therefore, know anything about religion. And Affleck isn’t merely an actor: He’s a director, a producer, a screenwriter, a philanthropist, and may one day be a politician. Even if he were nothing more than an actor, there would be no reason to assume that he’s not smart. In fact, I think he probably is quite smart, and that makes our encounter all the more disheartening.
The important point is that a person’s CV is immaterial as long as he or she is making sense. Unfortunately, Affleck wasn’t—but neither was Kristof, who really is an expert in this area, particularly where the plight of women in the developing world is concerned. His failure to recognize and celebrate the heroism of my friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali remains a journalistic embarrassment and a moral scandal (and I told him so backstage).
After the show, a few things became clear about Affleck’s and Kristof’s views. Rather than trust poll results and the testimony of jihadists and Islamists, they trust the feeling that they get from the dozens of Muslims they have known personally. As a method of gauging Muslim opinion worldwide, this preference is obviously crazy. It is nevertheless understandable. On the basis of their life experiences, they believe that the success of a group like ISIS, despite its ability to recruit people by the thousands from free societies, says nothing about the role that Islamic doctrines play in inspiring global jihad. Rather, they imagine that ISIS is functioning like a bug light for psychopaths—attracting “disaffected young men” who would do terrible things to someone, somewhere, in any case. For some strange reason these disturbed individuals can’t resist an invitation to travel to a foreign desert for the privilege of decapitating journalists and aid workers. I await an entry in the DSM-VI that describes this troubling condition.
Contrary to what many liberals believe, those bad boys who are getting off the bus in Syria at this moment to join ISIS are not all psychopaths, nor are they simply depressed people who have gone to the desert to die. Most of them are profoundly motivated by their beliefs. Many surely feel like spiritual James Bonds, fighting a cosmic war against evil. After all, they are spreading the one true faith to the ends of the earth—or they will die trying, and be martyred, and then spend eternity in Paradise. Secular liberals seem unable to grasp how psychologically rewarding this worldview must be.
As I try to make clear in Waking Up, many positive states of mind, such as ecstasy, are ethically neutral. Which is to say that it really matters what you think the feeling of ecstasy means. If you think it means that the Creator of the Universe is rewarding you for having purged your village of Christians, you are ISIS material. Other bearded young men go to Burning Man, find themselves surrounded by naked women in Day-Glo body paint, and experience a similar state of mind.
After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName. In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.” I don’t think I’m being uncharitable when I say that neither Affleck nor Kristof had an intelligent response to this. Nor did they pretend to doubt the truth of what I said.
I genuinely believe that both Affleck and Kristof mean well. They are very worried about American xenophobia and the prospects of future military adventures. But they are confused about Islam. Like many secular liberals, they refuse to accept the abundant evidence that vast numbers of Muslims believe dangerous things about infidels, apostasy, blasphemy, jihad, and martyrdom. And they do not realize that these doctrines are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity.
However, others in this debate are not so innocent. Our conversation on Real Time was provoked by an interview that Reza Aslan gave on CNN, in which he castigated Maher for the remarks he had made about Islam on the previous show. I have always considered Aslan a comical figure. His thoughts about religion in general are a jumble of pretentious nonsense—yet he speaks with an air of self-importance that would have been embarrassing in Genghis Khan at the height of his power. On the topic of Islam, however, Aslan has begun to seem more sinister. He cannot possibly believe what he says, because nearly everything he says is a lie or a half-truth calibrated to mislead a liberal audience. If he claims something isn’t in the Koran, it probably is. I don’t know what his agenda is, beyond riding a jet stream of white guilt from interview to interview, but he is manipulating liberal biases for the purpose of shutting down conversation on important topics. Given what he surely knows about the contents of the Koran and the hadith, the state of public opinion in the Muslim world, the suffering of women and other disempowered groups, and the real-world effects of deeply held religious beliefs, I find his deception on these issues unconscionable.
As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.
Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world. Nawaz admits this. I don’t want to give the impression that he and I view Islam exactly the same. In fact, we are now having a written exchange that we will publish as an ebook in the coming months—and I am learning a lot from it. But Nawaz admits that the extent of radicalization in the Muslim community is an enormous problem. Unlike Aslan, he insists that his fellow Muslims must find some way to reinterpret and reform the faith. He believes that Islam has the intellectual resources to do this. I certainly hope he’s right. One thing is clear, however: Muslims must be obliged to do the work of reinterpretation—and for this we need honest conversation.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

Night all.

So I was 100% correct confirmed by the Bigot himself in his vain attempts to justify his illogical hate.

YES we need an honest Talk and to do that we have to start by ADMITTING that ISLAM is less violent and produced LESS terrorist than Christians EVEN today. We also have to start Actually calling out Christian terrorists, EVERY Anti abortionist that threatens a doctor or a woman all those people for oppressing gay because their sky giant told them to. LETS BE HONEST
BRITAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE OF TODAY'S PROBLEMS THAN ISLAM!!!


So didge YES the GUY is 100% racist calling out in others what he is fine with in his own house!!!! He make it sound like Syrians joined ISIS for the religious shit and not to get out from under Assad Maybe HE should try listening to the PEOPLE and not some fucked up Jihadist that is still a very small Minority. Maybe he should look that they are losing the locals that joined them originally because they never said they were going to do this crazy shit.

ISIS went and recruited rebels from the free Syria Army who joined not really understanding and NOW are leaving ISIS to rejoin Free Syria Army as they were fighting for freedom and 'now ISIS is in the region fighting everyone for religion' according to one of their EX-fighters in Syria

It just seems unfathomable to me that people can't understand -- people will always glom onto whatever power they think will ensure their best chances of surviving and possibly thriving. If we were there, most of us would probably make the same choices that we in the West are lucky enough to be in a position to condemn.

This is how corrupt organizations have always attracted new followers and supporters, by offering what seems like a better life to struggling people. This is why I insist over and over again that it's not about any conflict in religious ideology for most of the people involved, but a conflict over resources.

People with day-to-day security, roofs over their heads, health care and enough to eat don't march into war, and history proves that.

veya_victaous wrote:So I was 100% correct confirmed by the Bigot himself in his vain attempts to justify his illogical hate.

YES we need an honest Talk and to do that we have to start by ADMITTING that ISLAM is less violent and produced LESS terrorist than Christians EVEN today. We also have to start Actually calling out Christian terrorists, EVERY Anti abortionist that threatens a doctor or a woman all those people for oppressing gay because their sky giant told them to.  LETS BE HONEST
BRITAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE OF TODAY'S PROBLEMS THAN ISLAM!!!


So didge YES the GUY is 100% racist calling out in others what he is fine with in his own house!!!!  He make it sound like Syrians joined ISIS for the religious shit and not to get out from under Assad Maybe HE should try listening to the PEOPLE and not some fucked up Jihadist that is still a very small Minority.  Maybe he should look that they are losing the locals that joined them originally because they never said they were going to do this crazy shit.

ISIS went and recruited rebels from the free Syria Army who joined not really understanding and NOW are leaving ISIS to rejoin Free Syria Army as they were fighting for freedom and 'now ISIS is in the region fighting everyone for religion' according to one of their EX-fighters in Syria

Conclusion, Veya is clueless and pointless to debate, you have not the first clue of racism and he even stated he is wanting Muslims to change direction against the extremists, so if he agrees with some Muslims I guess you think they are racist to, which basically makes you a first class idiot Veya.

People like you Veya need certifying, because to you, about 99.9% of the world population would be racist to you and it s idiots like you that make racism worse, when many of us have actually been fighting against racism for years, but then you would not even know what I do showing we sigh at people like you.
Thank goodness you are just some immature child behind a keyboard.

So the next time you bash Christianity, according to your absurd logic, you are a bigot and a racist, again, what a master card advert you would make.

Pricless 

I shall not entertain your stupidity any longer

Ben_Reilly wrote:It just seems unfathomable to me that people can't understand -- people will always glom onto whatever power they think will ensure their best chances of surviving and possibly thriving. If we were there, most of us would probably make the same choices that we in the West are lucky enough to be in a position to condemn.

This is how corrupt organizations have always attracted new followers and supporters, by offering what seems like a better life to struggling people. This is why I insist over and over again that it's not about any conflict in religious ideology for most of the people involved, but a conflict over resources.

People with day-to-day security, roofs over their heads, health care and enough to eat don't march into war, and history proves that.

Then you are really sadly mistake Ben, this is about a growing threat of an ideology in Salafism, one that is at war with other Muslims, and they do not care at what price is paid in human blood to obtain their goal. Again in all the extremist groups I have given you , all share Salafism doctrine and all have a fear of the identity of their ideology being threatened, this is why now more than ever Muslims have to counter their extremism, or it willcontinue to spread

Didge wrote:Yep watched that, he ranted like a child, Sam Harris tried to explain to him, but he just tried to shout him down showing he had no reason to his points, showing he did not want to listen.

He did give him a chance and bigotry was exposed.

Of course, you have a problem recognising bigotry these days.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Yep watched that, he ranted like a child, Sam Harris tried to explain to him, but he just tried to shout him down showing he had no reason to his points, showing he did not want to listen.

He did give him a chance and bigotry was exposed.

Of course, you have a problem recognising bigotry these days.

Of course you would think that, oh my, anyone must not be critical of Islam or any religion is then a bigot, er, I do not think so, showing you do not understand much these days.

So by your view they were all bigots in this video, the worst being Ben Affleck

Take your time on that one

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

He did give him a chance and bigotry was exposed.

Of course, you have a problem recognising bigotry these days.

Of course you would think that, oh my, anyone must not be critical of Islam or any religion is then a bigot, er, I do not think so, showing you do not understand much these days.

So by your view they were all bigots in this video, the worst being Ben Affleck

Take your time on that one

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

That's the bigotry Afleck was referring to and to which you are blind. You're not a stupid person, so it begs the question as to why you ignore it.

You're just one atrocity away from turning into Mentor or Smelly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Of course you would think that, oh my, anyone must not be critical of Islam or any religion is then a bigot, er, I do not think so, showing you do not understand much these days.

So by your view they were all bigots in this video, the worst being Ben Affleck

Take your time on that one

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

That's the bigotry Afleck was referring to and to which you are blind. You're not a stupid person, so it begs the question as to why you ignore it.

You're just one atrocity away from turning into Mentor or Smelly.

Or as I shall prove you are as dim as both of them:

bigotry[
Definition
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.


As seen it was Ben Affleck who was intolerant of the others views.

Ha Ha, best you go back to school.

Sorry saying Islamism, Muslim and Islam in the same sentence is now bigotry?



The only bigotry they showed and rightly so, was to the position held by Islamic countries where they treat people appalling by mythical babble made into laws.
I am bigoted against Nazism and its views, happy to be defined as one, as I am sure you are bigoted very much to me, but hey ho, you never were that smart.

This is the problem with some Muslims themselves, clear proof they are incapable of critical views of their faith.
They basically argued which they do with all the abrahamic faiths, is that Liberals are showing double standards, because Islam is intolerant of certain views, which they are very much correct on, like homosexuality, apostasy, all of which is ignored by some clueless people, which they were then shouted down over, for being right about.
Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

That's the bigotry Afleck was referring to and to which you are blind. You're not a stupid person, so it begs the question as to why you ignore it.

You're just one atrocity away from turning into Mentor or Smelly.

Or as I shall prove you are as dim as both of them:

bigotry[
Definition
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.


As seen it was Ben Affleck who was intolerant of the others views.

Ha Ha, best you go back to school.

Sorry saying Islamism, Muslim and Islam in the same sentence is now bigotry?



The only bigotry they showed and rightly so, was to the position held by Islamic countries where they treat people appalling by mythical babble made into laws.
I am bigoted against Nazism and its views, happy to be defined as one, as I am sure you are bigoted very much to me, but hey ho, you never were that smart.

This is the problem with some Muslims themselves, clear proof they are incapable of critical views of their faith.
They basically argued which they do with all the abrahamic faiths, is that Liberals are showing double standards, because Islam is intolerant of certain views, which they are very much correct on, like homosexuality, apostasy, all of which is ignored by some clueless people, which they were then shouted down over, for being right about.
Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives?

This is how you twist words in an attempt to win some silly, pointless debate.

Did I say the bold bit above. I used those terms in one sentence myself:

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

Do you want to try again?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

That's the bigotry Afleck was referring to and to which you are blind. You're not a stupid person, so it begs the question as to why you ignore it.

You're just one atrocity away from turning into Mentor or Smelly.

Or as I shall prove you are as dim as both of them:

bigotry[
Definition
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.


As seen it was Ben Affleck who was intolerant of the others views.

Ha Ha, best you go back to school.

Sorry saying Islamism, Muslim and Islam in the same sentence is now bigotry?



The only bigotry they showed and rightly so, was to the position held by Islamic countries where they treat people appalling by mythical babble made into laws.
I am bigoted against Nazism and its views, happy to be defined as one, as I am sure you are bigoted very much to me, but hey ho, you never were that smart.

This is the problem with some Muslims themselves, clear proof they are incapable of critical views of their faith.
They basically argued which they do with all the abrahamic faiths, is that Liberals are showing double standards, because Islam is intolerant of certain views, which they are very much correct on, like homosexuality, apostasy, all of which is ignored by some clueless people, which they were then shouted down over, for being right about.
Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives?

And you're guilty of such bigotry too.

A group of people are not homogeneous. If you don't get that, then you are prejudice. The word 'some' is just a get out clause.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Or as I shall prove you are as dim as both of them:

bigotry[
Definition
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.


As seen it was Ben Affleck who was intolerant of the others views.

Ha Ha, best you go back to school.

Sorry saying Islamism, Muslim and Islam in the same sentence is now bigotry?



The only bigotry they showed and rightly so, was to the position held by Islamic countries where they treat people appalling by mythical babble made into laws.
I am bigoted against Nazism and its views, happy to be defined as one, as I am sure you are bigoted very much to me, but hey ho, you never were that smart.

This is the problem with some Muslims themselves, clear proof they are incapable of critical views of their faith.
They basically argued which they do with all the abrahamic faiths, is that Liberals are showing double standards, because Islam is intolerant of certain views, which they are very much correct on, like homosexuality, apostasy, all of which is ignored by some clueless people, which they were then shouted down over, for being right about.
Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives?

This is how you twist words in an attempt to win some silly, pointless debate.

Did I say the bold bit above. I used those terms in one sentence myself:

You did notice Bill Maher and the other guy using the term Islam and the Muslim world interchangeably with Islamism, right?

Do you want to try again?

Ha Ha talk about knowing you are wrong by desperately clinging to this claim you make.
No I do not think it was bigotry, when in the core aspects of Islam, there is apostasy, jihad, and martyrdom etc, where some Muslims have made Islam political through a book that displays unbreakable commands it could certainly be defined as xenophobic, not bigotry. So they were correct to define it as they did, where you may not agree on their view, other Muslims certainly see and view Islam politically.

Seriously you need to understand the meaning of words.
They are certainly bigoted towards the appalling discrimination from religions as I am also, anyone with a rational mind knows this concepts found in religion are very intolerant themselves, which you seem to over look.

So how about you answer my points you tried poorly to avoid:

Do you admit Ben was the most bigoted on this debate?


The only bigotry they showed and rightly so, was to the position held by Islamic countries where they treat people appalling by mythical babble made into laws.
I am bigoted against Nazism and its views, happy to be defined as one, as I am sure you are bigoted very much to me, but hey ho, you never were that smart.

This is the problem with some Muslims themselves, clear proof they are incapable of critical views of their faith.
They basically argued which they do with all the abrahamic faiths, is that Liberals are showing double standards, because Islam is intolerant of certain views, which they are very much correct on, like homosexuality, apostasy, all of which is ignored by some clueless people, which they were then shouted down over, for being right about.
Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives?

I've made my point Didge.

And you've now exposed yourself and what you've become over the last few months.

Take care.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've made my point Didge.

And you've now exposed yourself and what you've become over the last few months.

Take care.

lol, yes you expect people to answer your points and run with your tail between your legs when confronted yourself.


If you think being always critical of religion is exposing myself, it shows how little you understand people, you think people should bend over backwards and praise religion, sorry I do not praise irrational beliefs, one that instill fear, and even worse command appalling discrimination onto people based on no sound logic or reasoning.
Never mind, am happy to help you in anyway I can understand what is wrong with many religions Zack, one day I hope you will understand.

"Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives"

Show me the verses in the Quran you're questioning.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:"Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives"

Show me the verses in the Quran you're questioning.

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

“The woman and the man guilty of unlawful sex (adultery or fornication), flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the Last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment”. (24:2)

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
— Quran 9:66

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. [Quran Verse 4]

You want me to post verses, do you not know your own faith?
How odd, so you tell me what is your view on these four topics?
Should any of them be punishable?
Should any be seen as a crime?

Sara Kahn wrote:The pros and cons of our military strikes on Isis will continue to be debated. The case remains that limited strikes destroying the infrastructure of Isis are needed. But I know through the work of my organisation that it is the battle of hearts and minds that remains the most pressing…

By succeeding in this war of ideologies, we can eventually turn off the tap of British jihadis leaving the UK to join Isis…

…an alternative narrative – that this extremism is a perversion of Islam. So successful was this campaign that it went viral and President Obama referred to it in his UN speech two weeks ago.

An excellent message, one that should be sent not only to all Muslims, but to all Republicans and Tories as well.  Turning ideologies into military strikes is useless, wasteful revenge, which escalates spirally.

We have the same problem with reactionaries in this country.

Original Quill wrote:

Sara Kahn wrote:The pros and cons of our military strikes on Isis will continue to be debated. The case remains that limited strikes destroying the infrastructure of Isis are needed. But I know through the work of my organisation that it is the battle of hearts and minds that remains the most pressing…

By succeeding in this war of ideologies, we can eventually turn off the tap of British jihadis leaving the UK to join Isis…

…an alternative narrative – that this extremism is a perversion of Islam. So successful was this campaign that it went viral and President Obama referred to it in his UN speech two weeks ago.

An excellent message, one that should be sent not only to all Muslims, but to all Republicans and Tories as well.  Turning ideologies into military strikes is useless, wasteful revenge, which escalates spirally.

We have the same problem with reactionaries in this country.

Er no the US needs to listen to, the Brits invented hearts and minds in warfare.

Didge wrote:

An excellent message, one that should be sent not only to all Muslims, but to all Republicans and Tories as well.  Turning ideologies into military strikes is useless, wasteful revenge, which escalates spirally.

We have the same problem with reactionaries in this country.

Er no the US needs to listen to, the Brits invented hearts and minds in warfare.

If you want to claim the British invented warfare, so be it.  I"m not arguing that.

Both sides have the same problem with reactionaries. ISIL is reactionary, as are Republicans and Tories in our nations, respectively. What Ms. Kahn is saying is essentially 'settle down...take a time-out if necessary.' ISIL uses swords to chop off heads, we use drones to kill children. We are both into the atrocity business. We need a time-out.

Dear me, where the yanks still do not understand hearts and minds in warfare, learn some history, the Brits did and used it to great effect.
The problem in the Middle East with the many extremist groups is Salafism, which I keep telling you, why Muslims have to counter this ideology, which is difficult since it is backed with substancial wealth.

Didge wrote:Dear me, where the yanks still do not understand hearts and minds in warfare, learn some history, the Brits did and used it to great effect.

Meh...who cares?

Didge wrote:The problem in the Middle East with the many extremist groups is Salafism, which I keep telling you, why Muslims have to counter this ideology, which is difficult since it is backed with substancial wealth.

As Ms. Kahn makes clear, it's not about ideology. I take her message to be one of humanism. She reminds me of Lizaveta Prokofyevna: “We’ve had enough of following our whims: it’s time to be reasonable."

It strikes me that we have the same problem with Muslims as we do have with the zionist mentality...

the professional (and higly effective political) victim...

say ANYthing against the actions of the zionists and you are anti semitic
say anything against the excesses of the Muslim nut jobs and you are anti islamic....

fuzzy no doubt looks forward to the days of Muslim supremacy in britain, and his own little pieces of religious 3rd world hell.....

Didge in the meantime seems to have had his eyes opened a little.....[ faints] ........

what do we do?

sit here and wait for ISIL to ..........what???

grow suficiently powerful to be able to acess sophisticated nuclear or bio warfare abilities???
take over MOST of te oil producing countries and then cripple the west ???

perhaps veya would positively love to see europe sink under the tide of a howling insane Muslim horde, his love affair with "the Muslim" is all to plain to see....

as I have said several times this last week......

WHY havnt the returning jihadists been either swung from lamp posts by their own community or handed over to the authorities......

It seems more likely than ever the reason is ...because their communities, despite the faint crys of their "community leaders" and the pious but ineffectual bleatings of their (one would hope) horrified intellectual leaders dont seem to be in a hurry to co operate, perhaps they actually sympathise with the jihadist cause....

Perhaps, soon, you will see that I was telling the truth when i said way back that following 9/11 there were celebrations going on in Muslim communities...I was witness to that in Nottingham at the time, there were parties, kids were being handed sweets and there was a general air of jubilation..

BUT OF COURSE...no-one wanted to really see that, so were wilfully blind, "its only a few" "you are lying", "it never happened" was the refrain.....

I predict...very soon.......those eyes will be opened......wide....
will they then see......I doubt it......

dont forget dozens it is assumed, have returned.....NONE have been handed over.......

ask your self why not......

OH and Didge......

will you now conceed that we are NOT "going to collect the isis leadership all in one place and wipe them out"

that in fact ISIS IS indeed the threat I suspected....and that this crusty old man actually CAN recognise shit when he sees it..............

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:It just seems unfathomable to me that people can't understand -- people will always glom onto whatever power they think will ensure their best chances of surviving and possibly thriving. If we were there, most of us would probably make the same choices that we in the West are lucky enough to be in a position to condemn.

This is how corrupt organizations have always attracted new followers and supporters, by offering what seems like a better life to struggling people. This is why I insist over and over again that it's not about any conflict in religious ideology for most of the people involved, but a conflict over resources.

People with day-to-day security, roofs over their heads, health care and enough to eat don't march into war, and history proves that.

Then you are really sadly mistake Ben, this is about a growing threat of an ideology in Salafism, one that is at war with other Muslims, and they do not care at what price is paid in human blood to obtain their goal. Again in all the extremist groups I have given you , all share Salafism doctrine and all have a fear of the identity of their ideology being threatened, this is why now more than ever Muslims have to counter their extremism, or it willcontinue to spread

SWEET
now I know I am 100% Correct in Disagreeing with you because I maybe radical left wing but Ben is perfectly reasonable and what he wrote was 100% correct.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

A group of people are not homogeneous. If you don't get that, then you are prejudice. The word 'some' is just a get out clause.

Zack Gets it....

And Victor May not realise but he countered his own Point
Because he is right there are Zionists that are the same in attitude (and realistically there are in all religions and even atheists)
The issue has nothing to do with Islam the issues is extremists , Islam happens to be the one affected at the moment but it has an can happen with any.

I agree it was naive to think bombing alone would be enough (and you will see I always have said need special forces boots on the ground)

victorisnotamused wrote:OH and Didge......

will you now conceed that we are NOT "going to collect the isis leadership all in one place and wipe them out"

that in fact ISIS IS indeed the threat I suspected....and that this crusty old man actually CAN recognise shit when he sees it..............

Well they seem to be attracting many of the extremists to this area, so you stand a good chance in take many of them out. At present the Kurds, seem to be the only one showing real resistance to them at the moment, it is appalling because of ethnic hatred from the Turks, that they are sitting back and doing nothing, allowing the Kurds to suffer.
I am wondering when IS will be daft enough to attack Israel, as the they will be obliterated.

The root problem though is the fact we are doing nothing in regards to the Salfism propaganda machine, which has plenty of rich backers, in some of the Arab states and Muslims need to wake up to this threat, because if they do not, many more Muslims themselves are going to die. They way I see things, this is going to spill out in all out war between Saudi and Iran in the end because of the hatred between the two many Islamic sects, them both being the two main players.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Dear me, where the yanks still do not understand hearts and minds in warfare, learn some history, the Brits did and used it to great effect.

Meh...who cares?

Didge wrote:The problem in the Middle East with the many extremist groups is Salafism, which I keep telling you, why Muslims have to counter this ideology, which is difficult since it is backed with substancial wealth.

As Ms. Kahn makes clear, it's not about ideology.  I take her message to be one of humanism.  She reminds me of Lizaveta Prokofyevna: “We’ve had enough of following our whims: it’s time to be reasonable."

Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.
The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.
Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.
The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.
When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:OH and Didge......

will you now conceed that we are NOT "going to collect the isis leadership all in one place and wipe them out"

that in fact ISIS IS indeed the threat I suspected....and that this crusty old man actually CAN recognise shit when he sees it..............

Well they seem to be attracting many of the extremists to this area, so you stand a good chance in take many of them out. At present the Kurds, seem to be the only one showing real resistance to them at the moment, it is appalling because of ethnic hatred from the Turks, that they are sitting back and doing nothing, allowing the Kurds to suffer.
I am wondering when IS will be daft enough to attack Israel, as the they will be obliterated.

I dont think they will,not for a long while. Lets face it their actions, whilst barbarous and wrong at every level, have been far from stupid. Their "grunts" may be retarded brutes, but their leadership doesnt seem to be lacking much in the brains department.......

The root problem though is the fact we are doing nothing in regards to the Salfism propaganda machine, which has plenty of rich backers, in some of the Arab states and Muslims need to wake up to this threat, because if they do not, many more Muslims themselves are going to die. They way I see things, this is going to spill out in all out war between Saudi and Iran in the end because of the hatred between the two many Islamic sects, them both being the two main players.

Now that is a scary thought, and if you think about it, if that happens we are buggered......damned if we do and damned if we dont..who SHOULD we side with....who WOULD we side with. In a straight war i'd bet on Iran winning.....but......

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well they seem to be attracting many of the extremists to this area, so you stand a good chance in take many of them out. At present the Kurds, seem to be the only one showing real resistance to them at the moment, it is appalling because of ethnic hatred from the Turks, that they are sitting back and doing nothing, allowing the Kurds to suffer.
I am wondering when IS will be daft enough to attack Israel, as the they will be obliterated.

I dont think they will,not for a long while. Lets face it their actions, whilst barbarous and wrong at every level, have been far from stupid. Their "grunts" may be retarded brutes, but their leadership doesnt seem to be lacking much in the brains department.......

The root problem though is the fact we are doing nothing in regards to the Salfism propaganda machine, which has plenty of rich backers, in some of the Arab states and Muslims need to wake up to this threat, because if they do not, many more Muslims themselves are going to die. They way I see things, this is going to spill out in all out war between Saudi and Iran in the end because of the hatred between the two many Islamic sects, them both being the two main players.

Now that is a scary thought, and if you think about it, if that happens we are buggered......damned if we do and damned if we dont..who SHOULD we side with....who WOULD we side with. In a straight war i'd bet on Iran winning.....but......

I imagine Iran would win, though it would be long fought out and no doubt drag more nations into the conflict and the West would be very much with its hands tied on that, as you say, which side can you back, and in fact all that will happen, is countless innocents will die ad more extremism, but one way or another, it could end up destroying the very faith of Islam itself through so much hate and violence.
This is why again I stress many Muslims need to see the problems ahead, of which many are already suffering, they need to start a massive counter movement, or as stated Islam will implode.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:"Are you saying you agree with the Quran on Apostasy, homosexuality, Adultery, husbands allowed to punish their wives"

Show me the verses in the Quran you're questioning.

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

“The woman and the man guilty of unlawful sex (adultery or fornication), flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the Last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment”. (24:2)

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
— Quran 9:66

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. [Quran Verse 4]

You want me to post verses, do you not know your own faith?
How odd, so you tell me what is your view on these four topics?
Should any of them be punishable?
Should any be seen as a crime?

In your first question, you're just having an emotional outburst. So I will ignore it.

Verse 7:80-81 - this is obviously referring to Sodom and Gommarah. It doesn't state an actual 'human'/legal punishment but the punishment of God. This is of course, in the Bible also.

There would be laws against public lewdness in all schools of Sharia, as far as I'm aware. The UK has laws against public indecency also.

Verse 24:2 yes, non-marital sex is a sin in Islam. Quelle surprise! I also agree that it's a sin. Do I think it should be punishable? No. But then, I am compassionate (see verse) and not a hypocrite either. Would it be punishable under Sharia? Yes, if it broke the public indecency/lewdness laws (public = 4 or more independent witnesses).

Verse 9:66 this verse refers to type of apostate who claims to be a Muslim amongst other Muslims but claim to be non-Muslim amongst others. And then telling the Muslims 'we were only joking'. So God is telling his people that he will forgive some but not others, depending on your true intentions (what's in your heart, which only you and God know). Again, this is not a legal punishment. It is Gods punishment.

Verse 4:34 You obviously didn't read any of my posts to Smelly. You are not allowed to beat your wife in Islam. Most Muslima's (like SM) would not accept such behaviour from their husband. This is an English mistranslation of the word 'daraba'. A more accurate translation would be (and I'm paraphrasing), "if you're wife is still being unfaithful and even after talking to her she is still unfaithful, then 'drive'/throw (daraba) out of the house. You can google a more accurate translation.

----

But going back to my original point - you asked me about my point of view. There would be Muslims who disagree with me, to various extents and in different ways.

But like many who get succumb to fear, you need me to reassure you. I find that pathetic. You clearly don't know many Muslims well enough.

victorisnotamused wrote:It strikes me that we have the same problem with Muslims as we do have with the zionist mentality...

the professional (and higly effective political) victim...

say ANYthing against the actions of the zionists and you are anti semitic
say anything against the excesses of the Muslim nut jobs and you are anti islamic....

fuzzy no doubt looks forward to the days of Muslim supremacy in britain, and his own little pieces of religious 3rd world hell.....

Didge in the meantime seems to have had his eyes opened a little.....[ faints]  ........

what do we do?

sit here and wait for ISIL to ..........what???

grow suficiently powerful to be able to acess sophisticated nuclear or bio warfare abilities???
take over MOST of te oil producing countries and then cripple the west ???

perhaps veya would positively love to see europe sink under the tide of a howling insane Muslim horde, his love affair with "the Muslim"  is all to plain to see....

as I have said several times this last week......

WHY havnt the returning jihadists been either swung from lamp posts by their own community or handed over to the authorities......

It seems more likely than ever the reason is ...because their communities, despite the faint crys of their "community leaders" and the pious but ineffectual bleatings of their (one would hope) horrified intellectual leaders dont seem to be in a hurry to co operate, perhaps they actually sympathise with the jihadist cause....

Perhaps, soon, you will see that I was telling the truth when i said way back that following 9/11 there were celebrations going on in Muslim communities...I was witness to that in Nottingham at the time, there were parties, kids were being handed sweets and there was a general air of jubilation..

BUT OF COURSE...no-one wanted to really see that, so were wilfully blind, "its only a few" "you are lying", "it never happened" was the refrain.....

I predict...very soon.......those eyes will be opened......wide....
will they then see......I doubt it......

dont forget dozens it is assumed, have returned.....NONE have been handed over.......

ask your self why not......

Didn't you used to have a YouTube channel?

not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews -

And yes, the plan to Islamify GB has started and will be completed by the end of 2015' where I will take you as my concubine.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

“The woman and the man guilty of unlawful sex (adultery or fornication), flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the Last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment”. (24:2)

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
— Quran 9:66

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. [Quran Verse 4]

You want me to post verses, do you not know your own faith?
How odd, so you tell me what is your view on these four topics?
Should any of them be punishable?
Should any be seen as a crime?

In your first question, you're just having an emotional outburst. So I will ignore it.

Verse 7:80-81 - this is obviously referring to Sodom and Gommarah. It doesn't state an actual 'human'/legal punishment but the punishment of God. This is of course, in the Bible also.

There would be laws against public lewdness in all schools of Sharia, as far as I'm aware. The UK has laws against public indecency also.

Verse 24:2 yes, non-marital sex is a sin in Islam. Quelle surprise! I also agree that it's a sin. Do I think it should be punishable? No. But then, I am compassionate (see verse) and not a hypocrite either. Would it be punishable under Sharia? Yes, if it broke the public indecency/lewdness laws (public = 4 or more independent witnesses).

Verse 9:66 this verse refers to type of apostate who claims to be a Muslim amongst other Muslims but claim to be non-Muslim amongst others. And then telling the Muslims 'we were only joking'. So God is telling his people that he will forgive some but not others, depending on your true intentions (what's in your heart, which only you and God know). Again, this is not a legal punishment. It is Gods punishment.

Verse 4:34 You obviously didn't read any of my posts to Smelly. You are not allowed to beat your wife in Islam. Most Muslima's (like SM) would not accept such behaviour from their husband. This is an English mistranslation of the word 'daraba'. A more accurate translation would be (and I'm paraphrasing), "if you're wife is still being unfaithful and even after talking to her she is still unfaithful, then 'drive'/throw (daraba) out of the house. You can google a more accurate translation.

----

But going back to my original point - you asked me about my point of view. There would be Muslims who disagree with me, to various extents and in different ways.

But like many who get succumb to fear, you need me to reassure you. I find that pathetic. You clearly don't know many Muslims well enough.

Your poor attempt at deflection based around emotions is not going to work anymore, it is pathetic mate.#
And you now give me your view on translations, where other Muslims view the fact that apostates should be executed, women should be beaten and back this view if they do not comply, that homosexuality is punishable and now you view sex before marriage as wrong, WTF, ha ha.
People and many animals copulate without marriage before such a binding came into being, please tell me what exactly is wrong with that? It was religion that hijacked marriage ti make it seem religious, when it never originally was.
So you never answered on homosexuality, you claim a different view on interpretation to wife beating, you make no view on apostates, even though it is a criminal act in just about every Muslim country, basically trying to avoid answering.


Try again

Agreed-Upon Translations[edit]
As we can see below, almost all Qur'anic translators have translated the term as "beat them".

Yusuf Ali:

"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." [4]
Pickthal:

"...As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." [4]
Shakir:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [4]
Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan:

"....As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great." [4]
Dr. T.B. Irving:

"...Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them. God is Sublime, Great." [5]
Muhammad Sarwar:

"...Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme." [4]
Rashad Khalifa:

"....If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme." [6]
Abdul-Majid Daryabadi:

"...And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand." [3]
E.H. Palmer:

"...But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great." [7]
Muhammad Ayub Khan:

"...And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great."
Ahmed Raza Khan:

"...the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great." [8]
Hassan Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish:

"...Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great." [4]
Mahmud Y. Zayid:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [9]
Muhammad Asad:

"...And as for those woolen whose ill-will" you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon..." [4]


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your_Wives_or_Separate_from_Them_-_Quran_4-34

All well and good you are a progressive Muslim, not a literal one mind that wishes to advance your faith Zack, of which I think is commendable, but there is many Muslims that will disagree with you, espcially in Muslim majority countries, which there is no way you can deny.
I am all for progression in your faith and commend you in some of the views you have, but there is no denying apostates and homosexuals is criminalized in Muslim countries and scholars back the view the translation is to beat wives.
Though do not agree on your pre-martial sex view, that is just silly and out dated and basically making a view on something that was later hijacked by religion.
This is not just to Islam, but in all 3 Abrahamic faiths that have much wrong with them and again I state the problem with Islam, is so many interpretations.

It has nothing to do with being progressive or non-literal.

What most non-Muslims and some Muslims don't realise, is that the Quran must be taken in its historical context.

For example, verse you said was about apostasy did not mention any earthly punishment. There is no other way to take that, literally or otherwise.

Just because some Muslim countries have these laws, doesn't mean Muslims and even imams (inside and outside those countries) think those countries are acting Islamically.

Many of these countries have their own version of Sharia law that is not necessaerily based on the Quran. But it is there to protect their own (mainly patriarchal) power base. Hence the subjugation of women, etc.

Didge wrote:Agreed-Upon Translations[edit]
As we can see below, almost all Qur'anic translators have translated the term as "beat them".

Yusuf Ali:

"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." [4]
Pickthal:

"...As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." [4]
Shakir:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [4]
Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan:

"....As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great." [4]
Dr. T.B. Irving:

"...Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them. God is Sublime, Great." [5]
Muhammad Sarwar:

"...Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme." [4]
Rashad Khalifa:

"....If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme." [6]
Abdul-Majid Daryabadi:

"...And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand." [3]
E.H. Palmer:

"...But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great." [7]
Muhammad Ayub Khan:

"...And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great."
Ahmed Raza Khan:

"...the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great." [8]
Hassan Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish:

"...Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great." [4]
Mahmud Y. Zayid:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [9]
Muhammad Asad:

"...And as for those woolen whose ill-will" you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon..." [4]


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your_Wives_or_Separate_from_Them_-_Quran_4-34

And even If you accept those translations, you still can't actually 'beat' your wife.

http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=307

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

In your first question, you're just having an emotional outburst. So I will ignore it.

Verse 7:80-81 - this is obviously referring to Sodom and Gommarah. It doesn't state an actual 'human'/legal punishment but the punishment of God. This is of course, in the Bible also.

There would be laws against public lewdness in all schools of Sharia, as far as I'm aware. The UK has laws against public indecency also.

Verse 24:2 yes, non-marital sex is a sin in Islam. Quelle surprise! I also agree that it's a sin. Do I think it should be punishable? No. But then, I am compassionate (see verse) and not a hypocrite either. Would it be punishable under Sharia? Yes, if it broke the public indecency/lewdness laws (public = 4 or more independent witnesses).

Verse 9:66 this verse refers to type of apostate who claims to be a Muslim amongst other Muslims but claim to be non-Muslim amongst others. And then telling the Muslims 'we were only joking'. So God is telling his people that he will forgive some but not others, depending on your true intentions (what's in your heart, which only you and God know). Again, this is not a legal punishment. It is Gods punishment.

Verse 4:34 You obviously didn't read any of my posts to Smelly. You are not allowed to beat your wife in Islam. Most Muslima's (like SM) would not accept such behaviour from their husband. This is an English mistranslation of the word 'daraba'. A more accurate translation would be (and I'm paraphrasing), "if you're wife is still being unfaithful and even after talking to her she is still unfaithful, then 'drive'/throw (daraba) out of the house. You can google a more accurate translation.

----

But going back to my original point - you asked me about my point of view. There would be Muslims who disagree with me, to various extents and in different ways.

But like many who get succumb to fear, you need me to reassure you. I find that pathetic. You clearly don't know many Muslims well enough.

Your poor attempt at deflection based around emotions is not going to work anymore, it is pathetic mate.#
And you now give me your view on translations, where other Muslims view the fact that apostates should be executed, women should be beaten and back this view if they do not comply, that homosexuality is punishable and now you view sex before marriage as wrong, WTF, ha ha.
People and many animals copulate without marriage before such a binding came into being, please tell me what exactly is wrong with that? It was religion that hijacked marriage ti make it seem religious, when it never originally was.
So you never answered on homosexuality, you claim a different view on interpretation to wife beating, you make no view on apostates, even though it is a criminal act in just about every Muslim country, basically trying to avoid answering.


Try again

Lol! I addressed each verse in turn and answered all your questions.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:It has nothing to do with being progressive or non-literal.

What most non-Muslims and some Muslims don't realise, is that the Quran must be taken in its historical context.

For example, verse you said was about apostasy did not mention any earthly punishment. There is no other way to take that, literally or otherwise.

Just because some Muslim countries have these laws, doesn't mean Muslims and even imams (inside and outside those countries) think those countries are acting Islamically.

Many of these countries have their own version of Sharia law that is not necessaerily based on the Quran. But it is there to protect their own (mainly patriarchal) power base. Hence the subjugation of women, etc.

Zack, but you know your faiths is more than just translations are the Quran, all of which you are avoiding and you are avoiding answering my questions.
Never heard such a weak counter to say, now the majority of Muslims in these nations follow laws, and now think they are not Islamic, where is the proof to that?
This is why some of your views are sheer nonsense, if many Imans and scholars viewed different, then there would a change on consensus, but there is not and if you claim it is down to fear, then that is a contradiction also.

The point I made though which you have avoided, is that homosexuality, Apostasy and sex before marriage is seen as wrong, without explaining why, where my view is the book you follow, the Quran is nothing short of the invention of men, clearly based around out dated principles and the fact it contradicts.