This Guy Is Incredible

speedboatchase

One of the best youtube videos ive ever seen. Thankfully mass Islamic immigration hasn't affected our civil rights, despite that ridiculous Sikh Gardai story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

zuchum

Interesting..and a lot of it I think is true in places,but for me h equates Radical Islam to Islam too often,and gives examples like mutilating daughters/wife beating, which are simply stupid.

I think the core of his argument is good,he just needs to lose the anger....but I guess,if he lost the anger,he wouldn't be listened to/be the most viewed video on youtube...it's a sad world we live in..

buachaillbeoir

this guy is gonna be the next target

speedboatchase

He does go a little bit too far but at the same time, the European pre-occuopation on blaming America for everything and appeasing Islam for anything is very true. I think Ireland is quite sheltered in that respect as compared to some of the major cities in Europe, our immigrants seem to make a genuine effort to adapt and assimilate to our culture with a minimum of fuss.

Again today we see protests in Afghanistan and the burning of Dutch and Danish flags. That just is not a rational response of a religion of "peace". Who cared about Jesus shooting tons of people in South Park? Nobody, and if they did they certainly didnt burn 3 embassies and kill over 100 poeple. Now of course is that Afgahan viewpoint is different to a lot of more progressive Muslim countries (Indonesia, Turkey) BUT these progressive countries never make a statement of condemnation about the reactions, which is why people tend to consider the reaction as all-encompassing.

I really do wish we'd just show some backbone though. I was in the airport a few weeks ago showing my passport and the woman across from me was wearing a full burqa, with only her eyes showing as she showed her identification. Of course, nothing else happened. It's just as "culturally insensitive" to ask someone to remove a religious garment that obscures the face as it would be to ask me the same if I were wearing a motorcylce helmet as I stood in the queue. Which is to say, it isnt.

There are tons of stories about this kind of appeasement every day, even just across the pond in Britain. Teachers whose kids can read their lips because of the burqa, student nurses who refuse to show their arms to men during their work, an ICM poll stating 40% of Brit Muslims want sharia law etc etc. This isnt some anecdotal, War on Christmas-Fox News bull, this really is happening, and its only happening in Europe.

Can we please just address this before it gets out of hand? He is absolutely right that multiculturism has thought us to think one thing but be afraid to say it, and that cultural relativism is an insult to the men and women who died to preserve our right to freedom of speech. Multiculturism is a uni-cultural phenomenom that only exists in progressive Western cultures. Which tells you that the belief that all cultures are equal does not exist in Islam, why is why its most extreme adherents are perpetually offended by us

SeanW

Another commentary from a related video. Makes some sense IMO. Aparently there was a plot to murder the cartoonist behind the Danish cartoons (sound familiar?) in February, and out of support, 17 Danish newspapers decided to reprint the bomb-in-a-turban cartoon. Seems to me that if the cartoonist had a point originally, that point has been made by the ensuing madness and most recent attempt on his/her life. Along with Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh etc. And fair dues to the Danish, they made their point clear too - freedom of speech is non-negotiable.

Here's the story of a Canadian newspaper editor publishes the cartoons and gets hauled up before a Canadian Human Rights Commission by a radical Imam.

Western secular values and Islamic hardlines are not compatible. And this is clear by the numerous attempts to question radical Islam or the role of Muslims in our society, either through legal action like in Canada, or through the acts of terrorism as mentioned above.

djpbarry

speedboatchase wrote: »

Thankfully mass Islamic immigration hasn't affected our civil rights, despite that ridiculous Sikh Gardai story:

You are aware that Muslims and Sikhs are not the same, aren't you?

What "ridiculous" story are you referring to - the one about the Sikh who was refused permission to wear his turban with his uniform?

What mass Islamic immigration are you referring to? According to the 2006 census, there were only about 32,000 Muslims in Ireland, 9,700 of whom were Irish.

speedboatchase wrote: »

...an ICM poll stating 40% of Brit Muslims want sharia law...

:rolleyes:

I'd love to see your source for that.

rowlandbrowner

And Irish law isn’t currently influenced by the views of an ex-nazi bigot?

Raintonite

He puts his points across concisely and with clarity. He says what many believe but would never dare say publicly or outside a group of friends who have mutual viewpoints. However, he does not put forward any proposals to deal with the extremists or indeed intregration of non-European cultures into European ideals, if such ideals exist. It is not by chance that the speaker was English. They have gone so far down the road of multi-culturalism that they seemed to be faced with a cultural vacuum. One of their most cherished ideals, freedom of speech, is so circumscribed by PCism that open and honest debate is almost impossible. We in Ireland should pay attention as it is only a matter of time before we face such dilemmas.

Imo, the push for imported cheap labour is the root cause of alot of the problems. Our open door immigration policy was geared solely to this end without thought to the ramifications. An entire multi-cultural industry has sprung up to support the business community's desire for cheap labour. Profit and political correctness make a potent force. Only recently has the UK adopted an Australian type points system to attract those workers it needs while trying to exclude waves of unskilled labour. What concerns me about Ireland is that we now have a political culture where no one has responsibility for events or policies and therefore no one will take the matter in hand. Is our immigration policy going to be left up to the luck of Irish scenario? If it works out ok, grand. If not, oh well, ****e happens.

905

Did anyone see the fascinating documentary on BBC2 the other day about Enoch Powell and his 'Rivers of Blood' speech? The point was made in the film that Powell's views, which were strongly backed at the time, were put forward in far too extreme and racist a manner. He polarised viewpoints and de-legitimised anti-immigration and more or less condemned Britain to unbridled and unchallenged multiculturalism.

His initial views were wrong, race did not become an issue. But his predictions of social segregation were spot-on and a certain amount of conflict has arisen from multiculturalism.

My main point is that its ridiculous to say that multiculturalism was the tool of the selfish business industry, as if there was no social or ideological background to multiculturalism.

Raintonite

I have no problem whatsoever with immigration. Everyone is entitled to seek the best life possible for themselves. However, I do not hold the view that multi-culturalism is some panacea as it it portrayed in western media, and its main motivation is cheap labour. Obviously, there are extreme views of this issue. It just so happens that if anyone brings the topic up in anything less than a salubrious light then extreme examples of xenophobia are immediately trotted out to portray the debate as a racist affair.

In fact racism is a bit more complicated than often portrayed. While working in Nelson Mandela house in Camberwell in the early 90's, I was the only non-black person in the office. Only becuase it was found out that I was a catholic from the north did I become accepted. However, if I wanted a drink at the bar in some establishments, I had to be escorted for fear I would not be served or attacked for being white. While much discussion can be generated to why these attitudes existed, they did exist. I'm led to believe that as more integration into british society has taken place that this atmosphere is less likely to occur today.

All said, this is a debate that should be discussed in public without recourse to xenophobic extremist examples from any side which only serve to derail an otherwise important topic in Europe today.

Clytus

A very well made youtube vid....but towards the end I think he went a lil ott.

Islam as a faith hasnt evolved as Christianity has over the centuries....and thats its root problem.

300 years ago we burned people at the stake for believing them to be witches or warlocks...we dont do this anymore becasue our faith has evolved and matured.

Pat says islam is inferior to western culture...Id say its immature compared to western culture.

CPT. SURF

Brilliant video. He even has a good sense of humour about it. He does go a touch too far with some of it but I do agree with the actual principles he is promoting.

Tea drinker

Clytus wrote: »

Pat says islam is inferior to western culture...Id say its immature compared to western culture.

And the "west" has had it's fair share of holding back development of moderate islamist culture. Look at the whole Iran / BP / Shah affair, it really set the country back. In Saudi Western companies and politicians court the backward regime in place.

But Islams also has to question itself, why are values regarding women, sexuality and race/religous hate so tolerated by mainstream muslim?
There is an element of danger in questioning the unquestionable I guess.
I also feel Islam is hijacked by power hungry individuals who use it as a vehicle to preach their own hate, and the dregs of muslim society are prepared to listen to this foulness. And, as above the West supports this, as long as there is money / security in it.

But MORE worrying is how some second / third generation muslims we would have expected to be integrated now are part of huge ghettoes in europe where they practice a weird mix of traditional muslim values and illegality justified through interpretations of the Koran.
There are many horrific cases where muslim rape gangs prey on western girls from Sweden / denmark / france / australia. The lethargic reaction to these crimes by the muslim society reflects poorly on them.

djpbarry

Tea drinker wrote: »

...why are values regarding women, sexuality and race/religous hate so tolerated by mainstream muslim?

Are they?

Tea drinker wrote: »

I also feel Islam is hijacked by power hungry individuals who use it as a vehicle to preach their own hate...

That is certainly true, Saudi Arabia being a prime example.

George W. has also done his bit for hijacking religion.

Tea drinker wrote: »

But MORE worrying is how some second / third generation muslims we would have expected to be integrated now are part of huge ghettoes in europe where they practice a weird mix of traditional muslim values and illegality justified through interpretations of the Koran.

This is all a bit general. What percentage of 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims are not integrating? What countries are their parents/grandparents from?

Tea drinker wrote: »

There are many horrific cases where muslim rape gangs prey on western girls from Sweden / denmark / france / australia. The lethargic reaction to these crimes by the muslim society reflects poorly on them.

Could you share some of these cases?

bob2000

"Can you share some of these cases ?"

Hard to believe you're unaware of the muslim gang which gangraped numerous Australian Women in 2006. Most shocking aspect was the Muslim response :

"Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770

SeanW

Yeah, look at Pat Condell's list of videos - it's replete with examples of Islamofascism creeping into our society.

andrewh5

bob2000 wrote: »

"Can you share some of these cases ?"

Hard to believe you're unaware of the muslim gang which gangraped numerous Australian Women in 2006. Most shocking aspect was the Muslim response :

"Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770

And that sums up the total stupidity of the religion. :mad:

djpbarry

bob2000 wrote: »

Hard to believe you're unaware of the muslim gang which gangraped numerous Australian Women in 2006.

I never said I was. I believe you are referring to the gang led by Bilal Skaf? Are you saying that ALL Lebanese-Australians are potential rapists (even the 60% who are Christian)?

bob2000 wrote: »

Most shocking aspect was the Muslim response

It wasn't a "Muslim response", it was A response from a complete idiot.

bob2000

"Are you saying that ALL Lebanese-Australians are potential rapists (even the 60% who are Christian)?"

No, Are you ?

The fact remains that muslims have a lack of respect towards western women.

I'll let the Aussies have the last word

"So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were "sluts" and "Aussie pigs", the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media "sensationalism" hang their heads in shame? "

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html

djpbarry

bob2000 wrote: »

No, Are you ?

So what's your point?

My point is that this was a crime committed by a certain group of scumbags who have since received their prison sentences. By introducing race/religion into the coverage, the Lebanese community in Australia is being unfairly tarnished. Exactly the same thing would have happened if the rapists were Aborigine, i.e. the media would have played the race card.

bob2000 wrote: »

The fact remains that muslims have a lack of respect towards western women.

That's not a fact at all, that's just your prejudiced opinion.

bob2000 wrote: »

I'll let the Aussies have the last word

You mean you'll let AN Aussie have the last word; Miranda Devine? Is that the best you can do? How does her opinion change anything?

bob2000

Sorry, think you're getting a bit confused.

You asked a previous poster to highlight cases where "muslim rape gangs prey on western girls"

I provided a very famous one.

You asked me was I "saying that ALL Lebanese-Australians are potential rapists (even the 60% who are Christian)?"

I said no.

Then you ask me what my point is.
??????????

You ask for facts / stats etc , then when the real world intrudes into your little fantasy, you come up with rubbish like "Miranda Devine? Is that the best you can do? How does her opinion change anything? "

Race was an issue here. That is what was reported in the Australian media .......oh but I forgot.....they're all racists right ?

bob2000

"My point is that this was a crime committed by a certain group of scumbags who have since received their prison sentences. By introducing race/religion into the coverage, the Lebanese community in Australia is being unfairly tarnished. Exactly the same thing would have happened if the rapists were Aborigine, i.e. the media would have played the race card."

Apparently (and unfortunately for your theory) the people who played the 'race card' were the rapists themselves. The judge originally played this down, but

"one of the victims complained her victim impact statement had been "censored" of any "ethnic" references by prosecutors intent on a plea bargain. She was convinced she was raped because of her ethnicity. "You deserve it because you're an Australian," the rapists told her during the five-hour attack.

"I looked in his eyes. I had never seen such indifference," one 18-year-old victim, codenamed Miss C, told the court, remembering one of the 14 men who called her "Aussie pig", gang raped her 25 times over a six-hour period in Bankstown and Chullora, and then turned a hose on her. "I'm going to f*** you Leb style," he said. "

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html

Maybe you can dismiss Miss C as well, after all, she's probably a bit prejudiced.

djpbarry

bob2000 wrote: »

You asked a previous poster to highlight cases where "muslim rape gangs prey on western girls"

I provided a very famous one.

Actually, I asked Tea drinker to identify some of the "many horrific cases where muslim rape gangs prey on western girls", as he put it. You indeed identified ONE case, where it is THOUGHT that the perpetrators are Muslim; most have not been identified as they were under 18 at the time of the crime(s). Considering that only 40% of Lebanese Australians are Muslim, there is a strong possibility that some (if not most) of the rapists were non-Muslim.

bob2000 wrote: »

You ask for facts / stats etc , then when the real world intrudes into your little fantasy, you come up with rubbish like "Miranda Devine? Is that the best you can do? How does her opinion change anything? "

Yes I did ask for facts and statistics and you provided me with neither; you provided me with an OPINION, which counts for little, particularly considering Devine's reputation.

bob2000 wrote: »

Apparently (and unfortunately for your theory) the people who played the 'race card' were the rapists themselves.

So the rapists were racist? So what?

I'm talking about tarnishing others of the same religion or ethnicity as the perpetrators of a crime; in this case, Lebanese-Australians.

bob2000

"Thought that they were muslim ?"

You're farcical at this stage - if they weren't muslims, why was the muslim spokesperson making his comments about meat etc. ?

If you want another case,

"It was an act of "great heinousness" - the betrayal of trust in which four brothers and another man brutally gang raped two teenage girls they had befriended a week earlier.

As sexual assault crimes go, this was the worst in its category, Justice Brian Sully told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.

Even more disturbing was that the brothers maintained their innocence throughout the trial, despite overwhelming evidence, insisting that they were victims of an anti-Muslim conspiracy and a police set-up.

Rehabilitation would be problematic: they were in "total denial" of the offences, according to a psychologist's report quoted by the judge, and had no remorse."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616263798.html

And to clarify : you stated
"My point is that this was a crime committed by a certain group of scumbags who have since received their prison sentences. By introducing race/religion into the coverage, the Lebanese community in Australia is being unfairly tarnished. Exactly the same thing would have happened if the rapists were Aborigine, i.e. the media would have played the race card."

To which I quoted one of the victims
"She was convinced she was raped because of her ethnicity. "You deserve it because you're an Australian," the rapists told her during the five-hour attack."

Are you prepared to admit that you are wrong ?

Or are you simply going to shift the goalposts constantly ?

djpbarry

bob2000 wrote: »

You're farcical at this stage - if they weren't muslims, why was the muslim spokesperson making his comments about meat etc. ?

I said that the religion of most of the rapists in this particular case is not known; nothing farcical about that.

As for Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, I've already said that he's an idiot, but I'm not sure his comments (made in 2006) referred directly to the case of Skaf (sentenced in 2002); I think he was speaking generally.

bob2000 wrote: »

Are you prepared to admit that you are wrong ?

What exactly am I wrong about? I have said that it is unfair to tarnish the Lebanese-Australian community based on the actions of Skaf - is this wrong? I have also implied that the race of a rapist is irrelevant in the context of media coverage of the crime - is this wrong? Do you think that certain races should be treated differently in courts?

My point in all this is that sexual assault is a serious problem in Australia, as it is in many other Western countries, including Ireland, and it is not something that is exclusive to Muslim cultures; take for example this survey:

998 men aged 14 - 26 completed a questionnaire about their beliefs related to heterosexual acquaintance rape in 11 scenarios. 316 young men (31.7%) agreed that it was OK for a male to force a female to have sex in one or more of the scenarios.

Are you going to tell me that all (or even most of the) 316 were Muslim?

Blk150

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

And Irish law isn’t currently influenced by the views of an ex-nazi bigot?

Who may that be?:eek:

bob2000

"As for Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, I've already said that he's an idiot"


Nice trick - defending the muslims while dismissing their leader & spokesperson as a random idiot.


"Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly (Arabic: تاج الدين الهلالي‎; born Egypt c. 1941), is an Imam of the Lakemba Mosque[1] in Sydney and an Australian Sunni Muslim leader.[2] The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils appointed him Mufti of Australia in 1988."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly

Other views expressed by this 21st century thinker :

"On 8 January 2007 the Hilaly appeared on an Egyptian television program. He made a number of comments that sparked criticism in Australia, including the following:

British and Irish settlers arrived in Australia as convicts. Muslims paid for their own tickets, and so have more right to Australia
Prison sentences handed down to Lebanese-Australian Muslims for the Sydney gang rapes were excessive and influenced by the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S.
Western people, especially the English race, are the biggest liars and oppressors.
Hilaly also condemned the level of rights awarded to homosexuals in Australia, stating "We have Christian churches which allow people of the same gender to marry" and "I understand the mentality of the West and especially the Australian mentality and I understand that the Australian law guarantees freedoms to the point of insanity." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly


Of course, all of this has nothing to do with those nice muslims, a complete misunderstanding......they must have been shocked & outraged at his comments re those australian girls.........wait.........what were the sanctions they imposed on him after his outburst ? .........................NOTHING ? Surely not.

Following further scandals.....
"The Council of Islamic Jurisprudence and Research reappointed Hilaly as Grand Mufti on 10 June 2007, however, he declined the position, thereby ending his tumultuous term in office."



It's not just Australia : From CNN

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/24/i_ins.00.html

"Samira Bellil wasn't asking for trouble, but trouble came to her. She's the granddaughter of Algerian immigrants and she's written a book about surviving the hell of the Parish ghettos.

SAMIRA BELLIL, AUTHOR (through translator): I was gang raped by three people I knew and I couldn't say anything because in my culture your family is dishonored if you lose your virginity, so I kept quiet and the rapes continued.

The next time I was pulled off the commuter train and no one lifted a finger to help me.

AMANPOUR (on camera): You were on a train and not one passenger did anything to help you?

BELLIL (through translator): No. Everybody turned their head away. They were all looking out of the window.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): When Samira's family discovered that she had been raped, they weren't sympathetic. They threw her out onto the streets. But she since discovered that hers was not the only case.

BELLIL (through translator): There was a trial in Lille where a 13- year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Yes. Sometimes it's 80 or 50 or 10. It's absolutely terrible.

In the town of Argenteuil it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school.

AMANPOUR: In a school?

BELLIL (through translator): Yes. In a school.

AMANPOUR: And nobody knew? Not a student? Not a teacher?

BELLIL (through translator): Of course everybody knew. But they were so afraid of these young men that they preferred to close their eyes. That's the price of peace in the ghettos.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): When the verdicts came down in this case, the courthouse turned into a madhouse. 18 teenagers were convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl over a two-month period. But what really shocked France was how the mothers of those boys reacted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You call this justice? Seven years in prison for some oral sex."

Sand

What exactly am I wrong about? I have said that it is unfair to tarnish the Lebanese-Australian community based on the actions of Skaf

bob2000 never referred to the Lebanese-Australian community. He referred to "muslim rape gangs" preying on Australian women [amongst others], and the "lethargic reaction to these crimes by the muslim society".

You challenged him on this as you had forgotten or never heard of the international outrage over the immans comments [actually IIRC, he is/was the highest muslim religious authority in Australia so not a lone nut by any means]. He cited the case. You then introduced a strawman about the Lebanese-Australian community and tried to pretend bob2000 had said something he hadnt.

Please - Stop. Its wasting everyones time and derailing the thread. There will be other threads.

For the record, I find the term "muslim rape gangs" a little OTT, but given the case it seems to fit at least as well as "white racists" would in describing the criminals involved in a racial hate attack. Practically by definition individuals who commit rape come loaded down with hatred or contempt for women as actual people or individuals.

If the head of the Australian muslim community is on record with such disgusting and despicable attitudes to women as revealed in the quotes above - well then, its easy to see where the gang in question might have learnt that hate and contempt for women who werent virtuous/enslaved, prisoners in their own home, hidden under a hijab. Certainly, if they listened to his teachings theyd find nothing that would tell them they were wrong to hold women as objects and not people, and from the comments that were reported a lot of the root for their contempt for their victims was based on the values instilled in them regarding the proper place of women.

That might make for uncomfortable reading as we are conditioned to view the problem as always being us somehow. Its indirect racism, the assumption that the white mans burden can never be laid down - that all other cultures and peoples are incapable of being held responsible. If somethings wrong, its because we didnt fix it.

Unfortunately for that popular school of "radical" student thinking, the problem IS with the influential thinkers and representitives of the muslim community who think theyre living in Saudia Arabia - in the 11th century for good measure. They are religious bigots and fanatics, but are given a free ride on the basis of their minority status. The rights of muslim citizens in Europe are traded over to these fanatics [ as is always the case, political leaders make deals with the extremists, the moderates get ignored] and their vision of what European islam should be.

This is an extremely dangerous path. Instead of standing up for the rights of all citizens equally, the state abandons its citizens to social repression on the basis that theyre "not really Irish" anyhow. Sure, they make up some crap about respecting minority cultures, but essentially theyre happy to reinforce the social ghettoisation of muslims because theyre muslim and theyve basically handed muslim social policy over to a group of 11th century bigots.

Now I know someone will say - well "whatabout....whoever...Paisley, He was a dangerous bigot, so this isnt a muslim problem - its us, were the problem". I know this, well because its fairly predicatable tbh given the way people are conditioned in their thinking.

True, Paisley was a dangerous bigot. He still is. That doesnt change the reality that the muslim world in the midst of an extreme period of change. Its diaspora is spreading across the world, its liberalising, and the reactionaries - the bigots, the religious police, the ultra-conservitives are fighting back tooth and nail to maintain their authority and the repression of fully 50% of the muslim world.

As a liberal, I would sure prefer to see muslims across the world being able to enjoy the same rights as me with regards to freedom of religion - And irelands freedom isnt perfect, but its acceptable - and other freedoms. I do not accept that in any way Islam is any more repressive than Christianity is, but the culture in which it is rooted [ The middle east, SA, and further east] is repressive and thats reflected in how Islam is interpreted in those countries. Culture is changing all the time, and its changing now. As liberals - and we are all liberals, right....right? - we should be helping this process along by listening to and encouraging the majority of muslims, rather than pandering to the extremist bigots who hold us in contempt and who we should never wish to see in any position of influence.

So I would basically agree with a lot of what this guy is saying. His video will make people squirm because of their conditioning, but its relatively tame to the broadsides he delivers to the catholic church [ I reccommend that video too, its much easier to agree with because hes giving hell to the religious fanatics of a non-minority religion].

Playboy

Good Post Sand

speedboatchase

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedboatchase
...an ICM poll stating 40% of Brit Muslims want sharia law...



I'd love to see your source for that.

Djpbarry, don't be a smart arse. And the mass Islamic immigration I'm referring to has occured through mainland Europe and England, but not to our shores yet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html


Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 20/02/2006



Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.


50pc said interracial relations were worsening
Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

djpbarry

Blk150 wrote: »

Who may that be?:eek:

I think he was referring to The Pope.

bob2000 wrote: »

Nice trick - defending the muslims while dismissing their leader & spokesperson as a random idiot.

:rolleyes: You think every Catholic agrees with everything the Pope says?

speedboatchase wrote: »

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 20/02/2006



Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

Ah yes, THAT poll.

The poll, carried out for the conservative-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, found support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents.
In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion

Hmm. Sounds reliable.

speedboatchase

Conservative-leaning - so what? If it was left-leaning I'm sure it would then be 100% accurate and fair right? Also, seeing as the Guardian chose not to question the validity of the poll, when you'd expect they would, shows you it is reputable. Anyways, your opinion - my opinion, a discussion on that poll will drag on and on. You can't keep moving the goalposts, you wanted a source for it, i gave you the source.

On another note, Muslim followers care a lot more about what their Iman believes than what a Catholic hears when the Pope speaks. Also, the reaction of both religions when provoked are completely different, you can see this surely? 100 people died over the Danish cartoon controversy, yet nobody died when South Park repeatedly poked fun at Jesus in their show. Even the episode where they planned to feature Muhammed was censored by Comedy Central, for fear of offending more Muslims.

Why are you trying to appease radical Islam's right to be continuously offended and deprive us of our rights? You think you could have an open discussion on Islam like this in any of the flag-burning states?

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Conservative-leaning - so what?

Well, considering Policy Exchange reports are questionable at least.

Here is BBC News Night on another Policy Exchange "report":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7142200/7142296.stm

So considering that Policy Exchange aren't above fabricating evidence, you have to wonder how accurate the poll is.

Personally, I would find anything from Policy Exchange highly questionable.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Even the episode where they planned to feature Muhammed was censored by Comedy Central, for fear of offending more Muslims.

Muhammed has appear on South Park before and it wasn't censored. No one died that time. You can see it repeated on Paramount Comedy from time to time, uncensored btw.

Here a synopsis of the episode:

http://www.tv.com/south-park/the-super-best-friends/episode/56202/summary.html

Its a pretty funny one as well.

**EDIT**

The Muhammed from South Park actually appears in the opening credits for Season 5 or 6 as well. This also is not censored, you can see this on the repeats on Paramount Comedy.

djpbarry

speedboatchase wrote: »

Conservative-leaning - so what? If it was left-leaning I'm sure it would then be 100% accurate and fair right?

Actually, it was the name of the organisation (Policy Exchange) that I was attempting to draw attention to. They have a bit of a track-record of fabricating results, as wes has already alluded to.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also, seeing as the Guardian chose not to question the validity of the poll, when you'd expect they would, shows you it is reputable.

Does it? Maybe they just published it with a bit of background information so people could make up their own minds.

speedboatchase wrote: »

On another note, Muslim followers care a lot more about what their Iman believes than what a Catholic hears when the Pope speaks.

:rolleyes: More generalisations. Got anything to back that up?

speedboatchase wrote: »

Why are you trying to appease radical Islam's right to be continuously offended and deprive us of our rights?

:rolleyes:

Please indicate precisely where I have done anything of the sort.

I am not defending extremists, I am defending the average Muslim (or individual from a Muslim background) who gets lumped in with extremists when people make ridiculously general (and inaccurate) statements such as this:

bob2000 wrote: »

The fact remains that muslims have a lack of respect towards western women.

bob2000

"I am defending the average Muslim (or individual from a Muslim background) who gets lumped in with extremists when people make ridiculously general (and inaccurate) statements "

3rd Time around

"Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"

Their head made these comments, not me. No conspiracy here. Care to address them ? by the way, I know he's a fool. Address his credentials. If you want to bring in the Pope, point me in the direction of groups of christians who have carried on in this manner (with his blessing). Otherwise, admit that the pope is not influencing people to the same extent.

Same old routine from you djpbarry

1) someone posts an opinion

2) You dismiss patronisingly, insinuating bias & asking for sources

3) sources are provided. you dismiss these, guardian, australian newspapers whatever, no sources meet your standard. Everyone is racist etc etc etc

4) you attempt to put words into the mouth of the poster

5) repeat above ad infinitum.

ps notice you haven't responded to Sand above, whose post is one of the best i've read in a while.

wes

bob2000 wrote: »

3) sources are provided. you dismiss these, guardian, australian newspapers whatever, no sources meet your standard. Everyone is racist etc etc etc

So the fact that Policy Exchange, have fabricated evidence for there "reports" in the past, doesn't make them a dodgy source? Why should they be trusted? I haven't seen them make any changes to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again.

I would certainly think that there own actions have made them less than thrust worthy. Whats wrong with pointing that out?

bob2000 wrote: »

Their head made these comments, not me. No conspiracy here. Care to address them ? by the way, I know he's a fool. Address his credentials. If you want to bring in the Pope, point me in the direction of groups of christians who have carried on in this manner (with his blessing). Otherwise, admit that the pope is not influencing people to the same extent.

So the Sheik an unelected "community leader" (probably appointed by a small group of other such "community leaders") represents the Australian Muslim community? They didn't vote for him. He was appointed. Read the articles and you will see that the Sheik seems to represent a small portion of the Lebanese Muslim community in Australia, rather than the entirety of the Muslim community.

Also, you are making a big assumption that Australian Muslims agree with him. There were in fact quite a few who didn't. Unsurprisingly quite a few of them were Women as well.

Also, didn't the comments happen after the rape gang were arrested and tried? How could something he said after influence them? Did they attend his mosque and listen to his sermons? Did they follow him at all?

bob2000

"So the Sheik an unelected "community leader" (probably appointed by a small group of other such "community leaders") represents the Australian Muslim community? "

He is/was a religious leader, I think you'll find that most religious leaders are not elected through a democratic process.

If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?


Doublespeak.

wes

bob2000 wrote: »

If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?

Yes, you could. A small unelected elite are hardly representative of 1 billion catholics.

Of course your not comparing like with like in this instance. There is no supreme Islamic authority comparable to the Pope for the vast majority of Muslims.

The Sheik does not represent any kind of authority for Muslims. He is not the equivalent of a Pope, or even a priest. You are confusing 2 very different systems. If you read the links I showed you. You would see that the Sheik isn't representative and got into his position due to politics and circumstance. There are many different groups in the Australian Muslim community who aren't happy with the Sheik. The links I provided show this

You are trying to make the Sheik something he isn't. I have provided proof that he isn't what you think he is.

So the "double speak" as you put it, is yours alone.

djpbarry

Sand wrote: »

bob2000 never referred to the Lebanese-Australian community. He referred to "muslim rape gangs" preying on Australian women [amongst others], and the "lethargic reaction to these crimes by the muslim society".

He referred indirectly to the Lebanese-Australian community in making reference to said crime. I pointed out that 60% of Lebanese-Australians are an in fact Christian and so the term "Muslim rape gang" is probably not terribly accurate.

I'm not sure that the Muslim community's reaction to these comments was lethargic; if you are referring to Hilaly's comments, they were widely condemned by Muslims:

Omran's latest comments come on the heels of the Australian Mufti's suggestion that women who do not wear headscarfs are like meat left out for cats to eat, and that they "invite" rape. The Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din Al-Hilaly, had been widely condemned by Muslims and politicians alike for his comments.

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003286.html

Sand wrote: »

You challenged him on this as you had forgotten or never heard of the international outrage over the immans comments...

I had forgotten about the comments, but the point is that it was implied that Hilaly's comments were the universal Muslim response to Skaf's crime, which they were not, not least because they were made 4 years after the sentencing and 6 years after the crime took place.

Sand wrote: »

For the record, I find the term "muslim rape gangs" a little OTT, but given the case it seems to fit at least as well as "white racists" would in describing the criminals involved in a racial hate attack.

I think the term "racist" or "racist rapists" would be adequate in both instances. If the gang were Hindu, would they have been dubbed a "Hindu rape gang"? Probably not, but they may have been labelled according to their ethnicity.

Sand wrote: »

They are religious bigots and fanatics, but are given a free ride on the basis of their minority status.

Are they? There were widespread calls for Hilaly's deportation after he made his comments (I'm not sure if anything came of it).

Remember Anjem Choudary's visits to Dublin:

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea warned that if Mr Choudary repeated his inflammatory comments here and returned to Britain, his extradition should be sought, if necessary, to face criminal charges.

I'm not sure that could be construed as a "free ride".

Sand wrote: »

I do not accept that in any way Islam is any more repressive than Christianity is, but the culture in which it is rooted [ The middle east, SA, and further east] is repressive and thats reflected in how Islam is interpreted in those countries.

Interpreted by a minority of nut-jobs in those countries, yes, albeit a large minority in some cases.

It should also be remembered that many countries in the Islamic world (and other developing nations) find themselves in their current state due (in some part) to the meddling of the West, e.g. Iran - the Islamic revolution arguably might never have happened had it not been for US interference. Same goes for Afghanistan.

Sand wrote: »

...we should be helping this process along by listening to and encouraging the majority of muslims, rather than pandering to the extremist bigots who hold us in contempt and who we should never wish to see in any position of influence.

Agreed, but who exactly is defending Islamic extremism, apart from the extremists themselves?

bob2000 wrote: »

Their head made these comments, not me.

:rolleyes:

If Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says that married women should not work, does that mean every Catholic in Dublin supports his views (I'm not implying that he has, just using him as an example)? I don't think so.

Bertie Ahern seems to think it's perfectly acceptable for the US military to use Shannon Airport; do you think the majority of the electorate agree with him? I doubt it.

bob2000 wrote: »

If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?

Maybe. You could certainly say that he doesn't represent all Christians.

CPT. SURF

djpbarry- you have been absolutely OWNED on this thread. I have been reading it and laughing at how easily you have been picked apart time and time again

Sand

He referred indirectly to the Lebanese-Australian community in making reference to said crime.

Im struggling to resist the urge to demonstrate your silly strawman efforts by saying something like "Oh, so you automatically associate the Lebanese-Australian community with crime, what a terrible person you are". I wont, because more than likely you wont understand the point and will take it seriously.

You came in dudely do-right and you start claiming people said stuff they hadnt because it was easier to get self-righteous about the invented claims rather than the actual real points made. Just stop.

if you are referring to Hilaly's comments, they were widely condemned by Muslims:

No doubt. Muslims are not a monolithic block. They do not have a hive mind. I dont think [ I hope...] even the majority of muslims would agree with the Muftis comments.

But this is the inescapable reality, which makes a lot of your "Oh this guy is just some lone ranger whacko hahahaha, he has no influence or weight with muslims" - this guy is not some lone nut. He is/was the Grand Mufti of Australia, the head of their religious teaching, a respected and influential voice. He was offered the continuation of his post even after his comments so his support was still substansial. He certainly must be representitive of views within the religious muslim community, given he has political support to attain his position and religious leaders DO have influence.

Interpreted by a minority of nut-jobs in those countries, yes, albeit a large minority in some cases.

I wouldnt say a minority tbh. There is a wide variance of Islam and Islamic culture, from the secular, to "village" Islam [ where pre-existing saints/festivals/rituals where incorporated into Islamic practise like Christianity did in Europe] and the hardline joyless Saudi school of Islam which is waging a cultural war to wipe out any form of Islam other than their own. However, one thing they share in common is that they are far more....anti-liberal than would be the case in Europe or North America.

Even weird facts like Iran being a center of sex change operations isnt a sign of hope - its a curious workaround the bigots there have come to. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death there, but if homosexuals are given sex change operations then they are technically women and thus free to have sex with men - well, not free, but you know what I mean.

Downside it that homosexual men are forced to undergo sex change ops they dont want [ homosexual != transexual afterall] or face being hung. And if theyre football fans they can forget seeing a game again, because women are second class citizens in Iran and most/all of the middle east.

There are similar stories, like 15 year old rape victims being hung from construction cranes and so on, but the common theme is this - as the guy in the youtube video all cultures are not equal. Western culture isnt perfect, but the ultra-conservitive culture underpinning most of the Islamic world is worse.

A Saudi can practise his faith in Ireland without any issue, and preach to potential converts should he so wish with practically zero state interest. An Irishman attempting to practise his faith in Saudi Arabia would be taking his life into his hands - and Christ alone help him should he actually attempt to preach. Terrifying and incredible as it may sound given the conditioning, the West actually is a decent place to be different from the norm.

Agreed, but who exactly is defending Islamic extremism, apart from the extremists themselves?

Heh, thats a whole can of worms there. Lets just say "fellow travellers", including all those who have been conditioned to despise the west and its liberal/individualistic values, like those who say stupid things like "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" like its profound - washed up ex communists for example.

As I said already, we are conditioned to find fault with ourselves before ever daring to assume that perhaps these guys are just wrong, and not somehow wronged by us. See my sig for an example of these people from the last time western civillisation was faced with a totalarian threat, the arguments they used then and how similar they sound to the arguments we hear now.

If Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says that married women should not work, does that mean every Catholic in Dublin supports his views (I'm not implying that he has, just using him as an example)? I don't think so.

Youre either deliberately misleading people, or you dont understand the Islamic faith as much as you assume. There is no Islamic "church", nothing like the Pope at all in the Islamic faith. The closest approximation is the Iranian clergy, and that is quite recent and completely revolutionary in Islamic terms.

An Imman is not a priest as Catholics would think of it - he is simply someone who is recognised as being extremely learned in Islamic theology and law [ usually through a lot of study], someone whose view is worth listening to. Islam is actually very anarchic in structure - closest thing to it in Christianity might be the protestant churches. An imman has zero influence unless people listen to him, if people listen to him then hes influential. The fact that somebody becomes the Grand Mufti means he is influential, that people do listen to him and like what he has to say.

Diarmuid Martin was appointed Archbishop by the Pope, with little or no input from the Catholic population of Ireland [ if indeed there are any Catholics left in Ireland] - no Islamic Pope appointed Hilaly, the idea of a Pope is anthema to Islam. Thats why assuming hes a lone nut, or the equivalent of a Catholic archbishop is wrong - he is influential, people do listen to him, he is respected or else he would never have achieved the position of Grand Mufti.

So yes, his comments do matter - and even if these rapists never sat in his mosque or took on their crime as some religious duty, his teachings, the teachings of his subordinates will impact their lives and the lives of those around them. I dont believe in God but Im still impacted by Catholic culture - even in how I swear/curse. Religious leaders DO have influence, human beings are genetically wired to accept authority for better or for worse. Pretending they dont isnt a convincing argument.

AGAIN - Ill repeat, I do not believe the majority of Australian muslims, would have agreed with Hilalys views [ Though I dont know for sure ] BUT, he is influential, his views would have weight and would impact on the Australian muslim community. There certainly was at least a few Australian muslims who agreed completely that "uncovered" women had it coming - they carried out the rapes afterall. Where did they get that sort of ambivalent attitude to rape?

CPT. SURF

Very well said Sand. I always find that your posts are intelligent, insightful, and unbiased most importantly.

gaf1983

Tea drinker wrote: »

In Saudi Western companies and politicians court the backward regime in place.

Of course they do. So do non-Western companies. They have to if they want to do business there.

speedboatchase wrote: »

I was in the airport a few weeks ago showing my passport and the woman across from me was wearing a full burqa, with only her eyes showing as she showed her identification. Of course, nothing else happened. It's just as "culturally insensitive" to ask someone to remove a religious garment that obscures the face as it would be to ask me the same if I were wearing a motorcylce helmet as I stood in the queue. Which is to say, it isnt.

That is ridiculous that she wasn't asked to remove her veil when asked for ID. In cases like that the woman should be brought to a private room to lift her veil there to compare her face with the one on her passport.

djpbarry

Sand wrote: »

You came in dudely do-right and you start claiming people said stuff they hadnt because it was easier to get self-righteous about the invented claims rather than the actual real points made.

The "real point" made was that "Muslim rape gangs" are prowling the world, preying on Western girls. The case of Bilal Skaf & co. was used to illustrate this "point". Based on the fact that 60% of Lebanese-Australians are non-Muslim, I argued that the term "Muslim rape gang" was likely not terribly accurate in this case.

Sand wrote: »

But this is the inescapable reality, which makes a lot of your "Oh this guy is just some lone ranger whacko hahahaha, he has no influence or weight with muslims"

I never said that. I said that just because Hilaly is in a position of authority within the Australian Muslim community, it (obviously) does not mean he speaks for the entire Muslim population. His comments were presented as the "Muslim response" to Skaf's crimes, something they quite clearly were not.

It should also be pointed out that Hilaly has little influence outside NSW; Victorian Imams (mainly representing the Turkish-Australian community) refuse to recognise him as mufti.

With regard to Iran, I am aware of the issues you have outlined. But the point is, do the majority of Iranians support such actions? Here is a survey carried out by worldpublicopinion.org in Iran. Although it does not mention homosexuality, it does touch on other issues such as militant Islam.

Sand wrote: »

Youre either deliberately misleading people, or you dont understand the Islamic faith as much as you assume.

I'm not misleading anyone - it was a perfectly reasonable comparison. Are you saying that Diarmuid Martin has NO influence, just because he was appointed by the Vatican? Why is that you assume that Hilaly has any more influence than Martin does? Neither of them were elected.

I also gave the example of elected politicians - do you agree with everything that is said be every politician you ever voted for?

I am not denying that Hilaly has his supporters and he obviously has a level of influence - I never said otherwise. All I am arguing is that these particular comments are highly unlikely to have been widely supported among the Muslim community in Australia.